This time last week, I got into the most vicious fight I’ve ever had with my mother. We were screaming over the phone so loudly my roommate hid in her room, traumatized by that special exchange of profanities that only a mother and daughter can share.

What were we yelling about? The fact that I’m a senior and still unemployed? Nope. That lofty charge on my credit card for a store called “Liquor World?” Nope.

The verbal altercation centered around my vote for Barack Obama.

Like many women in her generation, my mom is adamant about getting Hillary Clinton into the White House. She can’t understand why a self-described feminist (that would be me) would go with Obama, the seemingly inexperienced, albeit charming, senator from Illinois.

In fact, she finds it unconscionable—as if I am a traitor to all women. The crux of her argument rests upon my alleged inability to understand the plight of women as it stood a generation ago. According to her, I am morally obligated to vote for Hillary.

And yet, I cast my vote for Obama. As these two candidates appear destined for months of battle for delegates and superdelegates, I’m standing behind my candidate of choice (who just so happens to be a man).

As political pundits don’t tire of noting, Hillary is in the awkward position of being “The Man” when compared to Obama. The cost of crafting an image founded on the premise of experience (both as First Lady and as a Senator) is the appearance as the consummate Washington D.C. insider.

As polls have proved, a lot of voters within my generation are sick and tired of the hierarchy working within D.C. While her candidacy is revolutionary in the historical sense, from a contemporary perspective Hillary personifies that establishment that we don’t want around anymore.

The Clinton camp certainly never wagered that Obama would put up such a strong fight. In fact, it looks like America’s favorite presidential couple from the 1990s is miffed that they didn’t resonate as much with college students reared during their time on Pennsylvania Avenue.

After all, wasn’t Bill Clinton one of the most enduring public figures of our time? After the Bush administration, wasn’t he vindicated? Considering that the ex-president is locked away in the bunker usually reserved for Dick Cheney, I guess everything has an expiration date.

Such is the sense of insulted entitlement that has emanated from the Clinton campaign in the days leading up to that infamous “3 A.M.” ad (fear-mongering much?). Hillary’s recent remarks hinting at a joint ticket—with her on top, of course—further indicate the candidate’s conviction that the presidency is her prerogative.

Ultimately, I voted for Obama because he’s the candidate with whom I identify most. And though my mom calls me a traitor I’m going to stick it out with Obama.

To be honest, I do feel a little guilty about not supporting the first woman with a legitimate chance of becoming the most powerful person in the world. But if I were to vote for Hillary Clinton solely on the basis of her gender, is that really a vote of confidence for the feminist movement? In fact, it’s reverse discrimination—a problematic solution to a serious problem.

Regardless of the outcome of the primary, Hillary’s political career will remain intact. Should she win, I’d gladly vote for her over Grandpa McCain. On the other hand, if she does cede the nomination to Obama, she’ll obviously remain a prominent figure within the Democratic Party, and an icon to many American women.

Plus, I hear the governor’s mansion in New York might just open up.

Jessica C. Coggins ’08, a Crimson arts editor, is an English and American literature and language concentrator in Cabot House.