Things I've heard:
McCain has a temper...
Hillary is impractical...
Guiliani is corrupt...
Obama is terrorist-friendly...
Romney is ingenuine...
Edwards is out of touch...
What do you notice?
These are all prejudices about their sex, race, or religion...
People don't know what to do when they can't vote for an anglo, white, straight, christian male!
2007-05-23 07:31:03 · 11 answers · asked by rabble rouser 6 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
Sexist people often refer to women as "impractical" or "making hormonal decisions that aren't based in reality"
If you can't see the sexism in this then you are indeed a sexist.
The fact that Obama has Muslim relations speaks for itself... racism.
And many Christians do not consider Mormonism to be true Christianity... not my rules... just what I've heard...
2007-05-23 09:08:17 · update #1
And if you've never heard of the Irish and Scottish being accused of being "angry drunks" then you haven't lived in America for very long...
I do not believe in these prejudices but they exist...
2007-05-23 09:10:13 · update #2
It's sad but true! That's the one thing that really disappoints me about this country. People are REALLY stuck in their ways about certain things. After 200 years of white male presidents, isn't it time to break the mold and consider a woman or a non-white?! For goodness sakes. It's about the qualifications and who the person is, not a skin color or whether or not they wear makeup! We're all human and we all have the same capacity to love, reason, make decisions, feel and help.
Hopefully we can get past that by next November so we can make some history!! :-)
2007-05-23 07:41:29 · answer #1 · answered by YSIC 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
Temper is not a "prejudice" trait.
Impractical is not a "prejudice" trait - though certainly part of Hillary's "polarizing" quality is that people resent a strong woman.
Corruption is not a "prejudice" trait.
"Terrorist-friendly" is b.s. But Obama is black, and for that reason unelectable indeed.
Ingenuineness is not a "prejudice" trait. But being Mormon is, and that is an issue for Romney.
Being out of touch is also not a "prejudice" trait.
You're on to something here, but I think it's only an issue for Clinton, Obama, and Romney.
--
I kind of see your point for Clinton - though the more common sexist attributes are hysterical or emotional or irrational. "Impractical" is a pretty subtle term, which is why I didn't latch onto it.
Re/Obama, people will criticize his Muslim ties because that's more politically correct than criticizing his blackness. Sure, that's prejudice too. I think we agree far more than we disagree.
2007-05-23 07:52:14 · answer #2 · answered by Mark P 5 · 2⤊ 1⤋
I am afraid that you're right. Just for instance, say Hillary is the democratic candiate next year. I think enough people will be too nervous or scared to have a female president, even though she may seem to be the best choice, so they will just decide to vote Republican(white male) to avoid having a female president. Or they will not vote at all. Same goes if Obama was the dem candidate.
2007-05-23 07:36:06 · answer #3 · answered by momofmodi 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
Ron Paul 2008
2007-05-23 07:34:38 · answer #4 · answered by jeb black 5 · 2⤊ 2⤋
What are you talking about?
1) Every person who has ever run for public offoce has been criticized.
2) McCain, Guiliani, Romney & Edwards are all white Christian men.
2007-05-23 07:53:54 · answer #5 · answered by yupchagee 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
It will, I am sure. Prejudice is something the human race cant get over fully. It will be a factor in the election.
2007-05-23 07:34:40 · answer #6 · answered by Hnmgirlygirl 2 · 4⤊ 0⤋
Temper = personality trait, independent of sex, race, or religion
Impractical = judgement on policies, independent of sex, race, or religion
Corrupt = judgement on behavior, independent of sex, race, or religion
Terrorist friendly = judgement on policies, independent of sex, race, or religion
Ingenuine = personality trait, independent of sex, race, or religion
Out of touch = judgement on behavior, independent of sex, race, or religion
Now, if you had heard that people won't vote for Hillary because she's a woman, or Obama because he's black, or Romney because he's Mormon, then those would be prejudices. But you're talking about personality, behavior, and policy traits that have a definite impact on who we pick as leader of the free world. The things you mentioned aren't prejudices, they're knowing the candidate well enough to make an informed decision.
