| menloparkmom: Apology accepted.
I had to walk out of meeting when Black Studies was trying to control the nascent Jewish Studies and they were arguing about who has been more oppressed. Yuck! This is not an argument that we can settld, though as interesteddad points out, in 1900 Obama would have been able to vote and attend Ivy League institutions, not Hillary.
I think there was been more gender bashing in the campaign than race bashing, though that doesn't automatically make Hillary a better candidate. Victimization should not be the litmus test for national office. I would also like to point out that women often live with their oppressors intimately (perhaps we can even say this about Hillary). However, again, not a litmus test for national office.
I have read Obama's books and watched his speeches. Just as a personal reaction, I find him facile and arrogant. In one section of one of his books he ridicules his mother for enjoying BLACK ORPHEUS and reduces the entire movie to a mockery of the African-Brazilian population of Rio. This isn't the way I see the movie or his mother's appreciation of it.
Hillary can be very disingenuous. She is saddled with a lot. She alienates people and has many mistaken votes.
Neither are unblemished candidates, IMO, but who is?
I would vote for either of them if given the change. I really think we have to stop attacking each other and think about November. I don't either should be disqualified on the basis of race or gender, nor do I think either of them should be selected solely on the basis of race or gender. I guarantee that I would NOT vote of Ann Colter or Leon Spinks. (sp?) |