As a teenager beginning to explore the world of politics, I am often appalled by the corruption that goes on among many of the men and women who lead our country. I watch as my peers give up on our government and drift away from politics altogether. For a long time I struggled with these feelings before reading an article in Newsweek about Senator Barack Obama. He spoke of change not as rash revolution but as a natural progression when things are going wrong and people choose to sit down and listen to one another. I was excited to discover someone strong in his beliefs, yet willing to adjust should discussion and reflection shed new light on an issue. I am eager for our country to cool down and start talking again. I believe we need leaders like Barack Obama, who have a bigger plan for politics. Obama ignited a spark of hope in me, and I am excited to participate in this election as a first-time voter.
Not A Battle Of The Sexes
Although having a woman in the White House would appear to be a step forward in the democratic quest for equality and women’s rights, I do not believe that voting a woman in solely based on her sex would do any justice to our foremothers who fought for women’s suffrage. What would make having a woman president such an accomplishment would be the fact that she was chosen based on her morals and ideals regardless of her gender.
Many mothers would love to touch their young daughters gently on the shoulder as they point up to the American flag and whisper into their ears, “You too can be president one day. You can be anything you want.” But we do not need a woman in the Oval Office before we can tell our daughters that they can be anything they set their hopes on. We do not need to elect a woman as president to prove it is possible.
Though men have historically held the presidential office, I do not believe we should attempt to fill the position of commander-in-chief with a woman just to be fair or to prove that a woman can run a country. Sisters, this is not a battle of the sexes. As women, we tell our husbands and sons and brothers and fathers that they shouldn’t not vote for a candidate because she is a woman. But at the same time, we also should not vote for a candidate simply because she is a woman. Let us not degrade the very ideal that we wish to represent.
Yes, I believe this country is ready for a woman president, but that does not mean that the first woman to run should be the first one to represent our country. This is the presidential election, and we don’t vote candidates in on a first-come, first-served basis. We should elect candidates because of what they stand for and what kind of a hopeful future they can offer our country; a country in which we should be able to tell our children regardless whether they are our daughters or sons that they can be whatever they set their dreams on.
Perhaps Hillary Clinton meets those criteria for you. If so, you should vote for her. But if you feel more aligned with another candidate, then you should not be afraid to vote for him or her. As women, we do not have an obligation to support a woman candidate just as the men in this country do not have an obligation to vote for a male candidate.
I am an idealist and would love to see a woman run this country. But at the same time, I want her to win for other reasons: morals and values I agree with. I support Senator Barack Obama because he happens to stand for what I believe in. What I think is intriguing about Obama is that, though he is black, he does not make that important in his campaign. This may at times injure the pride of some members of the black population, but he has bridged the gap between races. He is a candidate supported by blacks and whites. Before I can vote for a woman to be president, she needs to refrain from using her gender to garner support.
An accomplishment worth celebrating will take place on the day that gender and race neither hinder nor encourage our decision when we cast our vote. Only when we focus on the fundamental qualities that would make a president truly great and get past the trivial characteristics that cause tension between us will we make a great step forward as an American nation.
CommonSense2 Editor comments:
Sierra:
Your CS2 debut is great. Hope we hear from you in the future.
arabeq comments:
Thanks so much for sharing your perspective on this race, Sierra! I myself anxiously await the ascendance of a woman to the White House, when that woman gets there by her own merits. Women do not need to succeed thru our husbands’ carreers or networks. I would not want our first female president to even remotely give the perception that we cannot get their by our own intelligence and carreer choices.
Kathleen Welch comments:
Sierra, my hat is off to you! I should have been so clear, so wise and so articulate when I was a teenager! But I wasn’t. (Clear, wise and articulate, I mean.) It gives me hope for the future. Thank you.
juant comments:
Sierra,
Good article; thanks. Not only do I wish I’d been so clear-headed as a teenager (ref to Kathleen’s comment), but I wish I could be so clear-headed now.
I couldn’t agree more — give us good leaders regardless of gender, race, religion, etc. And let’s not risk a huge mistake with enormous ramifications by voting for the wrong person who fits a desired profile.
I agree also that Senator Obama is an interesting candidate. I won’t vote for him because I’m a fiscal concervative, but I think he brings great things to the debate and gives hope that a successful candidate can be an independent thinker.
