State #1: A person of color wins. State #2: A woman wins . . .and the problem is??

Be happy tonight!

Diversity. This is what democracy looks like! I am damn proud of our party and the menu of candidates from which we have to choose this time.

History in the making...regardless of who the nominee is, let's carry on the enthusiasm and votes through November!

:hi:

I don't get to vote till May.

(I mean that in the best way possible)

It's really exciting, I think.

There is a problem here. Let's discuss it, not dismiss it.

Instead of looking at this as some kind of chit game of redressing past wrongs, why not celebrate the stances of the people who 'won' their respective states?


What kind of Democrat is Obama?
What kind of Democrat is Hillary?

Why not use those terms to describe who won, and whose politics each respective state the majority found better? you know what I mean?

instead of people choosing someone whose politics and plan they felt most comfortable endorsing, by your simplistic labels for Obama and Hillary.

Was IA versus NH about 'anti-war' versus 'pro-war'?
Who knows, because you yourself labeled it 'black' versus 'woman'.

I'll be honest, and here's my bias, the only simplistic label I would have been comfortable with would have been the one of 'generation gap' -- IA is where youth won, NH is where old guard won. But that's not quite fair, either.

Will IA versus NH be presented as that?

I don't trust that NH will be presented as a referendum on the ending of sexism, in the same way that IA was presented as referendum on the ending of racism....... and if it is not, that's all I need to know about the real 'historic-ness' of a Hillary Clinton run to be the first female president.

I also don't trust that NH will be presented as a reverse of IA, a repudiation of IA since so many news outlets were enamored with the racial aspect of IA. Conclusions can be drawn from what isn't said, what is left unsaid, unspoken, unformed; as much as with what is said.

But mostly: can we refer stop referring to Obama's race and Hillary's genitals?

This will be talked about for a long time.

Looking GREAT for the party, AND for the country!!

I think it's too late for him though. I like him best out of the top 3.

However, our candidates are still so much better than what the pukes have.

There's your problem right there.

Trust me.

These aren't regular people, who treat elections like Catholics treat Christmas and Easter. These are people committed enough to caucus/primary.

If you disagree with calling Obama and Hillary corporatists, that's one thing. But then, how would you differentiate between them?

What did IA choose, last Thursday? What did NH choose tonight?

If it was only a 'black man' or a 'white woman'........ there's a problem.

well said.

Changing the race or gender does not change the status quo that they truly represent.

I'm not trashing them personally. I'm just saying.

The voters don't know what the status quo is, they vote for hope and change and whatever bumper stickers they see. But at least they are pulling the lever for other than sour old Republican men!

Changing the race or gender does not change the status quo that they truly represent.

I'm not trashing them personally. I'm just saying.

They are all heads above the McCain-Huckabee-Mitt alternative.

Who would have thought in 2004 that we would be so talent rich in 2008!

I was talking to a friend on the phone and said, look, it's a woman and a black man vying for the #1 spot! History has already been made!!!

:bounce:

Thanks for the classy post - I agree.

It's nice to have the top of the slate actually look like me and my friends and co-workers for a change. (And of course white men are included in that -- they're just not necessarily the assumed blank-slate default anymore.)

It gives me hope that LGBT people and people of minority faiths and no faith will eventually get there too.

You can paint your feel-good canvas anyway you want, but it won't mean squat in the general election. It's not whether or not the candidate is black or a woman. It's the quality of the candidate that matters. If Obama had a lot of national and international experience and had served well without any major mistakes, he'd be a shoe-in. But he doesn't have enough experience to be president, and the Republicans will hit on that like a crackhead on his pipe. If Hillary didn't have the negative baggage that she does and had earned her achievements on her own and not on the coattails of her husband, she'd have this thing locked up.

It really isn't that hard to come up with a winning candidate. You just have to use a little objective reasoning and be able to read our nation's current political climate. But you don't do it by nominating some guy who has had no exposure to foreign policy or the military at a time when the country is at war. It's a no brainer. A child could understand that. What is the problem?

This really is something.

Though I'm a little disheartened by Obama's loss, I am damn proud of Democrats and this country after seeing what's happened in Iowa and New Hampshire.