Feminists for McCain
Back in 2006, I told anyone reading this page who gave a damn, and a number of others who didn't, that I refused to vote for a black man because I felt he had been given an unfair advantage over a white woman.
To briefly recap, New York Senator Chuck Schumer had used his position as head of the DSCC to cut off my preferred candidate's ability to raise money for her bid to represent Tennessee in the U.S. Senate, and she was eventually forced to drop out. I was, as a Democratic primary voter in Tennessee, rightfully outraged by this blatant gaming of the system. From that point forward I refused to participate in the election.
For this decision, many people, all of them Democrats, insinuated to me or, in a few cases, told me outright to my face that my ballot choice was motivated by racism. I also encountered a variety of condescending guilt trips, among them the not-so-veiled implication that, owing to my refusal to support the Democrat in this U.S. Senate election, I would become personally responsible for the deaths of U.S. troops and civilians in Iraq. Needless to say, I was not particularly impressed by that line of debate.
Control of the Senate was at stake, the Iraq War was at a particularly bloody stage, and the man for whom I refused to vote would have become the first popularly elected black Senator from the South since Reconstruction. Even with all of this hanging in the balance, I registered my protest with the DSCC at the ballot and the candidate, Harold Ford Jr., lost the election to a Republican. His was the only loss for the Senate Democrats in an otherwise victorious election cycle.
I withheld my vote in part because, first of all, I deeply resented being called a racist. I have a better-than-average personal track record on that particular issue, and I regarded ignorant speculation to the contrary as attacks on my character. Secondly, I would not allow anyone to tell me who I was going to vote for, period. That is simply not what the franchise means, and I could not dignify such a shoddy excuse for a democratic process with my own half-hearted participation.
So it is not without an understanding based in personal experience that I say this to the supporters of Hillary Clinton who, for diverse reasons, are considering the sabotage of Barack Obama in the general election. I mean what I am about to say with all the sincerity and fullness of emotion of someone who truly has been there.
I have seen some fantastic bullshit in my day, but this beats it all.
First things first: you don't even have a legitimate case. Contrary to what she has said, Hillary Clinton is not ahead in the popular vote and has not been for several weeks. The only math by which she is ahead, and in fact the math Clinton herself is using, includes Florida and Michigan but leaves out the caucus states which do not post vote totals. She is not going to convince anyone that she is acting in good faith as a champion of the democratic process when her own proposal specifically excludes four states.
Sure, it might work for a time. But sooner or later anyone who does their homework, i.e. a superdelegate, a competent journalist, or a contientious voter, will carefully examine the facts and realize that the argument she is making is false. In all likelihood, they will interpret it as an effort at deception, because that's exactly what it is.
As of the moment of this writing, Hillary Clinton needs to win 180% of the remaining pledged delegates in order to catch up to Obama's pledged delegate lead. Throw in the superdelegates, and the picture isn't quite as grim: she only needs 82% of the remaining pledged delegates and superdelegates combined to win the nomination.
Hillary Clinton can indeed still win if she can take every primary from here forward with blowout victories, then convince all of the remaining uncommitted superdelegates to vote for her at the convention. This is not even a remotely probable scenario. Yes, it's possible -- but only if Barack Obama devours a live baby on television before the convention.
There is also this, the latest log laid upon the fire by Geraldine Ferraro. As you saw in the clip, this was the example she offered when asked for a specific instance of sexism from the Obama campaign.
"I think all the surrogates that they've had out there, from the black journalists you know, have you read Bob Herbert in the last six months? There wasn't one column that had anything decent to say about Hillary."In fact, I have read Bob Herbert in the last six months. It leads me to wonder whether Ferrarro has even read his work at all, because back in January, long before Geraldine Ferraro herself had raised the issue, Bob Herbert had this to say about the Democratic primary.
With Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s win in New Hampshire, gender issues are suddenly in the news. Where has everybody been?He continued in that vein for 700 more words. Bob Herbert is not an example of sexism in the media, he is actually an outstanding columnist, perhaps the best the Washington Post has in their bullpen. I invite you to go see for yourself. What his fucking skin color has to do with it... oh, nevermind.
If there was ever a story that deserved more coverage by the news media, it’s the dark persistence of misogyny in America. Sexism in its myriad destructive forms permeates nearly every aspect of American life. For many men, it’s the true national pastime, much bigger than baseball or football.
Finally there's the actual cover story for this whole charade. At the heart of this rebellion against the DNC and by extention, Barack Obama, is the charge of sexism. However, when asked, those who lead this movement cite the following as examples of sexism:
- "You're likable enough, Hillary." (Link)
- "You challenge the status quo and suddenly the claws come out." (Link)
- "I understand that Senator Clinton, periodically when she's feeling down, launches attacks as a way of trying to boost her appeal." (Link)
- Obama referring to a reporter as "sweetie" (Link)
- Obama's "brush off your shoulders" Jay-Z reference (Link)
To the contrary, when what is universally acknowledged as misogyny is directed at Hillary Clinton, as in the case of Chris Matthews' appalling comments leading up to the New Hampshire primary, voters reject it at the ballot and vote for Hillary Clinton.
These things do not even rise to the level of insults, yet we are expected to believe that "millions of women" are so outraged by these comments that they are willing to vote for John McCain in November if Hillary Clinton is not the Democratic nominee. One of our own Tennessee bloggers is pushing this line, the so-called feminist website Tennessee Guerillia Women.
I'm not going to tell anyone how they should vote. This is America, and part of what defines this country is that here, you can vote any way you damn well please. To my mind, the right of franchise is almost sacred. If you want to vote for John McCain, by all means do so. Despite the best efforts of the neoconservatives, this is still a free country.
However, if you are willing to vote for a candidate for president who will see Roe vs Wade overturned merely because you feel insulted as a woman, then you cannot be taken seriously as an advocate of women's reproductive rights. If you are so offended by Barack Obama's words that you would use them as the basis for a threat to hold the health and liberty of all American women hostage to your hurt feelings, then you are not a feminist by any possible definition of the word.
I am supporting Barack Obama in this race, but if by some turn of fate he does not win, I am voting for Hillary Clinton in November. She has lied to me, she has told me that I do not matter, and she has called me a sexist because of what I believe. In spite of all that, I am more than willing to vote for her. Why?
Because I am a grown adult, and I recognize that some things in life are more important than my hurt feelings. Sometimes you've just got to brush that dirt off your shoulder.
posted by
autoegocrat at
8:11 PM
|
