Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sexism. Show all posts

Sunday, August 31, 2008

Palin: Upsides, Downsides, and a Warning

Now that the shock—SHOCK—of McCain’s running mate selection has worn off, I’d like to share my thoughts on how this stunning move changes the race for Democrats. Palin can be both good and bad for Democrats, depending on how Obama decides to take her on.

First, the good news. This probably takes the experience issue off the table for Republicans. Senator McCain cannot hit Obama after adding a first term Alaska governor to his ticket. That said, were McCain to run another “Is he ready to lead?” ad, the Obama campaign could not hit back without stipulating that experience is important. So it’s possible that we haven’t seen the end of the experience attack, but I doubt that either campaign wants to go there right now.

The other piece of good news is that many Clinton voters feel as though McCain is pandering to them. From The New York Times:

Some Clinton stalwarts took offense, saying they felt as if Mr. McCain had decided that, for women disappointed that they could not vote for Mrs. Clinton, any woman would do. “It’s an insult,” said Jan Roller, a Clinton delegate from Cleveland, as she arrived home from the convention. “You have to be qualified for the job.”

Gail Collins has a good piece on this, as does Taylor Marsh. The best commentary, of course, comes from Jon Stewart.



Now, the bad news. McCain has seriously bolstered his “change” message. He now has a history-making running mate and both candidates can point to specific acts of breaking with the party and standing up to the establishment. Obama’s change message might now have some serious competition.

The other piece of bad news is that Palin’s selection has seriously energized the Republican base. Today's tracking poll report from Rasmussen talked about how adding Palin has given McCain a boost:

There have been significant changes in perception of John McCain in the two days of polling since he named Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his running mate. Since then, 49% of Republicans voice a Very Favorable opinion of McCain. That’s up six percentage points from 43% just before the announcement. Also, 64% of unaffiliated voters now give positive reviews to McCain, up ten points since naming his running mate.

Democrats still have the advantage in voter identification, so as long as we are able to unite our party, Obama should still win this election. What concerns me, however, is the effect on down ballot races and ballot initiatives. Were evangelicals to stay home on Election Day, and Obama to attract enough new, younger, liberal voters to the polls, Democrats would have a chance to win elections in places where we haven’t won before. Senate races in Alabama and North Carolina are within reach, according to recent polls. But an energized evangelical race might put those contests out of reach for Democrats.

In my own state of Florida, where an anti-gay marriage amendment is on the November ballot, evangelicals energized about the top of the ticket are now more likely to come to the polls and vote for the amendment. Just a few days ago, gay rights advocates were encouraged by a poll that put the amendment within defeat. The poll found that support for the amendment was at 57% with a 4% margin of error. It must have the support of at least 60% of voters to pass.

If the media spends some time talking about how much she appeals to the evangelicals, that might actually help Democrats among independents who believe that human activities are harming the environment, that intelligent design is not real science, and that women who are raped should be allowed to have an abortion. However, the focus thus far has been about her gender and her (lack of) experience. Unfortunately, we cannot count on the media to spend much time on the issues.

Now, a warning. We have to be careful about how exactly we criticize Sarah Palin. There are still some very hard feelings about the sexism that pervaded the Democratic primary. I know that because I myself had them. (But I'm not allowing them to cloud my judgment about who to vote for in November.) Democrats should criticize Palin for her actions as a public official and her stands on the issues (drill, drill, drill, bomb, bomb, bomb and science schmience). Joking around about her beauty pageant background, belittling her as a token (especially when our own historic candidate has a thin resume), and using terms that demean women--such as bimbo--will only bring up bad memories and force some progressives to defend a candidate whom we do not like.

I don't relish the idea of being told (again) that I'm bitter and need to get over the primaries (the former, but not the latter, is accurate), but I won't avoid calling out sexism when I see it. I cannot, in good conscience, sit silently as another woman is demeaned the way Hillary was just because she is a Republican who hates me and things I am a threat to "family values."

We'll have to wait another week for McCain's post-convention bounce in the polls to recede to see exactly where we are, but I'm not worried. This election is still Obama's to lose. We just need to do our part.

