All of us would like our society to be free from prejudices - well, I think we can all agree that despite big strides in the right direction, prejudices still exist, both race and gender-based.
Let's put away personalities of current candidates for 2008 election for a moment...

So, questions for debate:

Speaking in abstract terms:

Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?

Or, on contrary, more ready to elect a black president rather than a woman president?

Or, do you believe race and gender play no role in today's American politics at all? Or at least, not enough to influence the elections outcome?

I'll post my own opinion a bit later. Please remember, this is not a Hillary Clinton bashing fest, we are speaking in abstract terms....

I will say that Americans are more likely to elect a black President than a woman.

I think that this comes not really from straightforward sexism, as in women are incompetent in general, but more from the perception that the job of President has qualifications that a woman is unlikely to have or to exercise.

The President is the leader of the free world. No other person in the entire world has such a position of power and leadership.

Will a woman be respected by Islamicists? Can a woman reign in the Chinese or the South Koreans? Can a woman use the bully pulpit of the Presidency to force others to follow her without using the overt powers of the office?

These are the questions that people will ask of a woman candidate. I don't think the same questions will be asked of a black male candidate.

Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?

I believe that a black male president is BY FAR more likely than a woman president at this time.

Or, on contrary, more ready to elect a black president rather than a woman president?

A couple of reasons....number one, there aren't very many viable female candidates who aren't outright despised by one side or the other right now. I think if that wasn't the case a female candidate would stand a chance. But black males are respected more than women in our society...I just think that's a fact. I have no statistics to back that up with, but I can give some anecdotal examples.

When I am with a black man (friends), and people assume we are together as a couple, they always speak to the man. I've noticed this often. I have a (black male) friend who sometimes came around to help me and the kids when my husband was deployed...and my husband, in turn, helped his family when he was deployed. It is pretty much understood that if a woman has to deal with any matter from the finance department, to the mechanic, to the landlord, ect, it's ALWAYS better to be able to have a man present, or hand the phone to a man. Just a fact of life.

I've often thought about this, and there was one instance in which the matter really drew my attention. My husband was away (and we didn't have friends at this new place), and the hot water heater exploded after only two weeks in my new home. I called a plumber, and my insurance company. The guy from the insurance company (a black man) spoke with me, assessed the damage, ect. We got along pretty well and chatted for a bit. The plumber came into the house and spoke only to him. "Sir, I have some things to show you.....yadda yadda." Took him outside and explained everything, the cost, what might be done....the man didn't interrupt but just came back into the house and told me what was said. The plumber assumed the man was my husband. We had a good laugh over it, but it did make me think. Man are definitely a bit higher on the pecking order of society. Not complaining, it just is....

The propensity for people to say one thing and do another is something to consider here.

Which taboo is more firmly embedded in the public consciousness racism or sexism? Considering this alongside the small poll difference in responses that I am sure will come up, I suspect a lot more people engaged in wishful thinking about their answer concerning a black president than a woman president.

We've seen female heads of state before but they all looked like the majority of their countries.

I'm considering the "double-take" effect here. When there's an international conference and Americans see the commander-in-cheif, who's more likely to start their head to scratchin'?

Black president by far.

It certainly matters in our politics, just not as much as political affiliation.

It helps that both contenders in this race are Democrats, a Republican black candidate with a real shot will not be seen... maybe in my lifetime.

Powell was their last chance, leveraging the power of our abiding militarism.

Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?

No. I think in America sexism is far more prevalent and has a greater influence in the political realm than does racism. Just a quick glance to our government's history and the inclusion of black participants versus women reflects and supports my opinion. Black men got the right to vote long before women, a black man served in the Senate long before a woman did, the first black man to serve on the Supreme Court did so before a woman.

I think in regards to this issue not just politically but in the context of the presidential race in America that gender does trump race.

Or, do you believe race and gender play no role in today's American politics at all? Or at least, not enough to influence the elections outcome?

I would like to believe that character, ideals and leadership are more meaningful or have more influence on a candidate's appeal to the American public. I don't think everything we value or base our political opinions on are based or decided solely by race or gender. I do think a candidate who holds the right ideals, advocates the most important policies to Americans will win regardless of their race or sex.

But I do think when each party is trying to figure which candidate not only best represents their positions but best surpasses their opponents that race and gender are considered as either hindrances or advantages. I think this piece of the game is where black candidates or female candidates lose their appeal, each party either feels they are too much of a risk or , sadly more true, each party has VERY few black or female candidates to pull from.

I thought it was curious you did not mention religion as we also have a candidate, Mitt Romeny, who holds a religious view that is also a minority view and has often faced bigotry. I think religion can also limit a presidential candidates' appeal. Is it fair for their to be a religious litmus test for the US presidency also?

