Friday, February 22, 2008
Bring Back The West Wing!!!
I understand this is a loose, humorous analagy, but it did make me think "can you compare electing a Latino president to electing a black man president?" I doubt the country has dedicated as much energy hating/mistreating Latinos as we have to black people. Then I thought about every day on tv when some dipshit is asked what's a bigger deal, electing a black man or a woman president, which they never seem to really answer. But to me, electing a black man president is a way bigger deal, way more of a surprise. I mean, we should be able to assume that 100% of the population has a connection to a woman, be it a mother or wife or sister or girlfriend etc etc. Both the idea of supporting a woman for office as well as a woman being capable through a man's eyes would not be foreign to this percentage of the population. Can the same thing be said for a black candidate?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
I don't get your math. Why would there be a 100 percent connection to a white woman? And, if you're going to throw out race, wouldn't there be a similar 100 percent connection to a man (we all have fathers, too, no?). Between this and your American Idol worship and forays into the fashion world, you continue to mystify, Xmastime.
because race is so lopsided. almost 80% of pop is white.
and i didnt say WHITE women, i said women. 100% have a connection to a woman, and 80% are white.
You're still not making sense. If there's a 100% connection to women, there's got to be a 100% connection to men as well since we all have fathers, brothers, sons, boyfriends etc. Along similarly absurd lines, we can also say Obama has the advantage because 100% of presidents have been men and he's a man.
Why don't you quit beating around the bush and just say that Obama's race is a disadvantage?
i guess a simpler way of saying it is that women are 50% of the population while black people are just about 15% are weren't even granted certain civils rights til about a generation ago. i dont know if race is a disadvantage, but my point was that to me yes, based on the above, electing a black man is a bigger deal/surprise etc. The 2007 NY Giants, if you will.
Now I got you. Always go with the simpler way.
And I agree that an Obama victory would be a bolder statement.
i will consider myelf BallBusted (trademark logo)
May I?
We'd like to believe that we've come a long way since the seasons of Archie Bunker with his comically oppressive attitude towards blacks, woman, and everything unlike himself. This question verifys that this is not true.
After all of this time and exposure, all the campaining, ysda yada, it's doubtful people are going to be shocked, really. I would have been surprised years ago if Gore had been elected, but that's beside the point. I was shocked at BUSH for taking this country into Iraq. But this?
I think if Barach gets in you'll see much less shock, since he's a man. We are USED TO MEN. We like men. They are NICER. If it's Hillary, more surprise or yes, shock, since women are critically different from men on several levels. More different from than the characterisical differences between blacks and non-black men. The country is not like England, right? We left the queen. We've avoided the whole image and it's a good thing. Have we forgotten? If she does get in, not unlike her arch enemy GW, you can expect to be surprised later on, you betcha. It's not like having the little lady around to 'rule the roost' while you sit back and crack open a Bud. It's Bill Clinton, First Husband...and much more. Pay back's a bitch.
Just can someone tell me what the heck Sen. McCain is storing up in that left jowl? I can't get past it.
Post a Comment