PUMAs!

Via Feministing, an article by Rebecca Traistler on the anger that many Clinton supporters still feel and the growing PUMA (Party Unity My Ass) feelings that are coming from many Clinton Supporters. Traistler gives 12 reasons why Clinton supporters are still pissed off, some of which I agreed with, some of which I didn't. To be honest and upfront about it, I was never a fan of Clinton. The ineptitude of her campaign managers was infuriating and the fact that she (well, not really her, more Mark Penn and company) blew a huge opportunity didn't sit well with me. This Clinton Campaign to me was uncharacteristic in that in politics just weren't played well this time around.

Then there was the candidate herself. I had a mixed relationship with her- I'd watch speeches and I'd be astonished to find myself thinking that this was a candidate who was everything advertised and more- tough, unbending, ass-kicking- a real true leader. And then there were times it'd just be painful to watch. There was her husband too and the prospect of having to relive all his bullshit courtesy of the GOP.

There were any number of reasons I didn't support her, all of which made sense in my head.

Traistler's list of 12 reasons is a mixed bag, to me- some of them I agreed with, some of them I don't:

"#2: They're pissed because their historic opportunity is over:" I say- get some perspective already. You made history with this campaign and congratulations, the ultimate glass ceiling has a crack in it and you've shattered another ceiling- women can now be taken seriously as Presidential candidates. It was bullshit that they weren't before, of course- massively sexist bullshit, but Senator Clinton has made damn sure that no woman who decides to run can ever be dismissed à la Carol Mosely Braun or Elizabeth Dole. Plus, it may not happen this year, but the question of a woman President is not just a matter of 'if' but when.

"#3: They're angry because Obama may choose a woman other than Clinton as his running mate:" I say- for the love of pete, WHY? If the name of the game is getting qualified women into higher elected office, then who cares who gets their foot in the door as long as someone does. Saying that Senator Clinton is the only qualified woman in this country who deserves higher elected office is bullshit in my humble opinion and does a massive disservice to every other female politician in the country. OK, I can understand that people don't get that excited about Kathleen Sibelius and I'm not sure she could deliver Kansas- but someone like Janet Napolitano could be a huge asset. Senator Clinton was an incredibly qualified candidate, but there are plenty of others. I could see their point if Senator Obama was picking a woman in a foolish attempt to placate them, but- if Senator Obama thinks its time for a woman to be in a number 2 slot, then so be it- Traistler's point is well-taken though- a woman should have more than 'a pair of mams' going for her if that is the case.

"#12: They're angry because they feel they're held hostage by the party by their reproductive organs:" I say- that's what a two-party system gets you. If you don't like it, get serious about forming another party. I'm not wild about the idea of a split in the Democratic Party throwing the election to the Republicans, but sometimes it needs to be done. In Britain, the 'Gang of Four' split from the Labour Party to form the SDP and now the Liberal Democrats are the third party of British politics. It'd be tough, but if someone got serious about it and actually crafted more of a serious alternative instead of an avenue for protest votes against the system (no disrespect to the Greens or Libertarians, but can they really govern? Really?) there would be options for people.

Traistler's article also makes important points about sexism in the media during the campaign, but it misses equally important points about some of the short-sightedness of second wave feminism. What struck me was the overwhelming sense of outrage emanating from some feminist quarters. Where were they during the 1990s, I had to wonder? My memory may be clouded by things like high school, but I sure don't remember protests in the street on Hillary Clinton's behalf back then. She's been the target of sexism for two decades now and the knee-jerk reaction to blame everything on the sexist media (some of whom were very sexist, Chris Matthews, I'm looking at you!) deliberate obscures the fact that there were political missteps and blunders made that did far more damage than sexist media idiots.