Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Recency  | 
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
02:32 AM on 03/02/2008
Ms. Jong,

Funny thing happened on the way to the "Coinage Awards," seems your "koolth" shows up in June of 2006 on a blog entitled, "Brain Surgery with Spoons."

But, all in all, nice try and I have to admit a certain odd symmetry.

We have a candidate who is glib, rehearsed, a whiz at his stump speech (do you ever notice when he gets press attention it is because he has put a 'koolth' zinger into his stump speech -- methinks that is somewhat strange that it's considered newsworthy) and a really koolly 'koolth' guy until he starts to answer an unscripted question.

You see, I take exception to your characterization of his "koolthness" -- listen for the vocalized pauses or try reading them as they are parsed and patched together in articles with parenthetical phrases inhabiting other parenthetical phrases krazy glued together by commas, semi-colons and bailing wire.

It's all well and good to be "koolth" until someone asks, "Wonder what that means?" You see, I'm not waiting for me because I'm already here. And, yes, we can unless we shouldn't.

Just thinking here, but I wonder how "koolth" plays into telling the Canadians don't pay any attention to my words on the NAFTA stuff. I wonder how "koolth" it is to take contributions and pander to gay publications while not wanting to have your picture taken with certain San Francisco politicians at fundraisers being held in your honor? I guess it isn't "koolth" to be seen holding subcommittee meetings in the Senate when you are in charge of convening them? I guess it isn't "koolth" to overwhelm others with your "koolthness" by voting beyond being present 129 times. I guess it is sorta bad boy "koolth" to be pals with someone going to trial in federal court on Monday and your defense is, "I didn't do anything bad." But, as my screen name suggests, I digress...

I'm reminded of the words of John Lennon, "I don't want to be a loud-mouthed poet musician, but I can't not be what I am." I guess Sen. Obama can't not be what he is -- for the sake of our country and the Democratic party -- I wish he could.

IMHO, why wish when we could vote for Sen. Clinton -- I have no doubt about who she is, what she is or for what she stands. Guess that's not kooth, but it is sure is reassuring. Hey, I didn't have to make up a word for it -- that's reassuring too, yes it is.
09:16 AM on 03/02/2008
It's the vote for the Iraq war.

It' hard to be koolth when people are dying from your vote for an immoral and unjustified war of preemption.
12:25 PM on 03/02/2008

Granted in 20/20 hindsight the vote in 2002 was a bad thing, but I can't believe Sen. Obama would have had a 'Profiles in Courage' moment when as a state senator he couldn't take a stand on historical preservation issues in his district, couldn't look beyond the next office (he's run for higher office every three years), all, yes, all his legislative accomplishments came in the seventh and last year as a state senator and he voted present 129 times without taking a stand.

He has never been challenged in any election -- he has never had to face a real challenge. Even his first election to the state senate in Illinois, he hired attorneys to challenge and remove all the other candidates from the ballot. He ran unopposed. Same is true for the U.S. Senate election when his opponent imploded because of a messy divorce.

Given he gave a speech in 2002 at an anti-war rally in the Hyde Park neighborhood (one of the most liberal in the country) was that a 'Profile in Courage' moment or something that is very fortunate in hindsight? Given that his voting record on the war in the three years he's been in the Senate (hmmm...there's that three year thing again) has been identical to Sen. Clinton's, a 2002 speech that was taken off his website as if he was ashamed of it does not tip the balance and get my vote.
01:53 PM on 03/02/2008
for profit and world dominance.

i mean let's be direct and honest.
03:43 AM on 03/03/2008
Prolix: Simply put, you rock. Thank you for your comments.
I see Blue and Red sheeple.
02:22 AM on 03/02/2008
Erica, I've always loved you, but you are so wrong on this one! There is no "koolth" about Barack Obama. He is a media hyped, pre-packaged happy meal being foisted onto the adoring masses. They love him, they adore him, they swoon and they adulate. Oh, excuse me, I was talking about the media, but the people are also in on it. What is happening is sad. It wouldn't have to be if this guy didn't have so many negatives that there is not a snowball's chance in hell that he will be elected. The media is failing the Democractic Party by not reporting Obama's past. I predict the Republicans will probably take two days to knock him out of the race.
09:23 AM on 03/02/2008
Barack is the only candidate on the Democratic side who hasn't voted to start an immoral and preemptive war of preemption.

70% of the population is against the war.

