The Selfish Gene Is Female
With apologies to Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene), I have to point out a noticeable selfishness on the part of some Democratic women voters. When Hillary Clinton declared she was "in it to win", many women around the country felt a rush of pride and hope. As Senator Clinton progressed throughout the primary season, she galvanized women all over the country, who came out to work for her and vote for her.
But now that Clinton is not going to be the nominee of the Democratic party, we are hearing a terrible moaning and whining on the part of Clinton's women supporters, even to the point that some are saying they will not vote for Obama in the Fall. As much as many of us would have liked to see a woman President, it has become apparent that to insist on a woman candidate is mainly about "us" not about what the majority of Democratic voters may want or need. It is selfish of us to insist on a Clinton victory, and appalling to hear such women leaders as Geraldine Ferraro implying she might not vote for Obama because she is so disappointed that Hillary cannot win. A McCain victory would be anathema to the causes that Hillary Clinton has always supported like choice, a repudiation of No Child Left Behind, health care for all, and women's rights.
Selfish women like the ones who are grousing about Hillary's loss are precariously close to embarrassing our entire gender. If we can fight for a nomination as good or better than any man (and Hillary has fought as hard as any man would or could), then we ought to be able to lose as good or better than a man. That is, losing without pouting, without recriminations, without blaming -- the media, our opponent, men, etc. I so want women voters and Hillary Clinton to be exemplary losers. There is nothing to be gained now by this complaining and finger pointing. It has been over for months, and insisting on having Clinton fight to the finish is not only somewhat unique in political campaigns (most candidates bow out long before the so-called 'end'), it has been undoubtedly damaging to the fight against McCain in the Fall.
Clinton's argument that she can still win, as she has been proclaiming on the campaign trail for weeks, is completely incomprehensible to anyone who can count and dishonest to those who cannot. In order to overturn the long tradition of counting "delegates" as the measure of who is the Democratic nominee, Clinton would have to do a number of very damaging things -- to herself, her supporters and to the Democratic party. She would have to overturn an agreement she herself made not to campaign or count Michigan and Florida's votes; she would have to overturn the concept of using pledged delegates as the metric for victory and replace it with "popular vote"; she would have to convince 75 to 80% of superdelegates to change their votes or vote for her because of her version of an electoral map metric -- alienating not only the women who support Obama, but all of the other Obama supporters, who are more than half of the Democratic party at this point. Would that victory be worthwhile? Would that victory be a feminist victory? What would we have proved? Only that women are the most selfish of all voters.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
I have wondered myself how will supporters react when the dust settles and if He or She is not chosen as our Parties nominee.
“McCain or NO Vote at all is all that I hear from both sides”.
No matter the outcome of the primary process, how does the nominee tell their supporters that we are Democrats first?
This is the true test of our candidates that run for public office. How they use the gains of amalgamate support, no matter what the minority or majority. This demonstrates to the voting citizens how their achievements strengthen the Democrats Party in Victory or Defeat.
This is what makes the Democratic Party stronger, this is how we shatter all the barriers and this is how we enforce the words of the Constitution that We the People Can Make a Difference.
This is only selfish of us to think that either Senator Clinton or Senator Obama completed this process that has included us the supporters and us the American public for gender, racial or deserved gains.
This election will change forever the path on which this country embarks and will be a turning point of prosperity and openness that our country and citizens have been denied.
I have been to quiet as the pages of history have been written and look forward in the fact that I will have a hand or a voice in the next chapter that is to be.
We are not selfish; We all just want to be Heard!
Hillary is happy to get votes by women because she is a woman. She is also very happy to get votes by white people based on her whiteness.
As a feminist I find it embarassing to watch her now behave this way. We have known really since Super Tuesday that the math was against her and it has been obvious since North Carolina that its over.
After all the bragging about her testicular fortitude and "balls" she needs to be bigger than this while there is still time to make her legacy one of strength and grace not give in to the feminist-as-diva schtick who are now going into drama mode as women scorned.
Just like many of HER supporters did not vote for her simply because she is female or white many others chose to vote for Obama not out of sexism against Hillary or because he is black.
It is hard being a path breaker. She has been one. Close it out with dignity.
this is completely unfair. she has fought for every vote and has not failed to campaign for african american votes. she went to NC, where like in KY, 21% of the electorate also said that the race of the candidate was important to them. as did a similar percentage in GA. and in both states, those who believed that race was important voted overwhelmingly for Obama. She went to the state of the black union event, whereas Obama stayed home.
the only one who has refused to campaign for a demographic he thought he would lose is Obama, who failed miserably to campaign in WVA and KY and now his surrogates complain about the white racists. without competing primaries (as there were on super and mini-super tuesdays), his claim that he had other places to be is just lame and a lie. and given his large money advantage, it is terrible that he failed to campaign in those states. particularly, because no DEM has won the presidency since 1916 without carrying WVA.
and what is more outrageous is that Obama is opposing the counting of FL delegates because he wasn't able to compaign there. yet, here he was with a full opportunity to campaign, and he's willingly absented himself.
this type of this wilfull distortion of the facts to smear Hillary is very destructive of party unity. and it is just plain wrong.
