I know we are all supposed to vote 'on the issues', but race and gender are also issues as long as they remain unresolved factors in personal and societal life.

The fanatic Hillary women examplify an issue taken to destructive extremes.
On the other hand, “When will we get over sexism and racism and look at qualifications?” is a question begging for a follow up: Is there any value in pretending we're past biases and bigotry when we're clearly not?

There is no doubt Obama will lose votes becasue of his skin color and differentness. That's something we are advised to just suck up.. It's odd, then that voting for him for the same reasons is said to be so much more problematic.

If a candidate has nothing to offer except the symbolism of race or gender, the choice can and should be easy. Few candidates are so one-dimentional, however, I think making sex or gender one of many factors to consider is just fine, at this point in history. After all, some people vote for much more frivolous reasons than that. Because you'd like to have a beer with him?

Maybe the real castrati are those who can't admit there is more than one way to demonstrate ownership of balls. when voting.

Of course, you then have to balance those reasons against everything else and then see if it is still important enough to decide your vote.

Anyway, Carl's distinction between appointment and election is very interesting indeed. The only thing I can add currently is that if a certain electoral district is, say, 95% white and 5% black, then there's no evidence of racism if that district almost always elects white representatives. After all, if the district were completely color-blind, only about 5% of the people running for election would be black. More interesting are districts where you have rather large minority populations and yet no minorities are elected. For instance, the South must be, what?, 30% African-American? And yet there has never been a single black Senator since Reconstruction. That's more worrisome.

Whatever sympathy I had has been dissipated by the self-indulgent and logic-free temper tantrum.
Voting for McCain means voting against every policy Hillary supported, so vote as you wish, Sill, but don't pretend this has anything to do with HIllary.

Does that sound like a McCain/Gop operative speaking?

Long ago the democratic party was set to be split apart when the inexperienced Obama was the media (GOP-owned and controlled) doll. Who better to prop up as your opponent than one who is sure to lose. If I was a McCain operative, the last thing I'd be doing is encouraging people to vote for a groundswell idea like Clinton write-in. She has HUGE support and you will see that written in personal, sometimes wobbly, but empowered handwriting in the “Other” box this Fall.

I think people with dark brown skin would be outraged that their skin tone takes precidence over their qualifications…or in Obama's case, lack thereof.

I applaud any person with dark skin or even lighter cafe colored skin like me and Obama who stands up to say that they refuse to be promoted or demoted- either form of racism- by the relative darkness of their skin. That's like like promoting a woman over a man for a job based on the color of her hair and the way her hips have a certain curve that men can never acheive.

When will we get over sexism and racism and look at qualifications? We'd better soon. We're at war, we are running out of fossil fuels, ethanol (from corn formerly used for food) will result in starvation and more wars, health care is a joke or nonexistant. THESE are the issues against which we should measure our candidates.

CRIPES!

When it comes to the real issues that will make or break us as a nation over the next four years, I know which of the three major candidates is qualified. Hillary Clinton.

If I was hiring for a job with the issues at hand, I would ask applicants to leave the race and gender boxes empty, use no names at all and only include their qualifications for the job. Then I could make a clear and concise, intelligent decision on who was best for the job.

Hillary Clinton.

Obama Expatriates: silhouette@suddenlink.net

Write-In Hillary Clinton.

As to whether or not people should take historic racial or gender considerations into account when making their selections, I will leave it up to the members of those demographics. I do have to wonder, however, if a Republican woman of conservative leanings decided to write in a vote for Hillary because she wanted to see the first woman president elected, if Silhouette would be objecting as strenuously?

We should not be promoting race in any election anywhere and realize we've made it to the 21st Century where people with dark skin must take pride in being measured by their merits and not hand-coddled and given kid-glove treatment and promoted without just cause.

If I was a person of darker color skin I would consider this extremely demeaning. The message is racist. Think about it. Promoting a “black” just because of their skin color or racial affiliation is the same as saying that their mind and acheivements don't matter.

*shakes head*. Racism has a million subtle faces.

Obama Expatriates: silhouette@suddenlink.net

*Write-In Hillary Clinton*

The Republicans also have a bad habit of rushing quota black candidate in their development. Michale Steele and Lynn Swann should have run and won lower office before running for state wide office. The idea of quota black like J.C. Watts winning is false. It fails many more times that it succeeds.

Yes.

My favorite third-party candidate is a HIllary Clinton write-in.

Between her and McCain it's a no-brainer. Obama isn't even a slight consideration at this point. I can't believe I voted for him (groan) in the primaries. Live and learn.

Obama Expatriates: silhouette@suddenlink.net

*Write-In Hillary Clinton*