Edit-
Hillary's POLICIES have been called impractical, and because so many of her policies are impractical it is valid to call HER impractical. Tell me, please, where in the following statement you can infer that anything is being concluded about Clinton based on her gender? "Since comprehensive and easily understood ratings already exist for movies, video games, sound recordings and television programs, the addition of further ratings is unnecessary and impractical," said a statement released by the association."
Now, McCain's temper is LEGENDARY. McCain has shouted at people for any number of reasons, including errors of judgment, disagreements on public policy and even how to set up a podium. Since he will be representing America in numerous capacities, including commander in chief, how he deals with tense situations is EXTREMELY relevant. People aren't saying he has a temper because he belongs to a certain ethnic group, they're just saying that he has a temper. And one that he puts on display regularly.
When it comes to Giuliani it's not a question of calling him corrupt because he's Italian, but rather because he got improper discounts on diamond rings, brokered sweetheart deals with drug companies, and accepted money that could only be called a bribe.
Let's look at Obama and terrorism. From the wire services: "At issue is whether Obama mishandled a question about how he would respond if two American cities were attacked by terrorists: Did he fail to demonstrate the toughness and resolve that voters want in a president?" I don't think his family, associations, religion, race, or sex were mentioned anywhere there. They were asking if his policies would be too soft on terrorists, also known as terrorist friendly.
Romney has a problem with a lot of conservatives because he's reinvented himself. I quote, "Incidentally, that’s exactly what many conservatives want to ask Mitt Romney about his recent conversion from Massachusetts moderate to right-wing partisan. For this transformation, Romney has taken flak for his alleged political calculations." In other words, does he truly believe what he's saying? And why the sudden change of heart when it can do him the most good? Being in the LDS doesn't figure into the equation, people want to know if he believes what he's professing to believe, ie is he genuine? Many don't think so.
Now, I don't even know how being "out of touch" is a stereotype, but it's one based on his actions. "First, Edwards' construction of a $5.3 million, 28,000-square-foot mansion in North Carolina made news that surely put him out of touch with Middle America voters struggling to meet mortgage payments and hold on to jobs that are vanishing overseas." Throw in the $400 dollar haircuts paid for out of his campaign funds, and yeah, I can see how a lot of people would consider him out of touch.
Pointing out that something is a stereotype of a particular group is all well and good, and we should avoid making those generalizations. But when somebody's actions fit the definition of the word then it is our responsibility as informed voters to call them on it. It's not making a generalization about a group of people, or even one person, it's making a specific judgement on an individual based upon what he or she has done. If an Irishman is drunk and looking to pick a fight is that somehow not true because it's a stereotype? I wouldn't be saying that all the Irish are drunks and tempermental, I'd be saying that this PARTICULAR Irishman is drunk and violent. Mainly because he is. Don't let a desire to never be prejudiced stop you from telling the truth. I'm including links to various sources that call the candidates what you said, and their reasoning behind it. All is based solely on the actions they have taken, and NONE of it is based on sex, race, or religion. And just to let you know, if EVERYTHING is prejudiced and bigoted then NOTHING is prejudiced and bigoted. Save your outrage for when it applies.
2007-05-23 08:56:37 · answer #7 · answered by Bigsky_52 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Negative campaigns work - Unfortunately.
I, for one, will vote for the person I feel best represents what America and the Constitution are all about.
That AIN'T Hillary!
2007-05-23 08:14:53 · answer #8 · answered by Philip H 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
Yes. Only the person who is not being criticized will be elected.
2007-05-23 09:53:36 · answer #9 · answered by Mr. John 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
I agree with you for the most part. People should vote on the issues.
I am Scotch/Irish...but not drunk atm.
2007-05-23 08:01:34 · answer #10 · answered by Calvin 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