Say what?

Unless you've been hiding under a rock, you likely know there's a big election coming up this fall. Unless your particular rock was in the deepest, darkest, most remote corner of an isolated cave, you've likely also heard that this year's Democratic nominee (almost certainly) will be "historic".

Given that AL joined the stampede of insanely early primary states, I now have to vote next week! I'm almost certain who I'm voting for, but I understand that some folks might not have put a lot of thought into it yet. In a nod to those "late deciders", my local newspaper recently published an editorial that might provide (Democratic) voters some guidance in choosing between their "historic" options:

Some people are struggling with their motivations for how they plan to vote.

Is it OK to vote for Sen. Obama because he is black?

It is OK to vote for Sen. Clinton because she is a woman?

The answers are the same — certainly.

That's it. No explanation for why this is okay; it just is. I guess one could invoke the "obvious theorem" and accept that no explanation is necessary. Immediately after this hard-edged political analysis, though, the DD continues with:

Is it OK to vote against Sen. Obama because he is black?

Is it OK to vote against Sen. Clinton because she is a woman?

The answers are the same — certainly not. To vote for those reasons is racist and gender biased.

Honestly, folks, I'm not making it up. It's okay to vote for a candidate because of race or gender, but it's not okay to vote against him or her for that reason -- that would be racist or gender biased. I honestly think the Daily's argument might have been stronger if they'd just (silently) invoked the "obvious theorem" for the second set of rhetorical questions too! Avoiding the culturally charged word, racist, I'd really like to write a letter to the DD and ask them just how they define "gender biased".

Now I've read a lot of opinions about why it IS okay to vote based on race/gender in this particular election. Though most have seemed a bit strained if taken too far, they have made good points and some of them have been quite persuasive. The DD's argument, though, baffles me. Maybe if they'd taken the time to explain why it is okay to vote FOR Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton because of race or gender, the piece might make more sense. As it is I can't see how anyone would have let this thing run without recognizing the inherent contradiction. It's just intellectually lazy.

Note: I intended to include a disclaimer here about which candidate I am supporting -- as protection from those who might question my motivation in this rant. In the end I realize it doesn't matter. The editorial is sloppy and flawed (in my opinion) independent of who I vote for.