DU's two most loathed, often-maligned "corporate candidates..."

[Bicoastal]

...a woman and a black man. And what's more, they're both ahead.

Just step back for a second and realize the beauty of that situation. Even if you don't support (or even like) either candidate, that's a pretty exceptional achievement for the Democratic Party. Since when have members of either group been frontrunners in one of our primaries? And how many decades do you think it will take the GOP to have a primary with a similar situation? I understand why some are reluctant to cheer these two (I'm personally still undecided), but thus far no one is giving our party credit for allowing this to happen after DECADES of sex and skin color being two major strikes against a large percentage of the population running for dogcatcher, to say nothing of President.

It's something I only just realized the other night, after hearing the two get slammed--they may be "establishment candidates" with oodles of money behind them, but they also happen belong to two groups that, in any other era, wouldn't even be CONSIDERED by the powers that be. Just half a century ago, these two would be ignored, confined within any power structure to the secretarial pool or the custodial staff, respectively. Instead, in 2007, Obama and Clinton are so mighty, we here at DU are free to love or loathe them regardless of gender or racial background. It feels so normal to us as political animals, we forget how unusual it is.

So, to those of us who feel that our government is and will ever be inherently biased in favor of rich white men, just remember--for whatever reason, right now Barack and Hillary are ahead. And although plenty are feeling pretty gloomy about the election, it's still a time to feel good about being a Democrat.

Just wanted to point that out without endorsing either. You can go back to slamming them again.

[TwilightGardener]

1. I feel good about it. They might be "establishment" candidates, but

at least they're part of the establishment now.

[Al Federfer]

2. Who gives a shit about sex or race? We need an alternative to corporatism! n/t

[The_Casual_Observer]

4. I have a feeling if it wasn't "corporatism" it would be something else.

[balantz]

5. Exactly!!

Size, race, color, gender, genderless, afro, dreds, bald, stove-pipe hat, none of that is substance in itself. Ice it any way you want, I just want CAKE!

[Bicoastal]

6. Sure, but only 8 years ago, you wouldn't even have to say that...

Because you'd be getting only ONE type of dessert in any case.

This thread started when I saw another "Barry Bonds' indictment=the establishment hates rich black people."

I was thinking "Wait a sec...I thought a rich black guy was being accused of BEING the establishment on another thread..."

[balantz]

8. Yes, it's a good thing.

I'm just suspicious of "allowed tokens" for one, not that Obama isn't somewhat sincere. I'm also thinking I would have liked to always see choices of different kinds of men and women up there, and Buddhists or Muslims or Agnostics, or whatever. So long as they can prove they are sane, capable, and working for the common citizen, and promoting peace and environment.

[Gman]

3. But... but... but... the white woman planted questions

it's not fair! it's not fair! Waaaaa!!!

[JohnnyLib2]

7. My question about the corporatism complaint is:

Who is left with any possible chance to become president if anti-corporatism is the goal? In some ways, this seems like a form of perfectionism, always doomed to frustration. I'm not in the mood to go down in righteous flames come November, 2008.
:shrug:

[Kurovski]

12. Why does it have to be anti-corporate?

what's that all about?

No one of the candidates is "anti-corporate". I think that's some poor framing there.

Choosing corporate decisions to the detriment of citizens, the environment and Democracy is the bad thing. There's nothing inherently wrong with corporations, IMO.

[ozone_man]

9. So we should elect Margaret Thatcher?

Or Condoleeza Rice? It's not about sex or race, it's about politics. We have enough Republican corporate candidates to choose from that we don't need to have our own. Stand up for Democratic principles not Republican principles. Look beyond the color of the skin, the gender, the height of candidates. These are all superficial characteristics that should have little bearing on our decisions.

[dorkulon]

10. it is a sign of social progress, no doubt.

But I see no signs of political progress.

[Kurovski]

11. Condi, Clarence and Colin.

The Republican Party is great at this, too.

They even talked about Ms. Rice and Mr. Powell as possible presidential candidates.

[Bicoastal]

14. Yeah, but those people were all APPOINTED.

As far as I know, none of those three ever had to win an election in their life.

Are you calling Obama a "token" puppet of the Democratic party? If you are, you should probably come right out and say it.

Good grief.

[Kurovski]

16. No, I'm not saying that.

Good gracious.

I'm saying that it's easier to swallow the fact that a candidate will play ball (footsy?) with the right-wing elements in this country when they represent groups that the party traditionally have fought to promote.

Good gravy! :-)

[annabanana]

13. "Rich" is now officially more important than "old" or "white"

I suspect it was always thus. There were just so FEW really really loaded Blacks or Women.

[backscatter712]

15. Gender or race has nothing to do with it.

They've been bought.

Hillary will continue the war as long as she's President, and so would Obama. As long as there's money to be had in war, they'll continue to fight it. They'll continue pushing the "free" trade monster, until the only jobs anyone can get are for minimum wage flipping burgers because all the good jobs got exported. Their health care plans will continue to perpetuate the current system of denying benefits and shutting sick people out, while giving billions to the pharmcos and insurance companies.

They'll give us better lip service than Bush did, but they will not represent our interests. They're corporate bobbleheads.

B-b-b-but... He's BLACK! She's a WOMAN! Can't you see we must vote for them?

[Bicoastal]

17. Well here we go...

I forgot that Obama is just a "magic Negro," like that fellow Limbaugh says he is. He's only near the top because the "powers that be" know a black guy will get more votes 'n' sympathy from us PC fools--not because of his own skills and drive as a politician. It's because he's black.

"They've been bought." "He's BLACK! She's a WOMAN! Can't you see we must vote for them?" Can't believe I'm hearing shit like this on a website that doesn't start with F.

No, you don't have to vote for them, but at least give them credit for getting this far on their own merits.