WP, pg1: Race and Gender Make Democrats' Field Historic

[DeepModem Mom]

Analysis
Race and Gender Make Democrats' Field Historic
By Dan Balz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, January 17, 2007; Page A01


Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina is likely to be a formidable contender in 2008. (By Kathy Willens--Associated Press)

Democrats moved a step closer yesterday to what shapes up as one of the most historic and compelling contests ever for their party's presidential nomination, a study in contrasting styles and candidacies in which race and gender play central roles in the competition.

At center stage stand Sen. Barack Obama of Illinois, who set up his presidential exploratory committee yesterday, and Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York, who is set to make clear her intentions soon. Never has a party begun a nomination contest with its two most celebrated candidates a woman and an African American.

The 2008 nomination contest that will play out over the coming year is far more than a two-person race. Former senator John Edwards of North Carolina has already established himself as a genuine contender for the nomination, and the rest of the prospective Democratic field is among the strongest in years.

But initially, the electricity will be generated by the Clinton and Obama candidacies. The news media will find the story line irresistible, and Democrats around the country are eagerly anticipating the competition. "Senator Obama's got the magic, but Hillary Clinton's got the muscle," said Jamal Simmons, a Democratic strategist who is neutral in the nomination campaign. "This is going to be a titanic fight between energy and charisma on one hand and money and organization on the other."

There are many ways to describe the differences in the two candidacies. Obama will cast the contest as the future vs. the past. Clinton can counter with experience vs. inexperience. Obama opposed the Iraq war from the beginning; Clinton long supported it but has become more critical over time. Clinton begins as the candidate of the party establishment, while Obama will attempt to mount a challenge that draws new voters into the process....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/01/16/AR2007011601848.html

[MADem]

1. Why, those NERVY Democrats!!! Reflecting the American population like that!!

Will the 'Father Knows Best' party counter with, say, Condi, Colin and perhaps Alberto?

Naaaaahhhhh.....It's "White Guys On Parade" yet again, I'm guessing...

[AlGore-08.com]

2. So... 2004 wasn't historic because Carol Mosley Braun wasn't "celebrated"?

Or because she was only a black woman running against both black and white guys?

1988 wasn't "historic" because Jesse Jackson was only a black guy running against white guys?

1972 wasn't "historic" because Shirley Chisholm was only a black woman running against white guys?

1872 wasn't "historic" because Victoria Woodhull was only a white woman running against white guys?

(If either Obama or Clinton fall out of the top and the primary isn't between an African American guy and a white woman... does it stop being "historic"?)

The novelization of the news does nobody any good.

[Connie_Corleone]

3. The others didn't stand a chance of winning.

Obama or Clinton could win the primary and the general election. That's the historic part.

And, yes. If neither one of them wins the nomination, then it stops being historic.