Now let me see .... 70% minus the 30% nut job war lovers gives a plurality of 40% of the votes going to the only person running for the office who didn't vote to start an unjustified war.

Yes it is so sad, the people wanting hope and voting for the candidate who is offering that scarce commodity. We should vote for the woman who votes with the wind.
"There is a price to pay for speaking the truth. T
09:51 AM on 03/02/2008 could just as easily have been writing about today's BILL CLINTON...when you say:

Is Hillary's scoldingness a woman thing? It doesn't have to be. Sure, you could see her frustration. Here I am tryin' to 'splain myself to the boys -- again!"

Hil's hubby...has also morphed into a whiner...who was the couple from SNL in its heyday..with Bill Murray and Gilda Radner..were they Fred and Cindy...WHINER...

Now THAT would make a great skit...the bilaries...on the WHINERS..

If you can't stand the heat...( that a sexist comment...)...
01:04 AM on 03/02/2008
It is totally unnecessary to coin a new term and "koolth" is clunky at best. It ain't going nowhere, it has died in Jong's column already.

What is so sad is that the first woman with a real chance at the presidency happens to be Hillary Clinton. And yes, her persona as First Victim (other women married to jerks managed to get rid of them rather than try to "ride" them into bigger jobs) is just appalling to real feminists. A woman who conducts herself with dignity is what we need as a candidate and unfortunately Hillary Clinton in no way fits this description.
12:45 AM on 03/02/2008
The media smear campaign worked much better than in the nineties, and the young and clueless were immediately copying cheap insults from network tv, and chanting meaningless slogans as if they had all been hypnotized. The media's real job, though, has been concealing the facts. If anyone actually looked at Obama's ultra cautious voting record, or noticed that healthcare reform and reaching across the aisle are Clinton policies from 16 years ago, or thought about his non performace in the senate, or understood that campaign reform is about as probable as Nader's proportional representation, they might think twice about Obama's pose of Mr. Agent of Change. Obama's voting record alone shows that he would have voted for the war faster than a munitions supplier on meth.
The Clintons have made more change than anyone, and the most progress on behalf of minorities since LBJ. This while fending off the worst smear campaign in history. In today's positive environment, what Hillary could accomplish is off the scale. We could have had a national agenda exquisitely suited to present conditions, engineered by the most brilliant policy experts of out time. Instead we'll have an amatuer fumbling over complex systems he doesn't understand. That's ok with the war and oil industries, who also own the media. Hello. If they can't have another puppet, an inexperienced newcomer who owes them his election will be the next best thing.
09:29 AM on 03/02/2008

HIllary voted for the war like stink on poop. Never even read the NEI.

She just stuck her wetted finger in the air to see which way the wind was blowing and voted to authorize the dimmest and dumbest President of all time the power to start an immoral and unjustified war of preemption.

And what candidate is getting the most money from the effeing military/industrial complex?
03:46 AM on 03/03/2008
Thank you, thank you, thank you.
12:33 AM on 03/02/2008
I was very surprised by this post. I thought Ms. Jong was a supporter of Sen. Clinton's, yet she appears to be another fairweather friend. I don't think Sen. Clinton has been as good in the last two debates as she was in the previous 18 because honestly I think she's a bit tired. That said, she has overall been much better than Sen. Obama in all the debates by a mile and was at least as good as him in the final two (except for one or two bad moments) and he had some bad moments as well (which of course are not covered). It's funny how if you lose a few primaries supposed friends who said you were more qualified and more prepared to be President, seem to forget the value of substance over style. John Edwards lost many primaries, but I still think he was a very good candidate, who didn't receive fair media coverage, similar to what Sen. Clinton is experiencing now.
01:12 AM on 03/03/2008
Think of debates as battles (some among many). Think of the primary as a war. You can lose a lot of battles and still win the war. It's called strategic thinking. It's how Grant won the Civil War. At some point, the Confederates had nothing left to fight with.

What's interesting about this is that the Republicans have been excellent about strategic thinking, and the whole thing about building the Democratic party around winning key states was OK in the short term, but played into Republicn hands in the long term.

The bottom line is that the old-guard Dems have been fighting the political wars on the Repugs terms for so long, that the survivors have been reduced to using tactics right out of the Rove playbook to survive, not to mention that in some places they've moved so far to the right, they're more conservative than Goldwater was. Hell, Bill Kristol has enough credibilty to have a column on the NY Times ... 20 years ago he'd of been dumped into the special dustbin for right wing whack jobs.