The reason I didn't include religion is because, unlike race and gender, religion is a personal choice. A person is not born Catholic or Mormon, they are raised Catholic or Mormon. Unlike race and gender, a person can convert to a different denomination, can play up or down his or her religious views based on the political winds of the day. Personally I believe that the religious views of the presidential candidate should be nothing more than a footnote on his or her resume, buried deep in a "personal information" section. Alas, we don't always get what we want.

I agree with number of posters here that the country is far more ready to elect a black (or other minority) president than to elect a woman president. I don't think it has much to do with whether a woman will be respected enough on international stage - after all, Margaret Thatcher forced others to follow her will without much trouble. But, just like Mrs. P. pointed out, some notions and prejudices are ingrained deep enough, and there's no pointed effort to root them out, unlike with racism. Nobody in their right mind will try to tell a racially-charged joke at the workplace - yet jokes about "blondes" are perfectly permissible.

Is a blonde joke sexist? Who knows. I guess if you're blonde.

I find it interesting to see women's reaction to the topic. Many women feel just this way, which sometimes leads truth to my statement that I think people will vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. My mother is a staunch conservative... but strangely things she's been discriminated against (I think she hasn't had a great career because she didn't work... go figure) in life. If a woman came out that was even a moderate- she'd get her vote.

I doubt that sexism in the US is true the way people make it out to be.

Mrs P, your anecdotes leave some things to be desired. You mention parts of a household and "American life" that are associated with the man. If someone comes over to fix the washing machine, the repair man might as the woman what's wrong. If a person were to ask in my house "how something was made" at a dinner party... undoubtedly my wife gets the nod, even though I do no less than 1/2 the cooking- including baking. See what I mean?

Work on the car, major appliances, the house's exterior, etc are generally relegated to men due to their hot/heavy/dirty nature. Trust me- I don't mow the lawn since the last promotion, but trust me... trash, changing oil in cars, moving furniture, cleaning out the garage, etc- all me. Do I not have to do dishes? That's another story.

Sexism in the US is often times welcomed, if you want to call it that. However, I don't think that men in the US have a problem with a well equipped and very capable leader that is a woman. In fact, I think some people would see it as an asset.

Turnea- I assume you're saying that racism is more prevalent than Sexism?
I'd find that an interesting debate.

I don't think either Obama or Clinton will have a problem with their race or sex. Skeletons in the closet, lack of experience, etc will all get them gobbled up in the SPIN machine.... but it won't be because they're black or female.

Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?

Or, on contrary, more ready to elect a black president rather than a woman president?

Or, do you believe race and gender play no role in today's American politics at all? Or at least, not enough to influence the elections outcome?

I will roll all three questions into one answer if you don't mind EH

I think folks SAY they are ready- but the votes will tell in the end- Turnea has it right- folks will say one thing- and then vote another- it is very well tracked in US voting demographics.

I will be very suprised if either Obama, Clinton will be elected in the end- though I think Obama has some chance compared to Hillary.

I think Bill Richardson, as a hispanic, would have a much better chance in a general election with Obama's or Hillary's money.

Mit Romney is alienating both conservatives and the religious. I do not think the country is willing to elect a mormon either.

America is a PROFOUNDLY racist, sexist nation. You can see this almost daily.

Look at it this way- Pakistan elected a female before America will!

Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?

I know I am more ready to elect a black male than a female all else being equal. I believe Americans as a nation believe the same although there is still a considerable amount of racism and sexism.


Be careful not to conclude that if Obama or Clinton do not make it in, it must be due to the prevalence of racism and/or sexism in society. They may just not make it in because they weren't considered the best "man" for the job... God willing.

There is not one candidate that "excites" me in any way- I think they all suck wind, big time. That being said- Pakistan DID elect a female before the US even considered it- a clear indication of our racism and sexism in this country.

One aspect of "isms" that must be addressed is that they often do not apply to people who you get to know. Over the course of the looong campaign, every in American who cares to will "know" the candidates. This isn't like a job interview where your ingrained prejudices cannot be overcome by a 30 minute discussion of qualifications. The campaign is a marathon and each candidate must win over the masses in order to secure the White House.

Even if we think of a handyman as a man's job, we probably all know some female that is good at fixing things. Even if we think baking is "woman's work" we all know guys that can cook. We may all have stereotypes, but there are exceptions to them as well.

And let's face it, Presidential elections are an either/or choice. If it comes down to Obama (or Hillary) vs. George W. Bush again (hypothetically) there are plenty of people that would never vote for GWB again.

The problem with getting to the White House is not the general election, but securing the Party nomination. This is where entrenchment and "it's my turn, I've earned it" come into play. Has Obama "earned" it is much more likely to keep him off the ticket as the color of his skin. Of course, if he gets on the ticket, I don't see many Americans who will say "Well, he's black, so I'm going with Rudy even though I don't like his policies."



Are Americans all bigots or it could be a lack of qualified candidates who are on the ballot. After all, the people cannot elect someone who isn't on the ballot.

