From a distant cousin, The Anonymous Liberal in it's entirety, because IMHO, it's THAT good
But it's not fair....
Over the last few weeks, as it's become increasingly clear that Barack Obama will be the Democratic nominee, I've noticed a real sense of grievance take hold among many of Hillary Clinton's most ardent supporters, particularly her female supporters. There's a real sense, I think, that this outcome is somehow deeply unfair, that Clinton--the more experienced and accomplished female applicant--is being passed over for the job in lieu of the younger, less experienced, and more charismatic male.
Given how often that particular scenario has played itself out in American offices and workplaces over the years, I understand why people might come to view this race that way, especially women who have experienced that kind of sexism first hand. That said, the analogy itself is totally absurd.
First, and most obviously, the nomination fight is not supposed to be a meritocracy. If it was, Clinton would have long ago lost the race to candidates like Joe Biden, Chris Dodd, and Bill Richardson, all of whom have way more experience than she does and many more political accomplishments to their name. Clinton may be older than Obama, but her governmental resume isn't all that much longer than his, and both have far less experience than most of the other candidates in the race (and in past presidential races for that matter).
To put it another way, unlike promotions at work, elections are supposed to be popularity contests. That's the whole idea. There's nothing unfair about voters choosing the more charismatic, inspirational candidate. That's how things work in politics. It's the reason her husband--who was younger than Obama and had less national experience--came to be elected President.
Those Clinton supporters who think the outcome of this race is unfair also seem oblivious to the larger picture. Going into this race Clinton had every advantage. She was the establishment candidate. Among other things, she had the backing of hundreds of super delegates, a vast network of donors, and all of the top campaign staff. And it's not as if she ended up losing to some good old boy who used his connections to screw her out of the job. She lost to an insurgent outsider, a man who wasn't given much of a shot to win, a man who--by the way--is now poised to become the first black candidate to win the nomination of a major party.
So the notion that Clinton somehow got cheated out of something she deserved strikes me as an indefensible proposition. She going to lose and she will have lost fair and square.
It's funny. If Clinton supporters are filled with bitterness over the current outcome, imagine how they would react if she held an insurmountable lead in elected delegates and her opponent was trying to snatch victory away from her by 1) counting votes and delegates earned in unofficial contests which no one campaigned in and which weren't supposed to count, 2) awarding her zero votes and zero delegates in one of those states because her name was not on the ballot, and 3) trying to convince the party establishment (super delegates) to overturn her victory among elected delegates and award the nomination to her opponent. My guess is that everyone would be screaming bloody murder.
