CNN has noticed that its readers are furious at it for implying that black women face a dilemma of having to choose between a female presidential candidate, Hillary Clinton, and a black candidate, Barack Obama. The implicit racism and sexism of assuming that black women will vote on the basis of race or gender was not lost on CNN's readers:
(CNN) -- Within minutes of posting a story on CNN's homepage called "Gender or race: Black women voters face tough choices in South Carolina," readers reacted quickly and angrily.
Readers want media to focus more on the candidates and how they feel about the issues not their gender or race.
Many took umbrage at the story's suggestion that black women voters face "a unique, and most unexpected dilemma" about voting their race or their gender.
CNN received dozens of e-mails shortly after posting the story, which focuses largely on conversations about Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama that a CNN reporter observed at a hair salon in South Carolina whose customers are predominantly African-American.
The story states: "For these women, a unique, and most unexpected dilemma, presents itself: Should they vote their race, or should they vote their gender?" Read the story
An e-mailer named Tiffany responded sarcastically: "Duh, I'm a black woman and here I am at the voting booth. Duh, since I'm illiterate I'll pull down the lever for someone. Hm... Well, he black so I may vote for him... oh wait she a woman I may vote for her... What Ise gon' do? Oh lordy!"
Tiffany urged CNN to "pull this racist crap off" the Web site and to stop calling Hillary the "top female candidate."
"Stop calling Barack the "Black" candidate," she wrote.
Many readers were upset that the story did not delve beyond a cursory mention of the issues.
This isn't the first time this has happened. The Baltimore Sun commited the same condescending offense about a year ago in February 2007, as I pointed out at the time:
Racism Comes Roaring Back, Liberal Style
I haven't seen an opinion column this narrow minded in a long time. From the Baltimore Sun:
Black women face dilemma in Democratic primary
Barack Obama is black. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a woman.
So if you're an African-American woman - and therefore, presumably, a Democrat - how do you choose between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton in what could turn out to be a precedent-setting presidential election?
Does anyone on America actually think this way anymore, let alone vote this way?
"Wait, let me look at my arm to check my skin color so I know who to vote for!"
"Oops! I'm female. I have to vote for the woman!"
If the majority of Americans actually voted by checking their own skin color or gender and choosing the matching candidate, Barack Obama wouldn't even be considered for a presidential run.
It's only because America has evolved well beyond such idiocy that both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have a decent shot at the presidency.
Yet this writer -- Thomas F. Schaller, an associate political science professor at the University of Maryland who often writes about Democratic Party politics -- deliberately drags political discourse right back to the lowest common denominator of racism and sexism again.
Is racism and sexism O.K. if it only works on one direction?
No, it's not O.K.
It's still racism. It's still sexism. It's an affront to common sense and common decency.
It's wrong, as well as condescending, to give minority and female voters an implicit pat on the back for foolishly choosing candidates based on matching race or gender, rather than based on qualities like good character, appropriate experience, and sensible ideas.
Against that backdrop, let's look again at Schaller's opening:
Black women face dilemma in Democratic primary
Barack Obama is black. Hillary Rodham Clinton is a woman.
So if you're an African-American woman - and therefore, presumably, a Democrat - how do you choose between Senator Obama and Senator Clinton in what could turn out to be a precedent-setting presidential election?
Gee, I don't know. Let's ask Condoleeza Rice.
Overemphasis on race and gender, to the point of committing racism and sexism, is a recurring problem with the mainstream left, including the mainstream media. Part of this is the result of seemingly innocuous leftist ideas like the importance of promoting diversity.
As Selwyn Duke wrote at American Thinker late last year:
Modern dogma holds that diversity is one of the greatest qualities a society can enjoy, that it bestows many advantages. But what does this imply? Well, by definition "diversity" refers to differences among groups. Now, not only is it illogical to assume that every one of these differences will be flattering, the supposition that diversity is beneficial implies otherwise. After all, if diversity is beneficial, it is only because certain groups bring qualities or strengths to the table that others do not. And, if a given group possesses a certain unique strength, then other groups are wanting in that area relative to it. . . . .
So, ironically, despite the fact that the diversity dogmatists would eschew stereotyping, a version of it imbues their ideology.
As I added in November, the push for diversity from the left is thus the flip side of the coin of stereotyping.:
The insight that stereotyping and promoting diversity are two sides of the same coin helps explain many things. It helps explain why, to some degree, racial and gender stereotyping are necessary to the modern cultural left. To advance and nurture certain cultures or demographic groups for the sake of diversity, one must draw distinctions between at least two or more cultures or groups, make an extra effort to advance and welcome at least one of those specific cultures or groups, and (to that same degree) shortchange at least one other culture or group.
The diversity advocates would argue that the amount of time, attention, or resources taken away from one culture or group in order to advance another culture or group in the name of diversity is not too great. But here the term "shortchange" is an apt one. Like a dishonest shopkeeper who steals a few cents here, a few cents there, a society can get away with shortchanging some of its people for a while, but the cumultative effect may be substantial. Besides, each act of petty theft is dishonorable and deleterious in itself. So it is with petty favoritism. A truly healthy, egalitarian society will have none of that.
The diversity advocates would agree, but would argue that the scales of justice have been tipped so heavily to one side for so long that they must necessarily put their thumbs firmly on one side of the scale to begin to restore a semblance of balance.
The problem is that nobody calls it "justice" when they see a thumb on one side of a balance. All they see is that effort doesn't matter and the outcome is a foregone conclusion.
CNN and others in the mainstream media want to put black women in neat little race-defined, gender-defined box: They will vote for Barack Obama or Hillary Clinton -- but not for John Edwards or Mitt Romeny or Ron Paul or Fred Thompson.
CNN expects black women to vote on the basis of the vary traits Martin Luther King, Jr. asked all Americans to rise above. CNN assumes that black women will vote based on the color of a man's skin, not the content of his character. The assumption is insulting and unworthy.
Update: Linked at Memorandum, where you'll find more on this subject (as of early on Tuesday 1/22/08)
Samuel Huffman (20) saw Marguerite Jones (82) tipped over on her motorized wheel-chair lying on train tracks at a crossing in Lodi, California. A train was coming. He jumped out of his vehicle, ran to her, picked her up, and stepped back from the train. It missed them by 3 feet. The engineer was sure he had hit them. The wheel-chair was destroyed. 
Her name is Monica Fernandez, a former Venezuelan judge who was shot on Jan 4, 2008, shortly after being named by the Chavez regime as an enemy. She and her fiance suffered multiple gunshot wounds, but both survived. She quit the bench because of government interference with judicial independence. She now works for the 
Recent Comments