In contrast to your assessment, we have blacks and women who do hold high office: Harold Ford, John Conyers, Barbara Boxer, Hillary Clinton, Ken Blackwell (well, he used to), many many mayors across the country are black (including the Mayor of my birth city, Cleveland) or women (including the mayor of my current city of residence). So it isn't as if it is impossible to elect a black or female candidate.

But the Presidency is a different animal.

Powell had tremendous support esp. in the SOUTH. He could have run but he chose not to. I am sure the Republican party will some day have a black candidate for president.

Look you'll never find a person more eager than me to say that sexism is hard at work in American politics.

In fact I remember making that point loudly in at least three threads.

...there's a nuance here, let's explore it.


I was unclear which I realized after everyone had responded of course.

On the whole I suspect sexism is more common that racism. However I believe racism is more subtle, more powerful and has a stronger political dimension

A whole major party survives without a significant percentage of the black vote, impossible for women.


Only in the letter of the law, in practice blacks were dead last in ability to participate.

I don't recall any white women being bombed or stabbed for trying to attend a public school.

Just trying to put things in perspective.

They may be a little uncomfortable with a female president, but the feeling runs far deeper for a black president.

There was such a pointed effort to root out overt racism because it was the single most consistently deadly dividing line in this nation's history.

I know plenty of people who say if Obama ever does get elected, he should keep his head down.

Americans like to see themselves in their president, it's why we get all the folksy pancake-flipping nonsense every election cycle.

Who looks more like America?

White women are the largest plurality in this country. Repressed certainly, but common and not-threatening to any ingrained ideas of American identity.

Well I disagree about how we are never born of a religion, but that is not in keeping with the topic.

Regardless it matters little when considering what traits of political candidates garner more bigotry or judgment. Religion is without question one of them and relates to the current election as we not only have a woman and a black man hoping for the position but also a Mormon.



The only thing this is a clear indication of is your lack of understanding of women's rights and their roles in politics, past and present. Pakistan is a notorious Human Rights violator and especially so when it comes to the rights of women.

Benazir Bhutto's election had so much more to do with the almost cultist and tribal identities people in nation's like Pakistan, countries that are wrought with political violence and turmoil, then it had to do with the acceptance of female equality and progressive social ideals. She won election (as a PM mind you) because of who her father was, because of her nation's political parties strong emotional and violent oppositions to one another and because of her father's violent death. Conditions we as Americans are unfamiliar with and I don't feel that is any indication of our nation's failure.

Other women have held presidential and PM positions around the world..Ghandi's daughter was PM of India, another good example of the type of tribal political existence I was discussing earlier.

Israel elected a female as PM nearly 20 yrs before Pakistan and yet I doubt we will see many use their political history as an example of Israel's superior society.


Well to just reiterate a point I made earlier...first the Republican party needs to have more black politicians/leaders in general. We had not even a full handful last year. I am in MD so I know of Michael Steele, he wasn't alone but he wasn't one of many either. I also don't think any won election.

The fact that women make up 51% of the population and blacks make up 12% may be significant here. A whole major party has tried to appeal to the black voter, but is constantly rebuffed by the so-called leaders of that voting bloc.

In 2000, each Party had one or more black candidates in the Presidential primary. Alan Keyes was the most conservative participant in the Republican race.

This generalization (and lack of nuance and background) is unwarranted.

No, I don't. Or, rather, I "see what you mean" but don't understand how it applies to my examples. Again, when I am with a male, I tend to be ignored (unless I speak up and demand attention). There's a plethora of instances when that is the case. I mentioned one specific one, but also referenced that landlord (without a man, nothing gets done), the mechanics (without a man, you will get screwed), the finance department (they don't listen unless they here a male voice on the phone, or you're the one whose "facts are messed up").... How often are you ignored by any person working for you, Aevans?

A making of another debate, but only because the GOP has been hostile to the interests of blacks both in legislative terms and in setting the political tone.

It isn't democrats calling people "welfare queens" and "poverty pimps." The RNC has admitted to using race cynically to control Southern white voters with the "Southern Strategy" and a lot of people are still doing it.


In practice this run was a mediocre token and not a contender by any means.

The generalization is borne out by the facts. Follow the votes. The GOP survives without substantial black support, no one can say this of women.

If sexism is more common than racism, how can racism be more prevalent? Which form of discrimination is more acceptable? Every black woman discriminated against for her skin color can be discriminated against twice. I voted Obama first, Hillary second, and I don't think I voted as a well-meaning idiot blind to perfidies of racism. We don't have to cross the finish line first to make sure our social grievances receive the consideration they deserve.

Agreed. I meant more powerful politically.


As problems I think racism and sexism are both at unacceptable levels, I'm just saying that at the presidential ballot box people looking to elect America's face to the world tend to try and find the one that looks most like "their kind of people"...

I dig what you're saying man, but think it's really overstated.

Sure- SOME people think that Obama would have issues if elected. But then again, some liberals think that conservatives are whiny mama's boys (sound familiar? We've seen that even on AD).

