Hillary Is My Homegirl

I am so sick of the mainstream media--not the mention the good liberals of Seattle--pretending that the fact that a woman is a viable candidate for the office of President of the United States isn't a monumentous event. It's bad enough that gender is ignored these days (in the eye-rolling "Aren't we, like, so over this already?" sort of way) even as women still have to be better than in order to be considered equal to. But don't you for one minute more dare to diminish the importance of this moment in history.

The fact that Obama is male is far more important in this campaign than the fact that he is African-American. A woman with his experience and background simply would not be considered a viable candidate. He is imbued with a presumption of competence that women don't benefit from yet. Media pundits and the "average Joe" alike have railed against Clinton for her hair, her dress, the sound of her voice, and the fact she stayed with her unfaithful husband. Does Obama suffer from the same scrutiny? Of course not. Some parts of his life are just off limits. He's a man, after all.

But when someone tries to bring gender to the fore, the conversation is cut short--a kind of "oh, you wanna play the hierarchy of oppression game?" swagger starts up. Fine, ok, I get it. But to acknowledge that gender still matters does not negate that race matters also. And, if it's a contest, Black men won the right to vote in this country in 1870. Women of any color didn't get that right until a generation later, in 1920. Women's rights have lagged behind civil rights for men of color in this country in undeniable ways. Sexism is still acceptable in this country, in ways that racism is not - people aren't embarrassed to be sexist, for example. They at least know better than to be out and proud with their racism. Sexists, though, can be as loud as they like and they still always get a laugh from a crowd.

I'm tired of calls of "identity politics" when people of color dare to vote for or endorse Clinton. I'm sick of people chanting for "change" and talking about how "divisive" Clinton is. Did anyone see Bill Maher the other night, when some Republican asshole started pontificating in response to the question of "Why is Hillary Clinton so divisive?" Well, he started blabbing about health care and how she dared to get involved in a "really important" issue and "overstretch" her role...essentially saying that bitch didn't know her place and that she dared to take on a serious issue when we all know that First Ladies are supposed to be planning charity balls and appearing on the Today show talking about literacy. Heaven forbid she has a brain and she tried to get something done.

The fact of the matter is that some people perceive Clinton as divisive because she's female, and because she doesn't know "her place." I mean, the very gall. She's ambitious, keen, and sharp as a motherfucking tack. If she were a man, they'd be building statues in her honor. Instead, they're falling in line behind the newest sexy thing, the dude with the silver tongue who can orate like nobody's business. A sweet talker does not a competent President make.

Listen up, people. We're talking about candidates for the office of President of the United States of America. This isn't a radical, left-wing position we're filling here. The fact, though, that this position could be filled by a woman in 2008 is pretty fucking radical, and if you think that doesn't matter, well, then you don't know shit about politics.