Umm...wait a minute. You've just used the word "radiohead" to describe Rush Limbaugh?
This is a perfect demonstration of what it means to be un-koolth. No one with any sense would describe Rush Limbaugh using the name of that band. Rush Limbaugh is a politically-minded, radio windbag with no integrity, little humanity and less relevance. Radiohead is one of the most pivotal, influential bands of our time. To use the name of this band in describing Rush Limbaugh is evidence that you don't know much about them, because it will almost certainly be taken as a sign of disrespect by the band members.
Your entire point is moot now because you've proven that you don't understand the word you're trying to define.
You don' t need a new word. Obama is already "cool".
Koolth: What Barack Has
Ever since that last debate in which Hillary sounded like a scold and Barack came across as the prince of America, I've been trying to find a word for Obama's style. Koolth is what I've come up with.
I could have said sprezzatura -- that gorgeous Italian word which means making the difficult look easy, but Americans hate foreign words -- especially in campaigns and book titles. So I've coined koolth. What it means is: contemporary, relaxed, easy, breezy and sure. Obama exudes it. HRC seems as pissy and prissy and apoplectic as, say, Tim Russert. Yes, the press ganged up on her. Yes, she was one woman and a bunch of hostile guys -- as usual. But she should have kept her cool. Obama bested her with his divine koolth.
This is important because their positions are so similar. Health care, check. Out of Iraq, check. Pro-children, check. Anti-poverty, check. Anti-Repugnican tax-cuts for the rich, check. Worried about the deficit and plunging dollar, check. I could go on but I won't.
They are both Dems in a democratic year. And they both have similar views of the repugnican disaster that's undone our country in seven lean mean years. They are both competent and strong and hard-working. Either of them would be far better than Bomb Bomb McCain and his party of snaggle-toothed dinosaurs. But when substance is similar, style matters. And Obama has koolthwhile Hillary seems as pissed off and passe as Chris Matthews and Tim Russert. Not to mention Rush Limbaugh and all the other right wing radioheads. They are done for. It's a new century.
(By the way, Brian Williams also has koolth -- and a sense of humor.)
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!
But she should have practiced patience. If you are the queen, act like the queen. Don't let the bastards drag you down to their level.
As a feminist, I see clearly what we need: confidence that our positions are right and inevitable. Cool judgment that doesn't stoop to the level of our idiotic press.
We are smart. Deal with it. And we're not going down in the gutter with the gutter press. Tina Fey was right: Bitches get things done. Long live bitches who have the confidence of koolth.
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
yeah, brizzle...I think you have your history mixed-up; I also don't think that Jong was referencing the band in any way, shape or form. And, I am very familiar with the band.
Jong's use of 'radiohead' would be equivalent to the using the term 'talking heads' - a (largely) negative term used for TV personalities who drone on and on - but also the name of a great band. Does this mean I can't say, "Hannity and O'Reilly are a two stellar examples of excrement-ingesting talking heads" without you saying that I am offending the band, talking heads, or that I don't understand what I am talking about?
Don't you have this backwards? Didn't the band come after the term?
I've been calling him Soul Man...
...yes I know I didn't coin the term. He just is!
Obama has kooth, eh? I guess that explains Hillary's recent decision to demonstrate her ballth.
What the 'l...and then I spell koolth wrong...
Nothing is more appealing or attractive in a person than their being comfortable in their own skin. Barack Obama exudes that quality, Hillary Clinton seldom does.
I've attended political rallies of both Clinton and Obama, and the air in the room is just different. The aura that both candidates exude couldn't be more different.
That's like saying 'Since Mike Huckabee is still in the race, then John McCain hasn't been able to close the deal, has he?"
Sorry to break it to you, Ms. Jonge. But the author Henry Miller beat you to it. He used "coolth" several decades ago in either Tropic of Cancer or Sexus. And before him it was used by J. R. R. Tolkien in 1924. I myself have been using it for years.
I wouldn't admit that...
Sorry...I meant "Jong"
Thank you...
It sounds like you broke out of your prejudiced view and rose above the fray to see the intangibles. Hillary would have been great 4 years ago when Americans needed discipline from gorging on the economy. 4 years later they have woken from their drunken stupor and are in need of a voice that is more pleasant to the sober reality of their gluttony.
Unfortunately due to the circumstances (Bill) she would have been better suited to ride shotgun to the Whitehouse. Using her detailed qualities to manage cleaning up the mess of the past 7 years and being the dogmatic force behind their VERY similar policies...Hopefully if things play out like they have. Hillary can be a force to reckoned with and knuckle up the feckless Democratic legislatures that need to get on board or find the door.
Erica, I have total respect for someone who can see the other side of their own argument. Good for you! Too many of us treat politics as a sporting event. There are good and bad points about almost every candidate. The wise among us can see both and still support one. Thanks.
You are focused on the superficial differences between the candidates, as is most of the media, mainstream and otherwise, and therefore you are completely missing the fundamental difference between Clinton and Obama. It is not so much a difference on policy issues. As you say, their policy positions are similar. The real difference is that Obama is a bottom up candidate, and Clinton is a top down candidate. Obama says that WE are the change that we seek. Clinton says that she is going to roll up her sleeves and get to work on day one. Obama is a "small d" democrat. He wants to empower the people. Clinton wants to restore the oligarchy that we allow to make decisions for us. Obama wants to inspire the people and build a movement. Clinton wants to persuade the people to place their confidence in her.
