Is America Ready to Elect a Mixed Race President?

Yes, they've been ready for a while ... but you have to have the right person.

An American Margaret Thatcher? Of course. (Jeane Kirkpatrick, RIP, comes to mind.)
Cindy Sheehan? No, of course not, don't be silly.

Colin Powell? Yes.
Al Sharpton? No.

Jesse Jackson? No.
Condoleeza Rice? Maybe.

Oprah? Hey, maybe.

 

If that comment's based on the Iowa results, it's an invalid comparison. Just because we won't elect Hillary doesn't mean we won't elect a woman.

I think both are electable today IF its the right candidate. There are still a few red states they probably couldn't win, but those are generally small electoral states that are insignificant if you win Cali and NY.

 

Sorry, just saw this thread after I posted this on the Gloria Steinam thread,

I said from the beginning that most of those I was hearing from were living in the past. In 2008, at least as many, probably more, people will vote for someone because they are black or female than will vote against them. I still think this is true, and Iowa with its miniscule black population proves part of that. Turns out that the wing of the countries that can't let go of the 60s has it perfect: If Hillary wins, we're racist, if Obama wins we're sexist. I bet if they tie, we're both.

 

It's NOT based on the Iowa results. I think HRC is one of Satan's minions.

However, the fact that on the thread about Gloria Steinham's column, people found it necessary to post Diane Lane in a low cut dress as the type of woman they'd vote for makes it clear, at least in my head, that as a country we're far more ready to vote for a mixed-race man than a woman of any shade.

 

My comment wasn't based on the attractiveness of Diane Lane as a candidate, but as a person. She's drop-dead gorgeous.

 

Then go start a SportsJournalists.com masturbation nation thread on anything goes. It had no place on a thread about the electibility of HRC. It was just further proof that women still have a long road to go before whether or not we're attractive comes to mean nothing.

 

*Sigh*

I have no desire to start one of those threads, and if you search your memory, I've been against them.

 

HRC is just a person who is not likable.

Pure and simple.

And yes, in this day and age, the President needs to be semi-pleasant appearance wise. Male and female.

 

If the election was today, I'd vote for Obama without thinking twice. But the thing is, I don't give two shits about him being mixed race. I just want somebody competent running this country, and I think Obama is that. At least I hope he is.

 

Bitter Seahawks fan.

Despite the far-off-topic shot at me, I wonder how much the intention of Title IX or when women got the vote has to do with what we are ready for now as a country.

I'm trusting my shaky memory, but wasn't Title IX passed in 1972? So anything related to that bill happened quite a while ago. Not to mention the fact that it didn't kill the bill. Doesn't that mean something?

My mother told me a story recently about having her tubes tied. I never realized what exactly prompted the timing of it. Apparently, the law had just changed to allow her to get it done without her husband's consent and my father wouldn't allow it.

This was around 1980. Blew my mind. You may be stuck on how far we have to go, but I just got a hell of a reminder regarding how far we have come.

And yes, I do think this country is ready to elect the right mixed-race candidate, or the right woman, as president. But put me strongly in the camp of those afraid that either option would face a higher risk of being assassinated than a white male. I think we are progressing as a people in this country, but some people will never make any progress.

 

Other than the spelling of Steinem's name (sorry) this is excruciatingly accurate.

 

I knew I was gonna misspell that. Grrrrrrr.

And thanks.