One thing I really don't like about this presidential race is how race & gender are playing such a large part in politics.

Now, for my part, I want the best candidate to win. If that's a woman - and in Hillary's case, it isn't - she should be elected. I don't think race & gender should be a factor. Which is why things like this make me so darn mad. So what if Oprah Winfrey supports Barack Obama? She has the right to endorse the Geico gecko if she wants. Does that mean she's a traitor to the AFLAC duck?

The fact people get so excited about someone being "the first..." shows how far we have to go in terms of viewing people as, well, just PEOPLE! To me, it's patronizing. It's like treating someone as an "inferior" who just managed to pull out a miracle. How, in America - the land of opportunity - could that ever be the case?

A person should be elected on his or her merits - not skin color, ancestry, gender or (especially) nepotism. While I realize that last one dings Hillary Clinton because she's really only running on her association to Bill Clinton, it's fair to say she's not running on any other platform as she's sealed her records from the White House years.

While I do not support Barack Obama for POTUS, I think he's a charismatic individual who presents himself incredibly well. He's running on his record & intentions, so I can't argue with his candidacy. He's too liberal for my tastes but still a reasonable candidate.

My point is that voting for a woman because she's a woman is every bit as sexist as voting for a man because he's a man. It makes no sense. It's like picking the school bully for class president: Sure, you avoid that one wedgie by appeasing him/her but the electoral wedgie you'll be getting isn't worth offering your blind obedience.


Bob said...

Well said, and I agree.

Site Meter

Modified by Blogger Tutorial

Crunch Time ©Template Nice Blue. Modified by Indian Monsters. Original created by http://ourblogtemplates.com