Is it any wonder that Obama is building a movement? And is attracting huge crowds, especially young people who want to feel empowered. Hillary on the other hand, is attracting older and more traditional voters, who want an "experienced" leader to take care of us.
Will America live up to the promise of its revolutionary founders who vowed that we would have no more kings in this country? Obama's movement is hoping that YES WE CAN!
it is easy to please both factions: let obama lead his movement so that he can encourage hillary as president to do good things. hillary already wants to do good things, but politics being what they are, she is not getting credit for it.
I have been seeing this sort of dismissive attitude both from the press and from Clinton supporters. The same argument was made by Pennsylvania's governor Friday night on Bill Maher. Obama as some sort of " Movement Leader" delivering these new, but woefully inexperienced voters, to the corrupt Democratic machinery to do with as they please. The thing is that the old bipartisan model hasnt, isnt, and wont work to solve the problems this country faces. The old school leaders are threatened by the model that Obama has been running. They see an Obama victory as the beginning of a reformation of the Democratic party and they are right. Every sitting official sees a large group of activists forming state by state with no loyalty to anyone but their own principals. They foresee a sea of primary challenges removing the entrenched legislators and governors from power. They see constituencies holding them accountable for their votes and accomplishments. They see a working democracy and they dont like it. They have grown comfortable in their relationships with the powerful and wealthy. They see the role of government as some sort of economic engine. They vote to protect the crimes of the wealthy while reasoning that we all benefit from the commerce that this unfettered capitalism generates. The idea of modern democracy was based on a philosophy of all being equal in the eyes of the law. We can see that this is far from what we have become when we look at the racial make-up of the citizens we have in our prisons. We can see it in thousands of ways if we look hard enough. If our government was doing the job of protecting its citizens from the depravity of the powerful there would be no need for a movement and Barack Obama would be just another lawyer in Chicago. That is not the case and this movement is much needed. The upside of this is that the only thing we need to agree on is that the government works for the people not the wealthy or the church. Thats how this all got started in 1775. Its time we took it back. Membership in this club costs you nothing, all it asks is that you participate. Join us and help us take back our democracy.
Erica Jong saying something nice about Obama? The mountain truly has come to Mohammed!
JP
There are eight female governors and sixteen female senators (including Sen. Clinton) in this country that somehow miraculously ascended to their positions against the supposed sexist media. But really, Hillary has not bolstered her candidacy by being so noticeably peevish, whiny, and self-pitying about the media's coverage of her campaign. If the Clintons really want better coverage, maybe they shouldn't kick reporters like dogs. Looking at the flipside of this argument, if Barack Obama had just lost 11 straight contests, would he still be at the epicenter of media attention? That's a rhetorical question.
8 govenors and 16 senators, wow! We should feel really good about that. How many states do we have now? What percentage of the population are women? It's overly simplistic to blame it all on the media, but we still have some work to do before we have equal representation.
the gender bias is not imagined, one only has to watch MSNBC to see that is alive and well and infecting American Democracy
Above- I meant to say Obamas "timidity"- so much for typing too fast!
Obama's koolth quotient scored points with me as his self-professed timidy answering questions on the firing line increasingly became more decisive and clear.
Ok Erica after your last post I had written you off as antiquated and angry about it to the point of irrelevancy, and told you so in no uncertain terms.
I am prepared (and happy) to consider that it was just one of those days where things aren"t going your way and you let your anger do your talking, happens to us all.
So, for what it"s worth and no matter who you think should be President, I offer you my congratulations and appreciation for a lovely piece.
BTY: Koolth isn"t that great but good post anyway ;-)
This is the most ridiculous post I have read throughout this campaign and that is saying quite a lot. What you are referring to is the cult of masculinity. That is the "koolth". You should know better.
Interesting. Erica, who could apparently come up with a feminist interpretation of "it's a nice day," sees Hillary's snotty superiority as "explaining everything to the boys . . . again." Me, I see it as "I DESERVE this nomination, I OWN this nomination, I AM THE INEVITABLE CANDIDATE, why can't these niggling little insignificant ant people UNDERSTAND that?"
I can't quite get over "koolth" sounding like a lisping 5-year-old who's just lost a front tooth.
From my perspective, it's not style, it's the exudates of superior substance that she's kenning. The audacity of integrity deployed. He's solid good and better than Clinton. He knows it, and it shows. We really don't need new words for the confidence of character, do we?
Pissed off and passe. Koolth schmoolth. Oh, Erica...I'm trying. I mean I really am. Staying out of the blogging fray for the most part, absorbing as much as I can from many sources. Some months ago I would have enthusiastically told you that my vote will be cast as a Democrat, no matter the candidate, and that is still the truth. But now that I see the ship sinking, feel the inevitability of an Obama candidacy (and yea, verily, an Obama presidency as well), I cannot find what others are seeing in this individual, and it concerns and saddens me. (NOT gonna say fear...nope...can't make me do it.) Others of my democratic ilk are having no trouble changing their allegiances with fervor. Why can't I?