Now, my womanhood is questioned if I don't admit that Obama has won? Give me a break. Obama has not won, as anyone who can count knows. They've tied. And, there's this little pesky thing called the popular vote, and this other pesky thing called disenfranchisement. When I hear Obama admit like a man that he has not won, that no one can win because no one can win the requisite amount of pledged delegates, then I'll expect Hillary to live up to her womanhood and admit that she too can't win. Oh, I forgot, Hillary does admit that she can't win. She states the fact that neither won of them can win without superdelegates. Oh, but he not only has to finnegle in the old-style political way to get these superdelegates, but he must have everyone declare that he is the out-and-out democratic winner, which he never can be given, yes, the math.
Your pesky popular vote is not how the democratic party choses a nominee, no matter how many times you say it. If they want to change that at a later date, fine, but its currently not the method and there is nothing ANYONE can do to change that. Perception is one thing, but reality is a whole other ball of wax. This will end according to the rules. She will plead her ridiculous case and they will listen out of respect, but they will not rule in her favor.
The popular vote, while nice and all, is not a part of the calculations for nominee. It is pledged delegates. The superdelegates can't "override" the pledged delegates, they can only pick who they want to support, and increase the number of delegates overall.
Which means that if Obama gains a majority of ALL delegates - pledged/state delegates + superdelegates - then Hillary can't win, no matter what she does.
Operation Chaos.
That is all.
The message is: GET OVER YOURSELF. You and all the other self-centered old lady female democrats who are making fools of themselves belaboring this.
The "pesky popular vote" is relevant only to the extent, if any, that is can be used to convince an uncommited super-delegates to commit to a candidate - because it is total delegates that count to decide the nominee, not votes. Thems the Rules. You don't like the Rules? Too bad. Start your own party or change the Rules next time for 2012.
Watch what happens June 3: Obama will obtain a majority of all delegates - even including Florida and Michigan, which, as you know or should know, also broke the Rules by moing up their primaries - as the superdelegates commit, and he will LEGITIMATETLY be the Democratic candidate.
You will have no appeal. You then can either vote for the Democratic Candidate, as HRC has many times recently pledged to do; you can stay home (or write in Hilarly), like a spoiled child; or you can vote completely agianst your interests for John McSame, who will overturn Roe v. Wade before his term ends, and not end the war or achieve universal health care.
There's this pesky little thing called convention rules, which go by the number of pledged delegates, not the popular vote.
There's also this pesky little thing called caucuses, which you completely ignore in your alleged "popular vote" count.
Let's see if I get this popular vote thing right. First, you ignore the caucus states because those aren't votes. Then you count Florida votes where neither campaigned. Finally, you add in Michigan where the choices where the choices were Hillary and Anybody But Hillary, you ignore the Anybody But Hillary vote but keep the Hillary vote.
Congratulations, Hillary has now won the popular vote. Democracy in action.
Hillary and her supporters have proven that a woman is tough enough to lead, now they will want to prove that they are gracious enough to continue to fight in their and everyone's interest. By supporting Obama they will still be breaking the "glass ceiling" and clearing a path to the eventual election of a woman to the White House.
By doing this, by working just as hard for Obama as they did for Hillary, they will prove what most of us have always known: women are NOT DUMB.
John McCain has vowed to do whatever he can to overturn Roe v. Wade. The two Supreme Court judges that are getting ready to retire are both liberals. I will be voting for Obama for many reasons, but one of them is:
A VOTE FOR JOHN McCAIN IS A VOTE TO OVERTURN THE MOST SIGNIFICANT HUMAN RIGHTS LEGILATION IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES.
Obama-Webb '08
Hillary's behavior has set the cause of feminism back by at least 20 years. She and her supporters will have a lot to answer for when the next woman who runs for president is constantly compared to Sen. Clinton and the talking heads wonder aloud if the nation will be entertained by the very same (and very silly) antics of "the female" candidate.
And it wasn't sexism that destroyed her campaign, it was Hillary's inability to stay on message, appealing to the basest instincts of her fellow citizens and arrogantly assuming that because I have a vagina I ought to forget that I have other responsibilities as a citizen and vote for the candidate with the corresponding hole.
