We can talk responsibly about the race and gender of the candidates. They should be able to as well.

[bigtree]

Hillary Clinton said, in the debate, that, "neither race nor gender should be a part of this campaign" -- meaning, I guess, that the candidates' race and gender shouldn't be a subject of debate or discussion. But, I just can't convince myself that these two candidates should be allowed to skip over their most unique feature just because they, and/or their campaigns, were too clumsy or deliberate in including race in their attacks and criticisms of the other.

I can accept the explanation from Clinton that her MLK comment was an innocuous attempt to point out the importance of the presidency, and not an attempt to downplay King's importance. And, I can also accept Obama's assertion in the Vegas debate that his supporters and staff may have been "overzealous" in their efforts to highlight the Clinton's statements regarding race, and that there wasn't an effort by the Obama camp to cast the former First Couple as race baiters.

It's just beyond belief, though, to accept that there won't be an ongoing effort by both Obama and Clinton to highlight and promote their uniquenesses in this presidential election. Without going back to past statements -- or highlighting new ones -- there is definitely an acknowledgment from both camps that their main support will come from voters who share their respective race and gender. As sure as those appeals from the candidates will be received favorably by those who share their respective characteristics, there will also be another segment of the population who will question both the importance of those associations and the authenticity of those affinities.

That dynamic is certain to spark debate and discussions over race and gender. It should, but, the rub is in keeping the debate civil, impersonal to the candidates, and focused on the voters concerns. If these candidates intend to remove their own personal experiences and views on race and gender from discussion they will be challenging a myriad of voters who have already indicated that their affinity with these candidates is based on their race and gender. Are the campaigns saying to these voters that these affinities with the candidates' race or gender are wrongheaded or invalid? What's the point?

I think that we are only considering such a moratorium on a focus on the race and gender of the candidates because their campaigns (and other campaigns, as well: Edwards' FI) can't resist exploiting them in their arguments, for one, and haven't shown they can use race or gender responsibly in their debate about each other.

I'm from the "say it loud" era. I believe we can, and should, celebrate our diversity and ethnicity openly. The divisiveness comes as race and gender are weaved in with the campaigns' attacks on each other. And, it's the attacks which cause the focus on race and gender to offend, in most cases. They can do this better. I think it would be a mistake to shy away from celebrating these candidates' uniqueness in this presidential campaign -- all three of the candidates who are leading(?) in the polls; a woman, a black, and a populist.

Folks will talk about these. Our candidates should be able to discuss their race and gender responsibly without gagging themselves or their campaigns. I expect them to.


http://journals.democraticunderground.com/bigtree

[Fredda Weinberg]

1. The problem ain't ethnicity nor gender. Those were proxies for

resentments some of us ignore.

[bigtree]

2. I agree

the candidates weren't really focusing on any concern more important than advancing their own positions when they were squabbling about race and gender. But, many voters are directly attributing their support for these candidates to their affinity with their respective race or gender. That would seem to be an excellent opportunity to have a rational discussion about actual issues and concerns based on those.

[TahitiNut]

3. It's not unusual for the "ethics of self-interest" to desire the CREDITS without the DEBITS.

:shrug:

What else is new?

[Norrin Radd]

4. Only one race, Homo sapiens sapiens.

The thing we should be discussing is humanity. Do the corporations have humanity?

[EFerrari]

5. She's trying to censor discourse already? If Clinton said it was raining,

I'd have to go out to check.

And, Obama, too, for that matter.

[bigtree]

6. she's still talking about race and gender . . .

A reporter from Detroit asked Clinton on the conference call about the black vote in Michigan Tuesday. Clinton won, though she was the only major candidate on the ballot, and more than 70 percent of black voters said they’d support Obama if given the chance.

This must be unnerving to the Clinton campaign.

Here’s a paraphrase:

I am very committed to running a broad-based campaign…I’ll be working hard to win every vote….I’m thrilled we have people running…who represent the historical progress …that is our common purpose.


http://www.lasvegassun.com/blogs/early-line/2008/jan/16/clinton-economy-and-detroit-reporter-who-asked-abo/

She can't avoid talking about race and gender. She (and the others) had better learn HOW to talk about it.