Biden is, of course, a jerk and a joke.  More troubling is this statement from MyDD diarist Francis L. Holland, who apparently speaks for a large section of the blackosphere:

If you think about it, the most fundamental aspect of the status quo throughout American history has been the literal and figurative disenfranchisement of women and Black voters, as well as other sociological minorities.  They could not hold electoral office and they never have held the highest office in the land because white men ALWAYS have arrogated that office unto themselves, sometimes with the complicity of white women.  Women remain only 16% of the US Congress while 1% of the US Senate is Black in a nation with a 13% Black population.

If you define the status quo as "the continuing disenfranchisement of those who historically were denied the right to vote and hold elective office", it becomes clear that the election of John Edwards to the Presidency - another white male in a string of 43 consecutive white males - would constitute the clearest possible reaffirmation of the status quo.

Holland is correct, of course, that electing yet another white guy doesn't say a lot for the diversity of our culture.  The problem is that Holland, and those who agree with him, really do see Edwards as just another white guy.  Are we disqualifying Edwards from the Presidency just because he was born with pale skin?  What's he supposed to do, get his face tattooed black so his election would add to the diversity of American history?  To suggest that he's unqualified just because he's white is deeply disrespectful to Edwards' history of fighting against poverty, big corporations, and conservatives of all stripes.

In another example, Daily Kos diarist Jerome a Paris described the European view of Hillary Clinton:

The fact that she is a woman does matter, and having a female president (elected not particulalry because she was a woman) would be an importnat milestone.

Nice paradox here: It's an "important milestone" that we elect Hillary because she's a woman, but that's not why we should elect her.  Having it both ways, are we?

And here's a fourth and final example: in the current newsstand edition of The Nation, Patricia J. Williams spends an entire article talking about why people are talking about Obama's race:

At a more complex level, however, American identity is defined by the experience of the willing diaspora, the break by choice that is the heart of the immigrant myth. It is that narrative of chosen migration that has exiled most African-Americans from a substantial part of the American narrative--and it is precisely his place in that narrative that makes Obama so attractive, so intriguing and yet so strange.

I call BS, Ms. Williams.  Obama's an attractive candidate because of his oratorical prowess, his lyrical and analytical mind, and his antiwar credentials, not because of who his parents were or because his skin is a certain color.  All the while Williams is decrying the inherent racism that leads people like Biden to ignore Obama's qualifications in favor of his race, she's perpetuating the same stereotypes by pretending that the Senator's campaign is all about his color.  The article is listed on the cover as "Transcending Race," but by focusing on race to the exclusion of everything else, it's still firmly mired in the racial muck.

Sure, it's cool to be part of a political "first," whether it's electing the first black President, the first Hispanic President, or the first female President.  But 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".  Andrew Jackson was the first President from the "West" (which, at the time, was Tennessee), but people elected him because he was a famous general and a rough-hewn populist.  William Henry Harrison was the first President born in a log cabin, but Americans supported him because he was a respected hero of the Indian wars.  John Kennedy was the first Catholic President, but his campaign succeeded upon the strength of the candidate's boundless energy and inspiring rhetoric.

Ten years ago, when Pat Robertson played the theme for "Gone With the Wind" as entrance music for his party's first major Female Presidential candidate, Elizabeth Dole, and defended his choice by saying that Dole was "the Southern belle," I remember thinking, "When my party gets female or minority candidates, we'll do it right."  Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to be happening.  I've heard more commentary about the White Guy, the Black Guy, the Hispanic Guy, and the Woman than I care to admit.

I'm not arguing that the ethnic or racial or gender characteristics of the candidates haven't informed their personal and political development -- of course they have, as they've influenced their sociocultural experience.  But by focusing on these characteristics to the exclusion of other, potentially more important facets of the candidates, we're essentially making a etic characteristics.  But if we're choosing Presidential candidates based on genotype, then we should drop the current crowd entirely and nominate Marion Jones instead.  Hey, she's black AND female, plus she's way, WAY hotter than Richardson.

People ignore the essential nuance of the candidates when they boil them down to ethnic or gendered stereotypes.  Of course, reducing candidates to sound-bytes is a natural process for most people, but let's stereotype them with something they've actually earned, shall we?  I'd much rather have folks think of the candidates as the poverty warrior, the eloquent orator, the four-time Nobel Peace Prize nominee, and the former First Lady.  At least those designations have some basis in the candidates' actions, which means they helped create them and can change them (as Edwards has over the past couple of years).

John Edwards is not a white guy. Barack Obama is not a black guy.  Bill Richardson is not a Hispanic guy.  Hillary Clinton is not a woman.  And Chris Dodd is not a frog (all appearances, and the fact that he blogs at the frog pond, to the contrary).  They're human beings, people auditioning for the right to lead us at home and represent us to the world.  If we started talking about them as leaders and stopped talking about them as symbols of their race, gender, or ethnicity, we might actually get somewhere.