2008 Woodie Awards
Candidates black out race, gender
Kasey Henricks
Issue date: 4/16/08 Section: Perspectives
Many have argued that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's battle to be the next potential president is evidence that America has moved to a post-race, post-gender society. On the contrary, how these candidates have addressed these issues, and at what lengths, suggest otherwise. Contrary to many accusations of playing identity politics, Obama and Clinton have left the issues of race and gender relatively untouched on their campaign trails.
Obama and Clinton didn't get to the position where they are today by talking about the two distinguishing features that set them apart in the history of American politics - race and gender.
For Obama to address the issue of race, he would likely be accused of playing the "race card." And this would potentially upset a chunk of the vote he needs to win the nominee, white people. After all, Obama has been winning states like Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado and Alaska. And the snow on the ground ain't the only thing that's white in these states. Obama's candidacy highly depends on the white vote as whites make up three-fourths of the population, as reported by the last census.
Further, the same principle applies to Clinton. If she were to highlight gender issues and seek to remedy them, she'd likely be accused of playing the "gender card." And Clinton needs another large chunk of the vote in order to gain the nominee, men. (Side questions: What kind of cards are race and gender? And when in America has being a woman or being nonwhite been a trump factor?).
Censorship. Let's talk about it. Because Obama is dependent upon the white vote and Clinton the male vote, this drastically alters what issues they talk about and how they talk about them.
For Obama, he's played it politically safe when it comes to addressing race. To his credit, he has persistently connected the past to the present by stating that today's racial gaps are rooted in the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. This was among one of his central themes in his "A More Perfect Union" speech, or as some call it, his "race speech." However, a statement like this isn't any statement that deviates from what previous democratic nominees have said. John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton all made similar statements on their presidential campaign trails.
Obama and Clinton didn't get to the position where they are today by talking about the two distinguishing features that set them apart in the history of American politics - race and gender.
For Obama to address the issue of race, he would likely be accused of playing the "race card." And this would potentially upset a chunk of the vote he needs to win the nominee, white people. After all, Obama has been winning states like Idaho, North Dakota, Utah, Wisconsin, Vermont, Wyoming, Minnesota, Maine, Colorado and Alaska. And the snow on the ground ain't the only thing that's white in these states. Obama's candidacy highly depends on the white vote as whites make up three-fourths of the population, as reported by the last census.
Further, the same principle applies to Clinton. If she were to highlight gender issues and seek to remedy them, she'd likely be accused of playing the "gender card." And Clinton needs another large chunk of the vote in order to gain the nominee, men. (Side questions: What kind of cards are race and gender? And when in America has being a woman or being nonwhite been a trump factor?).
Censorship. Let's talk about it. Because Obama is dependent upon the white vote and Clinton the male vote, this drastically alters what issues they talk about and how they talk about them.
For Obama, he's played it politically safe when it comes to addressing race. To his credit, he has persistently connected the past to the present by stating that today's racial gaps are rooted in the legacies of slavery and Jim Crow. This was among one of his central themes in his "A More Perfect Union" speech, or as some call it, his "race speech." However, a statement like this isn't any statement that deviates from what previous democratic nominees have said. John Kerry, Al Gore and Bill Clinton all made similar statements on their presidential campaign trails.
Be the first to comment on this story