And speaking of the Dems, even though Hillary Clinton won more of the states, I don't think that she expected Barack Obama to do as well as he did. The Dem races are proving to be VERY interesting, because you have two representatives of the Democrats' traditional "victims" groups going at it against each other. It's historic that we have BOTH a female candidate AND a black candidate doing this well this far into their campaigns. At their last debate, they were very civil towards each other, but I ask, how long can that last? Their campaigns are not about being buddies with each other, but instead about being the candidate for president in the Democratic Party.
The very nature of elections forbids such camaraderie lasting very long. The last I heard, both agreed to more debates before the Texas primary comes up, and maybe in one of those debates, I'll finally get to see the knock-down, drag-out smackdown that I was expecting to see in the last debate. I wanted to see hair pulling, head-butting, knee-to-the-groining, and other dirty handed tactics to be used - in a metaphorical sense, I mean. ;-)
At some point, they're going to have to stop being nice to each other if they really want to win. I can imagine the ethical boondoggle for the Dems on who to support. The question they are desperately trying to answer is: Which victim's group is in the most need of this win, women or blacks? They would actually prefer not to have to make this choice, but circumstances have developed to the contrary - so this will be a true test for the Dems to see where their loyalties lie. One group will walk away with their representative, while the other may likely harbor resentment for a long time to come.
Of course, it's very likely that one will become the VP candidate for the other, and theoretically this should resolve this dilemma - except one of them will have to step aside for the other. So - who's it going to be? Will the black man step aside for the white woman? Of course, we know of the history of blacks being oppressed by whites, but there is also the particular notoriety of the white woman taking advantage of the black man, and then saying that he raped her. There's even a Pulitzer Prize winning novel about such a story. It would seem that Hillary should step aside because of that. Otherwise, Hillary is going to be the reason that Dr. King's dream will be delayed a little longer.
But - women have long been oppressed by men. It wasn't even 100 years ago that women got the right to vote, even though some states - some of them southern states! - allowed blacks to vote way before the 1920's (Granted, those states didn't do this out of the goodness of their hearts - they just wanted their vote. In some instances, blacks didn't have citizenship or full citizenship yet - but doggonit, they were going to get their vote!). And of course, there was all that other ugliness that went with living in a "patriarchal society". After all that, can we honestly ask such a prominent female leader as Hillary Clinton to step aside and allow a MAN to be - ahem - on top of the woman again? When will this gender oppression end?
Of course, as a political observer and amateur historian, I am fascinated by all this. I am very curious as to how all this will play out without bitterness and resentment from the one who does not get the nomination. Who's victim card has the higher value? Stay tuned, true believers! The best is no doubt yet to come!
As for myself, I have also been busy this week. No, I haven't been fundraising, or making phone calls, or scheduling media appearances or otherwise stumping. So what HAVE I been doing, you ask? I've been making a campaign button! It's below! Check it out!
See folks? Now you can have your very own button to show your support for my ultimate grassroots campaign! Wear it proudly!
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment