Quote:
Originally Posted by ryberg
I trust it was clear I had my tongue firmly in my cheek with the line about speaking for all women. 
That said, I wonder if there won't be more of a negative reaction among amen by and large, partly for the reason MPII mentions, especially after the "tease" of a woman being the favorite early on this year.
Or maybe partly for what might be seen as less forward thinking than Bonny and Mel were just displaying. After posting the question, I saw something on Politico aout a group of women, supporters of Cli ton, who have pledged to work against Obama and blame the current situation on sexism.
And MP has a point, too: women deserve a female president in the pantheon by now, certainly, just as black people do.
Anyway, just wondering about this, especially in immediate terms with respect to the VP choice but also just in general...
Steve |
I don't think this is about a particular group deserving anything. Women are not owed their "turn" at the presidency as if it's a hurdle to get over so we can say it's finally been done. Isn't this more about what is beneficial to us as a country?
No doubt there have been many qualified female prospective candidates, yet we always seem to choose from the same pool of rich white guys. Maybe it's because we think in terms of "Women deserve" and "Blacks deserve" rather than "The country needs..." That's the thing about being inclusive: it requires a "we." And not just in the way we phrase it, but in the way we think it.
Not picking on you, Steve. Just your word choice.