Black man vs. white woman

I've heard various comments by women over the course of the Democratic primary that led me to believe they are concerned about Sen. Barack Obama being the nominee - not because of skill or experience, but because he's a man.

Now that it appears he has the delegates, I can't help but wonder if many of the feminists - whether they say so publicly or not - see the race for president as another glass ceiling they cannot break.

Think about it, with racism and sexism as strong undertones throughout the primary, the Democrats have chosen, again, a man, even if it is a man of 'color.' The woman was not the choice despite what many would say is her longer list of relevant experiences for the job.

As a registered Republican, I don't support either of the two (and I have reservations about McCain as well), so this isn't about my personal preferences. But the Democrats are always classifying people into groups (minority, gender, sexual preference) and focusing on those identifiers in their speeches and legislation.

When faced with a competition between representatives of two such groups the results indicate, to this casual observer, that race differences are not as important as gender differences, as many chose the man over the woman. Even if there were other, legitimate, reasons for the votes cast, I have to believe this is of serious to concern to the feminists in the party who finally felt "their time" had come.

Of course, being a Republican, a casual observer and not a supporter of either candidate, I could be all wrong. But I don't think so...

The will of the people?

Do you remember the 2000 presidential election when there was so much dissension over the popular vote versus the Electoral College? The claim by some Democrats was that Gore won the popular vote and the 'will of the people' should prevail. Bush, even though he won the Electoral College, shouldn't end up being president, they said.

You're probably wondering why I'm bringing this up. I cannot help but see the comparison of those claims in 2000 to some of the discussion and hand-wringing that is developing over the 2008 Democrat Primary.

Aside from the 'some are more equal than others' perspective inherent in the presence of super delegates, the Dems have super delegates who are not beholden to any candidate. They also have regular delegates pledged through the primary system. Sen. Barack Obama leads in delegates and in the popular vote, but there are nine states yet to weigh in. If Florida and Michigan are counted, Sen. Hillary Clinton comes within 12,000 in the popular votes and might be able to overtake Obama in this category.

This sets up an interesting dilemma for the Democrat Party. Do they stand by their 'will of the people' mantra which is still recited even today and insist that the delegates ignore their obligations in order to vote for the candidate who got the most popular votes? Or, do they expect the delegates to vote as pledged, even if it means a contradiction with their currently espoused argument relative to the 2000 race?

They are in a no-win situation. Either they contradict themselves or they change the rules midstream. Either way, the results will give fodder to conservative pundits and bloggers for months.