Sexism and Racism are really in line with all other -isms. They have a place, and sure they exist to some degree, but I don't know how people truly think that it's not a double edge sword. For every real sexist, there seems to be at least one true feminist. One vote discounted by the sexist, one (or two or three) added by feminists. Get it?

The same goes for black people and racism. For every fruit-cake trailer park Nascar hill billy racist that truly believes that a black man can't be president, there are 100 black people that will vote for Obama simply because he's on the ticket and black. Don't act like some won't. (I'm by no means saying all)

I find it hard to buy into the "repressed woman or minority" camp to the degree that y'all sell it.

Sure- a woman doesn't need to go to many mechanics alone. Men don't need to go into Crate n' Barrell or a jewelry store for that matter. It's how the world works. Before I got married I didn't even know that Aquamarine was a stone. I thought it was a redundant statement. How can someone expect my little ol' wife to know what a catalytic converter is? Tit for tat.

I can't wait for one to not make it... and for the cries of "American Racism is proven for good...

I agree with this, but this form of bias/prejudice/even racism (classification depends on how entrenched the voter's "preferences" are), aren't two-dimensional. In some cases, it's okay to break away. As someone else already noted, if the ruling class was better off extending political power to white women over black men, what took so damn long?

"Repressed minority camp" that I am selling? Mabye I'm not explaining very well. I'll try again. The way I am treated at the finance office, at the mechanic's yadda yadda, is symptomatic. I'm not complaining, I'm explaining. The way society overall generally views women as a whole will influence their vote, and men are respected more than women. I find it, frankly odd that it seems irrelevant to you that a complete stranger was in my home (wearing an insurance company shirt, with an insurance company truck in the driveway for that matter), and it never crossed the mind of the plumber to talk to me. He knew for a fact I lived there as I answered the door. That's the way things are. All of the time.

Now that I think about it, though, there is one type of woman that men do tend to respect, and that is the mother figure. So I suppose I mispoke above. A woman who is completely sexless and strikes men as some sort of madonna type figurehead might stand a chance of winning a presidential election.

I can't address your points right now Turnea, I have too little time, but will later. I was hoping tho to better understand your view before I do so anyways. Do you have any argument with or trouble towards how Obama's current campaign has been handled in the press and the public's reaction to him based on his race? Because I have so many instances to choose from where Hillary Clinton has been characterized (unfairly) and publicly questioned on her ability to be president solely based on that fact she is a woman. How is this open and public judgment of her not a powerful source for the American people to define their opinion of her and her ability as a leader? You seem to advocate the idea that white people have an unconscious and collective image of a leader and that leader can never be black. Yet I have to wonder if such an unspoken agreement really carries as much power of perception and image as you advocate when the public debate of who will best lead this country already openly devalues women in this role.

Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?

Or, on contrary, more ready to elect a black president rather than a woman president?

Or, do you believe race and gender play no role in today's American politics at all? Or at least, not enough to influence the elections outcome?

Well, I gotta make a choice that fits with this line of questioning, so I'll say in abstract terms that the least electable would be a Black (or brown or red or yellow) woman, the next more likely a White woman, and the most likely among the choices a Black man.

As for what America is ready to do, I don't know. Something's got to change though, that's a pretty strong current. This one might really be about issues rather than the usual slop. Sometimes America does this.

I might be in the minority on this, but it seems that since 2001 I've been swimming upstream like a fish heading back to the breading grounds only to find dam after dam conking me in the head. If this is a minority of sentiment, it might be a big enough one to join with the party running either a Black man or a White woman. I personally don't care which, just get rid of these dang dams, wouldja?

What would really be great is to get an administration with a grander vision than trying to bring on Armeggedon, a longer view of the future beyond the next four years, ten years or even fifty years. Maybe I want a Trekkie in office.

Sure enough, but I'm not counting on either the hardcore racist or sexist to swing things.

I think the effect is more subtle. To get a picture in my mind I'm not seeing cholera... just indigestion and heartburn.

The plinking away of the old ingrained images of America and American leadership in the back of the electoral skull. I know personally a black president would shock me a lot more than a female president.

...and politically I don't think people like surprises.


Violence seems to be a prime mover in these types of politics. The struggle for female equality wasn't as physically or socially violent. I think the reasons for that are pretty interesting too.

I suspect husband and wife will keep the hatchet better buried than stranger to stranger.


Certainly true. So much I've been a bit surprised by it. Part of it is personal, it's Hillary!! (cue creepy organ music)....

I think that's just the media hunting for a story that's not guaranteed to bite them like a racial bias case would.

There was all that hand-wringing over just how "black" Obama was and the fight over his church's "black separatism" though.

I think the public has a higher confidence level in Hillary than Obama overall. Mostly due to familiarity...

This isn't an open and shut case... but that's my current take.

Americans would like to think they have progressed to the point where race and gender are no longer barriers to political office.

