The 2008 race to presidency is one of the most historic elections in our country. For some in the United States, the most historic election. Now that I'm out in the workforce, seeing where my tax dollars are going and looking for ways to make a difference, I'm more involved in the political process. Although I've voted in every election since I turned 18, it's never felt like the possibility of major change after an election. I've never felt like I would be greatly disappointed if the election didn't go the way I voted. Of course there is disappointment, but now... There will be a sense of apathy towards the electoral process. I find myself in a position I hoped would come, but somehow, it snuck on me. An African American and a woman are among the viable presidential candidates to run in the November elections. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton. This holds significance for me because I am an African American woman. Plus, I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a friend a long time ago. Who should achieve equality first in our country, women or minorities? She felt it should be women.
It's easy for her, as a Caucasian female, to say that women have it the hardest in our society over minorities. That's her view of life. However, she was adamant with me when I brought up any counter-arguments to her claim. Her argument was that through equality for women, it would then be easier for minorities to achieve it. She felt that women were the bigger victims(her words, not mine) of societal rules. I couldn't agree. When I looked at my past, family, and culture, the women are not victims. Granted, I haven't made a case study of all African American women, but the ones I've been around would not like you calling them a victim. They'd give you a dead-on impression of the Val evil eye followed by hands on hips, a roll of their head and a hefty helping of a piece of their mind. I really don't think achieving equality for women and minorities needs to be done in incremental steps. There shouldn't be a first. It should just be.
Both Obama and Clinton have similar platforms. Except one has more experience than the other. It's been a major issue in the debates, Obama's limited experience with foreign policy and Hillary's track record with heading up several committees within the government. I don't like the fact that there is a lot more mud slinging going on since the Feb 8 primary elections. Before that they both handled themselves with grace and class. I guess that's what happens when it gets close to the wire and there isn't an obvious winner. So it seems that since I couldn't answer the question of who should achieve equality first, our society will do it for me. Whoever gets the the bid from the Democratic Party reflects a social change only for the better. I just wonder which one it will be
It's easy for her, as a Caucasian female, to say that women have it the hardest in our society over minorities. That's her view of life. However, she was adamant with me when I brought up any counter-arguments to her claim. Her argument was that through equality for women, it would then be easier for minorities to achieve it. She felt that women were the bigger victims(her words, not mine) of societal rules. I couldn't agree. When I looked at my past, family, and culture, the women are not victims. Granted, I haven't made a case study of all African American women, but the ones I've been around would not like you calling them a victim. They'd give you a dead-on impression of the Val evil eye followed by hands on hips, a roll of their head and a hefty helping of a piece of their mind. I really don't think achieving equality for women and minorities needs to be done in incremental steps. There shouldn't be a first. It should just be.
Both Obama and Clinton have similar platforms. Except one has more experience than the other. It's been a major issue in the debates, Obama's limited experience with foreign policy and Hillary's track record with heading up several committees within the government. I don't like the fact that there is a lot more mud slinging going on since the Feb 8 primary elections. Before that they both handled themselves with grace and class. I guess that's what happens when it gets close to the wire and there isn't an obvious winner. So it seems that since I couldn't answer the question of who should achieve equality first, our society will do it for me. Whoever gets the the bid from the Democratic Party reflects a social change only for the better. I just wonder which one it will be
3 comments:
both of them have pros and cons, and either would mark a radical social change in the way that the US gov't is perceived.
i was thinking about it the other day; how many people out there think that the election is between obama and clinton? i know that i'm more ignorant than most, but i can't name any republican potential candidates.
John McCain. Mike Huckabee. Mitt Romney. Fred Thompson. Rudy Giuliani.
of course, the only two Republicans from the list above still IN the race are McCain and Huckabee, but McCain is a formidable force because he appeals to moderates and independents, or "Reagan Democrats" as they're known in some circles. He has a heroic military record from Vietnam, and he has a history of voting against party lines and the Bush Administration.
Let's do a little research here people.
and thanks for the shoutout Nik :)
Well once we finally pick a Democratic nominee, things will change. I'm still iffy on this Clinton/Obama thing (also because I don't understand politics, so I was never really interested in it).
Women vs. Minorities: You, like me are sort of "double minorities" - we are both women and also non-white. Both groups are highly diverse and to achieve equality would be very difficult and I think the best way to go about is to achieve equality is to do that for both at the same time, if at all possible.
Post a Comment