It's Kamala!

[Dill]

(08-14-2020, 09:39 AM)hollodero Wrote: Well, you took an argument of mine, compared it to an argument made on FOX and then you state that those FOX people usually make those arguments in bad faith. I agree with that, but I don't see that as an efficiant rebuttal of my initial argument. It's not on me that Ingraham made s amiliar one.

And secondly, I see this logic as flawed, as stated in my reply to Pat. Maybe not completely flawed, but the extremes of this line of thinking are. Blacks were loyal and were mistreated in the country for a long time and still are now, so that's an argument for a black president. Now sure, there now was a black president, but there are still black women and Obama was not a woman, so now we need to pick a black woman for VP and for president in 2024 (and this is quite likely the reality). She should probably pick a gay VP then, because let's face it this group also was treated poorly by society and the law and still is, and they are mostly loyal Dem voters. When do we throw a bone to the hispanics? What about Asians, they are 1/2 of the black population, but a ratio of 2 blacks : 1 asian seems only fair, and Asian Americans suffered concentration camps...

1. Not on you what Ingraham does; I have been arguing why I would like to see charges of identity over merit disappear from public debates over candidates. Picking candidates is not like picking the best left tackle for your offensive line in pro-football. Diversity in party representation is important because of the way rewards, opportunities and POWER have been skewed away from women and minorities in the past.  Since the late 80s and early 90s, groups and organizations which formerly defended or tolerated segregation enlisted MLK's "content of character" remarks when they realized the roll back of segregation would be permanent. "How can anyone disagree with the best person for the best job?"--when that puts at the head of line so many who have had better opportunities and access to education, and keeps that cycle running. It's also a way a making the history and politics of each specific choice disappear in the abstraction "the best qualified person" as a standard no one can argue against--in the abstract. So it's these meritless and selective defenses of meritocracy that I would like to see disappear from public discussion.

2. You still appear to have missed the essence of my point--Black women have been doing the party's WORK for it, in the trenches at the local level, for decades now--the canvasing and registering and phoning and renting facilities for meetings and printing handouts etc etc etc. And mostly in states where and during times when this was dangerous work. At this point I don't see gay or Latina groups stepping forward with the same credentials. So it's not primarily about gay or Latina or Asian "ratios."

The Republican analogy here would be to Evangelicals and grass roots organizations like Phyllis Schlafly's Eagle Forum, who have performed similar work for the Republican party, sending teams into individual neighborhoods knocking on doors, seeding disinformation about the ERA, and otherwise creating the basis of issue-recognition and identification that the party could then mobilize from the state and national level. Picks like Palin and Pence aren't just about covering some new bases, but about rewarding labor--and insuring it will continue.

We should be past the "why a black VP" and this point and begin dissecting Harris' record as a prosecutor, to find out if there is anything really objectionable about it. I am just beginning the process and so far have found nothing. The most serious objections, perhaps, still need to be brought forward.