So McBush Doesn't Mind "The B Word"?

Remember when John McCain laughed when one of his supporters asked, "How do we beat the bitch (referring to Hillary Clinton)?" Well, his VP nominee thinks it's a joke to call an Alaska State Senator "a bitch" and "a cancer". Oh yes, and the GOP wants to call us "sexist" whenever we question McCain's decision to make Sarah Palin VP? What about real misogyny, like publicly degrading women elected officials?

Republican hypocrisy in action!

Wednesday, August 27, 2008

Howard Hits Back!

(via Gotham Acme)

During an interview with Fox News today, Howard Wolfson sharply criticized Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann of MSNBarack MSNBC.



His anger was sparked by this exchange between Chris Matthews and Keith Olbermann.

KEITH OLBERMANN: Irony upon irony, instead of the commercials designed to destroy Hillary Clinton, [the Republicans] are using Hillary Clinton in commercials designed to destroy the Democratic nominee.

CHRIS MATTHEWS: Those are crocodile tears. And you wonder whether an objective person, either rational or post-rational, would be able to appreciate the fact that that's clear politics--nothing wrong with it. But Republicans have no heart in Hillary Clinton's claim to the White House. They villainized her for years. Their commercials, their attitudes are--you go to a Republican hangout, it's all anti-Hillary. That's their point of view. To now hold her up as some victim of some sort of foul play, of unfair politics, is a joke. But the funny thing about it is, they're enjoying it. Fox News, for example, seems to enjoy it. It's no accident, for example, that they hired Howard Wolfson. They use him as some sort of, oh, little toy soldier waiting on the shelf.

OLBERMANN: Tokyo Rose was the thought that came to my mind.
Howard Wolfson was very professional during the course of the campaign and kept his public criticism of MSNBC to a minimum. For example, I'm sure that everybody remembers this psychotic tirade by Keith Olbermann accusing Hillary Clinton and her entire campaign staff of racism:



What you may be less familiar with was Howard Wolfson's response the next morning:

"We, obviously, vigorously disagree with that characterization, although many of us remain fans of Keith and enjoy watching the show on nights other than last night," said communications director Howard Wolfson.
After enduring more than a year of crap like this...



...and this...



...Howard had enough. Howard, good on you for standing up to those hypocritical windbags.

As for Tweety and the Edward R. Murrow wannabe, I'll let my young friend here do the talking...

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

Hillary's Task

Tonight, Hillary has a thankless task. She has to convince her supporters to get behind Obama. There is no shortage of people waiting to pounce on any sign that her enthusiasm is not authentic or sufficient and they will be quick to use those words to fit the media's pre-decided convention theme: party infighting.

Compare the number of people who would be quick to praise Hillary for a brilliant speech to the number of people who would pounce on even a hint of hard feelings. Which story will the media cover more? That is what Hillary is facing tonight.

Marie Cocco has a brilliant piece at the Washington Post on this very topic.

If there is a political job more fraught with peril than running to become the next commander in chief, surely it is being cast as cheerleader in chief.

Hillary Clinton will be damned if she looks too methodically perfect, too much the purveyor of practiced routine and not enough the cheery personification of enthusiasm. She'll also be damned if she's too exuberant, too obviously raising her voice in unbridled exhortation for the team. She will either be deemed too cool or all-too-cagily warm.

Clinton can't win tonight. But then, she knows that.
The piece is brilliant, well-worth a read. Click here to read it in its entirety.

Monday, August 25, 2008

Action Alert: Tell CNN That Enough is Enough

We've heard it from Ken Rudin, we've heard from Monica Crowley, we've heard it from Andrew Sullivan, we've heard it from Lars Larson and we're sick of it.

CNN should be ashamed of itself for allowing this comment to go unchallenged this evening:



(via Gotham Acme)

This is (at least) the third time that CNN has allowed this comment to go unchallenged on the air. It's not cute. It's not funny. It's demeanning and sexist and we cannot sit silent when a major news network allows commentators to make these kind of comments about our progressive leaders.

Follow this link to CNN and tell CNN that this kind of sexist discourse should not be tolerated by the network and demand that Alex Castellanos be fired as a CNN Contributor!

