While I was watching the results of the primaries in New Hampshire on
Tuesday night, the network news anchors repeated the same theme ad
naseum: this competition, at least among the Democratic candidates, is
historic because of the race and sex of the two leading candidates.
While it may be historic that Senator Barack Obama (D-IL) is part black
and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) is a woman and neither a black
nor a woman has served as President of the United States, one can
question how important sex and race should be to the election. The
answer is that they should have no relevance as to choice of candidate.
The role of the President of the United States is to govern the country
in the best interests of all citizens to the best of one's ability and
within the limits of the Constitution and the rule of law. Yet the
left-wing pundits, in their obsession with the "holy trinity" of race,
class and sex, seem convinced that what matters is one's sex or skin
color. These, after all, shape us in such profound ways that we, as
humans, are incapable of escaping the boundaries within which we are
confined as men or women, black or white, or so the thinking goes.
Such patronizing attitudes have a detrimental effect upon the
presidential race because they distract from what is important - the
platforms and issues each candidate supports - and focus attention upon
trivial matters, such as whether a candidate will make history.
When I vote, I want to know how a candidate thinks, what he or she
believes about issues such as federalism, the economy, foreign affairs
and cultural problems, and what kind of decisions he will make. The
candidate must show wisdom, confidence (but not arrogance), humility,
flexibility, character, integrity and a willingness to surround himself
with people with similar traits.