![]() |
|
||
|
Ellen Goodman: Ready, Steady, GoPosted on Dec 27, 2006BOSTON—Maybe it wasn’t such a great Christmas gift after all. The baseball caps, emblazoned with the last day of the Bush presidency—Jan. 19, 2009—seemed to offer my favorite Democratic couple a light at the end of the tunnel. But sometimes it’s easier to see the tunnel than the light. Nevertheless, January is about to mark the earliest opening for any presidential campaign in memory. So allow me to end the old year and begin the new by taking a look at the question dominating the news magazines and talk shows: Is America ready for a president who isn’t a white male? The only Democrats who so far have actually announced their candidacies are indeed white and male, from Tom Vilsack to John Edwards. But the sexier and racier question dominating the early chatter is the possible mano-a-womano, black-and-white matchup that could be offered with Hillary Rodham Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama atop the national ticket. Ready? Political readiness is not exactly like reading readiness. For generations, strategists and psychologists have posed the same chicken-and-egg riddle for social change. Do you need a change in attitudes before you can succeed in changing real life? Or does a change in reality produce a change in attitudes? The answer is, of course, yes. Advertisement I sometimes think we have two very different national attitudes toward the pace of technological change and the pace of political change. It’s as if we were all eager, early adopters when it comes to iPods, and late adopters when it comes to presidents. As we turn to 2007 and 2008, I don’t think we have to be cockeyed optimists to believe that Americans can get beyond seeing “a female” and “a black” to seeing a candidate. Consider Massachusetts, where a Mormon Republican white man is being followed into the governor’s office by an African-American Democratic man who defeated a white Republican woman? Was Massachusetts “ready” for “a” Mormon before Mitt Romney? Was it ready for “an” African-American before Deval Patrick? Let’s take the briefest stock of the individual strengths and weaknesses of the two way-too-early frontrunners in the Democratic Party. There is no doubt that Democrats have developed a crush on Obama, a man of thoughtful charm, relaxed intelligence and ineffable authenticity. The reservations against him are that he’s unknown, untested and “young.” (Memo to the baby-boomer media dubbing him as young: No, you were not young at 45.) Whether that crush becomes a commitment depends on how his “authenticity” survives delivering a stump speech 14 times a day under a Jon Stewart watchdog. And how resilient he is after the inevitable YouTube moment. As for Hillary? If Barack is the new boy on the block, Hillary is the smarter, sadder-but-wiser gal. For the first time in history, a female candidate is the most experienced, the most ready-on-Day-One option for the Oval Office. Yet the reservations about her have to do with her baggage, her husband and her haters. Hillary’s success will depend perversely on whether she can convince those Democrats who would vote for her that others will too. Her election depends on being seen as “electable.” I don’t dismiss racism and sexism in these equations. I watched the campaign ads against Harold Ford Jr. in Tennessee. I heard Rahm Emanuel ask, “What the f—- happened to my women?” when only three of 17 Democratic women candidates challenging Republicans for congressional seats won. But Clinton and Obama are individuals with very personal stories. Not class actions. In Newsweek, 93 percent of Americans said they would vote for an African-American for president but only 56 percent believed that the country was ready for one. Similarly, 86 percent said they would vote for a woman but only 55 percent believed the country was ready for one. Traditionally, if cynically, we assume that the lower figure is the one that matters, the real one. But maybe that gap between us and them—open-minded us and close-minded them—doesn’t grow out of an inflated view of ourselves but a deflated view of our country. Is the country ready? Almost all Americans believe or want to believe that they would vote for a president without prejudice. That’s either an agent for change or an indicator of change. If we believe we vote for the person, not the race or the gender, maybe we will. 2007, 2008. Ready—or not—here we go. Previous item: Susan Estrich: What Revolution? Next item: E.J. Dionne Jr.: Bookending the Acrimony of 2006 Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2009 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By Serginho, January 3, 2007 at 11:37 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
This is in reply to Hondo’s comment #44607.
You say that what we need is “a strong Christian conservative who is dedicated to the principles of limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, and the traditional, foundational principles of the American republic…”, and that Mike Pence is that man.