Be sure to include this link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xji9-AN-35o) in your message.

Wednesday, July 16, 2008

Honey

(cross-posted at Obama--Criticism and Support and MyDD)

That's what I call my paternal grandmother. Before I was born, my grandparents each chose what they wanted me to call them. My dad's mom picked "Honey" because she said she'd never been called anything sweet before. That wasn't strictly true, but she did have a difficult upbringing and an overbearing husband. She grew up as "poor white trash," and why my grandfather married her, I'll never know. Honey taught me a lot of things, as a kid and as an adult, but I don't know that any of the lessons were good.


Sheltered though I was, I learned about sexism when I was a child, and my first experience with it was probably the most hurtful - though not the most damaging in terms of academic or professional advancement - because it was the most personal. When I was a young girl, I slowly began noticing that my paternal grandparents treated me rather differently than they treated my brother. He was cooed over and treasured in a way I hadn't been, he was given attention and praise in a way I wasn't. The differences seemed stark. At first, I couldn't figure out why it should be so - why would I be treated differently when I was so pretty, so intelligent, far kinder, and more polite? What had I done wrong? Hurt and uncomprehending, I finally thought to ask my mother, who I could always trust to answer my naïve, innocent questions in the same way: Truthfully. Gently but bluntly, she explained that my father's parents were children of the Depression and had been raised with an old Southern mentality that men were more valuable. My brother was more cherished, more loved, and more important in the eyes of my grandparents because he was the male heir, and because he would carry on the family name, whereas I, as a woman, would lose it when I married (in the old South, marriage was a question of when, not if). This was a difficult truth for a young overachiever to understand because it was something which had to be accepted rather than overcome; no amount of success on my part would ever make me equal.


My paternal grandfather died in 2002, and my recently divorced aunt moved back in with her mother. In August of last year, she remarried, and my grandmother became extremely ill around the same time. We had two options: send her to a nursing home, or find someone who would be willing to care for her. The choice was clear to everyone except me; they were willing to send her to a home, whereas I couldn't bear the thought of locking her away - she was family, after all, even if I didn't know her very well. I decided to put my education on hold for a year so that I could move in with her and care for her. For nearly nine exhausting, miserable months, I essentially ran a nursing home.


I discovered that Honey was a petty person, and very possibly the most selfish woman I've ever known. Her daughter - my aunt - suffers from a serious mental illness, and she didn't marry for the first time until she had entered her mid-30s. In the meantime, she filled her loneliness with cats. When I was a young girl, she had three: Emerson, Tiger, and Marie, and they were like her children. For years, when that lonely, troubled woman went home at night, they were all she had, and I recall how deeply she loved them.


My grandmother doesn't like cats, though. My aunt had very little money, so she had to use a cheap litter which didn't clump, meaning that the litter quickly became soaked in urine and stank of ammonia. My grandmother was fastidiously clean, and she hated smelling the litterbox when she visited her daughter's house. So Honey enlisted a couple of family friends to go over to her daughter's house one day while she was at work, break a window, and steal the cats. Then they put the cats in the car, drove out deep into the country, and dropped them. The cats were domesticated and de-clawed; there's little doubt in my mind that they either starved to death within days, or were eaten by larger animals.


My aunt went to the animal shelter every day for weeks upon weeks, and then every weekend for over six months, hoping and praying that her children would be there. She still doesn't know that her mother killed them.


Within two weeks of moving in with my grandmother, she had her first heart attack, and I had to rush her to the hospital. Shocked and trembling, I stood outside the cath lab and realized how woefully unprepared I was to take care of a dying woman. Determined to do it right, I learned quickly and thoroughly. I fed her, I cleaned her, I kept up with dozens of medications, more than a dozen doctors, scores of doctor's appointments, and 14 hospitalizations. I learned the ins and outs of each of her conditions and medications. I scrubbed every bodily fluid and every form of waste out of carpets, sheets, and clothing. I was half secretary, half nurse - making notes, taking messages, scheduling, canceling, and rescheduling appointments, typing up and revising lists for myself, lists for my family, lists for the doctors. I was at the pharmacy nearly every day. I spent many nights in the ER with her, sometimes until after 4 AM; I spent even more nights sleeping in a chair beside her hospital bed. I spent days and days - and on one occasion a full week - sleeping in the chair by her bed at her house, either because she'd been experiencing strange symptoms that might have meant an impending heart attack, or because she'd recently had surgery and couldn't walk to the bathroom without me.


