by BooMan
Wed May 14th, 2008 at 10:26:45 PM EST

I've noticed this new common acronym that keeps
getting repeated on Hillblogs: WWTSBJQ. Presumably, this stands for
'Why Won't the Stupid B*tch Just Quit'. Today, it's in use to suggest
that John Edwards is part of a network of 'boiz' that are conspiring to
push Clinton out of the race before all the people get to vote. I guess
I'm part of that network, and so is Markos and John Aravosis, and a
bunch of other male pro-Obama bloggers.

I'll let others speak for themselves, but I just want to say a few
words about my own feelings. For me, the fact that Hillary Clinton is a
woman is a plus. For a long time when it looked quite likely that she
would be the nominee, I consoled myself with the fact that she would be
an inspiration to billions of little girls all over the world. Just
today, when I was doing analysis of all the House Races,
I took a special interest in the women I identified that have enough
money to compete. And, even though both Kay Hagan and Jeanne Shaheen
are too 'New Democrat' centrist for my tastes, I'm willing to overlook
that because I think the Senate desperately needs more female voices
(especially the Judiciary Committee). So, while I have a tremendous
feeling of satisfaction that Democrats rejected a restoration of the
Clintons, I am saddened that so many of her female supporters are
feeling such a profound feeling of loss. And, on this blog at least,
I've maintained a basically zero tolerance policy for anyone calling
Clinton gender-based epithets or otherwise negatively referring to her
gender.

My opposition to Hillary Clinton has had nothing to do with her gender.
I would have been an even harsher critic of her husband, had he been
constitutionally permitted to run for a third-term, and done so. For
me, the Clintons are largely responsible for the Gingrich Revolution of
1994. Their brand of DLC politics effectively killed off the Democratic
Party in the South, and did real damage to the party in the Mountain
West. The only places where Clintonism worked were in the
(predominately Northern) affluent suburbs. They also ran the DNC in a
totally incompetent manner, and saw their liberal and black supporters
(the activist base) as a liability that had to be hidden from view.

I also resented having to defend Bill Clinton from impeachment charges.
He didn't deserve to get impeached, but we didn't deserve to have to
defend him against those charges.

Finally, the Clinton's foreign policy was not to my liking and, in many
important ways, laid predicates for the neo-conservative hijacking that
followed in the Bush administration. Briefly, relentless eastward NATO
expansion set the path for renewed tensions with Russia. Misinformation
used to sustain the sanction regime on Iraq, was then twisted to
justify the war by Bush. Going into Kosovo without a UN resolution made
it much easier to go into Iraq without one.

During the Bush years, while Al Gore and Jimmy Carter were speaking
out, Bill Clinton was touring the world with Poppy Bush, while Hillary
Clinton was voting for the war and the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. There
are so many reasons to oppose the Clintons politically, including the
generally pro-war tilt of her official supporters and advisers, that it
really shouldn't be necessary to spell them all out. But I have spelled
them out in a brief, cursory way, to make the point that my opposition
is based on a wide array of considerations. And these considerations
informed my opinion long before the campaign actually started.

I know that most of the serious Clinton supporters have the opinion
that it is Barack Obama that injected race into the campaign. We'll
just have to disagree about that. But what I find somewhat curious is
the high level of perceived misogyny that HillBloggers attribute to the
Obama campaign and to Obama supporters. I know I've seen the comments
and the t-shirts, and there is no question that there is a lot of
misogyny and a lot of it gets directed at Clinton. But not from me. And
not from any of the well known bloggers that I read. And not from
Obama, or his staffers, or any of the people that have endorsed him or
speak for him. There is certainly no misogyny from John Edwards, or
John Kerry, or Bill Richardson.

A lot of people are frustrated that Clinton is still in the race
because it costs money and time to campaign against her. Barack Obama
does not really need to be campaigning in Puerto Rico and Kentucky
right now. And he really doesn't need the Clintons telling voters in
West Virginia that he is an elitist. It's not helpful for the general
campaign. So, sometimes people lose their temper and say nasty things.
Sometimes people wonder why she won't drop out because she is hurting
the party and hurting Obama. I mean, seriously, do you think it helped
us in any way in our quest to defeat John McCain to have our nominee
blown out in West Virginia last night?

And, a last point. I recently made a list of who I'd like to see as
Obama's running mate, and a woman topped the list. Gov. Kathleen
Sebelius has executive experience, she's smart, she's talented, and she
has had success attracting more conservative voters without betraying
progressive principles. As far as I know, every one of the so-called
'Boiz' agrees with me that Gov. Sebelius deserves to be on any
short-list for vice-president. And I think we'd all agree that she'd
make a fantastic president in 2016, or if the need should arise before
then.