美国宪法中的Men are equal(男人生来平等),没有讲肤色,但讲的非常清楚是男人。美国黑人男人投票比白人男人晚,纠其原因是因为美国人多少继承了英国人“公民选举权与纳税人划等号”的传统。要有财产才纳税。但早在美国独立战争期间,北方的黑人就有富豪了。最出名的叫保罗-卡菲的黑人,他做买卖发了大财,成为美国当时的10大富豪之一。1779年,他联合麻州的另外6位黑人富豪发起了(严格说是“接过了”)“没有选举权就不纳税”的口号,宣布拒绝上税。第二年,也就是1780年,美国北方基本上取消了奴隶制。比美国第一任总统华盛顿当总统的1789年还早。这就是为何北方建国前就出了黑人富豪的背景。但从法律上废除奴隶制是第三任总统杰佛逊完成的。美国建国后各州议会几年后分别通过法律阐述,给予所有纳税的男人(自然包括黑人和其他肤色美国公民)以等同的投票权。
You are missing the point. The examples given were typical of the sort of decisions made by the goo' ol' boys club and not a reflection of the entire society's view on matters. You can't simply extrapolate that sort of sample set. Women are very much a part of the political process today as much as the blacks.
Let's look at past elections. Black members of the Congress are usually elected from black districts. In the case of Obama, while he is highly appealing to the general voters due to his charisma and eloquence, don't forget he was elected with strong backing of the Chicagoland blacks. As a matter of fact, most black Congressmen are from districts specifically created since the Civil War to elect black representatives; no such districts exist for women. Black candidates generally do poorly in districts where minorities don't enjoy a substantial population edge. Congresswomen, on the other hand, are not elected from woman districts. They had to fight against their opponents on equal grounds and win. Mind you, Obama is the only black in the Senate, and he's not even a traditional American black. Just for comparison, there are 16 women in the Senate, none black. That so called "breaking trend" certainly doesn't apply here.
Black men have participated in the presidential nomination process for many years, yet they have made little inroads. The likes of Rev. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton have been marginal candidates at best. Why? Because they rely heavily on the blacks. Hillary really is the first women presidential candidate ever. Regardless of the current delegate count, she is still the one to catch in the Democratic camp.
Obama's strongest support comes from young people and Hillary the older. Historically, the young and the minorities tend to have below average turnout at the poll, whereas the older folks have been more enthusiastic.
And that little note on Columbia University is also a bit misleading. There has been women graduates from the Columbia University since the 1800s, especially the graduate programs. True, Columbia College is the main undergraduate institution of the Columbia University, but Columbia also has a renowned woman's only undergraduate college - Barnard College, which was established in 1890. Barnard graduates receive diplomas from both Barnard and Columbia University. It is still a woman's college to this day.
As to who is more likely to win the general election in Nov, that's up in the air. Neither camp has to worry about the traditional blue/red states. Obama is just as assured to win the likes of New York/Illinois/California/Mass as Hillary. It's the swing states, such as Florida and Ohio, that will decide matter. Hillary will give even Rudy a run for Florida let alone anyone else the Republican can nominate. Those 25 electoral votes along with the traditional blue states will give the Democrat a substantial foundation. Don't forget, much of Florida is really the nursing home for New York.
Both are not good. Examining closely, it can be found that the current problems in US started from Bill - salaries have been raised too high to compete in the world.