I can see one or two concrete reasons why someone might think Hillary a better nominee than Obama. Perhaps she is more electable, which pretty much means that Americans are more likely to vote for a woman than they are a black. Her health care plan is universal and mandatory and, though her campaign is funded largely by the health care industry itself, maybe you trust her more to implement truly Universal coverage. OK, fair enough. Let’s even grant that she is the superior candidate. Obama still won. He won the delegates, which is how the nominee is chosen. That is game over, but let’s keep going. Even if you give Florida and Michigan full inclusion, he won the most states and any but the most convoluted measurements of the popular vote, even pretending that Oregon will not go heavily to Obama. If you want to see all of this overturned, or are considering voting for McCain out of spite, in accordance with Hillary’s “concession (me in ’12!!)” speech there is something more going on than “I prefer Hillary’s health care plan.”

The thing that seems–dare I say it?–irrational is the passionate support of Hillary over Obama. Now, it is possible that you actually understand and subscribe to Hillary’s agenda, which would mean that you are politically to the center-right. You favor a corporatist, or “pro-business” agenda, like the income tax structure roughly how it is, have no problem with the US incarcerating 1% of its population, while you are pro-choice and favor certain social programs. But I don’t think you are the source of all of this passion. People don’t take to the streets because they want two candidates who are poised to ” totally obliterate” Iran, rather than one.

And, for all of the rants I’ve heard in Hillary’s favor, I’ve heard no policy talk. It is always that she was mistreated, betrayed, victimized by sexism and robbed. But take a step back and look at the candidates. Now, what is so objectionable about Obama? That he always opposed the war in Iraq? That he wants to undo Bush’s tax cuts and then some? That he has very little corporate money funding his campaign? His rather moderate belief in diplomacy? What exactly is the crucial policy issue where Obama is critically wrong and Hillary is right? On which point is BHO so disastrously misguided, where Hillary is so understanding that a McCain vote, or a non-vote is preferable? I’ve never heard an answer to these questions, even a wrong one. So why should the primary election that Obama won by every fair measure be overturned? Why shouldn’t Hillary and her supporters honestly throw their support behind Obama, regardless of who would be VP?

I’ll set aside the bigots and divide the rabid Hillary supporters into two groups. The smaller group is the the duped who cannot admit that they were duped. These people put all of their eggs in Hillary’s basket. She was the presumptive nominee, and as the hilarious, wigger priest said, she was ENTITLED. But the dupes were wrong on two fronts. Firstly, and most obviously, Hillary lost the election. That was clear weeks, if not months ago. In most such cases, a candidate’s supporters would concede that shit happens and support the winner of their party’s nomination.

The problem here is that the dupe ran too deep. Hillary got way more money from arms dealers than any other Democrat. It turns out that her career before politics was “indiscriminate corporate lawyer.” Suddenly, she is telling the most flagrant of lies and releasing pictures of her black opponent in traditional African garb on the eve of a big election night. Unless you are the center-rightist mentioned above, and not so wild about black people, it looks like you’ve been had. Some will admit it and move on. Some will refuse to admit their mistake out of pride and cling more fervently than ever to their initial position. They will insist that they have not made a huge mistake. It is the media, the voters and the country in general who has made the huge mistake. In other words, had Hillary not turned out to be such a vile cunt, it would be easier to just let go. If this is you, I advise that you take a deep breath and count to ten. Now, look around your bus. Nobody on it has ever been on the wrong side of a political issue. Do you see Oliver North over there? And, up towards the front, it’s G. Gordon Liddy. Maybe you should get off at the next stop.

But the real heart of Hillary’s die hard contingency is women. They really wanted to see a woman break the ultimate glass ceiling. When Hillary lost, many women moved on, understanding that Hil had a fair shake at the very least, but lost. Maybe a different ceiling could be broken and we could still get the country on the right track. Maybe Obama, in spite of being a man, was actually the better candidate. Maybe he had a more authentic concern for the poor, which includes a disproportionate number of single mothers, like the one who raised him. Note that single mothers are often women. My own suspicion is that Obama will sell out faster than a Jonas Brothers concert in Greece. But there is the actual possibility that he won’t. Which is as exciting as a Jonas Brothers concert in Greece.

Yet there remains a core of women who feel entitled to the satisfaction of a Hillary victory, not on the basis of being white, but on the basis of being women. I’ll try to make this point as briefly as possible, but American feminism seems to be unique, in that it has moved past equality into simply favoring whatever is thought to be most beneficial to American women or a given group of American women. If you’ve had your nose in academia at all in recent years, you might have seen articles arguing against every right from free speech, to even choice, ultimately on the basis of these restrictions benefiting women in the aggregate.

M’lady is Brazilian and a feminist, but a lot of our disputes are cut off when I say, “wait, I’m talking about American feminism,” which she recognizes as being largely donkey shit. Travel almost anywhere in the world and you will find similar positions (that’s what she said). The primary problem with American feminism is the sense of entitlement, especially by white women living in the first world.

Amongst those privileged enough to provide their children with an actual childhood, who doesn’t favor the sweet little girl over the rambunctious little boy feeling out his pathetic machismo? Certainly not daddy. Girls move on to their teens and early twenties and still find that they are something special. You and your gal pals get into the club for free, while the guys in your group face a $50 cover. The overall point being that, especially early in life, many women enjoy a certain amount of privilege and special status, even as they face sexism. Perhaps it is the natural erosion of these privileges that has predisposed older, Hillary supporters to feeling as though they have been robbed or cheated. Could McCain win because of women who’ve lost their fertility? Yes. Lord knows he will carry the small penis vote. In any case, American feminism has devolved into eliminating male advantage while maintaining, if not expanding, female advantage.

