Site Presented By
Sunday, Nov 8, 2009
Carol Richards
Published Letters: 517
Well, I think there is great consolation in "knowing" why somebody doesn't like or agree with your salvation-object. It simply helps. If I am terrified because I know I or my family or nation or earth are in great danger and I also know the enemy AND I also know the object of salvation, then, of course, I'm going to be very upset by anything that challenges this object of salvation. If challenged I must seek consolation. And it feels good to know.
If not liking Hillary needs to be seen primarily through a sexist lense, ok. But the conversation simply must stop there.
You said:
The order in which people in this country were granted their right to vote is probably a better predictor of "who goes first" as President than an analysis of their individual accomplishments and personalities.
That must be at least somewhat true, I think. But we somehow have to include the order in which they were considered actual humans as well and I'm not sure how to factor that in; it must be at least as true as the order of vote.
More importantly, I think we do have a way of gauging this more accurately than is being presented.
Imagine Hilary running against, say, Jessie Jackson. First, we wouldn't even be asking if America is more ready for a woman or a black President. If Jackson had attempted to run against Hilary, we would not have the chance to ask because there would be no question. I think it is dangerous to assume that the swell of mass support for Barack is significantly influenced by his skin in comparison to her gender. For those who believe that to be the case, I doubt they would stay consistent with this type of logic if Hilary was winning against Barack or McMack.
Anyway, it seems that it is much easier to let our hidden (or not so!) ideologies (and personal pain) guide our logic in this regards. Hopefully it will be over soon and then we won't have to wonder why Hilary would have trounced Jessie Jackson.
Well,
I'm glad Joan twisted the lesson of that poll so drastically because I got to read what you two wrote! P Smith, please....that was great!
Ok, fair questions, phunkjnky.
It's like this: as citizen representatives of the U.S.A. we are each responsible for the vote we either use or do not use in November. That responsibility includes our having a basic knowledge and well informed opinion about who we vote for and why.
If science is proving that Hilary has had a more difficult life than Barack, we need to take that into account when we vote. We should feel a slightly deeper sadness when we think about how hard this election has been for Hilary. Now, if you are a huge Barack supporter this increased sadness towards Hilary (based on Science) probably won't sway your vote. But if you are only firmly planted on Barack's side then I think you should consider well the fact that Hilary has experienced more prejudice in the context of this election than Barack.
If you disregard science, fine, but please give us a reason. I was ready to vote for Barack, but now that I know this country is being harder on woman politicians than on black politicians, I'm not so sure.
If Joan hadn't brought this science to my attention, I'd still be just thinking about their views on the war, healthcare and the characteristics I think they will each bring to the Presidency...
But now I'm stuck with this swelling sadness in knowing that black politicians have it easier than women ones.
Hi,
Just want to make clear that the saracastic tone was NOT aimed at you, phunkjnky. It was aimed at me because I can't believe I keep thinking that this poll might actually point to something real. Then I remind myself of the questions asked, the population sample and things like the fundamental attribution error...and, all of a sudden, I realize that speculating about this poll is like arguing about an ink-blot test.
I'm not poking fun at the sadness Joan feels. Not at all. I am poking fun at the fact that she puts enough confidence in this poll to evoke the emotion and blog about it and...continue.......ignoring some great issues in regards to Clinton/Obama. That's why I wrote in that tone. Then I read it and realized it could look as if I was responding to you personally.
Hi Joan,
I'm officially starting a fan club for you later today.
Because you have a big brain and can articulate yoursel so well (made a wonderful set of point without needing to be mean or have your diaper changed; I understand that would have been about 58 years ago or more) I want to get your response on this:
Would the following question be one that you could answer:
Joan, would you be more likely to vote for a woman or a black man for President of the United States?
Does it change if I put it thusly:
Joan, would Americans be more willing to vote for a woman or a black man for president?
Or are there reasons that you can't even begin to answer it?
Much of the initial coverage about Fort Hood turned out to be wrong. Is there anything wrong with that?
The accountability imposed by another country for the CIA's kidnapping and torture reveals much about our own.
Fox News' morning show plays to type, talking about whether Muslims in the Army should face "special debriefings"
The survivor and author is upset about comparisons some on the right are making to genocide
Once seen as a lunatic fringe, reactionary anti-women groups are courting respectability
Salon headlines in your mailbox
