Some Final Notes on the Campaign, National Edition

Sami asks an intriguing question in a comment below. He asks whether any of these women exist, these women who purportedly will not vote for Obama because he beat Hillary and because of the sexism of the campaign, but will rather vote for McCain. Frank Rich argued in his column yesterday that these women do not exist. Or rather, that the Democrats need not fear that, by November, these women will not have come around. And I think he's right. The women who are fiercely loyal to Clinton are also fiercely loyal to reproductive rights, and feel strongly against the war and for the environment. So at the end of the day, they will vote for Obama or stay home. The stay-at-homes may, in the end, be a small enough part of the liberal base not to affect the election.

However, they are a very vocal minority. Today's example is the "outrage" over Obama hiring Patti Solis Doyle. The WaPo reports Clinton insiders feel "shock" and "a slap in the face" over this move, supposedly intended to signal that he will definitely not be considering Clinton for the veep slot. Last week, the NYT reported that Clinton donors are waiting-and-seeing, for I don't know what. (one commentator pointed out that as soon as the big donors realize that their precious dreamed-of ambassadorships are slipping way if they don't step up, they will get on board).

What do these things mean? It means that there is a group of Hillary supporters who cannot shake their sense of entitlement about Clinton's candidacy, and feel the need to vent it publicly in a way that can only be described, in a sexist way, as a hissy fit. (While the phrase hissy fits is "gendered", I don't think that the act of throwing these public tantrums are the sole terrain of the white women who support Hillary. But I will save my Baby Boomer rant for a separate post).

Let me back up a little here and tell you that last Friday, Mr. Scob and I saw Susan Estrich speak. Estrich is the author of a book The Case for Hillary Clinton (which is discounted at Amazon down to $7.99). Since Estrich herself was pretty indignant that the media had highlighted such petty details as Hillary's voice and style of dress, I won't describe hers, except to say that a) Jackie Mason called, and he wants his schtick back and b) she never met a Marlboro Light she didn't smoke, I think. Anyway. The woman is one of the most accomplished public intellectuals in the country and hinted ever so slightly that she actually has a more nuanced view of gender in America than she let on, BUT I completely disagreed with her on 96% of what she was talking about.

Specifically, she is still aggrieved by the fact that there are only a few Fortune 500 CEOs who are women, and that women are still a minority in the partnerships of major law firms, and there are only 12 female senators, and that worst of all, we still need to wait for a woman POTUS. This is all predicated on a belief that the world would be a more just, kinder, better run and more equitable place if women were in charge. I happen to not agree with that underlying assumption but putting it aside, since neither of us have been able to test our hypothesis, she is basically saying this: If only all of the people in charge had certain physical attributes, the world would be a better place. Sorry to be so dramatic, but how is this different from eugenics, or Nazi anti-semitism or any other racist system? I don't support the status quo, but I also don't see how gender characteristics alone will change society.

Of course, I am not sure that Susan Estrich or Hillary Clinton want to dramatically change society. They want to change the social order - so that women will have the power. But they don't want particularly to upend the hierarchical model. Estrich said something particularly telling (imagine this shouted through gravel): "Well, sure, it's all equal at the bottom!" Actually, its not. Its an intense pecking order "at the bottom", where everyone is trying to reassure themselves that they are not, in fact, at the bottom, by shitting on other people. Racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, are much more pronounced "at the bottom". It's "at the bottom" where you really feel what it means to make 63 female cents on the male-earned dollar.

And so yeah, Sam, I do think there are women who exist who think that somehow its more in their interest to either vote with the political elite or withhold their own power in protest against interests of others. Five months is a long time, of course, and by November these folks will remember what their broader values are, but they won't like it. This was supposed to be their election and now it isn't and they are going to pout.

Fight for Your Right to Birdie

Okay, I am totally down with the recent Cal Supremes ruling that domestic partners are entitled to the same discounts afforded to married couples, but since when is golfing a "human right"? Sooth the plaintiff in the recent suit that permits her partner to golf for free just like a married spouse at their country club: "We aren't activists, we aren't politically charged. We just wanted to play golf together and we just really felt we had every human right to do that."

ARGH!! Along with the whole Masters battle about women playing at Augusta (Michelle Wei will walk in next year, which is so third - or is it fourth? - wave feminist), this idea that our human rights battles occur on the golf course makes me sick. I recognize that this is not the most cutting commentary ever, but could we get a friggin' injustice up in here, please?