Of course that isn't true. There are many people who would never vote for a woman nor a Black person as President of the United States and they aren't all rednecks swilling cheap beer sitting around in trailer parks playing Lynyrd Skynyrd too loud on stereo cassette players in their Trans-Ams.

That said, it's probably more likely that America would elect a Black before a woman. As we are speaking in abstractions, had Condoleeza Rice decided to enter the fray the nation would have had an opportunity to drive a stake in the heart of one of the more enduring political truisms: There will never be a Black woman elected to the presidency. If Rice isn't qualified then no Black woman is.

Nobody can say with 100 percent certainty that America is appreciably more sexist than it is racist, but in many ways it's still a harder glass ceiling to break for women than minorities. Overt acts of sexism are still more likely to be tolerated with a "boys will be boys" knowing nod that overt acts of racism. Would Michael Richards have gotten into so much trouble if he had called the hecklers b****s instead of "niggers." (Funny how one slur trips the profanity filter but the other is okay)? If Don Imus had called the Rutgers women basketball team a bunch of ugly b*****s instead of "nappy headed hoes" would the wrath of God come down upon his head?

Personally, I doubt it.

Look at how Hillary Clinton gets dogged out as being too fat, too butch, too unattractive, too aggressive, too pushy, and too much of a rhymes with witch. Nobody is publicly going after Barack Obama based upon his appearance with the exception of
those who wonder aloud if he's "Black enough." Otherwise, Obama's physical appearance is pretty much rarely commented on. It's as if people don't want to mention his Blackness for fear of being rude or overly concerned. He certainly doesn't get half as much scrutiny as Hillary did when she dared to show a flash of cleavage.

Holy plunging neckline, Batman! Hillary's got breasts! If it were Fred Thompson walking around showing off his abs of steel we might have cause then to be upset. I mean, ewwwww.....

It's still a lot more socially acceptable to be a little bit sexist than a little bit racist. Brief flashes of sexism are largely ignored as momentary lapses of good taste. Yet even small expressions of a racist thought will have people wondering if there is a Klan robe hanging in the closet. You can make excuses for sexist behavior that would never be accepted for racist behavior.

History leads me to believe that while it may be harder and take longer for a racial minority to achieve the successes women already have, there is something of a disconnect going on politically speaking.

Female Firsts

1872 Victoria Woodhull, the first woman to run for President
1917 Jeannette Rankin, the first woman elected to Congress
1925 Nellie Tayloe Ross, the first female Governor
1932 Hattie Wyatt Caraway, the first woman elected to the U.S. Senate
1965 Patsy Takemoto Mink, the first Congresswoman of color and first of Asian-Pacific Islander descent
1968 Shirley Chisholm, the first African-American woman elected to Congress
1981 Sandra Day O'Connor, the first woman appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court
1984 Geraldine A. Ferraro, the first woman to run on a major party's national ticket when she is selected to be the Democratic vice-presidential candidate
1989 Ileana Ros-Lehtinen, the first Hispanic woman elected to Congress
2002 Nancy Pelosi, the first woman to head her party in Congress as House Democratic Leader

Source: Center for American Women and Politics

Which now could be edited to add that in 2006, Pelosi became the first woman to be elected Speaker of the House of Representatives and second in line in succession to the Presidency. But while Blacks and other minorities have to overcome the persistent remnants of racists, I don't think ANYONE can argue sexism against women is anywhere near as close to being eradicated as racism is against Blacks.

So why can't a woman clear this last hurdle and get elected as President?

It seems as if among the traits one expects in a candidate for the presidency are assertiveness, confidence, ambition, leadership, authority and a set of testicles. That last one seems to be the Grand Canyon for a female politician to conquer.

Maybe they should follow the lead of Mick Jagger and start "packing" their pantsuits. That might comfort some male voters and confirm the worst fears of the rest.

What's wrong with Skynrd? Curtis Lowe was a great song man...

Seriously. Cheap beer is okay too if you're broke or camping (or floating the river... or mowing the lawn... maybe I'm saying too much).

I hear y'all. I believe that there ARE people racist and sexist, sitting around using the "N" word or the "B" word solely because of the person's skin or gender. But how many people use the "B" word about Hillary because they think SHE is, not all women?
I don't think all women are... but don't know that Mrs Clinton is not.

I think that there's a contrast to with the "B" word and the "N" word. The "B" word is often invoked in a way that insinuates a woman with a certain behavior (or conversely a man who acts a certain way). The "N" word might be as well, but it's never socially acceptable to use it while caucasian.

I think if America is ready for women congressmen, for women CEO's, for women whatevers... the White House isn't off limits. I also say that for black people Condi was a great example of how people, in my opinion, responded to the idea of a respectable woman in the Oval Office. I think many conservatives (myself included) saw her as a plausible candidate.

I deplore the idea that people blame America's negative reaction to Hillary as sexist. People like to pick on her every aspect because they can't stand her. It's caddy. I realize that. Probably a little immature, but that's how people often react. Many Americans literally hate her... hence- comments about her appearance,etc, etc, etc.