Honey was noncompliant, petulant, and occasionally cruel. If I glanced away for even a second, she would try to hide or throw her medicine. She cursed at me and fought me whenever we had an appointment (usually several times a week), and even hit me a couple of times. She expressed her displeasure at anything anyone cooked for her. I hooked up baby monitors so that she could yell and wake me if she fell, and she used them to call me constantly, day and night. By the end, she was hollering at me two or three times a night, disrupting my sleep cycle simply because she wanted me to tuck her back in (after she'd crept to the bathroom) or needed a cup of coffee or a glass of juice. She made everything as difficult as humanly possible.


If caring for her wasn't bad enough, dealing with her bigotry - and that of her sister - made everything seem so much worse. She was a hateful racist and a bitter sexist - "self-loathing" doesn't even begin to describe it. I can't count the number of times I had to hear her call Hillary "that hideous bitch" and Obama "that goddamn nigger". I endured months of listening dispiritedly to my grandmother and her sister (who was even more caustic, in part because she was brain damaged from a stroke she had in '03) talk about how Jews lie and steal, and how Obama is a Muslim and a "high yeller", and how Hillary is a lesbian who only had Chelsea because Bill raped her. Nearly nine months of cringing and gritting my teeth and squeezing my eyes tightly shut to prevent myself from screaming and cursing at a dying woman and her crazy old sister. Morning after morning, sitting in the corner of my shower with my head in my hands, trying to wash away the anger, depression, frustration, and disgust. Part of me hated her, part of me pitied her.


Part of me loved her, too, but probably only because I felt like I had to. It's funny the way some Southerners think - especially old ones. A lot of them are very sexist, even the women. In the first month of caring for Honey, I noticed that she never expressed any genuine gratitude. I hadn't taken on this assignment because I wanted to be thanked, but it stuck me as strange that she didn't seem to appreciate anything I did for her. For awhile, I thought she just didn't like me. She certainly didn't seem to love me the way she loved my brother, but I already knew that; what surprised me was that she didn't seem to love my aunt as much as she loved my father. I finally said to her, "I'm sorry, but you're going to have to do a better job of working with me. I know you'd rather have your son or your grandson taking care of you, but there's nothing I can do about that." All she said in response was:


"No, no, they shouldn't have to. Boys have more important things to do."


Something about that response was incredibly... crushing. My grandmother's opinion is of little significance to me, but the realization that such a mentality is still alive (though perhaps not well) was very upsetting. That was why she didn't appreciate me, and that also explained why she was always so resentful of my aunt. You see, my aunt had remarried when her mother was ill, and that isn't what she "should" have done. A proper daughter would have quit her job and put off her marriage - she would have taken care of her mother. My aunt neglected her responsibility. I didn't do anything special; all I did was step up where my aunt failed. My dreams were unimportant, and my sacrifices were not only unappreciated, but also unacknowledged. I had given up spending time with my friends and family, and I'd dropped out of school for a year. I had put my entire life on hold, and Honey saw nothing unusual about it. It was what I was supposed to do as a woman because all the men were too busy. They had more important things to do.


Around May 15th, one of my doctors finally told me that I had to stop caring for my grandmother. I had largely quit eating, and my sleep was so disturbed that it was doing me little good; I was walking around in a perpetual state of exhaustion, and I was undeniably depressed. The rest of my family had been begging me to send Honey to a home for months because they'd seen what it was doing to me, but I had been too stubborn. My sense of duty outweighed my common sense. But I trust this particular doctor. If he said it had to end, then it had to end.


