If Obama Was a White Man.....

....he DEFINITELY wouldn't be where he is right now! Much like how Hillary probably wouldn't be where she is had she not married Bill Clinton...

Geraldine Ferraro has said that Obama would not be in the privileged position he is currently in now if he was anything but a black man...Because everybody knows being a black man in America is one of the most privileged types of people one can be ::rolls eyes::

Here's the article:
http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/geraldine_ferraro_if_obama_was.html

Let's be 100% real...Geraldine Ferraro has totally lost her mind with this comment. Yes, she was the first woman to be a serious presidential candidate when she was chosen to run for VP in '84, but one could, and should, argue that the same argument she's making about Obama could be made about her run as well. Ferraro had less experience in politics than Obama does now, she received the benefit of being the 'stand-out' candidate because she was a woman, and she was no better qualified for her position then than Obama is now. So what exactly is she talking about?

Boy, when things don't go right for the Democrats, the race/gender/class card seems to get played with the absolute quickness. This really smacks of the old saying that Democrats really don't do anything for black people because they know black people will vote for them anyway.

Maybe if I change my affiliation, they'll decide my vote is worth fighting for again.

Dilemma for Women in Choosing Not to Vote for Hillary

For pretty much the entire election process, I have been undecided on who to vote for. Yesterday, while discussing my dilemma with a friend, she sent me the article that had helped her make her decision a few hours before. The article entitled "Women Are Never Front-Runners" campaigns heavily for women to support their gender. Gloria Steinem is worried about how Obama is seen as unifying by his race while she is seen as divisive by her sex. Steinem brings up many strong points on why women should stick by Hillary Clinton. Her points are so strong that when I finished reading the article I was nearly convinced I had to vote for Senator Clinton because it was my responsibility. Reading the last paragraph of the article "This country can no longer afford to choose our leaders from a talent pool limited by sex, race, money, powerful fathers and paper degrees. It’s time to take equal pride in breaking all the barriers." I believed it was my duty to help move forward and support the idea of women running without the title of the "women candidate."
A couple minutes after being swept up into the mindset, I stepped back and really thought about the situation. I came to a few conclusions:

1. I am not alone in not knowing who to vote for. Obama and Clinton have very similar view points.
2. This election cannot be about voting for gender or voting for race. Instead, it has to be thought of as a normal political race and people need to vote based on who they think is best to lead this country regardless of race or gender.
3. A woman not voting for Clinton is not turning her back on her gender. Clinton is the first major female candidate. The fact that she is one of the frontrunners for the Democratic party is a huge step in itself.
   
4. Lastly, having nothing to do with the article, but an observation I made in analyzing this article. I find it interesting how most people refer to Senator Clinton by her first name and was wondering others thought about it. Whether or not it was because she's advertised her self like that or if its a sign of disrespect.
   

Women Are Never Front-Runners, New York Times by Gloria Steinem

Women for Obama

In discussing last Sunday's high-profile Obama event here in L.A., Andrew Rosenthal writes for the New York Times: "Forty-eight hours before the closest thing America has ever had to a national primary, four extraordinary women put on the best campaign rally I’ve seen in 20 years of covering presidential politics." The praise continues to flow as Rosenthal calls the event "pitch-perfect" and effusively recaps the program, which featured a powerhouse lineup of Michelle Obama, Caroline Kennedy, Oprah Winfrey, and Maria Shriver.

It seems like a smart move for Obama's campaign to highlight such esteemed women who deeply support the candidate since women are a group that may yet rally for Clinton. Oprah, a living legend whose devoted followers treat her every word as edict, took the opportunity to re-frame the "gender versus race" issue. Instead of feeling tied to one candidate by biographical stats, Oprah urged voters to celebrate these landmark circumstances and consider that they actually "are free from the constraints of gender and race." It will be interesting to see how women vote tomorrow considering the recent upswing of Obama momentum.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/04/opinion/04mon4.html?em&ex=1202360400&en=2b69974241588f95&ei=5087%0A