Et Tu?

“It is, in truth, an argument virtually without precedent in modern political history, at least at this stage of such a close race. …The fact is that, until now, candidates have rarely, if ever, faced such a concerted movement (featuring prominent names, such as Bill Richardson, and a column in Slate titled "The Hillary Deathwatch"), urging them to drop out before their rival has clinched the nomination. To review the history:

• In 1988, Jesse Jackson took his hopeless campaign against winner Michael Dukakis all the way to the convention, often to great media praise.

• In 1980, Ted Kennedy carried his run against Jimmy Carter all the way to the convention, even though it was clear he had been routed.

• In 1976, Ronald Reagan contested the "inevitability" of Gerald Ford all the way to the convention. Few, then or since, have ever thought to criticize Reagan's failure to step aside and let Ford assume the mantle.

• Also in 1976, three candidates -- Mo Udall, Jerry Brown, and Frank Church -- ran against Jimmy Carter all the way through the final primaries, even though Carter seemed more than likely to be the eventual nominee.

• Even in 1960, Lyndon Johnson and Adlai Stevenson fought the "certain" nomination of John F. Kennedy all the way to the convention floor.

In fact, until this year, it's been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out -- which is usually, by the way, when they run out of money. Even Mike Huckabee kept running against John McCain in this campaign long after it was obvious he had no hope of winning the GOP nod.

Yet in one of the tightest races in modern history -- before the opponent has come close to clearly clinching the nomination, before a number of voters have been given the chance to have their voices heard, and when Clinton still has a chance, albeit a slim one, to win the prize, she is continually vilified for failing to see the light and bow out. What gives?”

From Steven Stark, h/t Violet Socks .

Good question. And based on more recent news, it’s still early days compared to the stage Kennedy, Jackson, Reagan, Stevenson, took things – without violent rebuke.

Violet sums it up: “Yes, all candidates with penises have the right to compete.”

Recently, I’ve been saddened to hear liberal feminists expressing hostile “fuck yous” asking Hillary to exit, damning her for her ambition. Both online and offline. I care about and respect a number of these women.

And I guess the question occurs to me – is there a special resentment that (some) women have towards successful women that’s distinct from the well-known issues (some) men have? Or is it part of the same oldie-but-goodie – sexism?

I believe some of them may have been voters during one or more of the administrations mentioned in Stark’s and Violet Socks’ posts noted above. I’d bet that this vitriol, if it even existed, remained bottled up.

I can understand why people feel strongly about a Democratic administration and about the importance of getting behind that. However, in each of the cases in which a man was allowed without massive uproar about his “ambition” (code for that, feminists? “unseemly in a woman”), there was also an argument to be made that it would be better for the party if he got behind his same-party rival. But people seemed to understand the importance of democracy, of counting all votes, of giving everyone a fair shot. As Stark says: “until this year, it's been an axiom of American politics that candidates are allowed to pursue their runs until they decide to drop out.”

Common themes in such posts are resentment that a woman must be staying in because of personal ambition rather than a true belief that she would do the best job; that she feels “owed;” discussion of how annoying HRC’s voice allegedly is; the fact that it’s ungraceful to stay in; the fact that women in power don’t really make much of a difference for other women because: Carly Fiorina. Margaret Thacher. Cruella DeVille. The Evil Stepmother.

Let’s take a few of these. And by a few, I mean the ones that fucking irritate me the most.

Wait, I just looked at the list and they ALL fucking irritate me.

“Personal ambition.” So clearly, Kennedy et al were doing what they thought was the right thing for our country. But because of the vagina thing, this must just be a “mirror on the wall” phenom. (BTW, do you ever hear a word like “close-up” in these discussions to describe what HRC is going for here? Kennedy was reputed to avoid hats, at all times, to keep his famous hair intact and not lose any of it. But guys aren’t vain!) I haven’t seen any substantive explanation for why it’s so obvious that HRC does not honestly believe she would best positioned to be effective.

Feeling “owed” – hmm, seems like a reference to getting doors held or getting payback for what she went through, tit for tat perhaps (or, tat for tit?). Here again, an assumption that this kind of determination must stem from some kind of sorority girl motivation. Sexism much? Also, let’s put our money where our mouth is, ladies. Are you as independent in your lives and decision-making as HRC has been? Do you exhibit any dependency in your life, in ways that similarly situated men might not be able or feel able to take advantage of? In other words, any projection involved? Maybe a little?

Her voice – I’m going to assume my readers can fill in the blanks here. Just to indicate what we all know -- the adjectives and verbs used here would not be used of a male candidate. YKWIM.

Ungraceful/undignified to stay in. This has “walk five paces behind” all over it. Fighting was apparently dignified enough for the boyz.

And finally, the predicatable allusions to Fiorina, Thatcher, Golda Meir, Oprah, Carol Mosely Braun, Meg Whitman, Regina Pisa… oh wait, only the first two are ever mentioned. Interesting, why in flailing about how unhelpful it would be for women to occupy closer to half of positions of significant responsibility and visibility, would a fellow woman mention only women who have been viewed as possessing the worst male traits? Why would women who have done things differently, mentored other women, been good role models not be mentioned? Is there something else at stake here?

Now, I’m not arguing that once women get within shooting distance of 50% representation that the world will be all about peace and kittens. I think women can have many of the same competitive and capitalist instincts men do. But just as nobody would question why Antonio Villairagosa has had a positive impact on POC in politics by saying “Clarence Thomas!” we don’t need to rely on peace and kittens in making that argument about women.

I happen to think women would bring in some subtle differences in decision-making. But we don’t need to rely on that either. Anyone in an organization, governmental or public or nonprofit, that has minority or female representation knows that this makes it easier for other POC and women and also sends a message to the larger community of POC and women about their possibilities. (I personally have seen well-positioned POC and women reach out specifically to get organizations involved in causes targeting lower-income POC and women.)

So there’s a whole lot more to it than a petulant “Fiorina!” or “Medusa!” would imply.

I am hopeful that the women jumping on this particular bandwagon are having an emotional reaction to an emotional primary season. I hope that the two alternatives posited are not the case. We have enough sexism coming from guys. And the other possibility, a specific reaction against female ambition on the part of other women – I hope that’s not it either. I’ve seen that all up close and personal, and it ain’t pretty.

But then, the women I saw that coming from weren’t feminists.