Hmmm...I won't deny the media bias against Hillary!
I had a sort of debate with my Hillary Clinton-loving friends—all gay, all in their mid-thirties to mid-forties—to try to explain to them why they should not blame Barack Obama for possibly beating her (we'll know Tuesday night), and why they should not feel afraid of him as the probable Democratic nominee. For me, it's always been quite easy. I've always liked him even as I loved her. I never thought he'd be a lousy choice. Probably my lowest moment with him was when he was adding Donnie McClurkin to his gospel tour of the South—partly because I recoiled from an anti-gay gay being given such legitimacy, but more practically because I thought it showed how green he was not to have known better.
But even as I was coming around to him, I was dealing with a lot of ridiculous negativity toward Hillary from fellow Democrats. Reading the comments on DailyKos were so alienating—they spoke of her as if she, this liberal firebrand in most people's minds, were no better than George W. Bush. She's not perfect, to be sure, but that was a Bush too far. Also, it's been painfully obvious how much the press loathes her—every move she makes is unfavorably spun.
Since then, as Hillary has faltered, Barack has impressed me. But as I've come to know and like him, I've noticed the last bit of fight surfacing from Hillary's supporters. In my mind, at least when it comes to her gay fans, I feel this is an emotional response—we've been attached to her and her husband as the most gay-friendly White House inhabitants ever. She was the first First Lady to walk in a gay pride parade. Sure, Clinton gave us Don't Ask, Don't Tell, but it was an improvement on Don't Even Think About It 15 years ago. And ever since Hillary's amazing popular-opinion comeback, during which she swept into office as the junior senator from New York, we've been counting down to the impossible dream: President Clinton v. 2.0.
Guess what? We're getting a chance at President Clinton v. 2.0. His name is Barack Obama.