I despise the parties because the group-think they engender is counter-productive. Race and gender associations can be similarly counter-productive. I hope we’re approaching a time when our core values can be the stuff that distinguishes us, rather than the rhetoric that plays best for the media and the 30-second sound bite.
Congrats on a good article, Sierra.
JuanT.
stefan comments:
Since I obviously don’t get it, could someone please explain to me precisely why Obama inspires you!
No joke, I just don’t get it, but I hear it over and over again, first in the Media about 8 months ago, and now from people actually discussing politics and most of them younger voters. I am trying to discern how much of this was implanted by the Media to begin with verses how much is a genuine grassroots movement..
I have gone over Obama’s rather brief time in office and can’t find much to distinguish himself in a positive light. On the other hand, he waited with Hillary Clinton on the CAFTA vote until the last minute, when it already had enough votes to narrowly pass, to cast their votes. Neither made any statements about the Central American Free Trade Agreement before that vote as well, which is astonishing considering it’s colossal impact on American workers and these people are running for President of the United States as “Democrats.”
If electability is part of the inspiration equation, and issues have anything at all to do with the choice, then I believe John Edwards is the guy who is inspiring. Yeah, he is not quite Dennis Kucinich on the issues, but I was discussing electability… yes!
Thank you
stefan comments:
Perhaps this makes my point a little clearer?
There was another man, also from Illinois, who was elected to the House of Representatives, then was elected President of the United States only two years after being sent to the Congress.
I am speaking about perhaps the most inspirational President this nation ever elected, Abraham Lincoln.
Yet there are enormous differences between Obama’s and Lincoln’s political careers.
Abraham Lincoln was the national leader of his political party, the brand new Republican Party that Lincoln helped create just two years before he was elected to the Congress. The Republican Party was created with a great moral mission in mind, to end the abomination of Slavery in America. My have they fallen a long way since then.
So I am not suggesting that a person with a relatively short political career can not be elected, only arguing that the person needs something extraordinary to break through… and I just don’t see that from Obama, not even close. Just the national corporate media beating the refrain into peoples’ minds that it is only a choice between Hillary Clinton and Barrack Obama. They have been treating Edwards much as they treat Dennis Kucinich, so it is obvious to me that MESSAGE dictates the corporate media (all television) censorship and this media will continue to mis-lead Americans… influence the election, rather than just be journalist and only report on the election.
I do not intend any remarks here to be interpreted as an attack on peoples’ beliefs, I just don’t understand them and grow concerned when the limited explanations so far have been “sound bites” I heard on CNN, MSNBC, and FoxNews over the past 6 to 8 months now.
stefan comments:
John Edwards understands that those with their hands on the levers of power in America will not just willingly give it up.
That would be a repudiation of thousands of years of human existence!
No, we must fight for what we believe in or it will always remain just a dream of the Founders.
Don’t take my word for it, I defer to someone who is far more qualified to speak on behalf of struggle…
“Let me give you a word on the philosophy of reforms. The whole history of human liberty shows that all concessions yet made to her august claims have been born of struggle. If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. They want rain without thunder and lightning. They want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one; or it may be a physical one; or it may be both moral and physical, but it must be a struggle. Power concedes nothing without a demand. It never did and it never will.”
~Frederick Douglass
stefan comments:
“Find out just what people will submit to, and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.”
~Frederick Douglass
juant comments:
Stefan,
It’s been a while since you posted your question about Obama. Life is busy…sorry.
But since that time a lot has happened, too. Do you see now why I found and still find him “interesting?” Note, I didn’t say he inspired me, but he’s interesting. Look at the unique position he holds in the history of our political process, and the tricks being turned, particularly by Clinton, Inc., to deal with him.
Obama is interesting from several perspectives, but in brief I’m fascinated by the possibility marginalizing race. He hasn’t used it, and I respect him for it. In a perfect world it wouldn’t matter. Of course it has come up anyway; you’d be a fool to expect that it might not. But isn’t the process revealing?
Then again, nothing is all too revealing. Don’t you hate the predictability with which campaigns strategize?
I believe Obama has done a service for our country; and who knows what’s left to come from him. He makes people talk about the fact that a candidate for President can be viable regardless of race. Thank God! It only took how long? Frankly, it makes me feel good.
Let me close by respectfully suggesting that John Edwards is little more than a good actor. No depth. I no more believe that he’s genuinely on the side of the disadvantaged than I believe George W. is evil.
See you here…
Juan