Sneak preview of upcoming novel.
Tuesday, March 27, 2007
Just WonderingI have a question.
Why does the president of the United States always have to be an old white man?
Why?
I'm just curious. Does anyone know?
Is 2008 the year we're finally, for the first time ever, going to have a non-old-white-man for president? Or will all the old white men jump up and say, "I know you guys are eager to have a woman or a not-white guy be president, but this is the wrong woman and this is the wrong not-white guy. So why not just vote for another old white man this time? Again?"?
Oh, wait - they're already saying that.
I'm not saying I have anything against old white men. But, seriously, is anyone else ever going to get a chance? This is like being in high school and watching blonde cheerleaders win prom queen every single year.
No offense, but most people in this country are not old white men. Most of the old white men I know, unfortunately, have trouble relating to me and my friends and my family and our issues. So, why in the world would I vote for another old white man, no matter how much smack he talks about the woman and the not-white guy? 4:08 PM #
Comments:
I'm in complete agreeance and I'm hoping against hope that this WILL be the year that there's a different breed of president.Unforutunately, I fear that even though a lot of people really don't want an old white guy to be president again, I think that they're still going to be afraid of the change and vote against it.
It's for that reason alone that I'm hoping that Hillary and Obama (both of whom I'd happily vote for) don't get the democratic nomination. If they do, I'm afraid that it'll be another four years with an OWM.
# posted by
Natalie : 6:29 PM
Not only that, but, with the exception of Kennedy, it has to be a protestant old white man.
Although, to be honest, as much as I admire Hillary Clinton, I would kind of rather this country's first woman president be a woman who didn't need a powerful husband to get her there. I'd rather it be someone who did it entirely on her own merits.
# posted by
: 11:22 PM
If Pakistan can have a female president, why can't we have one too?
# posted by
Mr. Bean : 11:57 AM
Because they are more educated than the anyone else. Even if they barely made it out of college, they're far more educated than anyone else.
# posted by
: 12:06 PM
Well, I'll just have to weigh in on this, though you'll probably never publish it because I'm admittadly an OWM. As to the "why"? My best guess is because most of the major corporations are run and owned by OWMs. Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Walmart's CEO, etc. And all these OWMs go to the same schools, have the same "alegiences", etc. I think we'd have to agree that money talks and these elections are more about the money from the Corporations electing one of the brotherhood who "understands" what's truly important to the Corporations, i.e. free trade and monetary stability and security, etc. A second reason is, I suspect, that unlike some countries such as India and Israel who've both had female Prime Ministers in the past, the U.S. system doesn't produce Statesmen or Stateswomen. The political system here produces and promotes salesmen and saleswomen, hucksters and liars who can be counted on doing the opposite of, or failing altogether to do anything promised.
But hey, there's good news out there for those of you who are tired of OWM's! We're going away! In large numbers! You won't have to look at us or hear from a great many of us ever again. As for myself? I won't be voting for any of the above. I'm casting the ultimate "No Confidence" vote, by NOT Voting, or in the alternative by casting a write in vote for Ms. No Conficence. And this the result of Bush, Katrina, Rita and other similar gov't failures. But be forwarned, there may be a downside. First of all, don't take our disappearing act as a sign we support your government. A growing number surely don't. And second, look at the younger generation of latent OWM's and understand they aren't with you or your government either. I detect in them no alegiance to anything except the silent, low profile pusuit of the buck.
So, good luck, I hope you can elect someone more capable than what I've seen over the last 30 years.
# posted by
: 12:33 PM
it's unfortunate that so many people claim to hope for a female or minority president in the near future, yet immediately discredit all worthy candidates for some last-minute reason or another.
barack obama and hillary clinton, although for very different reasons, deserve a shot at this election and have a better-than-good chance of winning the presidency, especially given the state of the republican party today. to immediately claim that they'd lose the general election and use that as a reason to keep them from the nomination is absurd. there's never been a better time or a more perfect opportunity for senators obama and clinton. and anyone who truly hopes for change needs to recognize that truth and make it a reality...otherwise, you're only part of the problem.
and anyone who claims that hillary clinton is unqualified for the presidency without her husband is misinformed. afterall, like it or not, she was in the white house for 8 years already and has more experience in that regard than any other candidate. and her record on domestic issues is unparralled in the field of candidates as well. and even still, bill's experience and political and global genius should be looked at as a major asset, not something to be used against her. it makes an already qualified candidate even stronger.
so maybe we should stop conceding defeat until we actually give these candidates a fair shot. the possibility for change is closer than some people think, but it'll never happen unless we make it happen.
and on that note:
clinton/vilsack 08!!
