Race, sex, and other irrelevancies

Dallas Blog | William Murchison:

“ Hillary and Barack have the media lobbing into our midst a question of great intensity. Is it time -- oh, yes, brothers and sisters, has the time come at last for the United States to have a woman president, or, if not that, a black one? Forgive me. I can't stifle the yawn. ... The First of His Race, the First of Her Sex -- bah, humbug, horsefeathers, all that stuff! Surely Sens. Clinton and Obama can lose on their own without tottering on so despicable a crutch.”

Ed Cognoski responds:

Irrelevancies? Maybe Mr Murchison hasn't noticed that the first 43 Presidents in US history have been white males. Perhaps he thinks it's just a coincidence. That race and sex were totally irrelevant to voters in election after election, all of which resulted in a white male moving into the White House afterwards. On the contrary, race and sex have been the very opposite of irrelevancies up to now. Race and sex have been litmus tests for enough of the electorate to ensure those 43 white males their electoral victories.

Mr Murchison is absurd in saying Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton somehow have an advantage because of race and sex, that the hurdle in front of them is not a hurdle at all, but a "crutch" propping them up. Nonsense. The significance of 2008 is that maybe, just maybe, race and sex are no longer an insurmountable hurdle. Except, judging by the appearance of articles like Mr Murchison's, focusing as they do on race and sex, perhaps 2008 is still too soon for race and sex to be truly irrelevant to Americans choosing their next President.