What we need to secure a long term Democratic majority that goes to undo the damage done since Reagan took office, is start making the Republicans fight on our terms.

So. Here we have 2 candidates, Both pretty OK. Any other year would have been a HRC year. But she and her team can't seem to break out of the Republican ways of doing things, and they want the office more for themselves, than for the good of the country. I know that, because however weird Howard Dean might've been as a presidential candidate, he'll be the first baby going out with the bathwater if HRC gets the nomination, despite the fact that he may have just made it possible to elect HRC in the first place.
12:26 AM on 03/02/2008
And your point is? You wrote one good book. Hillary had some good years. iI's over. Get used to it. Obama and the country will win. HRC will go back to the Senate. Why not start advising her on how to do this graciously?
11:45 PM on 03/01/2008
Honestly, Erica! Was this post necessary?
01:11 AM on 03/02/2008
Of course it was necessary. "I've coined 'koolth'" "As a feminist, I see clearly what we need." "We are smart. Deal with it."

Are you some kind of misogynist who wants to deny Erica Jong yet another opportunity to talk about herself? PATRIARCHAL OPPRESSOR!!!!!
11:25 PM on 03/01/2008
Oh no Erica, you called Hillary "prissy"! Don't you know how loaded that word is with gender bias! You hateful misogynist!
10:53 PM on 03/01/2008
Unlike many of her sister feminists, Ms. Jong is to be commended for acknowledging what she calls Obama's 'koolth'. However, what she doesn't see, or is unwilling to credit, is that 'substance' is what enables Obama to project grace and command under fire.

If Obama's 'koolth' has begun to open your eyes, Ms. Jong, perhaps a visit to his website will inform you of the substance that undergirds it.
11:13 PM on 03/01/2008
Obama to project grace and command under fire.

My My. Though Gods they were.
He projects, emanates, shines, this is his substance?
He is kooth under fire.
What malarky!
10:31 PM on 03/01/2008
Look, let's win the election. Or lose. The next four years are going to be a ripping disaster so to quote Mr T. pity the man (or woman) who gets the job. Of the three still standing Obama is the best candidate.
Men of quality respect women's equality.
09:52 PM on 03/01/2008
>Either of them would be far better than Bomb Bomb McCain and his party of snaggle-toothed dinosaurs. <

09:41 PM on 03/01/2008
They sure don't have the same view regarding Foreign Policy. Not only he is willing to talk to rogue states, but he made a platform out of this diplomatic style. That sure will help in the process of international integration and peace.

And I suspect (just suspect, cannot know for sure) that she will be much more of a Corporate President. There are many signs of it. I particularly hate the fact that she was such a Wal-Mart supporter. And I really don't have a good impression of Clinton's presidency - which is impossible to disassociate from Hillary.

Honestly, if there were 2 candidates that I felt were good, equally good, and one was a woman - I would support the woman. Even though I really dislike the feminist obsession with gender and what I perceive as a distortion of reality and oportunistic appropriation of any misfortune ever suffered by any being of the female sex. I would prefer the woman because - hey, these boy's club on politics suck!

But not Hillary - I really don't like her. Wal-Mart, NAFTA, Iraq War, her arrogant attitude. Her playboy husband, their Plan Colombia, their War on Drugs filling the prisons of these country, his bombing of Sudan's medicine supply (the beginning of the War on Terror); etc, etc. They are no good! Not much different, in my opinion, than the Republicans.

Since I cannot vote in this country, I can only hope that she doesn't ever make it to the White House. That would just be the same old bad news of politics.
Men of quality respect women's equality.
10:01 PM on 03/01/2008
>Not only he is willing to talk to rogue states, but he made a platform out of this diplomatic style. That sure will help in the process of international integration and peace.<

That is certainly a large difference between the two, Diogod. Communication and diplomacy will always achieve more positive ends than stubbornness and demands. After 7+ years of the latter, I'm more than ready for an administration based on the former.
per omnia extrema
09:25 PM on 03/01/2008
The intangible "charisma" has more to do with this campaign than any other in recent memory. Max Weber, it should be noted, coined the term. Obama fits within Weber's notion of charisma which means that Obama has an extraordinary personality who is deeply hostile to the existing order. This is only the beginning. Obama carries within him a revolution--a revolution of acetylene that will weld this nation together.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
10:14 PM on 03/01/2008
How do you know that?

I think you, and many other Obama supporters, are setting yourselves up for a terrible disappointment. Obama might be a good guy, but he can't fix everything.

