interesting..|Penn says Hilary joke predicts the future
(if link takes you to a different piece, you may have to select it-- mouse over each "Penn Says" episode to see which has which title).
Okay, so what does that mean?
|Date:||February 13th, 2008 12:32 pm (UTC)|| |
What does the reaction to the joke mean? I think it means that people either dislike Hilary or have internal tension regarding their feelings regarding her (personally or as a candidate) which were in some way relieved by the humor of the joke and by participating in the ongoing positive reaction to it. The framing of the joke, since it defends a black person from suppositions that he's gaining an advantage from his race, is one that I think somehow socially allows liberals to participate in it even though it is bashing one of their own.
Or it could just mean that Hilary made a particularly poor choice in making that assertion. And, you know, it's pitiful, so it's funny.
Yeah; it's something like that.
Lots of otherwise reasonable people have a strong dislike to her. The years of Republican slime have stuck -- it's sad.
But I still think that racism in this country is much stronger than sexism. So, does the fact that a generic woman can defeat a generic black make up for the fact that a specific Obama can beat a specific Clinton?
Edited at 2008-02-13 12:35 pm (UTC)
|Date:||February 13th, 2008 01:17 pm (UTC)|| |
"make up for" it? I'm not sure what you mean.
Which trend is bigger: the generic black vs. woman or the specific Obama vs. Clinton?
|Date:||February 13th, 2008 01:33 pm (UTC)|| |
What to you mean by "bigger" and furthermore, who is this important to? Are you supposing that some portion of the society feels slighted by "obama vs. Clinton" in some way that could possibly be "made up for" by the possibility that the more populous trend is the other way around?
Personally I don't mind that this black man might beat a white woman in the race for president. Both types of barrier breaking are important, and I think this country has a long way to go in being either race or gender blind.
Personally, I am pleased to see how much of the outreach to black society is being done by Obama's wife. A vote for Obama is a vote for her, and that has become a positive in this race in a solid way I don't believe the Clintons ever made it to while Bill was running. People have always had mixed feelings about Hilary. It isn't just after years and years of republican bashing, it was so during Bill Clinton's first run at the presidency, too.
I would like to see a woman president, sure. But I would rather see one better poised to succeed (once she has the post) than Hilary Clinton seems to me to be. I think the Democratic party needs an overhaul for many reasons, and one of them is its failure to balance out its candidates on a gender basis. I was just in fits when they changed the jurisdictions here and screwed Lynn Rivers out of her congressional post by putting her against the more senior (and male) Dingell. For the party to undermine rather than support the best female political representative I've ever known was just despicable.
"What to you mean by 'bigger'..."
"...and furthermore, who is this important to?"
Anyone trying to predict the outcome of the next election.
"Are you supposing that some portion of the society feels slighted by "obama vs. Clinton" in some way that could possibly be "made up for" by the possibility that the more populous trend is the other way around?"
Assume 10% of the electorate would vote for a generic black over a generic woman. If 15% would vote for the specific Obama over the specific Clinton, then he is more electable. If 5% would vote for the specific Obama over the specific Clinton, then she is more electable.
|Date:||February 13th, 2008 01:20 pm (UTC)|| |
I don't know that's necessarily true. I think that people are more comfortable with their internalized sexism than their internalized racism (see: widespread acceptance of misogynist jokes vs. widespread repugnance at racist jokes), and so are more inclined to vote for black people.
Also, I recall vaguely some poll somewhere, before this primary ever even happened, that said people were more likely to vote for a black person than a woman. Hate to quote unsupported stats, but it's vague enough I can't find it.
Interesting theory. I'd like it to be true, but I don't know.
Most of the analysis I've read says that a random bigoted American is more likely to vote for a woman than a black. This kind of thing worries me, as our country is full of random bigoted Americans.
|Date:||February 13th, 2008 02:03 pm (UTC)|| |
But who would the random mysogynist vote for? Our country is also full of random mysogynist people.
Sorry. I meant "bigoted" to include both racist and sexist.
I think there's a big difference between "generic black guy vs. woman" and Clinton and Obama. I think Obama might be a guy that even people who would normally be against a "black guy" would be comfortable voting for. I hope so, anyway. His charisma is palpable, he brings people alive, and that's what wins elections.