On Discrimination in Politics and the Presidential Primaries

I apologize if I have ranted on some of these points before.

On Tuesday afternoon, Katie was listening to NPR. They were interviewing people who had voted in the primaries and asked them for which candidate they voted for and why. I realize that the answers to such a question are often going to make me mad because people often have stupid reasons and, even if they do have good reasons, they won’t be able to explain them in the 5 seconds they have to give their answer. According to Katie, though, several if the interviewed women who had voted for Clinton said that the reason why was something like, “It’s about time we had a woman for president.”
This bothers me more than usual. Do you know why? Because it reflects just as much sexism as the statement, “I won’t vote for Hillary because we shouldn’t have a woman for president.” We should all be deciding for whom to vote based on how we think they will perform as President relative to how we want them to perform. A vote for Hillary isn’t “a vote for womankind”. (This is the particular fallacy I have assumed upon the women described above.) Hillary doesn’t represent all women, nor can we count her as a typical or stereotypical (if we are honest enough to recognize our stereotypes) woman. Likewise, voting for Obama because “we need a black man in the white house” or for Romney because “he’s a Mormon, so I don’t need to know more” is just as unfairly discriminatory as refusing to vote for them for the opposite reason.
Going back to Hillary, I’m pretty disappointed with the media coverage of her. It seems to be endless analysis of whether she’s too cold and unemotional, or whether she’s too feminine and emotional. Sometimes a showing of emotion by her precipitates condemnation that she’s playing the gender card and speculation about whether her emotion makes her seem weak to voters. Other times a similar showing of emotion precipitates support from journalists and columnists who say there is no harm in admitting that she’s human and that voters probably are drawn to her because of it. Oh, and also all those men were really ganging up on her anyway.
Following the coverage of the race so far has been a learning experience for me. This is the first time that I have really paid attention. In 2004 I paid attention to the presidential race, but not the primaries. In general, I think the coverage is overdone and without substance – like blackened marshmallows at a campfire. There’s not enough time where the media or the candidates are talking about platforms. The reporters spend their time talking about strategy, quoting poll numbers, and interviewing uninformed voters who don’t have anything better to do in the middle of the day. The candidates tend to spend a lot of time revving up friendly crowds, misrepresenting each other’s platforms and voting records (this includes during debates), and managing expectations of results. (“I’m really confident I will win this state, but if I don’t, then that’s good too.”) I have also noticed all the stringing along by the newspapers and news reporters. I mean, they tried to emphasize how important Iowa was, but then when it was over, they admitted that Iowa has never really been as good an indicator as New Hampshire, so stay tuned. And so it continues. I have not been following the reports very closely. In many cases, all I know about a candidate is a few sound bytes and an impression. I realize this is not ideal, but I am struggling with the patience to sit through a news cast or article having to filter out the bias and come away with more than just additional sound bytes and vague impressions.
Anyway, my personal opinion of the candidates in brief:

Republicans:
Rudy Guiliani – He was unpopular with New Yorkers up to 9/10/01. He has a history of family issues which betray a troubling lack of self control. I get bad vibes from him which I can’t completely describe. I actually am closer to his position on gun control than I am to the NRA’s position.
Fred Thompson – He declared late, after the other candidates had well established platforms. Despite this, when he declared he sidestepped all questions asking how he was different than the other candidates, claiming he wasn’t familiar with their platforms. He seems to have little substance behind his star power.
John McCain – I disagree with parts of McCain-Feingold. And his personal life has been spotty, though he has been with his 2nd wife for several decades now. He is prone to hyperbole, temper problems, and insensitive humor. I am with him on torture, and more with him on the War on Terror than I am with President Bush. On immigration I am undecided. I see McCain’s point of view as well as the view of those opposed to his sponsored legislation.
Mitt Romney – Impeccable personal life and business career. He has impressive experience getting elected in and governing Massachusetts and “saving” the Olympics. He is also prone to hyperbole as well as combativeness in defending his idealism. I don’t like his stance on the War on Terror (“double the size Gauntanamo if we have to”) and I fear his stance on immigration is too much idealism and not enough practicality. He seems to be trying too hard to be the “conservative’s conservative”.
Ron Paul – He’s a libertarian running as a republican. He has many crazy ideas including that he thinks the civil war could have been avoided by the federal government buying up all the slaves and then releasing them – never mind that that would be a public program which the government would have had to raise revenue for, which is the sort of thing he is against. I do disagree those that have accused him as racist because of his limited government view that much civil rights legislation is inappropriate.
Mike Huckabee – He seems to have done an adequate job as governor, but I can’t stand him. The Chuck Norris business doesn’t do him credit. He gains points for creativity but loses twice as many in my mind for lowering the level of political discourse below its already low level. Others have described him as advocating “economic populism”, of which I also see some elements in his platform. He also seems to be the stereotypical anti-gay, anti-evolution, Bible thumper.

My vote: Romney or McCain
My pick to win: McCain
Likely VP Candidate: Not any of the other presidential hopefuls. Probably a sitting member of the House or Senate from the opposite side of the country as the nominee.

Democrats:
Barack Obama: Not much national political experience. Sometimes you wonder if the campaign is driving him of if he is driving the campaign. The main plank in his platform seems to be “change”. I presume change in the way Washington does business, but it is unclear what that means. He is genuinely charismatic and when he does propose solutions to problems (e.g. those without health insurance) they seem to be reasonable. He has almost never done anything I perceived as playing the race card.
Hillary Clinton: Too contradictory for me. Too much complaining about the war without any leadership towards alternatives to Bush’s strategy. Too much playing the gender card. Too many irregularities in her campaign funding. Inability to keep her cool under pressure. Too much doubt about her platform.
John Edwards: At least his platform is more clear. I can sum it up as “Rob from the rich to feed the poor.” “Abolish the influence of special interests (except for unions and trial lawyers) in Washington.” And, “I’m spending more for this haircut than you make in a week.”
Bill Richardson: He didn’t have much of a clear platform that I knew about. It’s a shame because he had the most impressive resume of any candidate. He dropped out recently.

My vote (if I were to vote): Richardson
My pick to win: Obama
Likely VP Candidate: Richardson seems likely for any nominee. Otherwise, same as my Republican prediction.