# posted by
blake : 11:16 AM
Hmm,
I'd like to point out that Edwards and, historically, John Kennedy (or his little brother, for that matter, who probably would have been president had he not been killed) are not/were not old. Clinton was not even that old when he first took office. Neither was Ford when he took the position.
You see, you have hit on the strength of the two Democratic front leaders: they're not white men (even if one of them is riding the dynasty of an old white man). Unfortunately, I fear that is their only strength.
Here's a point though, as we live longer, this nation is getting older. Accordingly, our leaders follow suit. Think about the majority of voters... these old white men are not that much older than the bulk of the populace.
The real problem, in my book, is the emerging dynasties: Clinton and Bush. Do we really want another one? Haven't we learned? They're fooling us, every single one of them, and we keep coming back to the fold.
See, it proves my point: the voters ARE getting older. They're losing their memory.
# posted by
R.T. Lemur : 1:17 PM
I truely hope people don't vote for Hillary just because she's a woman. I mean, I truely hope people don't vote for her AT ALL, but I know that's not going to happen. Unfortunately.
# posted by
: 9:07 AM
Natalie: Are you being facetious, by saying exactly what I had the hypothetical OWM naysayers say in my post? Or am I misunderstanding you?
Anonymous 11:22: Why does it bother you that Hillary has Bill's support, though? Were you as bothered by George W. having George H's? Meanwhile: I've heard Gen Y people say that getting Hillary would be getting two presidents in one. As in, a good thing. Do you not agree?
Mr. Bean: I know! Because... We stand for freedom...?
Anonymous 12:06: Thank you for candidly sharing your proud, anonymous, non-sensically sexist/racist assertion.
Anonymous 12:33: I did want to block your post, of course, but unfortunately, this Blogger thing doesn't let me see if you're *really* an OWM or not. So I couldn't take chances. And I agree with the spirit of your post, which is that it's unfortunate that the only non-OWM candidates we can probably choose from in the near future will be those who've huckstered their way into the current (yet hopefully dying) OWM system.
Blake: You are my more energetic/optimistic/photogenic brother, brother.
RT: Thank you for pointing out the not-as-old white men who were exceptions to the Old White Man rule. You say Clinton's and Obama's only strengths are that they're not OWM, but I don't think that's true, RT. How can you say something as general as that? That's so silly, RT Lemur, that I'm not even going to ask you to ennumerate any of the OWM candidates' alleged strengths. Instead, I'll just play your game and say that being OWM is their only one.
And no, I don't want another Bush, but I don't mind another Clinton, especially right after another Bush war. Maybe it will create another dot.com bubble and I'll get rich, finally.
Anonymous 9:07: I'm intrigued by your indirect disapproval and multiple negatives. I'm sorry that my readiness to vote for a woman leaves you feeling unfortunate. Maybe, with God's help, you can endure.
# posted by
Gwen : 10:41 AM
Gwen, I don't find it unfortunate that you'd vote for a woman. It's Hillary that I can't stand. Not because she's a woman, but because of the politician that she is. I'd quite readily vote for a woman.
...and yes, God will see me through.
# posted by
: 12:17 PM
How old is too old?
Here's a list of the US presidents and their ages when they took office:
http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0194030.html
You have to be at least 35 anyway...
# posted by
: 12:31 PM
I think having Hillary in office would be a great service to this country. When Bill was president for two terms, the country had over 9 trillion in surplus funds. The economy was great, unemployment was at a all time low, things were looking up. I'm sure Hillary contributed a lot to his success, so really, we'd be getting that back with her in office. Look at us now. We're well over 11 trillion in the hole and it's only getting deeper.
Republicans care about wealth A LOT, so wouldn't it make sense to vote for her? The fact that she's a woman shouldn't have any bearing on it.
- Datty
# posted by
: 4:43 PM
To answer your question, it doesn't bother me that she has Bill's support. I would expect whoever gets the democratic nomination would. It's more that I think Hillary wouldn't be where she is now were she not married to Bill Clinton. It's not that I don't think she's talented or competent on her own merits; she is, but she wouldn't have the name recognition or the networking contacts were she not married to Bill. I'm actually not sure I think the 2 for 1 idea is a good one. I think it would make it difficult to detangle what is from Hillary and what is from Bill and would give the impression that we can only have a female president if she has a powerful husband to pull the strings behind the scenes, and that impression, whether it's true or not, bothers me. Basically, I think voting for Hillary to get Bill back in the White House is insulting to Hillary, as it implies people think she can't do the job on her own.