Thanks Linda for stating plainly and concisely the illogic and frankly, lack of principle, that supports Hillary's *belief* that she can still win the race. I know that personally I have found it hard to decipher reality from fiction by watching the MSM. Your post makes the facts clear.
Great post, you just summed up what I have been thinking.
oops I meant the first female Prime Minister of NZ. Helen Clark is our 2nd and in her 3rd successive term.
This scenario reminds me of Jenny Shipley, a woman with 26 years of political service. She was the 1st Prime Minister of New Zealand. She seized the leadership of her party in an internal (backroom) party coup. She only lasted 2 years.
My point is this, we never forgot how Jenny Shipley got to be Prime Minister. Her end justifying the means never served her well.
Linda Bergthold, you took the words right out of my mouth, well you deleted the expletives, but captured the sentiment. Thank you for addressing this issue.
I just wrote this as comment elsewhere...perhaps the point of it will express my opinion of what has been written here.......
I think the reaction to Sen. Clinton's discussion and comments of sexism, are doing nothing but substantiating the claim. It's been present throughout her campaign, and the reason for it not being addressed aloud in the past, is because anytime the word 'sexism" is brought into a conversation it is treated as an "excuse" instead of subject worthy of discussion. The reaction to Senator Clinton's mention has instilled a pundit and media reaction of, "why is she saying this now", "it's a ploy", "it's an excuse", "it's a tactic"...and NO ONE has entertained the thought that what Sen. Clinton is really saying , is.."This isn't about me, it's about all women, not only in our country, but for all the women who are watching across the globe and it's a much needed discussion that is long overdue." When Sen Obama was faced with racist undertones that transpired after media coverage of his relationship with Rev. Wright, he gave a beautiful speech about racism...and all applauded his bravery for opening this long awaited conversation. But when Sen. Clinton mentions sexism, at the end of her journey, by the way....she is given the title of manipulative sore loser with an ulterior motive. How can anyone look at even this one scenario and not see the need for a discussion about sexism in America?
Because sexism is the excuse of the day. If she felt passionate about it, and she was a real trailblazer for the cause, she would have felt the need to speak about it.
Catch up. She did.
No one applauds her because she isn't really using it to open a discussion. She is using it to encourage her base of supporters and to get out the vote. Sen. Obama never has said I am fighting for all of us AA. Vote for me because I will be the first AA. Sen. Clinton has repeatedly used this as a call to arms to vote for her.
are you kidding. he telegraphed it. did you hear him use the terms bamboozle and hoodwink, terms used by Malcom X and in spike lee movies anywhere else but in SC? even huffpo articles were written about it http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/01/28/obamas-stump-lines-echo-_n_83560.htmll
and the charges of using the race card were hurled at hillary just before the SC primary (the first one with a substantial African American electorate) when she mentioned LBJ in the same phrase as MLK.
do you think he gave his "race speech" in Philadelphia because of noble reasons. no he did it because rev wright became a problem for him. and then he went to phil, where the primary was about to be had. he didn't do it in chicago or DC or anywhere else. and then he only became outraged at wright's comments, which were entirely consistent with comments he'd been making when it became politically untenable.
you can support Obama for many reasons but please be fair don't try to tear her down in order to justify your preference.
I didn't state that well. But it's virtually impossible to counter these arguments because it is all perception. Yes there is a huge need for a discussion of sexism. But not when you are the losing candidate. Then, there is always going to be a perception that you are making excuses--whether you are or you are not. The discussion would be valuable and should come after the party unites to defeat McCain. There are other reasons for Sen. Clinton's loss and there's no reason to restate them all again.
no, it's not just perception. would shuster have ever referred to obama 'pimping' his wife as he stated with respect to hillary and chelsea?
would samantha powers ever refer to a man as a 'monster' gephardt ran an ad against dean in the iowa primaries where he linked dean to osama bin laden and that was much nearer to 2001 and no one called gephardt a monster.
"sweetie" to a female journalist.
ted kennedy went to the convention to challenge jimmy carter even though kennedy had only 1200+ delegates to carter's majority of 1900+ and NO one ever called Kennedy selfish for doing it nor started calling for him to bow out before PA, OH, TX and lots of other states had voted.
Women and men who make believe they don't see the sexism in this campaign are operating under the illusion that this behavior is exclusive to Hillary Clinton who deserves it -- in their minds. They honestly believe it would never happen to them or theirs. It's a coping mechanism. They need to feel safe from sexism. That flies in the face of what sexism is -- discrimination based on sex. That's it. So if you accept when it's used against someone you don't like then, you have to accept it period. For your self, your mother, your father, your children -- people you like. And you.
