Lesbian politics: Clinton defenders are missing the point

I'm so tired of hearing that Clinton's negative press is due to her gender. As of Tuesday, I keep hearing, "She won in Pennsylvania, so why is everyone reporting on it so negatively?" "She's ahead in popular votes, so why are they saying she's fighting an uphill battle?" "It must be because she's a woman."

(a) the Democratic nominees are chosen by pledged delegates, not by a popular vote.
(b) Clinton is ahead in votes ONLY if you count Michigan and Florida, and Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. All the Democrats agreed they were not going to campaign in those two states; Hillary blatantly disregarded the rules.
(c) Also consider that Obama took the caucus states, and it is impossible to tally votes from caucus states.

Arguing that Hillary leads by votes is not only silly--it's misleading and wrong. Obama's lead is now insurmountable.

Clinton mathematically cannot win, neither by pledged delegates nor by the popular vote. That's why we're pissed at her and giving her bad press--not because she's female; we're pissed at her because she's ruining the Democratic Party by draining resources and distracting from the real issues in a terrible way. She promotes McCain over Obama; do I forgive that? She wishes to lead the Democrats when she does not have their best interests at heart--sadly, a running theme with the Clintons.

No, nothing says she has to drop out; the question at hand is, why would she want to keep going when it's over? It's wasteful, irresponsible, and petty. Every day she fights her stupid losing battle is another day Obama has to throw resources at her rather than at the Republicans where they deservedly should go.

"But she took Pennsylvania!" I can hear people screaming at me. Check this: she was always going to take Pennsylvania, but a while back, people wagered she would take it by a gigundo landslide. Obama narrowed the gap in popularity between them to 9+ percentage points (10 points if you round up). What does this tell you? As time goes by, Obama's popularity goes up, and Hillary's goes down. Now what does that tell you about who has better chances in the general election (especially as the primary contests drag on and on)?

Her loss is inevitable, and the same would be true if she were a dude.

Also, even if Hillary were a dude, you still would have 1,000,000 other reasons not to vote for her. Her foreign policy sucks, she's a monkey of Big Business, she won't get rid of the Defense of Marriage Act, her campaign is in debt, and her health care plan looks just like Mitt Romney's. And then what does she do without solid policy to promote? She turns increasingly negative, both to her detriment and to Obama's. We all know about the ridiculous guilt-by-association story she tried to drum up about Obama's relationship to Reverend Jeremiah Wright, and guess what? When Hillary's breeder husband was unfaithful, she sought Reverend Jeremiah Wright's counsel--and yet Obama has too much class to mention it. Who's running the archly negative campaign here? Not Obama. So let's quit pretending that Clinton is being singled out for her mud-slinging; really, it's just her.

Let's review:
(a) She doesn't represent you, compassionately righteous, honest, and noble woman that you are. (And please bear in mind: she won't speak up for lesbians if it's unpopular for her to do so, and you know that; she has too many handlers telling her to be mindful of the gay-hating crowd. Obama, on the other hand, advocates for gay people in places where no one wants to hear it--and that's important.)
(b) She had all the advantages of a front runner, and she managed to throw them away with both hands.
(c) She's not a blameless victim.

So, c'mon, ladies, let's all volunteer at some battered women's shelters if our urges to defend other females become overwhelming; then maybe we will feel comfortable enough to quit defending $109,000,000 Hillary by playing the chick card.

And now a message for all of us Lesbiatopians Living in the Beautiful State of North Carolina....


Dorothea said...

Being a european girl, what I do NOT know about US politics would fill an entire library although I try to keep track. The news we get over here are maybe not the essence of knowledge...
What I want to say is I'm grateful that here I have the chance to learn something more about you and your country that is so important for us and for the world as it is.
I used to think Hilary was THE woman, just because she is a woman; and Obama is just... a man. Stupid me.

If I could vote, as a lesbian I would vote for Obama.

Anonymous said...

When all the dirt on one candidate is so scarce they repeat it over and over you have a candidate! Rezko, Avery, and Wright (guilt by association) aren't bad compared to Clinton and McCain's associates! As Bill Clinton said: If one candidate is trying to scare you and one candidate is giving you hope, you better go with the hope and I am going with Obama!!!

Anonymous said...

i don't know why the gay community is so hateful towards hilary. I understand that she does not openly support gay people, but from what I have read, I don't think she has said anything negative. Also, what is the bandwagon for Obama, does he really stand up for anything??? he is just filled with hot air and all talk, and everyone is voting for him because they feel so progressive and cool to do it. but he does not have any real action plan. and after reading this article (or part of it because i feel it was so angry and so hateful, and i feel that the writer is ok with writing such negative things because hilary IS a woman and would not do so if she was a man), I understand why gay people don't get into politics because they do not look at all the overall issues (economy, family, environment, etc.)

Paula the Surf Mom said...

I beg to differ with you Anon... I do get politics... I have two children and my own business... I am a surfer and outdoors person... I am a teacher and an educator... and I have a brother(USMC)currently serving his third tour in Iraq, so I do look at every issue; taxes,education,the war,the environment, health care and not only a candidates stand on gay rights... this WHY I am supporting Barack Obama.

The Clintons will say anything they think you want to hear so they can get elected. For them being in power is what is important, not what they can do for the people who voted for them, and they have shown their willingness to compromise what I think is important for the sake of their electablity time and time again.

I believe what is important to me is also important to Barack and that he is refreshing new wind blowing through the American political scene... This is why this "Gay Person" is supporting Obama.

Fran. said...

I agree with Paula.

The Clintons have sold out the LGBT community anytime they met the slightest resistance, just look at the deal Bill cut with Colin Powell on Don't Ask Don't Tell just to keep the popular General on board with him and out of the elections of 1996...

I am voting for Obama

Becky C. said...

Who cares how the Democrats pick their candidate. Parties are not something established in the constitution--and most people, rightfully, find them pretty offensive. If they want to pick their candidate by flipping a coin or in a smoke filled room--so what. If they want to have primaries that is cool--but it shouldn't be done on the taxpayers' dime.

Both Obama and Clinton are just panderers. I keep wondering when LGBT voters are going to get it--there is only one party that has consistently and fully and forever advocated FULL rights and equality for gays, lesbians, bis, and transgenders--the Libertarian Party. We shouldn't waste our votes on any of these other hucksters. The Libertarian candidate is not going to win, but at least you can leave the polling place with a clear conscience


Paula the Surf Mom said...


I feel it is better to vote for some who can at least do a little something for me...

so that is why I feel that, yes the Libertarian candidate may well have my better interests it their platform, you are right when you said The the Libertarian candidate is not going to win, so I also feel that vote for the Libertarian candidate would be a vote for John McCain, who does not have the LGBT community or its issuses in his platform at all.

Ma'amselle Lezident said...

Hrm, Becky, the Libertarians believe in some things that don't totally jibe with me. They'd probably want to privatize or get rid of socialized programs (like Social Security, welfare, food stamps, public housing), and I doubt we'd ever see the days of socialized healthcare for all. Some of their ideas are great, but I think a lot of the "less-is-more" attitude toward government scares me a little.

Believing in a candidate and voting in one is not a waste per se; what's wasteful are these systems in place of superdelegates and the electoral college. Until we scrub those, might as well vote within the most active Parties, at least at the federal executive level.

Anonymous said...

This is a passionate declaration and I understand that. I don't disagree with much of it, but I can't seem to get past the fact that you called Bill Clinton a "breeder." Can you explain how this is anything other than name-calling? Respectfully, two wrongs don't make a right. If you disagree with their negativity, wouldn't it be best to raise the bar a little rather than joining in?