A bit harsh? Maybe. I clipped an article out of the paper last week, intent to blog about it, and didn't. Then I saw a follow up in today's paper that more or less synched it.
Last week's article in the Denver Post by Susan Greene, talks about Sacha Millstone, a bitter hater, that is willing to give the country back to Republicans because her candidate didn't make the cut. It's one thing to have backed Clinton, in the first place, it's another to pull a bullshit line like, "This isn't sour grapes. This is about the best candidate losing the nomination because she's a woman. It's the most blatant example of sexism in our society...."
I call, rather shout "BS!" I'm curious what Sasha would say to democrats saying they'd vote McCain because Obama lost the bid. If they claimed he lost because of racism, would she support them or tell them to buck up and not be bitter? I suspect the latter.
Clinton wasn't the best candidate, it's that simple. She was the same lame candidate we've gotten from the party election after election. In the pocket of big business, and special interest. Her losing the bid wasn't because she was a woman, it was because she was a Clinton.
Quoting Susan Greene on Sasha, "Gender is the prism through which she views all things political. Any woman who doesn't, she says is 'deaf and blind.' " Again, I scream BS! Was Clinton not one of many senators? Would she have agreed that Obama losing the bid was Racism? Is she blind and deaf for not seeing racism in all things politics? We'll never know because Obama's supporters aren't the ones crying in the streets about the inequity of politics.
I don't disagree that sexism isn't at play. Hello it's been at play for ever! Will Clinton be the last/only woman to run for President? No! She'll probably run again in four years. If she doesn't some one else will. Eventually a woman will be elected. Sexism doesn't end any more abrutly than racism does. Look at business. Years ago a woman wouldn't be running fortune 500's I think as an example, Meg Whitman has done a stellar job of playing in "a man's field".
That brings us to this weekend, and a follow up in the perspective section with letters to the editor. One was from another, pardon my term, HATER! Milane Kolquist of Arvada, who said "I won’t vote for Obama. My not voting for him doesn’t emanate from aknee-jerk reaction to the Democrats selecting him over Clinton as theircandidate. Rather, my not voting for him comes from the knowledge thathe hasn’t the ability, skill or experience to help our country out ofits current, dangerous malaise." uh... so you'll vote for the guy from the party that put us in this "dangerous Malaise"? Or worse yet, you'll not vote, which could have the same impact? Clinton lost! How does being bitter towards the party help anyone but you? You'll sleep better reciting, "I'll show them, I sure will, I won't vote for him!" yeah that's a great tactic. Milane, you're an idiot!
I'm not going to pretend to be objective on the topic, 'my candidate' won the bid. But I just can't see the logic these women (If there are men feeling this way, they're keeping it to themselves, which tells me this is more femi-nazi nonsense, than real political thought) are using to further hurt their party. Clinton was a terrible candidate, who played the game like it's always been played. America (democrats at least, and only those not doing the "oh it's a woman, stand by our sex, no men!!!) wasn't interested in politics as usual. It should have been clear to Clinton that was the case. Every time Obama revealed his campaign numbers, it should have rung crystal clear to the Clinton campaign. A candidate backed by special interests was not a candidate americans wanted. Sure she tricked the red neck trailer trash (and apparently many women), but beyond that group, we all saw right through it. She ran negative ads, she hounded on his "lack of experience", which really just drove home the point that "experience" meant doing things the way they've always been done. As the first female candidate to stand a chance, she should have been on his bandwagon with "no more politics as usual". Instead he platform seemed to be "Politics as usual, except with a woman". That didn't fly. Why would it?
To any Clintonite reading this, I implore you, suck it up. Your candidate lost because she wasn't the right person for the job, male or female. Not voting, or not voting Obama does nothing but put a Republican in office. Is that what you want? Will that help you sleep better? Knowing that, "Well, Clinton isn't in office, but neither is Obama, so there!!"
Well you eeked out a victory in PA. w00t!! you go girl, maybe you can trick a few more states into thinking that your brand of politics like we've always had them, is exactly what we need more of.
Looks like 
