On Hope and Fairness

We heard a lot from the oh-so-prescient media establishment about Obama embodying an ideal. He's a movement, they said. An idea. True. I think that's right. What they failed to see is that Hillary is also a movement, also an idea, also the embodiment of an American ideal, and became more so with every minute of the weekend. If Obama embodies the ideal of hope - embedded deep in American ideology, as he says - then Hillary embodies the ideal of fairness, a no less powerful ideal. The so-called "secret vote" was that ideal manifesting itself. If Obama says "Yes we can," Hillary was saying something just as resonant, just as powerful, and just as needed: No MORE.

The candidates are essentially the same on policy. They just are, despite all the noise on these boards. People who aren't so close to the thing SEE that. They may be smarter than all the so-called political experts on DU.

So, if the candidates are so close on policy, why not strike for the woman? Why not give someone else a chance? Why not pay back the male culture for not only still rampant patriarchy, but particularly vicious misogyny directed at Ms. Clinton, misogyny that left all its usual coded hiding places and came out into the light of day this past weekend for all to see.

Hillary supporters who pretend that sticking it to the patriarchy was not part of this victory are deluded. It was the essence of this victory. Obama supporters who think that that kind of thing is illegitimate politics are similarly deluded. It is the essence of politics, and maybe one of the great triumphs of feminist politics that people finally stood up and said "NO FUCKING MORE!!!!" when the misogynists came out of their dark corners to kick the woman for being a woman this past weekend. There's nothing wrong with voting for an ideal. It is a thoroughly legitimate criterion for voting.

No fucking more.

As many of you know, I lean Obama. But I'm actually glad this happened. The display of raw misogyny this weekend was atrocious. Simply awful. And whatever the specifics of Hillary's politics may be (and I disagree vociferously with her, and unlike many on these boards, I ALWAYS disliked Bill Clinton, and protested his Iraq policies in 1998), Hillary took on something larger this weekend. If Obama was an "ideal of hope" (however vague), Hillary was another ideal that lurks somewhere in the American spirit: the idea of fundamental fairness. The gang up debate. The sneering, joyful press. The guffawing over an instant of emotion. NO FUCKING MORE!!! Hillary was (and has been most of her life, like most women in America) getting a raw deal. And voters said NO FUCKING MORE OF THIS, at least not tonight.

It's a good thing...

"I'm in it to win it". That's all anyone needs to know.

I'd like Obama to take this, I think, but you're just wrong.

And that's why you got blind-sided last night. In the end, it wasn't about Hillary's "substance" either. It was about an ideal.

He didn't, and she won, but that doesn't mean her campaign was ever about anything other than her and her husband's quest to get back into power.

I'm talking about how it was interpreted.

I believe women went into the voting booth and silent voiced a "fuck you" to all of those who seemed to dump on Sen. Clinton purely because she's a woman.

I've been anti-Hillary long before all the anti-Hillary sentiment emerged on DU (I once told the only DUer I know in real life "are we the only two on DU who aren't on the Hillary Bandwagon?"). And I'm an Edwards supporter through-and-thorough.

But I can't promise that after the headlines and media coverage of the past few days, I might have pushed the "Hillary Clinton" button myself in that booth if I were in New Hampshire yesterday

Me too.

was a woman. I saw people happy that the Clintons were finally being flushed down the toilet--hell, it made me excited.

I'm calling myself a Brown Dog Democrat, because I'd vote for my mother's weinerdog before I'd vote for ANY Republican (save the Supreme Court!!!!)

I don't like what Hillary stands for, and I have very mixed feelings about her as a person.

I don't care whether she is a woman or not. I feel the same way about Bill.

There is no denying that an element of sexism comes into the coverage, and the reactions to Hillary at times. But an element of racism comes into criticisms of Obama, and an element of anti-WASP bigotry hits Edwards, and an element of "lookism" has hurt Kucinich, etc.

But IMO what is most important -- especially at this stage in history -- is to look at the contents rather than the package.

It may not.

I think voting for an ideal is voting for a "substantial" thing, however intangible.

The Clinton administration gave the shaft to countless poor women with their complicity in the Welfare Reform Act. It threw single mothers (among others) to the wolves.

THAT's the kind of symbolism of gender issues I'm most concerned with.

Bill Clinton did that. But, IMO, it doesn't matter if the perpetrator of such triangulating and dismantling of liberal social and economic policies is a male or female.

The shaft is the shaft, whether the person giving it to the country and to women is a male or female.