Personally, I also don't like the idea of political 'dynasties,' for lack of a better word. The Kennedys, the Bushes, the Clintons (the Roosevelts, the Harrisons, the Adams')... I realize that it's sort of an inevitability, as the rich and powerful beget more rich and powerful, but America tries, in theory, to be a meritocracy. That's why we don't have inherited titles. And I realize that by the same token of you shouldn't get to be president just because your father is, you shouldn't have to not be president because of who your husband is... I don't know. I just think that part of the system is why we have to have old white men all the time, that people try to keep that kind of power in the family.
*shrug* my two cents. Not sure it matters... I'd happily vote for Clinton or Obama.
-Anonymous 11:22
# posted by
: 10:09 PM
Hiya, Gwen, wanted to clarify... I 'fear' that Clinton and Obama don't have strengths beyond being different from the mold (the OWM mold that it is). What I mean by that is: I fear, not that they are not strong, but that their politics and methods will offer nothing different from the OWM we've had for 200+ years. Their only difference, I fear, is not that they act different, but only that they look different. In my opinion, polititians, no matter what race, gender, party, or creed are self-interested, self-agrandizers with little real interest in the public good. Sadly, I've seen nothing from any canidate to prove otherwise. I don't trust any of them as far as could throw them, and I'd be sure to throw them as far as I could.
# posted by
R.T. Lemur : 4:22 PM
Hi Gwen,
I'm ready to vote for a woman president.
And here's the reasons; are we really better off with the status quo?
In the last 2o odd years we have had a person that fell asleep at important meetings, a letch, and now a war monger.
Come on people a woman can be better than that, and hold to a budget too!
Janice~
# posted by
Janice : 11:16 PM
I'm voting for the non white guy and I think the non white guy can win.
Except then I get scared the powers that be will destroy him. Some people are seriously going to flip out when a black man is president. That's no reason for not voting for him but fasten your seat belt. By the way, he is the best candidate also!
# posted by
ozma : 11:35 PM
Keri: Oh, okay. You don't like Senator Clinton. Gotcha.
How old is too old... I don't know. My point was about diversifying our presidents, not about setting a max age limit.
Datty: But wealth for the nation isn't the same thing as personal wealth. People who care most about personal wealth, in my experience, don't mind a deficit, so your argument won't sway them. :)
Anon 11:22: I get what you're saying, but I don't see it as an issue worth splitting hairs over. If people believe that Hillary can't do the job because she's a woman, then they're probably too sexist to vote for her, even for the sake of getting Bill back in the White House.
I mean, if she gets the nomination, we have plenty of ways to project all our own gender issues onto her, right? Are you saying you'd be more comfortable with a woman president if her husband was a homemaker/librarian/cookie-baker? Personally, I think it's disgusting that so many politician's wives (and wives in general) sublimate themselves for their husbands' careers. But, hey, that's my personal issue, and there's plenty of time to project it onto Clinton later. :)
RT: So do you refuse to vote each year, since all the candidates are equally throwable? :)
I totally agree with most of what you're saying.
BUT... having a non-OWM president will have a cultural impact in addition to (no) political ones.
How do you think it would feel for non-white and non-male children to finally see a woman/Black man be president? Can you imagine? Or, to ask it another way: How do you think it feels to be a woman or not-white, and see *only* men and *only* white people get elected, every single time, all your life?
I know some of you are thinking stuff like, "Who cares, because white men are the bestest people in the world!!" And, fuck y'all who are thinking that, because y'all are just dumb-asses whose kind will die out eventually. But, for the rest of you who never thought about it that way, try thinking about it that way for just a moment, please.
Janice: You made me laugh. :)
Ozma: Yeah, I know what you mean. I'm a little scared, too, for whichever non-OWM candidate we get. But that's life, right? Everybody's at risk from psychos, politicians or not.
# posted by
Gwen : 10:40 AM
Mm... Third-to-last paragraph: I meant, if you *aren't* a racist dumbfuck, but you never thought of it from a non-OWM's perspective, try on that perspective for size, if you can.
# posted by
Gwen : 10:43 AM
I'd vote for Colin Powell or Sandra Day O'Connor.
(*sigh*)
# posted by
Yvonne : 12:18 PM
I'm a youngish white woman, and I really just want a change.
I'm almost afraid to hope, though. I really wanted Harold Ford, Jr. to win the senate race in Tennessee, and he didn't. And I really think it's because of his race. Oh, and the fact that his family sucked, but really? Why hold that against someone? Most people's families suck.
I'm a big Obama fan myself. I think he's still a bit junior to win the election, but I think he's off to a really great start. So, we'll see.
# posted by
That Chick Over There : 1:28 PM
Post a Comment
