Yesterday, Ben Smith’s blog at Politico described a group of Hillary Clinton supporters who say they’ll work actively against Barack Obama if he becomes the nominee.  They argue that Clinton has been the subject of “intense sexism” by party leaders and the media, and they say that the growing calls for Clinton to leave the race make women feel like “we’re being told to sit down, shut up, and get with the program.”

Of course, they don’t accuse Obama of sexism but apparently that is beside the point.  I guess someone has to pay for their anger.  The unfortunate reality is that both Clinton and Obama have had to deal with hateful bigotry during the campaign, and there are people who will not vote for each of them because of their gender or color. 

However, I reject the premise that the calls for Hillary to leave the race are based on her gender.  She is losing the race based on delegate count, and her only chance is coup by superdelegate.  I especially reject the presumption of this group of Clinton supporters to speak on behalf of women about how we feel about the race.  I am a woman who has been a feminist my entire adult life, and my decision to not support Clinton is based on her actions, especially her Iraq War vote and her aggressive stance toward Iran.  Even so, if Clinton had shown herself to be a reflective person capable of reassessing her positions, I might have thought differently of her.  

Instead, the longer the Democratic primary goes on, the more concerned I become about Hillary Clinton’s intransigence with regards to the Democratic nomination.  I understand that many of her supporters admire her for her fighting spirit and her willingness to play hardball, and she certainly must be admired for her fortitude and conviction.  But at some point, this “never say never” mentality is something to be questioned rather than applauded.

Haven’t we learned from our experience with George W. Bush that an absolute unwavering resolve in the face of all facts and reason may not be a good thing?  Frankly, I see an alarming similarity between Hillary Clinton’s determination to “win” the Democratic nomination and George W. Bush’s determination to “win” the war in Iraq:

1.  Both Clinton and Bush do not seem to be able to accept defeat because they are both convinced of their moral superiority. They even acknowledge that they are driven by a higher cause.  In Clinton’s case, she KNOWS that she is the better candidate and the only one who can defeat the Republicans in the fall.  As such, she must do whatever it takes to save the party from the hypnotic fog that has blinded the Democratic voters to the inexperience and emptiness of the Obama candidacy.  In the case of Bush, we all know about his absolute belief in the righteousness of the Iraq War.  He is the messenger of God who must continue the fight against the evil doers who hate us for our freedom.  It doesn’t matter how the war is going or how many Americans or Iraqis have died, the war is necessary to save us from some vaguely-defined but ever-present danger.

2.  Both Clinton and Bush have continued to change the metrics that define success as their crusades have faltered.  In Clinton’s case, her campaign has presented ever changing and creative methods for determining how victory should be measured.  First, it was the big states that mattered, then the blue states, then the working-class states, then the popular vote, then it was really a Republican-style winner-take-all model, then it was up to the super-delegates, and finally is appears to be an electability issue based on polls and selective demographics.  In Bush’s case, the reasons to go to war were first WMDs, then Saddam Hussein and his al-Qaeda connections, then freedom for the Iraqis, then to destroy terrorism, then to make sure that American servicemen and women had not died in vain, then…well, it doesn’t matter.  It will be the next president’s problem.  

3.  Both Clinton and Bush approach their ongoing battles with an “us vs them” mentality.  Clinton defectors are portrayed by her surrogates as traitors or guilty of betrayal (i.e. Bill Richardson, NARAL).  And when Clinton was pushing her proposal for a gas tax holiday, she told her fellow members of Congress that you are either “with us or against us”.  Aren’t we all tired of such rhetoric after years of hearing it come from Bush and his strongmen?  In order to silence dissent in the lead up to war, the American people and the rest of the world were given the ultimatum that “either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists”.  Such talk has continued ever since as a way to discredit critics and to promote nationalistic “unity”.

At a time when George Bush is widely disliked and distrusted, why has Hillary Clinton been emulating his political style and demonstrating a rules-don’t-apply-to-me attitude that is suggestive of Bush’s assertion of expanded executive power?  I find such similarities to be troubling and, in fact, Clinton’s behavior during the past several months has been a strong factor in my increasing support for Barack Obama.  Obama was not my first or even second choice at the beginning of the primary, but his respectful, inclusive, and inspiring message in the face of Clinton’s increasingly un-democratic and hostile campaign tactics has made me feel that Obama is the right choice for the country.  This is not to say that I will support Obama blindly since I don’t believe that any candidate should be trusted completely.  There are too many pressures from the ever-present lobbyists and the big-money special interests.  With Obama, however, there is at least the chance that he will listen to the will of the people and represent our interests.  With Clinton, this doesn’t appear likely.