Monday, April 14, 2008

on schisms.

I'm of two minds.

I'm both happy and extremely sad to report that my good friend Sean P, whom I met while working for the DNC in the 2004 election has taken a position as a field director for the DNC once again. It's a good thing for him, because I honestly don't think he was ever happier than he was while he was working for the Democrats (although he certainly has been happy in the company of one of my other old friends to be fair) but it's a terribly sad thing for me, because I'm (at least temporarily) losing a great friend. The good news is that he's being put up in a hotel in Washington, D.C. while they train him on all the good, old, Democratic ways. The better news is that after that, he'll go to Boston to open up an office there. The potentially best (and, unsurprisingly, potentially worst) news is that he might be back here sometime between a month and two months from now. On the other hand, he might not be back until after the November election. It's sad news because I'll miss him, but overall great news because he'll be doing good, important work that needs to be done and he's a guy who knows how to do it. It's even better news that he might be able to get me a job doing something I actually care about this summer if he's able to come back here and open an office.

However, that's not the point of this entry. Rather, the point is this: while I was having dinner with him and a couple other friends, as a goodbye gesture, we stumbled (of course) into the arena of politics. It's unsurprising since the people present were a journalist and her husband, Sean and his girlfriend, and myself and The Teacher. While she was pretty quiet about the whole thing, the rest of us are fierce liberals, raised in the tradition of hippie parents who would die before we voted conservatively. So this sort of thing tends to pop up semi-often, as I'm sure you can imagine.

We got to talking about the Democratic nominee and the partisan in-fighting that our nomination process has devolved into and the disappointment that we all felt over that. And sooner or later, things started to get said, and I was running my mouth quite a bit (as those who know me know I'm apt to do) and eventually my brain started sending signals to my mouth: no one else is agreeing with you. It was an odd sensation (not that I think I'm always right, but there's usually one or two who are on my side) but as I started to listen to those signals and look around, I realized that my brain was right! Everyone looked like they were disagreeing, to say the least.

So basically, the conversation came down to this: both nominees are good, qualified individuals, but those who disagreed with me would feel much more comfortable with Hillary at the top of the bill, possibly with Barack on the bottom. I, of course, would prefer Barack on top, without Hillary as Veep. There are a multitude of reasons for this, and we can get into policy much, much later, if anyone's actually that interested, but for now, that'll just have to suffice.

However, the basic disagreement was genial enough and the assembled minds were smart enough that it really made me wonder: am I too set in my opinions? Am I missing important things? And so, it made me want to take an Official Survey Question:

Right now, in 21st century America, which do you think is more prevalent: racism or sexism? No qualifiers necessary nor are they even encouraged, I'd just like to hear the Straight Dope. Which one's more rampant: sexism or racism?

1 comment:

Mindy said...

I want to answer your question with brevity - because otherwise I would ramble on for several hours.

Both. The answer is both - racism and sexism. Both are prevalent, and both are just as detrimental to society as a whole.

I was never too worried about the Clinton campaign squawking over the "bitter" comments. Because inevitably Hillary was going to look bad. What Barack Obama said wasn't terrible. It was pretty straight forward. And hopefully most intelligent people will understand this to be the case.

If anything - Hillary's sucker punches kick-back and make HER look bad. Which I know is not her intention, but honestly - it's a bad way to run a campaign. She could have dropped out of the race two weeks ago, and made a friend.

Instead she insists on making enemies, turning people off, and further widening and dividing the Democratic party.

If she is expecting to court "Super-Delegates" to win and go against the will of the people...I am afraid I can't rightfully hand my vote over to her, if she were to become the Democratic nominee. I mean - I will have to (John McCain - whew) but not without feeling...bitter. ;)

I don't support her as a vice president anymore. She has run an increasingly ugly and strange campaign...

I really would like to see John Edwards as vice-president. I think he has the chops to take on a presidential role. He and Obama would make an excellent team.

I don't know about this Bill Richardson guy. Literally - I don't know anything about him. Alrighty, I did the old Wikipedia trick. He sounds like a pretty decent guy too - not getting to know much about his voting records or financial backings. He's from your state though - so maybe you know more.

OK - this is way longer than I meant it to be.

Thanks for the chance to vent. :)

Much Love, Mindy C