Female or black president. Which would be more historic? (conservative, Clinton, African)

[DisgustaTruth]

I am interested in how Obama became anointed as the first "black" candidate with a viable shot at being President? Obama is of mixed race.. He is as much white as he is black. Tiger Woods, who is also of mixed race.. refers to himself as such and not as "the black guy."

[DisgustaTruth]

And it seems completely acceptable for the media to make sexist and mysogenist remarks about women.. when racist comments would never be tolerated.

[atlantagreg30127]

To define how I define things (as I'm very precise and not PC. LOL):

If you were born in Africa (literally) and then came here and have become or have applied to become an American citizen, then I will call you "African-American". If you were born here in the states, then you are just a plain old American to me - but if color is important, I'll say "Black American". Likewise with the Asian-American tag, etc etc etc.

That being said, Obama has an African FATHER (who was born and raised in Africa), but a white mother, and Obama himself was born here in the U.S. Therefore personally I'd consider him "mixed race" if a tag had to be put on it.

I think though that regardless, a black or "mixed" President would maybe have more of an impact than a female President in terms of, I don't know the right word - controversy? Milestone? Breakthrough? Maybe all three? Keep in mind that of all the people that have been rumored to run alongside McCain for V.P., one of the names that came up is Condoleezza Rice - he would hit two birds with one stone if he's looking to keep up with the other side (so to speak) - having a running mate who is black AND a female.

At this point I think I'd vote for Punky Brewster if she'd run, to be honest.

[aries4118]

Originally Posted by DisgustaSucks

Definately a female President would be more historic.
Obama is half white, btw.. and he comes from a fairly privileged background.. growing up in Hawaii and attending elite private schools. (that background hardly mirrors that of most black people in this country.

I agree.

Also, I don't think Obama really represents "African-Americans"..."African-Americans" are a unique American subculture that is based on having ancestors who were slaves (or free people of colour) in the United States.


However, "half-white" still makes one African-American. Due to historical/societal precendents, being "African-American" is based on having at least 1/16 African ancestry (and the African ancestry being rooted in slavery or free people of color in the United States). This includes "mulattos", "quadroons", "octoroons", "creoles," etc.

[goozer]

I tend to think that a black president would be more historic. I mean, there is a much stronger precedent for women leaders in other developed countries in the world, including much of South America and Europe. People like Margaret Thatcher and Evita Peron are looked at as icons of good leadership in England and Argentina and elsewhere. In fact, Indonesia had a female president (Megawati) for many years and that is the largest Muslim country in the world--a religion that gets a lot of bad press for its "repression" of women. But a black american president... I have yet to see a black man become a leader of a major European or South American country that is predominantly white (maybe I'm wrong, but I'm not aware of it). Women are a majority in the U.S., blacks are a minority. I think that makes a big difference in deciding which would be more historic.

[RainyRainyDay]

I'm a middle-aged white female Canadian (Atlanta resident) and I heartily think a black president would be more historic. As pointed out by goozer, the rest of the world has had plenty of strong, successful female heads of state. This is not a big deal. Given US history around the issue of race, I think a black president would be more remarkable.

I'm amazed by the comments about Obama not being "really black". Uh, how many slave descendants don't have white ancestry? Isn't the history around here that the slightest trace of black blood made a person "black" and subject to all the discrimination that went with that, even if they looked white? Aren't African American (or whatever you want to call them) voters supporting him in droves? Presumably those voters don't think this guy is an imposter. Personally, I think he's great. I think Hillary would be an OK president too, but I don't feel a need to see her win because she's a woman. We women have pretty much won the equality battle in my lifetime, anyway.

I don't have a vote, by the way.

[Georgia]

Originally Posted by netdragon

Maybe this should be moved to a general forum. Does anyone have the ability to do that?

Actually Politics. It will be moved.

[plessthanpointohfive]

I also think goozer has a good point. If it's true that there's never been a minority leader in a leading world country before then I change my mind and think it's more historic for Obama to win.

Now...who thinks he will???

[backfist]

Originally Posted by DisgustaSucks

Definately a female President would be more historic.
Obama is half white, btw.. and he comes from a fairly privileged background.. growing up in Hawaii and attending elite private schools. (that background hardly mirrors that of most black people in this country.

Definitely a Black person would be more historic, especially for a "Western" country. Margaret Thatcher comes to mind.

As to Barack being half white, coming from a middle class background, and going to private school ... you've just decribed a sizeable portion of today's Black population. Certainly describes my (rather ordinary) Black upbringing.

But hey, you know better.

[Lillietta]

In our society half white doesn't count. So forget it.