rabbling about hillary, again

god i'm slow, i know. i've got a dog's breakfast in the works that includes such hits as the deadline conga line and cat burglar blues. but for now, politics. again.

a reworked version of an earlier post was published on rabble last week - not as commentary, like other times, but as news. what the? since when does my unyielding obsession with the democratic presidential nomination qualify as news? um, thanks. i'm simultaneously tickled and daunted about having been asked to 'cover' the us elections for rabble this year. don't tell anyone, but we're even trying to figure out how to finance and get credentialed for the republican and democratic national conventions where i'd probably get thrown out of all kinds of press rooms for chair-wetting or obnoxious outbursts or some such inappropriateness. i'll take my chances.

anyways, my dad says i'm too hard on hillary. i think other perhaps less forward people in my life would agree with him. screw all of you. why can't i stop questioning hillary? why can't any of us?

but for the record, and for the love of all things rational: not supporting hillary is not an attack on feminism. the generational chasm on this point is palpable. and worrisome. to all the haters who would insist that anyone with a pair of ovaries and progressive dna should support hillary or be sent to exile island: i am a so-called ‘third wave’ feminist. i find it difficult to identify with clinton or her candidacy as a symbolic challenge of the proverbial glass ceiling. i, like thousands of other women, have thoughtfully reviewed clinton’s credentials and chosen to back obama. i do not see her as a sister, ally, mentor, or representative, but as an old-school politician. and all the women's movements in the world have brought me to this precious place called choice. as a proven progressive working for serious change, i get to decide who i want leading the charge to those lofty goals. as a radical feminist, there is plenty i'm willing to challenge in the name of putting women - or a woman - first. but in this case, it isn't even that radical a notion to support a black man over a woman. because she's THIS woman.

i’m with 32-year-old liberal writer michelle goldberg, who suggested that older feminists "seem to identify with clinton so profoundly that they interpret rejection of her as a personal rebuke." holy fuckballs, is that ever true. she claims to be sticking it out in this race more because of all the calls for her to leave it. but of course its as much about all those women who have pinned their EVERYTHING on her. clinton’s is a campaign of and about perseverance, one that regards surrender as worse than defeat, that sees the fight as for a cause as much as for a candidate. now usually that's the kind of gutsy stick-it-to-em position i can get behind. just not this time.