Liking the music of Lynyrd Skynyrd, in and of itself, is not bad, I hope.

It is the combination of loudly played LS and the transam that equates to pure red neck evil, no?



That's the "beauty" of double standards. Men (whether they are black, white or in between) are rarely judged, especially if they are in politics, by their looks. They don't have to look appealing. But women are supposed to be beautiful if they are worth anything. Just ask men. That's how it works. It is really such an ingrained prejudice that most of us have within. Often times, the harshest critics of women such as Mrs. Clinton, are indeed women themselves. Also, women are naturally competitive (to some degree) with other women. So Clinton gets criticized on all counts by her female counterparts.


Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?


I honestly think that it depends on the woman and the black man. Comparing Clinton with Obama, I believe he would have a better chance at being elected. But if you compare Jesse Jackson and Nancy Pelosi, the odds may be in her favor. It seems that to be a viable candidate as a woman or black man you'd have to be less controversial than your opponent. In this case, Obama wins, hands down.

Free Bird, Tuesday, I Know a Little and the song people from my state have the hear ever day of their lives and you pick Curtis Lowe?

The cry is as follows: PLAY FREE BIRD! The fans know best.

I'm pointing out that although sexism is more common racism is far more political and more potent. Sure Hillary gets unfair scrutiny but it's Obama's basic loyalty that will come into question.

I think corporations are backing Hillary and she will represent the democrat side. I think Jeb bush will get in.

I don't think society is ready for either a woman or a black man..the white WASPS of new england do not want either in a position of power.

In any pluralistic society one will always find gender and race bigots. Whether the cultural influence of such absolutist beliefs has enough of a halo effect throughout the rest of society most likely can never be measured precisely, but given every generation must struggle through many related layers of bias on the path to intellectual maturity, I suspect it will always be a factor to worry about. However, given that international perspectives, which in the past Americans frequently were uninformed about, are increasingly reaching American awareness as English is the most widespread second language and internationals frequently chat with ordinary Americans through the Internet, I suspect the generally more permissive international views will create their own halo effect into American culture. Such developments in global communication and mutual awareness I think will make gender and race much less of a factor than it would be otherwise at this point in American history. Whether that influence is currently sufficient to overcome traditional cultural bias is unclear, but my guess is it certainly helps.

You know what I saw over the weekend? Invasion, with Nicole Kidman. I wanna bring this up because the movie makes a point that I felt very strongly about and is very relevant to what you said in the opening phrase, where you say..........

All of us would like our society to be free from prejudices - well, I think we can all agree that despite big strides in the right direction, prejudices still exist

Now in the movie that takes place today, a hostile organism falls to earth and infects the human race slowly but surely turning us into another species one by one, the only difference between the infected and non infected is that those infected are absent of any personality, emotion, or variation. Nicole in the movie finds out whats going on like many others do and she is told by the spreading Aliens that she shouldn't fight becoming one of them. They have no war, no racism, and everything is equal. In fact the us gouvernment gets infected and ends the war in Iraq, lol, their only aggressions in fact are to those who are human whom they are still trying to infect.

I wont tell you how this movie progresses or ends but at the end there is a sort of catch phrase that suggest a world where there is no fighting, no war, and no prejudice is a world where human beings cease to be human. This is a big part of who we are and while I'm glad racism is down, I'm skeptical we will ever live in a world without racism, or fighting. America really has come a long way, many other nations as well, although some are certainly still stuck in the past.

I believe we will probably see the world more liberated than it is today but there will come a time when we will reach a point where we can progress no further in that department. Human beings are imperfect, and our systems of gouvernment will always reflect this. True equality in this world on every level, would probably come at the sacrifice of our vast variation, and differences. That would really be very very boring, I like our differences, even if it comes at the cost of racism and war.
Although I do think more can certainly be done from where we stand today as a species.

Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?

Or, on contrary, more ready to elect a black president rather than a woman president?

I don't agree with either of these individuals politically, however If I had to choose Id vote for Barack Obama as president before Id even think of Hillery.
I dont agree with him, but he has a character that is more genuine than Hillery and he is more consistant on his views than Hillery. Not to bash her, but I never liked her, not even her character, and character goes a long way. So between two people I equally disagree with politically, character becomes the deciding factor. Race or gender isn't particularly important to me, if Hillery was a Black male and Obama was a white female, id still pick Obama for the same reason. I'll in all likelihood be voting republican anyway so in my case this is all beside the point.

Or, do you believe race and gender play no role in today's American politics at all? Or at least, not enough to influence the elections outcome?

No it defiantly plays a role to many people both black white, male and female alike. There are some whites that will no doubt not vote for Obama because he is black, on the other hand racism is far from one sided as there are some blacks that will vote for him simply because he is black. Same goes with affiliation, many democrats and republicans will not vote outside their party, although unlike making a decision based solely on color or gender having political affiliation be the sole determining factor is a sign of partisonship rater than racism or sexism. I only see one democrat I really like and he is not in the top three unfortunately. I'm a conservative so my biggest selection is typically in the Rep. party although there are sometimes exceptions.