Isn’t that what George ‘Duh’ Bush sold himself as? Just how did his presidency turned out?
Report thisBy Polly Ester, January 2, 2007 at 11:20 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“By the way, read what the Founding Fathers had to say about the dangers, pitfalls, and disadvantages of a democracy. You will see very clearly why they were adamantly opposed to forming a democracy.”
Hondo,
Democracy—ISN’T THAT THE REASON BUSH GIVES FOR BEING IN IRAQ?
I THINK 3,000 TROOPS THOUGHT THEY WERE DYING FOR THAT CAUSE-DONT DESTROY THE DELUSION.
Report thisBy Hondo, January 1, 2007 at 10:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mike Gravel appears to want our republican form of government abolished, and replaced with a pure democracy. It also appears that he wants this pure democracy “administrated” by his political action committee. The only reason that I won’t label Gravel as a dangerous man is because he doesn’t have a snowball’s chance of getting elected. It’s a good thing, too.
Report thisBy the way, read what the Founding Fathers had to say about the dangers, pitfalls, and disadvantages of a democracy. You will see very clearly why they were adamantly opposed to forming a democracy.
By Polly Ester, January 1, 2007 at 2:46 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
“Mike Pence is the right man at the right time for America. What do all of you very reasonable people think?”
Hondo,
I prefer Mike Gravel—I’m sure you’ll like him; check it out.
http://www.gravel2008.us/
Report thisBy bokun, January 1, 2007 at 2:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Thre will be a black man elected president before there will be a woman elected president. Sexism is much more embedded in Amereican culture than racism; after all, we freed the slaves before we gave women the right to vote. The appalling lack of women (versus their majority in our population) in our political world tells one all one needs to know vis-a-vis sexism.
The main probelm, as I see it, is who among our black political leaders is willing to be shot at and, possibly, killed? Is there any doubt that some wise-ass white supremacist will not at least attempt to kill a black person running for pres.?
A woman faces much less danger; but much less chances of success.
Report thisBy Hondo, December 31, 2006 at 2:56 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
My choice for President would be Rep. Mike Pence, (R-IN). A strong Christian conservative who is dedicated to the principles of limited government, strong national defense, lower taxes, and the traditional, foundational principles of the American republic is just what this country needs! Take a look at the following links:
http://pence08.com/
http://www.house.gov/pence/rsc/
Mike Pence is the right man at the right time for America. What do all of you very reasonable people think?
Report thisBy Eleanore Kjellberg, December 31, 2006 at 1:47 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
In Newsweek, 93 percent of Americans said they would vote for an African-American for president but only 56 percent believed that the country was ready for one. Similarly, 86 percent said they would vote for a woman but only 55 percent believed the country was ready for one.
Male chauvinism is alive and well, in fact it might even be thriving-I am not a devotee of Hilary Clinton, her equivocation about withdrawing from Iraq is quite troublesome; but if Hilary was more progressive, and a strong advocate of environmental issues; I might take a second look.
The bigger issue is explaining why the U.S. is so outrageously misogynistic; people will deny it; of course, especially men-oh no, what do you mean, we are not male chauvinists-oh, sure youre not, thats why the thought of a woman president or a woman boss makes you want to jump right out of your skin.
We know it is not politically correct to overtly say you are biased against the female gender, but I will take it one step further-white middle-class woman are given the least deference on the business-social-ladder. A Middle-class African-American male at work is looked at with more esteem than a white middle-class woman.
Our culture has so objectified women, that they are disliked if they dont fit into a neat pre-conceived category that makes men feel safe; and other women feel not threatened.
Men can relate to an attractive, young hot chick, who makes him feel so cool; but if that same chick was a bit older, a lot wiser and didnt swoon in his direction; strain and stress would fill the air rather than sexual attraction.
Even after all the hullabaloo of feminism, women are particularly critical of other women; an intuitive sense kicks in , when a possible same sex competitor enters their space, and like a lion protecting its lair, theyre ready to attack.
Sadly the Newsweek poll, is true and probably a bit conservative in its results, Im pretty positive that when 2008 rolls around, men and women of all stripes and all hang-ups, will find it too psychologically painful to visualize a woman really wearing the pants in the White House.
