Although the United States has only 35% white men, yet it has never had a President who is NOT a white man.  If we cannot mention that there has never been a female, Black or Latino President of the United States, then we cannot begin to redress that manifest injustice.

You make an entirely unwarranted leap of logic in your diary that is, unfortunately, characteristic of many posts about this that I read in the "whitosphere".  You assert that:

when previous "firsts" have happened in American history, people traditionally haven't voted for their candidates SOLELY OR PRIMARILY BECAUSE doing so would effect a "first".  

This implies both (1) that the only  possible reason for voting for Hillary Clinton or Barack or Bill is their demographic group membership, and (2) that those who urge that we vote for specific liberal Democratic candidates as part of breaking the white male monopoly are engaging in this hideous  "color and gender above all" advocacy that you decry.  You ignore, perhaps intentionally, the reality that there are many good and objective reasons that have nothing to do with gender or color or ethnicity to supporting voting for these candidates who are not white men.  

Please do not juxtapose the goals of diversity with the goals of excellence as if these were competing or mutually exclusive goals.  Tiger Woods' performance in golf is merely one example of diversity optimizing excellence.  But closer to home, in the realm of Democratic politics, Governors Deval Patrick and Bill Richardson are examples of diverse Democrats making excellent gubernatorial candidates and governors.  

You seem to insinuate that those who want to elect a woman or a Black man want to do so ONLY because of that person's gender or color.  This is like asserting that a person buys a car ONLY for its color, with no regard whatsoever to the fact that the car provides excellent transportation.  A car only enters the realm of contention once we know that it provides excellent transportation.  Only then do we concern ourselves with its color.  Thankfully, the days when you could buy a Model T in "any color you want, as long as it's black" are just as antiquated as days when would could elect "any President you want, as long as he's white and male".

The fact is that I believe Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for the job of President and THAT is why I urge that we not permit the status quo - the 43-term exclusively white male monopoly of the presidency - to hinder the election of the best candidate we have.  

The status quo always involves inertia, and inertia always requires the exertion of effort if it is to be overcome.  A habit established three centuries ago and scrupulously maintained ever since will not simply fall of its own accord.  

We did not overcome Jim Crow while studiously avoiding the words "white" and "Black".  When you suggest that we not mention the gender and color and ethnicity of a candidate, you attempt to institute a "gag rule" barring the discussion of America's issues of historical inequality and today's opportunities for historic equality.

2008 represents an opportunity for equality and we would all be criminally remiss not to realize this.  Just as equality in South Africa started with the naming of the inequality - that a 25% white minority ruled over a 75% Black majority - equality in America must start here, as well, with the naming of the injustice - that for three centuries a 35% white male minority has arrogated the Presidency unto itself,  legally and by custom, to the absolute exclusion of the women and minorities who together make up 65% of America.  This is the injustice that we fight to overcome, and only by naming it can we end it.

Cross-posted at http://francislholland.blogspot.com.

francislholland@yahoo.com