I know this diary isn't political, but I've been thinking about my grandmother even more than usual today. I was out of town for awhile yesterday, and when I returned home, I received news from my aunt that hospice was being called to the nursing home, and that the doctor had given Honey "a short while" to live. We aren't sure whether that means a couple of weeks or a couple of months, but the doctor said it wouldn't be long. They're going to keep her comfortable. I'm still not sure how I feel about it. In a lot of ways, I know my grandmother is a terrible person; on the other hand, I can't imagine what it must be like to believe for all your life that you're inherently less valuable than others. Just as I know in my heart that I can be any man's equal, she knew in hers that she was inferior to her husband, her brothers, and her male coworkers. She was raised in an environment of intolerance and lived her life in the shadow of sexism, which she ultimately embraced rather than railed against. Her own sense of inferiority fueled her bigotry. She wanted someone to be beneath her because she felt so low - so African Americans, Jews, and other women became the targets of her frustration and bitterness.


I have to wonder, what sort of life was that, and who would choose to live it?

Tuesday, July 8, 2008

Am I Doing the Right Thing?

I've been giving this a lot of thought over the last few days.

In January 2007, when Hillary announced her candidacy, I ran to her website and signed up. That was the first thing I did. The second was a pact I made with myself. No matter what happened, I would support the nominee. I even put it in writing. I am an emotional person and after so many elections of holding my nose (a progressive in West Virginia, enough said), I was afraid that I wouldn't be able to think rationally should my candidate be defeated.

But I’m beginning to question myself. It really began last Sunday when I was at dinner with friends. One of them, a neutral independent and a relative of a Democratic senator, asked me about my feelings on the Hillary-Obama unity rally. What ensued was an intense argument over party unity complete with fist pounding and raised voices. The sight of Hillary Clinton on stage with Barack Obama saying "change we can believe in" to the tune of "Obama" chants was more than I could handle. When asked why the Clinton people couldn't get on board fast enough, I responded, "Why the $*%& should we?"

Clearly, I was not, well, am not, "over it" yet.

What's made supporting Obama a little easier has been the hostility I received from some of the PUMA people. Some of them remain my friends, yet I've been really hurt by how quickly some of the others have really turned on my co-bloggers and I at Clintonistas for Obama. So after the primaries, when some of the PUMA people were calling me a traitor, supporting Obama actually became easier.

But things have begun to change. With Obama seemingly lurching toward the city with no real efforts in reaching out to the Clinton Democrats and with some of the Obama people telling me to get over it when I criticize the press, I feel as if I have no place to go. I have ended up in a sort of Clintonista purgatory, unable to give my enthusiasm to the nominee, yet unable to fall behind the PUMA movement.

Today, I watched Nanking for the first time. If you haven't seen it, I highly recommend it. It's movie about the Japanese invasion and occupation of Nanjing, China from the perspective of those that survived it, the westerners, the Chinese, and even some Japanese soldiers. It's an emotional film and I stopped it more than once to cry. Perhaps it hit me harder because I have lived in China for five years now and I've been to Nanjing twice myself.

But this poem by German pastor Martin Niemoller has been jumping around my head since I watched the movie.

When the Nazis came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I wasn't a Jew.

When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.
If I believe that this process was rife with sexism--and I do--and if the nominee that benefited from that sexism won't stand up for it, why should I vote for him? What if Hillary were gay? Instead of the "cackle," what if the commentators and the bloggers had made fun of her "gay accent"? Would Maureen Dowd's columns had read differently if she had been joking around about Hillary trying to be straight instead of trying to be male?

And how would I have voted at the end of that process? Would I be angry that everybody just told me to "get over it" and line up behind the nominee? Would I be upset if they told me that the homophobia was all in my head? If the DNC waited until my candidate lost to speak out against homophobia, would I be satisfied? And if I looked around for somebody to stand up with me, would I be alone?

Supporting Obama is the pragmatic thing, but is it the right thing? I've been telling myself over and over again that someday my grandchildren would ask me how I voted in this election and that was enough for me to vote for Obama. But I always framed it as, "How did you vote in the election when war and peace was on the line?" But what if they asked me, "When sexism helped bring down the first female candidate, whose side were you on?"

Somebody tell me, because right now I'm wondering.

Monday, June 23, 2008

Soft, Cuddly Wives and Mothers.