There is never any reason for a woman running for office to be called a "bitch", a "witch", a "psycho-ex-girlfriend", a vindictive ex-wife", a " whining, nagging mother". There is no reason why her cleavage, her ankles, her sexuality, her looks, her weight should be the topic of discussion. There is no excuse for tee shirts bearing her likeness flying on a broom, accompanied by "C.U.N.T.", etc.
Take the Hillary nutcracker (please!) that made for hours of fun on MSNBC. Acceptable? How about if it were an Obama shoe shine kit? Acceptable?
The answer to both of these questions is either "yes" for both or "no" for both.
It doesn't matter whether Hillary wins or loses. The sexism went on whether one chooses to accept it by ignoring it or excusing it -- or not.
This is most definitely NOT about ALL women.
I have a question, and would like an honest answer from Hillary Clinton supporters:
If the roles were reversed, and Ms. Clinton had the lead in both delegates and popular vote that is now enjoyed by Barack Obama, don't you think Obama would have been conceded defeat by now?
I do.
So you think he would follow in the footsteps of Kerry and Gore and give up easily, even tho basically the nomination was a tie? No candidate has ever been so pressured to simply quit and many have gone to the convention with fewer delegates and much less popular votes. After winning huge crushing victories in primary after primary, no candidate has ever been pressured to just quit. If you think Obama would just quit in that situation then he would not deserve to go on to the GE. Frankly, I think he would stay and fight as he would have every right to do and his supporters would want that kind of leadership from him. Same goes for her.
She has every right to stay in the race. But don't forget, the way it's set up, even when Clinton wins a primary, Obama still picks up delegates. If you sit down and do the math, it is not possible for her to win, unless she asks superdelegates to ignore his lead in pledged delegates, which represents how people have voted in primaries and caucuses. That scenario would split the party and hurt Democrats' chances in the fall.
I think, that :
If it were obvious to Obama that him winning was impossible, and that the result of him "staying in to the bitter end" would fracture the Democratic Party, that, for the sake of the party, Obama would bow out.
The concept of party unity and putting differences aside in order to put a Democrat in the White House is hard for many Hillary Clinton supporters to grasp.
Perhaps that's because, from all indications, Ms. Clinton herself seems to care not one whit about the party, but instead, only about Hillary Clinton.
Thank you so much for posting this. If a man had called these women selfish, he would've been trashed left and right. But you're absolutely correct. These women are selfish. No one likes a sore loser or voters who make choices based on emotion instead of reason. Any rational woman would realize that voting for Obama over McCain is in their best interests. If McCain gets elected, several things will happen. Roe v. Wade will be overturned, No Child Left Behind will continue, our troops will remain in Iraq and possibly be sent to Iran as well, health care will continue to be a luxury unavailable to the people who need it the most, gas prices will continue to rise, and the middle class will continue to suffer. But I guess all that is better than letting the guy who beat Hillary be President. I suspect that all these women would've voted for any female candidate. If Hillary Clinton had been a man, she would not have made it this far. That's not a sexist statement either. It's one based on fact. Just look at how many women freely admit they voted for her because they want to see a woman President. And if these women throw the election to McCain, they will forever embarrass their gender and reinforce the stereotype that women are too emotional to be trusted.
While I rejected HRC's "experience" meme in the beginning (and came quite late to Obama's support), the sticks that I have been guilty of sharpening and jabbing in the Clinton campaign's general direction derived neither from misogyny nor white guilt, but from the political exceptionalism advanced by Hillary supporters that did nothing to increase the likelihood of her nomination, but much to injure the eventual nominee. The basic rules remain the same; the handwriting on the wall is a respecter of neither gender nor race. Clinton has changed nothing more; secured nothing more since March.
Corporate media has insisted that the Democratic nomination is in play. At the same time, they want you to be aware of all the Clinton supporters who threaten to withhold their vote from Obama if he is the nominee. The fact that they all but dismiss the possibility of the reverse is proof that they have not truly regarded the Clinton campaign as viable since March. For ratings (and the Democrats injury?), they have been all too happy to hype what they themselves regarded as faux drama.
Hillary's gambit could never have been legitimized by her gender or by Obama's race. I would argue that, instead, both of those factors tended to underscore its illegitimacy. Unfortunately, corporate media now has the script which the next woman candidate will be forced to read and a divisive scenario they will attempt to re-create in the Democratic Party every four years.
'Couldn't have said it better myself.
Somehow, I get the impression that if a woman somewhere on the planet were to become a genocidal dictator, this obsolescent generation of so-called "feminists" would, rather than condemn her practices, be praising her as an example of a truly "strong female head of state" who serves as a positive role model to what women can achieve everywhere.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