And this is the heart of Hillary’s support. Hillary wanted the nomination, was loosely qualified for it, yet lost. Must be sexism. Sure, it was Hillary who tied Obama to Farrakhan with no factual basis whatsoever. Sure, Obama never tried to link Hillary to McKinnon or a Gloria. Still, he ran a sexist campaign. Nobody can point to any real examples, but BHO must have run a sexist campaign because Hillary was supposed to get into the club without paying the cover, but the bouncer stopped her.

And conflation of equality and privilege has never been more obvious. Hillary had the right to run and, although she would be a worse leader than Cobra Commander, she came close to winning. That is equality. Hil lost fairly by the rules of the party and by any other reasonable measurement of the vote. And here comes the entitlement. She stays in the race well after having lost it. She is still raising money to retire her own debt to her own campaign and many insiders say that she expects the Obama campaign to chip in as well. What a champion of the people! You should give up dining out this week, or put off getting that new set of tires, so that the Clinton family can restore their fortune to a respectable $100 million. That’s really all you need to know about Hillary.

Jilted and so stereotypical that one expects her to be waving a rolling pin, Clinton launched 100 small acts of sabotage against Obama, especially as it became obvious that he would win the nomination. Most obviously, she stayed in the race well after having lost it, attacking hard and feeding the delusions of her flock. McCain could advertise almost entirely by playing clips of Hillary saying that he would make a better commander in chief than Obama, or Hillary asserting that Obama associates with Farrakhan and terrorists. And her little slice of pants suited lunatics is right with her and won’t vote BHO. Some might even vote McCain. All in the deeply deluded belief that she will be forgiven blowing the lay up for nomination, undermining her own party and handed the ’12 nomination as a reward for destroying everything around her when she doesn’t get her way. Daddy’s little girl has been denied a toy. Let the breath holding and foot stomping commence.

These impulses, which at one time would have been thought undignified and childish, can now be cloaked in feminism. “We want the presidency! We want it we want it we want it!” can become “Hillary is a victim of sexism… we want it! we want it! we want it!” How does Obama’s phantom sexism even approach the racism Hillary openly embraced, you hard working, white people? Why should a spoiled little brat get every single toy she wants? Beeeeecaaaaaaauusssseahhhh!

Now, I know what the response is. Sexism against Hillary was subtle and prevalent. But most of this argument goes right back to the same themes. Hillary should be treated just as any male candidate… except when it benefits her to be treated specially. She kept in the race initially by a huge turn around in New Hampshire after she welled up. It’s OK to say that she is compassionate, that she really listens to people or even to come right out and say that it would be great and historical for her to win specifically because she is a woman. Fair enough, but somehow, to point out the plain fact that she is a shrill woman is sexist.

I’m prepared to make a shocking claim. Women and men are different. They exhibit different physical and psychological characteristics. The reason people will describe a woman as being shrill more often than a man, is that women are shrill more often than men. And when many men hear Hillary shrieking “shame on you!” they hear their horrible wives hectoring them about how they should piss sitting down. That’s the way it always has been, always will be and Hillary fits the profile. You might have guessed that Oprah is not my favorite TV personality, but I don’t think you’ll very often see her described as “shrill.” She does not fit that profile. Fran Drescher yes, Diane Lane no. Pam on “The Office” no, Angela on “The Office,” yes. Ain’t rocket surgery. Incidentally, where is this outrage when a male politician is criticized for being cocky, arrogant, reckless or a bully? That’s not sexist. It’s like a man being expected to pay for a meal. It’s like a cheating wife who has never worked inside or outside the home being entitled to at least half of even the greatest fortune. It’s not sexism, it’s just kind of how things are. Such entitlements are natural.

Let’s move on to looks. People have made fun of Hillary’s appearance and making fun of a woman’s appearance is always sexist. You know what I think? I think that the people making these jokes believe that Jessica Alba should run for president. Of course, one can completely ignore the fact that male politicians’ appearances have been the subject of fun since John Adams was called “his rotundity” until yesterday, when I heard Joe Lieberman called “Frankenstein’s monster on Qualludes.” Those facts are irrelevant. What do they have to do with women being entitled to whatever they want? I mean, bringing up such facts is almost as absurd as asserting that Hillary should be denied the nomination, merely because she lost the primary. Back to reality for a second. Hillary’s actually gotten off kind of lightly here, given that she often looks undead. I’ll confess Obama has coasted too, achieving “handsome black man” status while looking like a cross between Paul Pierce and Alfred E. Newman. I suppose it’s because they both stand in contrast to McCancerface, but Hillary didn’t lose because looking at her is torture.

So what this boils down to is 1)Hillary was the better candidate with better policies, better qualifications and a better chance to win 2)She still magically lost because someone called her shrill and someone else made fun of her looks, but these things would have no effect in the general election. 3) Because she was mistreated in these ways and is a woman (nobody need worry about trivialities such as racism) she should be handed the nomination even after losing the primary. 4)I want it! I want it! I want it!) 5)”Feminists” should follow the subtext of Hillary’s acceptance speech and elect a nutty Republican who will set back women’s issues, rather than the son of a single mother who will advance them. That’s just fucking brilliant. Ladies, shut, the fuck, up.

About Plexico Gingrich

Plexico likes to gamble. He writes for a boxing site which you can visit: here
Follow him on twitter: @ruthlessreviews