Voting for Margaret Thatcher, for example, was not a vote against sexism.
And supporting Colin Powell and Condoleeza Rice or black GOP pres. candidate Alan Keyes (2000), etc., is/was not a vote or blow against racism. Edwards, policy-wise, was preferable to any of the these I just mentioned, and he is a white, hetero male.
What matters is keeping McCain out. A vote for POTUS is basically a vote for the who will staff the entirety of the executive branch of the US govt. It's not just one or two people that get in, it's a big crew.
If McCain wins, we'll have more recycled Reaganites and Bushites hanging around, more of that cohort, the sort of Bush policy advisors, cabinet undersecretaries, policy wonks, ideologues, etc. Cheney has been in since the Ford administration, etc. A lot of Bush's team are recycled Reaganites, as Chomsky has noted. And a lot of that crew would find places in a McCain administration.
Either Obama or Clinton would be slightly better than this, not because either would be a vote for antiracism or antisexism, but but because we would at least get rid of the Reagan/Bush/Bush crews, etc., hopefully. I mean,w e know with McCain what we will get. Have you read his page on his website about health care? It looks like it was written by The Simpsons' Dr. Nick Riviera. He wants to change zoning laws to let doctors practice in 'retail outlets" and he wants "more competition, more competition, more cometition," etc. he's not even in the same universe as even discussing universal health care, et. al.
-B.
Carrol Cox wrote:
"So the question: Will a large vote for a Black Man (regardless of how he performs in office) be a blow against racism? That is the case for Obama. [...] Or, will a large vote for a woman (regardless of how she performs in office) be a blow against sexism (without being a vote FOR racism)? That is the case for Clinton."