Dear Clinton supporters,

As non-infatuated relatively clear-eyed Obama supporter, I would like to apologize for this article. While I thought Wilentz's article was atrocious, I ascribed it (and Joan Walsh's last few) to Clinton supporters working their way through the stages of grief, and have been willing to cut them some slack. (Joan is still at 2, Anger: "its all sexism!", Wilentz seems to be between that and 3, Bargaining: "It's not fair... maybe if we changed the rules...".) #4 Depression should set in soon, followed by acceptance and hopefully some healing, followed by even some joy at a new not neoconservative Administration in the Fall.

But this article by Brad DeLong isn't going to help with any of that. In fact, it doesn't really address anything substantive in Wilentz's wail of grief (nor Walsh's for that matter), it consists of a bunch of Clintonesque cynical calculation and triangulation-- is DeLong trying to speak Clintonese to Clinton supporters or something? If so, it won't work at all. Just about the worst thing you can tell someone grieving is that they are wrong and will feel better tomorrow.

Maybe because I am an ex-pat, or maybe because I'm older and have a memory longer than the last two elections, but I just do not think that selecting a Democratic nominee on the basis of "electability" is relevant. I just cannot see how McCain can possible win, no matter who or what becomes the Democratic nominee.

Besides which, I for one do not want to select a nominee based on electability or experience, over being right; nor based on gender or race, over being clearly and substantially different (and better) than the other available offerings. Please everyone, do not vote for Obama because he's "more likely to win," or because he's black or whatever, but because he represents our best chance to shake up a box that badly needs a good shaking.

I don't think DeLong's piece will change anyone's thinking at all, and will mostly be like rubbing salt in some wounds that instead need some healing and sympathy. I do not in any way think that Salon, by publishing this, is doing anything at all towards demonstrating even-handedness, nor building any kind of bridges within the Democratic party. If anything, its effect will be exactly the contrary.

And finally, my dear Clinton-supporting friends, I really do share your sadness, and hope that eventually, well in a few months anyway, you will be able to bring some of the passion and idealism along with you to the campaign that will, I think, inevitably win, and very likely change America.

Isn't this particular debate about 25 years old now? Hasn't just about everything that can be said on the topic, been said?

And the question, not if porn is good or bad or feminist or sexist, but whether it should be legally banned, been pretty much settled?

So what is the point?

I have wrestled with this question for much of my life. I really do think it means something; not, so much if at all, to define yourself against or as different from women, as to define yourself against the witch's brew of your own hormones and instincts, and to deal with the weight of enormous historical/social presumptions.

I was brought to believe in quaint old fashioned concepts like honour and women and children first. I don't think that these are concepts to be ridiculed; I also don't think that they are concepts that do not pertain to women. But I do think that a man, to have any self-respect at all, must maintain a level of honour and self-sacrifice, as I am sure women do too. I don't think that they are determined against each other.

I think that a man has to be prepared to fight, and to lose fights if unavoidable; I do not think that being willing to fight is incompatible with pacifism: certainly Ghandi and Jesus were pretty hard fighters when it came right down to it. Me, I'm a little bit less pure, and feel able and willing to engage in fisticuffs when the situation absolutely demands. And to be honest, it felt damn good when I had right on my side, and felt justified and righteous in unleashing a can of whoopass on some deserving scumbag.

And I've taken a couple of beatings in a good cause in my time.

I think it is about a lot of the old now derided ideals, of selflessness, self-sacrifice, and silence and equanimity in the face of danger and defeat. Much as Hemingway was in life a real asshole, there is still a lot to be said for Hemingwayesque machismo, of strong silence in the face of despair, of the stoic and undemonstrative acceptance of deep emotions.

In terms of social policy, we want men to stick around, to be responsible fathers and husbands; I don't see very much encouragement or support or honour being handed out to the guys that do that.

I've done that. It wasn't always, or mostly, fun. There is a certain satisfaction though. I can look myself in the eye in the mirror in the morning, and more importantly, I look both my son and my wife in the eye too.