Look at his voting record. It's not that great. It's very right-wing actually.

I still prefer him over Hillary, for the same reasons as Erica Jong. But it's totally naive to say he carries within him a revolution.
Do I Have to be Nice ?
01:30 PM on 03/02/2008
" Look at his voting record. It's not that great. It's very right-wing actually. "

I have looked at his voting record and you are wrong or have a completely different definition of 'right wing'.
10:28 PM on 03/01/2008
Barack Obama: Movement of Fad?

Which is it? Movement or fad?

The thing about movements is that the movement is much more significant than any of the people involved in the movement. Civil Rights was much more than Martin Luther King, Jr. Women’s Rights was much more than Gloria Steinem. Is the Obama movement any more than Barack Obama?

The problem with fads is that after the new is worn off, all you have left is just so much stuff left cluttering up the place or some memory you’d just as soon forget. The Hoola-Hoop? The Moral Majority? Tattoos? Obama?

I don’t want another President of the United States elected because he is the cool guy, the new kid in town, the most popular guy in town, or the guy you’d rather have a beer with. Been there, done that.

I wanted Bill Clinton because he was smart and knew his stuff on any topic ever asked of him. I wanted Al Gore because he was smart and knew his stuff. Same with John Kerry.

That is why I am a Hillary supporter. I want someone smart, who has ready answers and a good understanding of most topics. Someone who knows her stuff.

Hillary did everything Barack Obama brags about having done some 30 or more years before he did them. When he was in middle school Hillary was actively involved in local organizing, the advocacy of important and enduring issues, the public service, the book and the Grammy.

Maybe she was his role model and he just didn’t know he was following in her footsteps.

Tony Smith
March 1, 2008
01:01 AM on 03/02/2008
Tony Smith:

You say that "Hillary did everything Barak Obama brags about." Does "everything" include Hillary support for the Iraq war, Her opposition to the use of cluster bombs, her support of corporations, such as Wal-Mart, that exploit their workers? You cited no specific accomplishment to justify your claim.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
01:47 AM on 03/02/2008
I'm raising the b.s. flag. If you like Hillary fine, but don't act as if your unaffected by the hype.

If that were true Bush 41 would have gotten a second term. You voted for Bill because he was the Cool guy, the outsider, the Younger, hungrier, saxaphone playin, boxer wearing, cool guy.

More importantly you voted for him because he was a "New Type" of democrat. He wasn't the old school (tax and spend) democrat you had feared. He was the fiscally responsible balance the budget, change welfare as we know it, good for the corporations democrat.

Barack Obama has alot of the same story naratives as Bill Clinton. Poor family, raised by single parents, Charming/eloquent, HIGHLY educated, drawn to public service vs private sector, both lost their first elections, both have HIGHLY educated/STRONG willed wives, they both have daughters, both challenged the washington insider pick for their parties nomination (Cal Gov. J. Brown).

Give me a break!!! Its the same story again, but YOU are not gonna fall for it again. Whatever...
09:20 PM on 03/01/2008
NIce going Erika.....
How do you feel about otaypanky's discription of us...
Are you over 50 and fit into the same catogory?
09:14 PM on 03/01/2008
I think it's offensive to suggest that Clinton was dragged down to anyone's level. Isn't just who she is? When is Clinton ever truly responsible for her own behavior?

She wasn't responsible for voting for the war, Bush tricked her.

She wasn't responsible for voting to label the Iranian guard a terrorist group.

She wasn't responsible for the donation she took from a law firm with an alleged longstanding history of sexual assault and aggression against female employees.

She wasn't responsible for NAFTA or for the repeal of AFDC, but she can take credit for the programs of her husband's administration that are still popular.

When does she take responsibility for siding with Bush to get his agenda DONE!?!?? The time for confidence would have been at the time of the Iraq war, the Iranian vote, standing against the No Child Left Behind Act, supporting the Levin Amendment, banning cluster bombs... Isn't it a little too late for 'koolth', now!?!??
10:31 PM on 03/01/2008
as seated US Senators, both Clinton and Obama owe us an explanation as to why they have done ziltch with that power.
constitutionally, they can hold up any war funding vote. to this day, nada.
when will they use their power? i feel never.

though both are repug-lite for my taste, at least obama has the balls to talk with rogue states instead of hiding in the bathroom.

for a country claiming the greatest power on earth, we sure have weak bladders when it comes to exercising soft power.