NOW you say you love me.
Well just to prove you do
Go on and cry me a river,
Cry Me a River,
I’ve cried a river over you.
~ as performed by Julie London
***
It no longer matters whether ‘They’ acknowledge the legitimacy of the growing anti-Obama sentiment among large numbers of Democratic voters, because there is nothing in it for them. Even if the DNC, the Obama campaign, and the complicit pundit class admits our concerns are neither irrational nor imagined, we are increasingly disinclined to validate Mr. Obama’s inadequacies, his vituperative campaign, or the DNC’s incompetency with our votes.
As Timbaland growled in Justin Timberlake’s contemporary reworking of London’s hit “Cry Me a River,” The damage is done/so I guess I’ll be leavin’. And, yes, many will be leaving, regardless of how their exodus is received.
But the media’s preferred storyline about the nature of the backlash –- that it is only about women and only about sexism –- is worth refuting. It’s an extremely lazy analysis on its face: the 18 million Americans who voted for Sen. Clinton are obviously not all bra-burning feminists.
So why the narrow focus on angry women?
Well, it is useful for those who seek to compartmentalize –- and thus further marginalize –- Democrats unenthused by the presumptive selectee’s left-wing policies, naiveté, inexperience, constant race baiting, and his poor judgment and associations. If they can convince enough people that McCainocrats are nutty women suffering from sour grapes, then they can shame many others into voting for Obama, the ultra-liberal Bush.
Take, for example, conservative George Will’s clumsy column “The Prize Clinton Isn’t Owed” which suggests that the great recoiling from Obama is so much feminist sour grapes. He gets it wrong from his opening salvo: “Women, we are told by some people who say they know them, are not amused.” Hey, George? Not everyone who knows Obama is wrong for America is a woman. Women aren’t drinking the Kool-Aid, and neither are tons of men, and they in all age groups, all races, from all walks of life.
But Mr. Will’s embarrassingly tin-eared examination continues: “In identity politics, ritualized indignation about imagined affronts is highly choreographed and hence predictable.”
Oh, I get it: those Democrats still opposing Obama have no principles rooted in values or ideology. It’s all about how we codify our victim status. It’s pretty sad that a seasoned political observer like George Will, Ph.D, can’t figure it out, but most who oppose Obama do so because they have discovered his policies and principles are weak. Shocking, I know.
Will’s conclusions are so far off-base that it makes you wonder if he’s ever even met a woman, let alone a moderate Democratic male.
Opposition to Obama is not about Hillary and what her supporters think she is owed, but about what America and its citizens are owed. We are entitled to have our votes count, for one. We also owed a candidate who did not support Bush-Cheney energy policy, who will not dismantle national defense, who does not drag his children to radical churches, who does not count domestic terrorists among his friends. We are owed a candidate with enough wisdom to know that a President sitting down for tea with Mussolini with no preconditions puts our prestige and power at grave risk, a candidate whose campaign does not leak memos spreading the lie that all his critics are racist and who does not trash universal health care with right-wing talking points.
We are owed a candidate who runs strong in swing states, who even in eyes of friends –- and more importantly of foes, too –- is made of steel and has demonstrable toughness, who will risk it all for universal health care, who understands the threats America faces abroad, and who is in tune with the working class and not in bed with the extreme left.
Oh, and yes sir, all Democratic women and men happen to be owed enough respect that when incidences of hostile bigotry stain the criticism of a successful Democratic First Lady and Senator we are obliged to expect the Party heads forcefully register concern in public to stop it when it is happening.
On March 4, Howard Dean went on national television and accused the GOP of “race-baiting” in defense of Obama…where was Howard Dean when Obama’s campaign co-chair, Jesse Jackson, Jr. claimed that Hillary never cried about Katrina Victims?
Where was Howard Dean and the Democratic leadership, when single-digit IQ frat boys were waving “Iron My Shirt” signs at Hillary, or when Hillary “nutcrackers” were being sold in airports, or when “urinal targets” with Hillary’s face were advertised on line?
Where were Claire McCaskill and Nancy Pelosi when Rush Limbaugh talked about Hillary’s “testicle lock box,” or when a RNC spokesperson called her a “vaginal-American,” or when a guest on MSNBC claimed Hillary was doing well in May because it’s “White Bitch Month,” or when MSNBC’s Chris Matthews called Hillary a “she-devil,” or when Fox News’s Bill Kristol said in reference to Hillary’s support “white women are a problem“? Would they have been silent if Kristol had said after Obama won 99.9% of the black male vote in Pennsylvania that “black men are a problem”?
Where were Harry Reid, Bill Richardson, John Kerry and Ted Kennedy when pro-Obama shirts with BROS BEFORE HOES or GET OUT OF MY VILLAGE BITCH or FUCK HILLARY: GOD KNOWS SHE NEEDS IT surfaced, or when Obama implied Hillary has “claws,” or when a speaker at an Obama fundraiser called Hillary a “fucking whore”?
Where was Donna Brazille, Jimmy Carter, and Jim Clyburn when Keith Olberman suggested a man should beat Hillary to get her to drop out, or when Republicans setup an anti-Hillary 527 called CUNT, or when a South Park plot featured terrorist hiding a bomb in Hillary’s vagina?
Where the heck were they?
I guess expecting the rituals of decency and tact to prevail in America is no longer “predictable.” What a shame that only Clinton supporters feel indignant towards the uncouth boors who dominate civil society.
And why in the eyes of George Will and rest of the clueless media hacks who waited until last month to vet the potential next Leader of the Free World do you have to be a crazy woman to find the above appalling? Why do you have to be a feminist to refuse to unify behind Obama’s reprobate candidacy, inadequate policies, and the DNC’s lunatic nominating process?
Sensible Democrats owe it to themselves to not allow anybody to impose any narrow categories and limitations on their very valid concerns about Obama. We owe it to our future to make sure no candidate or party runs roughshod over common sense and common decency again by following through on our promise of significant consequences for a Party who insists on pushing unelectable arugula liberals down our throats every four years.
We do not owe Obama the benefit of our votes.
