I should probably have picked a photo of dueling pundits for this post, but I'd be damned to limit it to just two of them.
I've (still) got real issues with how/why we (as individuals) select candidates that are qualified. Not with the voting process, but the basis on which we determine which candidate to support.
part of the reason I hate punditry::I was listening to Talk Radio - the Michael Baisden show to be exact, and he was taking calls from Mississippians regarding who they were casting votes for in today's primary. A caller from MI, let's call her Mary, called in to declare that she was 'black, female, in her 40's, and casting her vote for John McCain" primarily because of his position on same-sex marriages, Abortion and homosexuality. *sighs* Fortunately, Al Sharpton was on to respond to her and any listeners, clarifying that the Executive branch is no more responsible for the laws related to any of those issues, than you, I, or the monkey standing behind me.
BTW, ignore that monkey - he's potty-trained.
Aside:: I'm a fan of Al Sharpton as a talk show host and guest, because he knows his stuff, and he's not condescending or pandering in talking to his guests or callers, and he does it in the language of the common man. Sweet.
I'll just go ahead and admit it - I'm an elitist. And most callers (and some hosts) on talk radio drive me up a wall, because of the condescension, the pandering, the (un) qualified yet overinflated opinions, and the adamant conviction not based on fact, but other pundit's opinion. I guess I shouldn't limit my disdain for talk radio - there's enough punditry for every possible news and non-news medium. But I digress...
da point is...::This campaign is sparking some interesting debates about how we choose our elected officials - how we as individuals choose which candidates to support, and what makes a candidate "qualified". Which (IMHO) should really be taught in high school, instead of our revisionist history classes. My first American government class was in college, and (fortunately) it was taught by a black lawyer jaded enough with our systems (all 3 - executive, judiciary and legislature) to provoke us into questioning EVERYTHING. Most people look at these campaigns as a popularity contest, through the lens of their own priorities, values, morals, religious beliefs, social issues, et. al. without thoroughly and objectively questioning whether the candidate can actually do the job.
Another dissatisfied Clinton supporter (methinks, anyway):: under the jump
Another dissatisfied Clinton supporter (methinks, anyway):: Quinden on being "Still Stuck in Second":
I've been flashing back to that episode the last few months, considering how, even with the best intentions, male is still the universal default setting. Here's the drumbeat—Hillary Rodham Clinton is a strange test case for a what-if we women have been rehearsing for decades. What would be the chances that the most significant run for the presidency by a woman would be made by someone with more baggage than a ball team headed to an away game: a former First Lady, married to one of the most polarizing political figures in modern American history, who had suffered the public humiliation of his sexual perfidy? What would be the chances that she would survive all that to enter the Senate, then to mount what all believed would be a cakewalk to the Democratic nomination, only to be parried, not by the right wing or entrenched bigotry but by youth and eloquence and a colleague who symbolized a newer new America than she did?But just because all this makes it difficult to parse the double standard surrounding Senator Clinton's candidacy doesn't mean the double standard no longer exists, or shouldn't be acknowledged. There may be many reasons apart from her gender—past, positions, personality—that have led people to turn away. But there has also been an inescapable undercurrent of bias. It's summed up in the word "calculating," which is often used to describe the senator in as witchy a way possible. There is no male politico equivalent for "calculating," except perhaps "business as usual."
my thoughts:: and all that to say, what exactly? I hate that Obama's at the other end of this, because I like him a lot as a candidate. But really -the playing field (once again) has never been level, has always been biased, and it's biased against anyone who doesn't fit the typical paradigm of a presidential hopeful which strongly resembles that of our former presidents: white, male, Protestant, Ivy League schools, etc. ANYONE who isn't cut from that cloth would face bias...hell, Obama's been fighting silliness such as his "islamic" leanings, ties to Al Qaeda, substance-less campaign and lack of real qualifications (which I could make a case for some anti-affirmative action backlash, if I was so inclined) since the beginning of the primaries.
Ok, this is beginning to sound as whiny as the Newsweek article. Moving on...
I find an almost-past child-bearing-years heterosexual Black women selecting a candidate based on the party's Abortion and Same Sex marriage stance almost scarier than a pundit basing their selection on women's rights or lack thereof. Why? Because the former represents the rampant ignorance and idiocy with which most people approach their voting decisions and it's the common man, the voter, albeit swayed by popular opinion, that will elect the next president.
What makes a good candidate to run our country? What qualifications would they need? Does the "party" make the candidate, or vice versa? Sheesh....these m****-f***'s here need to think before they vote, seriously....
Leave a comment