Do you think Americans as a nation are more ready to elect a woman president rather than a black president?

Or, on contrary, more ready to elect a black president rather than a woman president?

Or, do you believe race and gender play no role in today's American politics at all? Or at least, not enough to influence the elections outcome?

I'll answer all these at once. If we wait until we are ready for progressive change, it will never happen. We weren't ready for a Catholic president in 1928 when Al Smith lost. We really weren't ready in 1960 when Kennedy ran, but with a little luck he still won. We could just as easily ask if we are ready for a Mormon president.

Progress, in my opinion, has to be forced - not waited for. Someone has to be ahead of the curve.

Actually, a black man is more likely to get the Presidency than a woman because of racism. The pompous ignoramous Jesse Jackson got more than 90% of the black vote in the '88 primaries. Blacks overwhelmingly will vote for a fellow black. Women will not overwhelmingly vote for a fellow woman. Obama will overwhelmingly win the black, including the black female, vote in the coming primaries. The high level of racism in black America means a centrist black candidate has a good chance of winning the Presidency. Of course, there are not that many centrist black politicians. Obama and Patrick try to pose as centrists. It got both of them elected. Could work at a national level.

The higher level of racism in White America means there are many Whites who will pay lip service and say "the right thing" when asked if they would vote for a Black candidate, but then they walk into the voting booth and do exactly the opposite.

As black candidates reaching out to largely white constituencies have discovered in the past, when it comes to measuring political popularity there are lies, damned lies—and polls, on which they rest their fate at their peril.

The phenomenon was first widely noted in 1982, when Los Angeles Mayor Tom Bradley lost a squeaker of a race for governor after being widely projected as the winner. Douglas Wilder also came up against the "Bradley Effect" when he barely won the 1989 contest for governor of Virginia, after leading comfortably in the polls.

Ronald Walters of the University of Maryland was at Wilder's hotel as a projected easy victory turned into a nail-biter. That is a night "I'll never forget," says Walters, who thinks it "naive" to believe that things have changed very much. He believes that some percentage of whites—perhaps 5 percent or so, intent on being seen as less biased than they may be—will claim to support a nonwhite candidate when they actually do not. link

When Black voters support Black candidates they are attempting to back the person who they presume will look out for their interests. Well, guess what? White voters do the exact same thing. Given the choice between a Black Republican and a White Democrat, a significant number of Republicans will deny their political affiliation and vote for the White candidate.

In fact, white Republicans nationally are 25 percentage points more likely on average to vote for the Democratic senatorial candidate when the GOP hopeful is black, says economist Ebonya Washington of Yale University in a forthcoming article in the Quarterly Journal of Economics. White independents are similarly inclined to vote for the white Democrat when there's a black Republican running, according to her study of congressional and gubernatorial voting patterns between 1982 and 2000, including five Senate races in which the Republican nominee was black.

But racially motivated crossover voting is not just a Republican phenomenon. Democrats also desert their party when its candidate is black, Washington found. In House races, white Democrats are 38 percentage points less likely to vote Democratic if their candidate is black.

So much for any garbage that it's just "a Black thing." Casting votes based on the complexion of the candidate crosses color lines.

Regarding the absurd notion that "Blacks overwhelmingly will vote for a fellow black" that was clearly disproved by the clobbering Black Republican candidates took in three states with significant Black populations during the 2006 elections.

All three of the statewide Black Republican candidates failed to get more than 25 percent of the Black vote. They were: Ohio Secretary of State J. Kenneth Blackwell, who lost his gubernatorial bid with 20 percent of the Black vote; former Pittsburgh Steelers wide receiver Lynn Swann, who lost his Pennsylvania gubernatorial bid with 13 percent of the Black vote; and Maryland Lt. Gov. Michael Steele, who lost his senatorial bid received 25 percent of the Black vote.
link2

Proving yet again, when it comes to making wildly off-base allegations based on race without a shred of proof, deng can be counted upon not to disappoint.

Let's look at some poll numbers, shall we? (I apologize for the table coming out a little funny-looking. The top number repesents those who would vote for a candidate with the listed characteristic, the bottom number those who would not vote for such a candidate.)


Link





It's interesting to note that those who admit that they would not vote for an otherwise qualified Catholic or African-American or Jew are in a tiny minority. This is good news. The significantly larger percentage who admit that they would not vote for a woman or a Hispanic is alarming. (By the way, the reluctance to vote for a Hispanic surprises and baffles me. As a tall, light-skinned Chicana, I have had people who did not know my ancestry refer to "[expletive] Mexicans" or "spics." I assumed this was very rare.)

