then they shouldn't have elected/selected an incompetent like Bush.

plur

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

My daughter relates being in a grocery store with her eldest daughter who is of mixed race. My daughter said no to something the child wanted and she threw a six year old tantrum and yelled; for all the Black women near by to hear, "I hate you...I want a black mama!"
My daughter didn't miss a beat and retorted; " Fine...but I'm your white mama, when you want something!"
The lookers on, fell apart with laughter.

The point being, the person who get s elected will be elected not due to being new to the scene, black, female, hispanic or other than white. They will be elected by the prolateriat because that person will be able to continue the rule of corporate power. Period. If H.Clinton can give them what they want, cool. If Obama, cooler (being male to boot). There is a price to pay to gain power enough to do any good. Keep the fat cats happy and you might get to feed that skinny dog in the back yard.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Yeah, here's a thought: you're pathetic.

Let me get this straight: you don't like the photo of the half-nude woman, thinking that this somehow shows the exploitation of white women, as if they don't benefit from being white?

And "exploit" is such a revealing term, isn't it? It gives so much away: you think men are seeing sexy things without paying a high enough price, ergo the woman is "exploited".

The fact of the matter is, she was paid extremely well for those pictures and no one put a gun to her head to make her do it. Hell, every model I've met would be thrilled to pose for a big magazine like that.

Sorry, the sexy pic doesn't "prove" anything, other than your censorious belief that men should be prohibited from seeing things they want to see, while you'd doubtless consider it outrageous if anyone suggested that women (or gay men, or black men for that matter!) should be prohibited from seeing what they want to see.

And at some point, you're going to have to come to terms with the ludicrous belief that women have fully-functioning brains complete with their own desires, yet everything they do that you don't approve of is because they were led astray by eeeevil male influence.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Like all magazine covers, the only measure is whether it sells magazines. The articles and photos are window dressing for all the other merchandising. None of the ideas expressed, if there happen to be some, are taken seriously. Sell, sell, sell is the be-all and end-all.

For instance, can you tell me Esquire's identity in politics? It has none, right? That is what appeals to its readers, who also have none.

So blaming it for perpetuating the lowest common denominator pop notions warms the hearts of its publishers. You have proved (as if their bank accounts weren't enough) that they do their job well. Get attention. Who cares whether it is positive or negative.

My guess is that a search of past issues for the phrase "sexiest ??? alive" might burn a pc's brain, as it is one of the cliches most overused in American publishing.

Thoughts? Stop wasting our time on drivel.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I wish somebody would get elected President that will actually work to make life better for working class people --regardless of if the President has brown skin or a vagina. Out of the three Dem candidates the media has decided to take seriously, Edwards has been the only one talk consistently and at length about the exploitation of workers and the need for a President to toss the people a few more crumbs, so Ive been more interested in Edwards. Im a white male from Alabama and dont give a damn if the President is a woman, a lesbian, gay black, she-male, white heterosexual Christian, atheist, Muslim, etc., if they would represent working class people. Better paying jobs, more funding for schools, changing from a completely immoral, retarded health care system to one in which everyone has coverage, etc... the "bread and butter issues" basically are what really matter. Most of the rednecks I know would support a candidate that really represented them on these issues.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am, frankly, sick and tired of race and sex playing such a prominent issue in discussion of these candidates. I happen to like a lot about Edwards, but also Obama too. In either case, they are far above and away better candidates than anything the GOP has trotted out.

I don't care what their skin tone is or their gender, I just want a smart, compassionate, competent leader to restore our nations image. I'm not a fan of Esquire, and I'm sure not a fan of articles like this that cry about continued inequalities. People will always have prejudices, but we are living in an age of unprecedented acceptance and tolerance, especially amongst those who call themselves progressives. Hopefully one day the conservative ilk will come around too.

Is it to much to ask that we drop the race/sex crap and focus on what really matters in the candidates?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

I am, frankly, sick and tired of race and sex playing such a prominent issue in discussion of these candidates. I happen to like a lot about Edwards, but also Obama too. In either case, they are far above and away better candidates than anything the GOP has trotted out.

