Last weekend, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton marched in Selma,
Alabama to commemorate one of the greatest achievements of the civil
rights movement. The moment was indicative of the historic nature of
Election 2008.

Most election cycles, we’re faced with dozens of white men of similar
heritage, wearing the same gray suits, red ties and out-of-fashion
haircuts. This year, though, there’s a definite aesthetic and cultural
milieu worthy of the world’s greatest democracy. For once, it’s hard
to find a candidate without some social stigma to overcome.

To be sure, the diversity among this crop of would-be presidents is
welcome. But consequently, we’re at risk of drowning in the
superficiality of discussions about the candidates themselves rather
than the ideas they represent. Our most diverse election could easily
become our most divisive.

Just listen. Our debates so far have not been whether or not we agree
with Obama or Hillary on health care. Heck, we don’t even know where
they stand yet. Instead our water-cooler chat is about who’s got the
hardest sell.

Is it the “clean” looking young, black idealist? Or the
not-so-feminine political vet? Who’s more exemplary of their
particular statistical sub group? And who’s more electable? Are there
really more racists in the US than misogynists?

And don’t forget about Bill Richardson of New Mexico. We can hardly
say his name without demonstrating our cultural sensitivity by noting
he’s a latino. What does he stand for? Does it really matter?

This is the unfortunate subtext of our political discourse so far.

It’s almost surreal to think John Edwards, the most prominent white
male in the Democratic primary, might be disadvantaged precisely
because he’s not disadvantaged.

Even Republicans have some stigmas to deal with. Sure, there aren’t
any racial minorities in the field, but there are some prejudices
being challenged. Mitt Romney is trying to be the first Mormon to
reach the White House and to do so, he’ll have to transcend a cultural
suspicion of his faith.

Rudy Guliani has two stigmas to deal with: he’s Italian American and,
more importantly, he’s a two-time divorcé.

John McCain, lest we forget, would be the oldest president in history
were he to win next fall. And for all the talk about Obama and
Hillary, polls have shown that fewer Americans seem comfortable voting
for a 72-year-old man than for a woman or an African American.

The beauty of 2008 is someone will have to transcend cultural
prejudice in order to reach the highest public office in the nation.
But the vice is it will be far too tempting to characterize the
election as a competition between the categories with which our
society historically has been obsessed. Will it be black v. white?
Mormon v. Catholic? Aged v. young?

As a nation, we face plenty of complex problems requiring us to think
outside the box, to forge new paths rather than retreading old ones.
Perhaps the worst we could do is overly simplify the issues at stake
in order to service a debate about our preconceptions of racial and
social justice.

Economics, national security, education. These are issues transcending
stereotype and special interest. All participants in our national
discussion have a stake in the outcome. So it is imperative we resist
the temptation to categorize the candidates running for office and see
them as representative of particular groups and limited interests.

It is also imperative the candidates themselves reach beyond the
narrow definitions the press wants to assign them and appeal instead
to the broader public interest.

Obama and Clinton’s appearance in Selma was a wonderful tribute to the
progress our society has made. But a greater test will be whether we
can transcend skin-deep politics over the next 20 months.

-Corrected 3-6-07