Besides the numbers confirming that, all other factors being equal, an Anglo-Saxon woman has more of an uphill battle than an African-American man, we can also throw in common experience. Somebody who openly states that African-Americans should not have political decision-making power would be, quite rightly, rejected by conservatives and liberals as beneath contempt. Somebody who openly states that women should not have political decision-making power is just "old-fashioned" or "very conservative" or "deeply religious."

It's still considered very eccentric for a woman not to change her last name when she marries a man. That tells us something about how sexism, although it may not have quite as ugly a history as racism or anti-Semitism, runs very, very deep within human society. It's a slow and subtle poison within all of us.

All other factors being equal, therefore (and I freely admit that they are never equal), I have to admit my own bias and admit that I would vote for a perfect female candidate over a perfect male candidate. (Of course, policy is far more important, and I would vote for the liberal man over the conservative woman.) I don't think this favoritism on my part would extend to ethnicity (although the suprisingly high percentage who would not vote for a Hispanic makes me tempted to reconsider my position) or creed (although I would be pleasantly shocked to see an open atheist elected to a major office.) I think I would also tend to favor a perfect gay, bisexual, or transgendered candidate over a perfect straight candidate. This is because, as I indicated above, inequality based on sex, sexual orientation, or gender identification may not always be as horrific as racism and religious bigotry (although victims of sexual violence and gay-bashing provide evidence to the contrary), but it is much more profound within the darkest parts of human psychology.

Yes, blacks will overwhelmingly vote for the liberal who promises to continue racist policies in favor of black Americans over a black man who supports a true enforcement of the 14th amendment. When granted a choice betwen a black or a white liberal blacks overwhelmingly vote for the black man. The racism is consistent, the black racist supports racist government primarily and votes, based on race of the office seeker, secondarily.

Of course, the poll in Victoria's link does not ask about if a pollee would vote for a Protrestant, male or heterosexual candidate. As if no one would discriminate against either of these groups. Bigotry ain't confined to bigotry against minorities.

I think you are wrong, deng. I think Blacks, like the rest of us - including the religions right, retired people, labor, the business community, etc. tend to vote for what they think is in their self-interest.

The use of unsupported blanket statements does not add credibility to your position.

Individuals who resort to blanket statements and name-calling lose credibility. Most people here are sharp enough to recognize this tactic.

Cite your sources, and be prepared to back-up your argument. Don't make us ask for your sources after making a bold statement. Providing sources early and often solidifies your argument, and solid arguments help establish credibility.
link

Your arguments are nothing but sweeping generalizations, slanted assumptions and unsupported opinions. You cannot be taken seriously because you do not even attempt to engage in serious debate. Instead, you prefer to vent your small-minded, bigoted and reactionary venom that indicates your hatred of African-Americans.

You apply the words "racist," "racism" and "race" with reckless abandon to others when in truth you'd be more accurate applying them to yourself. Whenever the opportunity presents itself , you are there, ready, willing and able to spew more of your biased bile at Black people.

As you are unable or unwilling to answer a direct question but instead merely pour more gasoline on whatever incendiary topic your little heart delights upon sex, race, IQ, and crime, to name but a few. I don't know whether you are simply a conversational sniper or a genuine Internet troll. It does appear the majority of your posts are there simply to insult, disrupt or upset other posters. They certainly provide no useful information.

If you serve no other purpose you are proof positive that at least racism is still very much alive and well in American politics and on .

NT, true to form, you make some pointed statements here. Do you have links to his/her previous posts to back up the claims you make? This is pretty tough. Calling someone a biggot (mis-spelling for intentional laugh effect) is a mighty strong claim. Internet troll, etc isn't really constructive either.

I personally think that black people are more likely to vote for other Blacks, as we've discussed before. I don't have loads of data, but here's a good link:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6040502392.html


Maybe another good article?
http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2006-0...black-gop_x.htm

Anywho. I think maybe you shouldn't say such nasty things without making a few quotes. Otherwise, people could say similar things about your "trolling", etc.

In my personal experience, and I don't have tons of time to back it up (although I did post a couple links), black people will vote for black people, stand up for black people, etc. Racism is prevalent in US society, and preferential treatment is as well. It just isn't one sided as you might portray NT. It works both ways, and of course the great equalizer to majority/minority status is the Federal Government and it's need to be the biggest and most "successful" (tongue in cheek) minority employer in nation.

I can't wait to see what the numbers for Obama are. You are a big supporter of Obama aren't you? How ironic.

**side note- Anyone know anything about Shreveport Mayor Cedric Glover? He's an argument in favor of my ideas in itself... I can post numbers if I need to, but I think y'all know the story**

Being constructive wasn't the goal. Being accurate was. The strong claim is based on his strong tendency to make racially inflammatory remarks. deng made slightly over 100 posts. You can research his posts yourself as apparently you're so concerned. Here are a few excerpts:











That (and more) was enough for me to conclude deng is a racist. You can reach whatever conclusion satisfies you. I am tired of being polite to obvious bigots.

deng has not posted here in over a month. If he never posted again I could care less.