So many wonderful things happened this week at the Democratic National Convention.
Michelle Obama.
Joe Biden bringing back the word malarkey.
Barrack and Hillary bursting hearts with their beautiful friendship.
The Clintons basically adopting the balloons that were poured all over them in the closing of the convention.
And oh yeah there was that amazing thing where Hillary made history and changed our perception of what “woman” means.
But one of the most important takeaways came in VP nominee Tim Kaine’s speech. In an ephemeral yet perennial moment, Kaine courageously introduced us to the one and only Donna Lump.
When the name was first spoken, we paused. Did he say what I think he said? Could it be? We had to take another listen.
Even then we were not assured. Is this real? How can we be sure??
Oh yes my friends. Ready or not, Donna Lump has come for us.
The most shocking part of the 2016 US Election is that we’re still wasting our time being shocked.
We were shocked and appalled when Donald Trump positioned himself as a misogynist white supremacist. Meanwhile, progressives scoffed at the idea that there are people who would choose to be represented by such a man and were again shocked to find out that there are (a lot of them).
Bernie Sanders positioned himself as a driving force, thirsty for liberal change and a broadened American perspective. His supporters felt that because they were the loudest, they had found a representative with enough momentum to take them to the end and were shocked when their victory got taken away by other, less vocal groups who simply let their vote speak for them.
Hillary Clinton positioned herself as the Obama through line, pledging to piggy-back off of the progress he was able to achieve during his presidency. Her supporters are trying to get over the shock that so many people can’t seem to vote for the most qualified candidate in the election because they “just don’t trust her”.
The complexities of who’s voting for who and why are nuanced, but, as with all elections, the support cultures are generalized into snack-able consensuses of understanding. This candidate appeals to this group. That party supports those issues. These bite-sized nuggets shape the perception of the election for our friends abroad while also affecting the way people in our country vote. This is unavoidable. And when I was visiting family and friends in Europe a couple of weeks ago, I found myself wearied by the supposed insights of the current election.
I’ll be honest, I’m actually cool with the general Trump consensus that I experienced. People are (you guessed it) shocked that Americans would vote for such a horrifying candidate, and I’m in full support of perpetuating the view that a Trump presidency would equal bad news on a global level.
No, it’s the general understanding, or lack thereof, of the Democratic party that has my focus. While abroad, all of the political discussions about the US election that people engaged me in were approached from a place of assumed dissatisfaction with both candidates. Apparently, the overwhelming assumption is that we all don’t trust Hillary and that this is a stalemate election where we must choose the lesser of two evils or throw away our vote altogether.
I know this is a common belief, and it makes sense that this consensus nugget has made its way around the world – especially with the way the Democratic primaries went down. The Bernie supporters were the more vocal of the Democratic party, but, as proven by the count, Hillary supporters do exist. And a lot of us were voting for her even before Trump entered the picture.
So, with the Democratic National Convention underway, a historic event in which the first woman will (officially) be named the nominee of a major US party, I’m hurling another nugget into our understanding of this election. There are people who have and will continue to put their full support in our girl, Hill. And despite any of her “drama” that has been pushed into the forefront of the media’s coverage of the election, she has (some) people’s full and complete faith. We didn’t need to be convinced, and we are dead set on convincing. In the eyes of many, she is not a second choice; she is the one and only.
I could (and would love to) go on about how others in my party should take some advice from Sarah Silverman (stop being ridiculous) and scold them for being selfish, but ultimately that’s not my goal here. My goal is to morph the general perception of a great candidate. Yes, there are people that just don’t trust her, but there are also people who just do.
(And we’re willing to give you concrete reasons as to why.)
Due to a fortunate case of random planning, I booked a trip to visit my cousin in Seattle the weekend before the New York primary. This was lucky for me because NYC was alive with more than just its usual fervor, and it was stressing me out. Ambitious energy permeated the city from all sides, which I especially noticed emanating out of my peers (the young passionate folk). As a Hillary supporter, I was made anxious by Bernie’s push for a big win. A trip was just what I needed to take a break from the weight of the coming Tuesday.
During a night out in Seattle, the democratic race slid into the conversation. Bernie won Washington in a landslide victory weeks earlier, but I felt confident speaking to why Hillary was my choice if necessary. Of course Bernie’s views are ideal, but that doesn’t mean he’s the best one for the job, right?
As I listened to the conversation progress, I noticed I was severely outnumbered. I didn’t feel overwhelmed by this until my cousin politely disclosed that I was for Hillary. I’d like to stress that my cousin’s friends are awesome people. They aren’t “Bernie Bros” trying to mansplain my views into their own. They weren’t trying to make me uncomfortable or change my mind. Nonetheless, something happened that I have noticed a lot this campaign season: after my cousin exposed me, it was as if the word “Prude” illuminated across my forehead. For the first time since high school, I felt myself defending my liberalness (mostly to myself, as the shock of this realization shut me up). My support of Hillary automatically put me further right on the spectrum compared to Bernie followers, and I was pissed.
I was feeling isolated by people whose side I’m on and by my own self-consciousness in being “a good liberal.” Like many Hillary supporters have openly admitted, I like Bernie. I support his campaign and appreciate the way he is challenging our government. He makes Hillary better. He makes us better. But I don’t believe that he deserves my vote.
In my isolation, I drunkenly texted a close friend and managed to define a feeling that still resonates with my sober self…
And the truth is, I am asking for Bernie. I’m asking for him to persist in challenging the way we demand progress as a country. I’m asking for him to continue to boost Hillary’s liberal growth. But I am not asking him to be our democratic candidate, and that does not diminish my passion for progress. I am not a political prude, and I won’t allow my liberalness to be threatened because I’m choosing to abstain from Bernie. This connection was crucial to re-invigorating my confidence in being a woman voting for the woman and not just because she is a woman. It’s because I believe that idealism like Bernie’s can encourage us to dream big, but tactics, strategies, and politics like Hillary’s will actually function to get portions of that progress. It may appear less passionate, but it’s my passion for tangible change that has me voting Clinton.
The rest of the night was great. I had a casual moment of self-realization and alignment, then we moved on from political talk and ended up chowing down on Dick’s Burgers back at my cousin’s apartment (milkshakes=happiness). I woke up the next morning with a renewed sense of passion for my candidate. Turns out a weekend away was the perfect choice, and I have never been more confident in mine. #ImWithHer
pillowtalkwithcharlie 