Most progressives would agree that Hillary Clinton was on the receiving end of a great deal of sexism in the Democratic primary. This was mostly manifested in the media coverage of her as illustrated in the focus on Clinton's appearance, mannerisms etc. But almost as quick as anyone could say c-o-n-c-e-d-e, other troubling signs of sexism have surfaced in the campaign.

What has been disgusting is that we have reverted into the oldest stereotypes - namely that women should ONLY depicted as wives or mothers.

The responsibility doesn't just rest on the media, which I'll get to in a minute. The campaigns themselves deserve some of the blame as well. Do the Obama's and the McCain's want to play into the stereotypes of first ladies that are only sweet and cuddly? Is Michelle going to quit giving her husband the fist-bump because it comes across as too strong? Does Cindy have to submit any more of 'her' cookie recipes so people can relate to her?

Media stories breathlessly ask:

'Where do they buy their clothes?'

'What types of food do they cook?'

'Which one can be compared to Jackie O?'

We.get.it – they are wives and mothers. But guess what? Both are highly accomplished and intelligent women and are OTHER THINGS TOO.



In a New York Times article covering Michelle’s stint on The View, they further this meme:

Early on, Mrs. Obama was likened to Jackie Kennedy for her youth and fashion style, but lately, the strong and assertive African-American career woman is experiencing the kind of antifeminist hazing that Mrs. Clinton endured in the 1992 campaign when she made her “baking cookies” faux pas.

Mrs. Obama distanced herself from that model on “The View,” describing herself as a mother and not mentioning her law career or her views on policy.


The question is, how does mentioning her career or policy positions make her more palatable? Is the writer suggesting that America cannot handle a strong woman? Or that Michelle’s policy positions are unimportant?

This new focus on Michelle and Cindy’s hair and dresses comes right at the end of the gender-biased way the media covered Clinton's campaign. And instead of letting this go - AGAIN - we should be holding the media accountable for perpetuating stereotypes. If a white woman is strong, she's considered cold - as the coverage of Cindy has shown. If a black woman is strong, she's obviously angry - so go the accusations about Michelle.

While I am by no means trying to minimize both the beauty or personal accomplishments of these women, there is far more to them than those things. And seeing as how the 2008 election cycle thus far has turned conventional thinking on its head, this is an opportunity to change the way women - and first ladies - are represented. If we let the narrative about the potential first ladies converge on the role and status of the conventional "little lady" then we have lost the chance to reframe gender and marriage dynamics.

Friday, June 20, 2008

The Media Don’t Get It

Another masterpiece from the Washington Post:

Since Clinton conceded to rival Obama in the Democratic race on June 7, there has been endless speculation about the intentions of her disappointed female supporters.

Would they refuse to support Obama? Not vote in November's presidential election? Or worse, throw their support to Republican McCain?

What I most take issue with in this article is the phrase “disappointed female supporters.” The media are attempting to turn this group into a bunch of emotional, irrational, over-the-hill feminists.

First, there are a number of men among the Hillary Clinton supporters who have not gotten behind the ticket. The founder of PUMA (Party Unity, My Ass), Will Bower, is male, as is the operator of the much maligned NoQuarter, Larry Johnson. Hillary’s coalition was made up of large numbers of men, including this one. Many of those not (yet, hopefully) supporting the ticket are also men.

Second, this isn’t about disappointment. Many Clinton supporters, myself included, believe that the media and Democratic Party leaders put their thumbs on the scale for Obama.

On March 8, Rasmussen released a report indicating that 59% of Democratic voters believed that superdelegates should support the winner of the popular vote, in the event that the pledged delegate leader was not the winner of the popular votes. Only 25% of Democratic voters and 32% of Obama supporters believed that the nomination should go to the pledged delegate leader if he/she did not win the majority of the popular votes.

That data, many of us believe, is the reason that Senator Obama refused to get behind re-votes in Florida and Michigan. Many of us interpreted his silence, as well as the silence of party leaders, as acquiescence.

Just six days later, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi told George Stephanopolous:

"If the votes of the superdelegates overturn what's happened in the elections," said Pelosi, "it would be harmful to the Democratic Party."