I don't care what their skin tone is or their gender, I just want a smart, compassionate, competent leader to restore our nations image. I'm not a fan of Esquire, and I'm sure not a fan of articles like this that cry about continued inequalities. People will always have prejudices, but we are living in an age of unprecedented acceptance and tolerance, especially amongst those who call themselves progressives. Hopefully one day the conservative ilk will come around too.

Is it to much to ask that we drop the race/sex crap and focus on what really matters in the candidates?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

"White Man" is a false construct.
Skin color is a result of genetic response to climate over time.
Culture is also adaptation to climate and resources.

If there actually are perks and significant improvements involved with skin color, then why do we have a majority population of poor whites and poverty in every other population variety and culture?

Sorry folks, what we are talking about here is plain old prejudice based on some easily identifiable characteristic, such as size, color, sex, gait, wealth, etc.

It is well past time to get over it!

For proof, all we need to do is to review the pathetic current crop of "white" men in government!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Every president we have had has been white and male. Some few were a disaster, a very few were excellent, but most were in the middle somewhere.

The value of a woman/minority president will be that by virtue of their difference from white male, they have the possibility of having a different perspective on virtually every issue.

Personally, I would like those different perspectives to come to the fore in order to be able to examine them in the practice of governing. Unfortunately, there may not be that many voters who are willing to go there.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

C'mon if we can't read something worth while leave the space blank. This is pathetic. Women and 'other than white' men have run countries since the beginning of time. This article says nothing. Thanks anyway, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

C'mon if we can't read something worth while leave the space blank. This is pathetic. Women and 'other than white' men have run countries since the beginning of time. This article says nothing. Thanks anyway, ANNA

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Out of more than a dozen candidates, one is black and another is female and Esquire wants to know can a white man get elected? That's sooooo laughably lame. I can only assume Esquire is trying to tap into the white male as endangered species meme that resonates with some.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Let's face it - Hillary is DLC, through and through. Having a vagina makes her no less a member of the Washington establishment. Barack is ok, but he'll never survive a campaign for president. Make no mistake, racist elements in America won't let him be president, and if you think they aren't well represented in our government in general and our military in particular, you aren't paying attention.

I think Edwards is a generally good guy, more Jimmy Carter than Bill Clinton, and I would rather see him get the nomination than most of the candidates, but I prefer a true Progressive, and there are only 2 Progressives running: Mike Gravel and Dennis Kucinich. Gravel has good ideas, but I don't know if he's up to the rigors of being president after the Bush debacle. It's going to take someone with real stamina to clean this mess up.

Dennis Kucinich actually knows what it's like to be poor and homeless. He genuinely wants to end the occupation in Iraq, end poverty in this country and make us a positive part of the world community. He's more feminist than Hillary and more in touch with the poor than Obama or Edwards, though I give them both credit for trying. He has an actual plan for Universal Health Care, and he'll have the troops back in this country in weeks rather than years.

The idea that a multi-racial, multi-ethnic America with equality and justice for everyone is a potential "dystopia" for white men is an old racist assumption that needs to be challenged. Losing one's unfair advantage is neither punishment or oppression. Having the same shot as everyone else is hardly dystopic.

Are white men worried? Yeah, a lot of them are. Do they still control the wealth, government, elections, military and the rest of the American power structure? Yep. That's why Hillary is their safest bet. She'll follow all the same rules they'd expect a "white guy" to, while giving the impression that she's something new.

Dodd - no chance.
Biden - zzzzzzzzz.
Richardson - good choice, and a contender if the Hispanic vote flexes its muscle, which I suspect is greater than anyone realizes.

Ultimately, though, none of this matters because the Republicans still control the voting machines.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Bill Richardson made an interesting statement in the CNN debate when he said that Joe Biden would be a good choice for his Secretary of State. It would be great if the Dems would each put together a package -- a Dream Team. Each candidate could say that if they got the nomination, each of his/her rivals would be asked to serve at specific cabinet posts so that everyone's candidates are included. Whoever selected the best Dream Team would likely appeal to the most voters. As Senator Clinton said, "any of us would be a better president than the one we have." That's absolutely true. I guess it's just a question of which good choice we want at the top & which good choices would be better in other roles.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]