Some are saying gender will diminish the status of our POTUS in many foreign eyes.  Some say race will do the same.  Both may have a point, but hopefully not to the degree each side claims.  I think we underestimate racial bias in other countries and generally overestimate gender bias.  

I was part of a group report once in a social psychology class on experiments which showed discrimination can be based both on race and gender, but gender discrimination was much more acceptable.  Not only acceptable to be displayed or voiced, but also acceptable as a personally held belief.  There is much less internal discord and pressure to change if no word (like racism) is in our consciousness to accuse.  Also, women displayed much more bias against other women than between any other group.  Sexist is not a name women fear being called.

One interesting experiment studied helping behavior between pairs which were either male or female and assigned either leader or helper roles. The resulting four “types” were presented with a situation in which a pencil caddy was knocked over by another “type” and they had to choose to help or not.  One of my female co-reporters put the results this way:  “We suck up to the male bosses and like women in subservient roles.”  

The female leader was by far the least likely to be helped out during the contrived/planned event and least well thought of when their helper was interviewed.  Again, this was the case regardless of helper gender.  Females are the only ones which accept; make that “tolerate”, discrimination even within their own group.

My conclusion is polling and anecdotal evidence will be skewed.  Racism hides in the shadows while sexism will be overrepresented. Comments I have heard on blogs and personally indicate a concern our international standing will be affected by electing either a woman or black man as president. As expected, much less fervor and resistance against the sexist viewpoint.

In all fairness the DNP should step up and admit signals were given before the nomination process even began that Florida and Michigan delegates would be seated no matter who won the state..  Especially Florida since it was republicans in control of moving their primary up and breaking the rules.  The party can ill afford to have Florida feel alienated in the general election.  Instead they let Clinton take the fall.

No one thought then these delegates could determine the nomination and I do not think they will or should now.  But to bash Sen. Clinton for trying to do what is best for the party while giving Obama a pass for trying to change the super delegate rules put in place long ago is the height of hypocrisy!  

   Super delegates were put in place when the party decided to make the nomination so open to outside influences.  They were created for exactly the situation we now face, when a movement threatens to co-opt the political party and/or the voters are swayed toward someone who may not be best for the party or country.

 We are seeing the price to be paid for opening up the nomination to the general public.  What is next; a general election for the democratic nominee, then another in November? In all likelihood this will be decided on popular vote,  I only hope Florida's count does not have an impact.  God help us if (shades of 2000) the overall popular vote is thwarted because of a technicality involving (not counting) Florida!  I blame the Democrat National Party for this fiasco and for not having the courage to defend their position(s).  Truth hurts?  Grow up!