Let's not play the gender card, or the race card, please. Really, this race has become all about labels. White rich middle-aged men with political connections should not have to fear the stereotypes associated with their kind, and constantly qualify their abilities in order to be voted for in a general election. Is it their fault that history has given them the reputation of abusing their genetically endowed strength over the "weaker sex"? Is it this one white male candidate that himself glazed or Windex-ed the top surface of the glass ceiling? Is it fair that we judge him from our positions decidedly below his crystalline fortress, which was surely not of his personal craftsmanship, though he enjoys it's relative bullet-proof security none-the-less?
Did you hear him campaigning last night? With the vigor in his voice, and his tepid inability to modulate his deep and subtle male voice? Ah - but was it really his voice, or just a projection of what we wanted to hear from a strong white male candidate? God forbid he sounds the least bit effeminate.
What about the white male votes? Can he possibly hold onto his own strong group of supporters, or will they bail out in fear of seeming to merely vote for someone like them? (but they may stay too - white males don't want to seem anything close to a fickle female). Although, did you see how he bench pressed all those weights the other day? - you know, while eating pizza and beer and watching the football playoffs? Something says he's playing to his base. Polls have shown America is more ready (again) to elect a straight white male than any other race/gender/orientation combination.
Oh, and did you see what he was wearing yesterday in Michigan? You know, the dark navy suit, and squeaky clean shoes, which although snappy, he would never be able to tell you the brand name or the style? And that red tie -- it was obviously tied by his wife, because the knot was so perfect, there's no way he did that in a mirror. (Both the lack of shoe knowledge and wife-tied tie are very affirming proofs of his heterosexuality, don't you think?)
Everyone especially enjoyed when he got up the courage to invoke the memory of great white male leaders of the past, in his speech last year - the capstone of his run for presidential candidacy. It actually took him about three days just to get through the list of well-recognized white male leaders throughout history - and he was only naming the big shots (usually of Western descent). Around Napoleon, he faltered for a moment, but forged ahead. Really, his candidacy is quite "historical" itself, don't you think? I mean, he'll be the first white male president to run completely on the notion that his white maleness will break boundaries and ensure a stable and happy future for Americans, and boast wide appeal throughout the international community.
The leaders of nations all over the world will see America's true vision for the future through his highly skilled eyes and completely vanilla outlook on life. His ability to mesh with the Washingtonian old-boy atmosphere will suit his presidency beautifully, and lots of "stuff" will get passed.
His name, his face, his genitalia - they all fit perfectly into the political mix, and why should he be blamed for that? You'd never confuse him with a terrorist or as a fluffy pushover incapable of leading a country in time of war.
But some ask, does this white male candidate have too much strength of character? Is he too calculating? Should we abhor his healthy respect for using Kenny G to woo women voters and his ability to get Springsteen to play at his rallies? Should be scared, and tack onto his run for president that all the worst management disasters in our economy's history (e.g. Enron) have been caused primarily by middle aged white men? Or that his race/gender/orientation group has tried to bar others from voting (ex. Jim Crow laws), or participating in the armed forces (don't ask, don't tell), or even certain sports (ex. creating "separate but equal" professional teams for women that are far from equal)?
Who would listen to or respect a candidate with such traditions and baggage?
Dare we ask it? Are we really ready for another white, heterosexual, god-fearing male president? I mean, 217 years of status quo is truly unsustainable for much longer. Even if the country is ready, other white males are asking, is he truly white enough? And regardless of whether or not his genealogy is 100% white, we don't even know if this candidate was brought up to understand the idiosyncrasies of the white community, since he's been spending so much time campaigning in "other neighborhoods" for such a longer time.
These are important questions to ask of him, because they trump all discussion of his platforms and experience, and ability to lead the country, don't you think?
** If you find this theoretical discussion completely asinine and absolutely besides the point, then you also must understand the necessity of stopping these completely irrelevant discussions on race, gender, orientation, etc. Because if you aren't considering, or take for granted the baggage that comes with the run-of-the-mill white male candidates, you shouldn't be doing any different for any others. The fact that the above statements are never made proves that the group is fully established in the political arena. The fact that we can't stop talking about "is America ready for a (blank) president" means that we truly haven't lifted ourselves above the equality line. Disgusting.