SNIP

"But what if one candidate has won the popular vote and the other candidate has won the delegates?" asked Stephanopoulos.

"But it's a delegate race," Pelosi replied. "The way the system works is that the delegates choose the nominee."

Given that Senator Obama had, by that point, amassed a pledged delegate lead that would be nearly impossible for Senator Clinton to close, that was an indisputable nod to Senator Obama.

Despite the Rasmussen polling data, the narrative in the media was that popular votes did not count, that Senator Clinton had no chance to close the pledged delegate deficit, and that she should drop out of the race:

Here's another first: the press's unique push to get a competitive White House hopeful to drop out of the race. It's unprecedented.

Looking back through modern U.S. campaigns, there's simply no media model for so many members of the press to try to drive a competitive candidate from the field while the primary season is still unfolding.

Until this election cycle, journalists simply did not consider it to be their job to tell a contender when he or she should stop campaigning. That was always dictated by how much money the campaign still had in the bank, how many votes the candidate was still getting, and what very senior members of the candidate's own party were advising.


After the North Carolina and Indiana primaries, I accepted the fact that Hillary would most likely not gain enough of a popular vote lead to convince the superdelegates to support her, especially when the media were declaring her dead. It seemed to me that the narrative was working against her and that it was impossible for her to change narrative.

When the Rules and Bylaw Committee met at the end of the May, I did not expect a game-changing outcome, but I also did not expect the farce that came out of that meeting. Halving Florida’s delegation was fair, as was halving Michigan’s. But giving Obama four of Hillary Clinton’s pledged delegates was a slap in the face. That backroom deal was about sending the Clintons a message: “Piss off.” By that point, it was clear that Obama would be the nominee and that those four delegates would have made absolutely no difference. They did it because they could. Not because it was fair.

Now that the process is over, party leaders are making some efforts to reach out to the Clinton Democrats. Party leaders are now singing Hillary’s praises and Gov. Dean has finally acknowledged the sexist media coverage that Hillary faced.

For many, it’s too little, too late.

The DNC furiously canceled a debate with Fox because it ran the infamous Obama madrassa smear. Where was the DNC when Chris Matthews said Hillary got elected because Bill cheated on her? Where was the DNC when David Schuster said that Hillary was “pimping out” Chelsea? Where was the DNC when Keith Olbermann said that someone needed to take Hillary into a room and only he should walk out? Where was the DNC when a CNBC outlet store at Reagan International Airport began selling the nutcracker? Where was the DNC when Ken Rudin compared Hillary Clinton to the Glenn Close character in Fatal Attraction?

Now they respond to overtures from Senator McCain by reminding Clinton supporters about McCain’s record on abortion and other issues, something that we have done at Clintonistas for Obama.

These public statements now come across as pandering: “Come now, dearie. I feel your pain. But if you don’t vote for Senator Obama, John McCain will control your fetus.”

In the end, the superdelegates had the right to choose whomever they wanted. They chose Obama. I think it was an unwise decision, but that is their right. For many of us, with party leaders and the media pushing their thumb on the scales and with Obama supporters like Jesse Jackson Jr. recruiting candidates to challenge Hillary’s African American supporters in Congress, it seems as though that decision was made under duress. But at the end of the day, they made their decision. It was a close election and it could have gone either way. I see Obama’s nomination as legitimate, and I have no problem supporting him.

I have made the decision to support the ticket because I personally have too much to lose if anybody other than the Democratic nominee is elected. It is not out of the loyalty to the Democratic Party, because I have none. It is not because I identify myself as a Democrat, because I’m a registered independent. It is not because I am such a great admirer of Senator Obama, because I am not.

It may be easy to call the Clinton Democrats who haven’t joined me in the Obama camp “bitter,” “dead-enders,” or “Republicans.” It certainly is easier to dismiss their indignation as sour grapes than it is to address their frustrations.

Senator Obama has my vote, and I’ll be doing everything I can to convince other Clinton Democrats to do the same. In the meantime, I would encourage my fellow progressives to see the Clinton Democrats for the good, loyal Democrats they are and treat them as such.