Report thisBy G. Anderson, December 30, 2006 at 3:05 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I hope to God Ellen, that you take some time to learn from the excellent response to your article.
Somehow, I believe you are beyond that, preferring rather to label your detractors as not politicaly correct.
People are sick and tired of being manipulated, by the corporations, who are destryoing this country, poisoning it’s people, and subverting it’s political process.
Every time I see Hillary or Barack on a magazine cover, I think that these two must have been selected by the corporations to govern us, and continue corporate control,because they would never back candidates who threatened to return political power to the people.
I prefer to think that American’s are ready for an independent candidate who would represent the people and not the corporations.
Report thisBy AnnaCatherine, December 30, 2006 at 12:25 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
The media has an unhealthy preocupation with the next President of The US. It’s already boring. It lets George off the hook. In his mind, he’s already gone. Let’s remember that we have people killing and dying while they ‘spread freedon and democracy’ in Iraq. That’s far more important than the race or gender of the next president.We should concentrate on the task at hand, however unpleasant. That’s how we got stuck with this bum. People were sold a bill of goods because they weren’t paying attention. We can’t afford to let that happen again. Thanks, ANNA
Report thisBy jkoch, December 29, 2006 at 6:02 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Mere skin color or gender is not a useful determinant of a candidate’s policies or behavior. They can be totally misleading. Clarence Thomas and Condolezza Rice might be fine people or not, but nothing about their ideas or policies conveys any sort of special perspective owing to race.
Report thisBy HeadlessHessian, December 29, 2006 at 4:12 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
AAAAaaaaaarrrrrggghhhhhhh! Ellen..you are an idiot! Of the worst type. God I feel better now! Its people like you that start the race/sex bullshit. Will you please write something with a little more brains!
“But Clinton and Obama are individuals with very personal stories.” Duuuuhhhh!!!!! Really! What a surprise.
Hey…perhpas you would prefer to work for Fox…after all their ‘news’ and commentary are sooooo right on the money!...Much your article.
Report thisHeadless
By jon eden, December 29, 2006 at 7:21 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Real horse races are both more interesting and more likely to yield you some measure of happiness and a little extra cash.
Jon
http://StudentsForTheEarth.org
Report thisBy DennisD, December 29, 2006 at 3:22 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
It seems that the media will not be happy unless they can manufacture a politically correct candidate for us almost 2 years before the election and manipulate it’s outcome. As a nation, we’d better become informed by asking tougher questions than the talking heads will and really care about the answers. We can’t afford another village idiot with a high “Q” rating as president.
Report thisBy amos_hart, December 28, 2006 at 7:32 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Personally, I prefer a quadraplegic, Islamic, trans-sexual, Afro-American-Hispanic whatever for President. That’s the real test of political correctness. Find one for us, Ellen, and write soon.
Report thisBy Dr. Knowitall, PhD, PhD, December 28, 2006 at 7:09 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
There’s far too much importance placed on who sits in the White House and Congress. We all know that the military runs this country. I have a great job for them (the military): Stop being so damned hypocritial, you freedom fighters, you, and go help those poor people in Darfur who could use it. I’m sitting here listening to Barack on the Oprah Winfrey Show and he sounds exactly like John Kerry. God (scratch that), heaven, (scratch that), someone, please help us!!! Ellen has too much time on her hands and is playing into the hype, already. Gawd Bless theze Younitid States uv Imerrika!!!
Report thisBy Kellina, December 28, 2006 at 6:45 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
oops—I meant “melonin” not “melatonin.”
Report thisBy Kellina, December 28, 2006 at 2:23 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Please, please, please forget about whether a candidate has a penis or a clitoris and how much melatonin s/he has in his/her skin. Get to the guts of the matter:
1) Where does s/he stand on the middle-east policy? If s/he lines up with AIPAC, forget it.
2) Where does s/he stand on globalization? If s/he is affiliated with the Council on Foreign Relations (as is Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, Al Gore, Tom Vilsack, and John Edwards), forget it.
Report this