I don't understand what has you so disillusioned. I'm for Obama all the way, but believe you-me, if Hillary wins the nomination I'll be working my heinie off for her. Maybe you're just one of those people who have to go for the underdog? Just keep in mind that if you do not vote for a Democrat... our best bet... then you are helping to create more of the same. Nader cannot in any way shape or form win this election. Are you really going to stand on some nebulous "he's not my favorite" principal, after the horror of the past 7 years? I just don't believe your post, actually.
You don't have to think that Obama is the political messiah of our times to see that if he wins the nomination he's our best choice over McCain. The same goes for Clinton. Unless of course you haven't been paying any attention to what's been going on. You should try to find the source of your angst and work through it... and fast! We need every damn vote we can get so that the election cannot be stolen. Again.
Hell no, I'm not...I have no principle that will allow another Republican in the White House...And I didn't say that. You don't believe me? Oh, I'm so very relieved. :) I don't want to mean it. I do mean that I will support the Democratic nominee no matter what. My post says that. I just want to like it. You make a good point about disillusionment. I will work my heinie off for the candidate of our party GLADLY, I could spare the heinie.
Hi Lucy, You're right, you did say that you would vote for the Dem, no matter what. Sorry. I got all worked up! Must be 7 years of political frustration bubbling out!
I can use some heinie reducing too and will be elbow to elbow with you this year!
What has really helped me regain optimism about our future is to do some real concrete work. I'm working for MoveOn, an organization that I really believe in... mostly because they ARE their membership... just like a real democracy! Just working hard with other like-minded people gives me faith that we can actually wake up as a country and become mature enough to know that our government is US... and that there are actually more of Us than there are Them. We just sort of let the past few years happen in a dazed and somewhat complacent way and now it's time to kick some heinie (and lose some in the process!). I appreciated your response.
If Hillary is taken down by the gender biased media, I will for the first time in my life not vote for a Democrat. Thank heavens Ralph has entered the ring.
My mother has the same "I don't what it is that I don't like about Obama, but I just don't like him" attitude.
I think, partially, especially if you really like Senator Clinton, it's that some young, charismatic man has stepped forward and taken away what, by many estimations, should have been the victory of an older, experienced, intelligent and competent woman.
I can understand that.
After Wisconsin was called for Senator Obama, I for the first time felt a pang of sorrow and pity for Senator Clinton and her family. About a year ago the election seemed in the bag for her - not just because of a Clinton name and legacy (though that does have its affect, like the Kennedy or Bush name), but because she is a very qualified politician in her own right.
I can only imagine what it must be like for the women out there who saw Hillary as breaking the ultimate glass ceiling in the country. It would have been a good thing, on that aspect alone if not others, for the country and the world.
To see that quickly disappear because some young, handsome and well-spoken man steps in and "steals" it away from her -
Senator Obama, in some ways, comes to represent the continued oppression of women in America. Unfairly, I would strongly argue, as that has nothing to do with Barack's candidacy. And that oppression is fading like racism - it still exists in pockets in America, but as a whole the country barely registers it beyond some of the left-over signs of its "glory days."
I understand that - but I think women have to accept that maybe Senator Clinton is getting beat on character, positions, and political reasons - and that if she does lose it will have little to do with her being a woman but if she wins it will have a lot to do with her being a woman. And, for woman as a whole in the USA, that's not a bad thing.
I am a NY'er and female but never believed Hillary had "noblesse oblige" to become our first female president. Because she was once First Lady and now a NY Senator does not make her, hands down, the most electable female candidate to run for president now or ever. She deserves respect for fighting tenaciously. However, her "when the red phone rings" campaign commercial resorted to Bush style fearmongering and renders an impression of all that is "spooky" unleaderlike leadership (not to be confused with unladylike leadership).
My son is ten and he says, "If a black woman ran for president, she'd win." She would if she had koolth.
a woman who had that would win. we all need some of it.
The biggest mistake Hillary could commit now is trying to force herself to act cool, or with Koolth. If it's not her, why try? Al Gore reinvented himself repeatedly in 2000 while he should have been himself.
Also, Russert was equally hostile to Hillary and Barack.
Russert is just equally hostile to everyone in a non-personal way. He's kind of a wind bag in that sense.
You cannot "act" koolth. You either have it or you do not.
It's already happened, she's talking with a plain-folks, matter-of-fact, down-to-earth simplicity (which sounds forced) and has picked up Obama's inflection and cadence. She's basically doing Obama on the stump.
I am not a Hillary Hater. But I am so fed up with this idea that she should be elected because she's a woman. Yes, it's true, she looked ready to be the first woman ever to become President. But it didn't go that way. Barack Obama showed up - and he's the better candidate.
doubt Erica's newly invented word will stick . .. ah Erica .. . still pushing for hillary because she is a woman . . . still completely ignoring hillary's hawk pro-bush voting record . . . guess Erica doesn't realise more feminists are for Obama than are for clinton.
Posted March 1, 2008 | 10:32 AM (EST)