I recently found myself explaining the U.S. presidential race to a friend visiting from Great Britain. It seemed like a good opportunity to impress her with my knowledge of the candidates and their policies. I could have told her about Barack Obama’s position on the economy and John McCain’s stance on offshore oil drilling as well as Hillary Clinton’s plans for health care. But with her posh British accent, my friend stopped me short: “No, no, no, wait, Shai. Obama’s the black guy, right? Clinton, she’s the woman. And McCain is the old geezer, right?”
This conversation reflects the way I feel a majority of Americans tend to see the elections. It seems at times that even the explosive issues of the war in Iraq and rising gas prices are sidelined. The issues of race, sex and occasionally age have been at the forefront of this year’s presidential campaign as never before.
The Republicans, with just one candidate left in the race since early March, have been relatively boring for a while. The feistiness of attacks between Obama and Clinton and the closeness of their race have made a more interesting show. But the competition for the Democratic nomination and the way it ended have done much more. The way Clinton conceded and the ways in which America reacted to her loss suggest to me that Americans see racism as a bigger problem than sexism and as a problem more worth addressing.
For a short time before she dropped out of the race, Clinton didn’t seem like much more than an annoyance and an obstacle in the way of what looked like an obvious victory for Obama. When she finally dropped out, a lot of the press jumped on her delay to concede her loss and portrayed her as a sore loser. The claim was that by not dropping out earlier, she made it more difficult for Obama in his bid for the presidency. In a way, Clinton was almost portrayed as working against the Democrats. She got a lot of bad press.
But did the press treat Clinton fairly? I can’t help but ask myself, had Obama held on until the end and then lost, as Clinton did, would he have been treated as badly as she was? Or perhaps, would he have been lauded as a hero and a pioneer in getting as far as he had as a black man? It saddens me to think that Clinton’s bout for a ticket to the White House and the historical advances she has made for women’s rights might soon be overlooked.
Sexism and racism are like the elephants in our societal room that nobody talks about. Racial minorities are often disadvantaged in education, business and social class, but women are disadvantaged, too. Men continue to outnumber women in top positions in businesses six to one. Men continue to grossly outnumber women in many fields of higher education. So, if women face many of the same problems that members of racial minorities do, why is the fight against racism seen by so many as a more noble cause?
Maybe it’s because women are not in the minority that they seem less helpless. It might be argued that their numbers are large enough that if they cared enough to gain higher positions in business and education, they could, and the fact that they don’t attain greater positions of power suggests that not enough of them think it’s a cause worth fighting for. Alternatively, perhaps Clinton did not make a good enough case for herself to convince the American people that she deserves to be president and the sour sentiment toward her simply stems from Democratic Party resentment toward her for wasting their time.
All I know is I can’t wait for the day when all this stuff doesn’t matter any more. Wouldn’t it be great if in response to accusations of being Muslim, Obama could just say, “No, I am not a Muslim, but what’s the difference? That shouldn’t be a reason why you do or don’t elect me to this country’s highest office.” Wouldn’t it be great if the president were elected based on how well he or she will do the job?
Shai Goller is an English and studio art major and a designer and a cartoonist for The Diamondback. He can be reached at sgoller@umd.edu.
