I thought Dobbs was spot-on with this assessment of the identity politics in the Clinton and Obama campaigns:
"....Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama are ensnared in petty racial and gender politics and that does neither of them credit."
"But at least the ugly spectacle that Clinton and Obama created should serve as a reminder to all of us that group and identity politics have outlived their effectiveness and that pandering to socio-ethnocentric interest groups and special interests, whether as large as corporate America or as small as the construction company in a congressman's district, has no rightful place in 21st century American politics."
How could voting for a woman because she's a woman or voting for a Black because he's Black be any less bigoted than some White racist who would only vote for another White man? What the heck's the difference? I'm appalled that some women think I'm supposed to vote for ovaries over issues, experience, character and track record. Yeeks.
Michael Graham wrote in the Boston Herald earlier this week about the "price of identity politics." Hillary and Obama were milking that, but it's backfired on them both. What are Black and White Democrat women to do?
Christopher Hitchens says it best:
"People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it."
Definitely read - and enjoy - the whole thing!
or voting for someone based on religion? Can't have it both ways, Miss Neocon!
Posted by: Javelin | February 02, 2008 at 02:53 PM
OK, Javelin, you've stumped me. When do I say that I would vote for (or not vote for) someone based on religion??
Posted by: miss kelly | February 03, 2008 at 12:14 AM