compared to my good friends, smoka and, i’m pretty uninvolved in the political process.  and i like it that way because (a) it takes a lot of effort to keep up — big shock, i’m lazy — and (b) it makes the nytimes so much more interesting when you’re not specifically concerned about the news.  but i came across this post on jezebel this morning and i really have to say something about it. 

i didn’t vote in new hampshire’s primary last night but as far as i know the women voters there are not part of some crazy ultra-emotional sect that select their candidate on the merit of how much emotion they project before the election.  to insinuate that the women in that state were so overcome with emotion that they “went inside the booths and had a little cry” before choosing Hillary is absolutely preposterous and misogynistic.  how can you claim to be a feminist and yet discount the intelligent and informed women who thoughtfully voted for the candidate they found to best represent their own opinions?  the fact is that the only issue on which women should be expected to present a unified front is that of the equality of the sexes.  other than that basic right, it is our duty as women voters to vote for the person we see fit to lead our country.  and if that is huckabee or romney or clinton or obama or anyone else, then that is where our votes should go.  you cannot claim to be a feminist and then tell me that by not voting for your MALE candidate I am “acknowledging [my] inner bigot and voting for the non-Negro”.  that is a despicable and disgraceful opinion to share on such a respected feminist site.

thank you feministing for supporting those of us who found this post truly appalling.

there is one other thing i would like to discuss today (briefly).  loverboy, smoka and i had an interesting debate this weekend on the electability of an obama-richardson ticket.  my thought was that white people want white people in the white house.  now hear me out: i’m not saying that either one of those candidates could not win, but that having two minorities on the ballot may, in fact, be a detriment because (a) minorities do in fact represent a minority of the population of this country, (b) minorities have historically low voter turn-out (even though hispanics make up 15% of the US population, they make up only 9% of eligible voters and only 6.5% of those who actually vote), and (c) white people identify best with other white people (just look the bradley effect and at any high school cafeteria). 

in short, i ask you: if we want a democratic win, then do we need one white person on the ballot?