Patriarchy:1000, Hillary:0
Ever since I wrote an article in the Washington Post ten days ago, I've been getting love letters from women and super-smart men and brickbats from the Hillary-Haters. Unfortunately the Hillary-Haters are in charge. They monopolize the networks, the newspapers, the talk shows -- both radio and TV. They are crossing their legs for fear of castration. They are wearing the body armor our troops never got. Or got too late to matter. They are determined that a woman will not prove herself competent as Commander in Chief.
What's their ammunition? Oh, it's simple. They call her Mrs. Clinton, not Ms. or Senator. They pull out those nutcrackers in the shape of her supposed thighs. They complain about her ankles -- too thick. They complain on Fox TV that "White women are the problem" -- (idiot boy Kristol, the brain-damaged scion of Irving who rose through nepotism like our unelected "president"). Then they say she has "baggage" -- which could mean wrinkles, or her husband, or her daughter Chelsea whom they say she is "pimping." Then they say she never divorced Bill -- as if it's anyone's business. Then they moon over Obama's rhetorical style. Then they make it appear that she's a drone or a worker bee and has no royal jelly. Or else she has royal jelly and is queen bee. And that's her problem.
If Bill defends her, he's a pimp. If he doesn't, he's a creep. If Chelsea campaigns, it's cynical. If Obama trots out those cute little girls Michelle gave birth to, he's a family man. If Michelle attacks Hillary, it's news. If Hillary attacks Michelle -- well she can't because that would be racist. All we need now is a black woman in this race -- Maya or Oprah or Toni or Gayle or Donna -- any of whom would be a far better president than the one we've still got (not to mention his surrogate Dad, Dick Cheney, his co war-criminal). You couldn't attack Oprah or Maya or Toni or Gayle or Donna because of their color. Wow -- what an idea! Oprah for President. I'd definitely vote for that. I adore Maya Angelou as both person and poet. Toni Morrison is a genius and a true progressive. Gayle King is an executive, mother, communicator. Donna B. is a spokeswoman on CNN. Oprah -- well, she's Oprah -- way beyond having a last name.
Let me tell you about the Hillary-Haters who fill my inbox, they can't spell. They also believe in witchcraft. They believe HRC boils eye of newt with unborn baby's hair and little Jewish children not yet circumcised. They think she had a child with Vince Foster (even though Chelsea looks much like Bill and even his mother), then murdered him. They think she will leave Iraq, not leave Iraq, give us universal health care, not give us universal health care, sanction the killing of fetuses, not sanction the killing of fetuses, defend Israel, not defend Israel, end the Death Tax, not end the Death tax.
Honey, they are all mixed up. But they know they hate. And not just her -- but lots of people and things and ideas.
Ho hum. We've seen this all before in the United States of Amnesia (Gore Vidal's brilliant phrase). Remember Geraldine Ferraro -- tarred with the brush of her Italian-American husband, whom they claimed was a mafioso? Remember Bella Abzug, attacked for her hats (which covered too large a brain)? Remember Eleanor Roosevelt, attacked for her teeth? Remember Victoria Woodhull (the first woman to run for president) "hanged" as a whore? Remember Emma Goldman rode out of town on a rail -- for being Jewish, liking to dance and supporting the rights of the working classes?
Perhaps you know the history. Most likely you don't. They'd rather you didn't know it. Hence trillions for guns and pennies for education. The military industrial complex needs your boys and your girls in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan. But there's no one to guard the "homeland" -- a nice Hitlerian locution. Perhaps they'd rather you didn't know that every great empire -- from Persia to Greece to Rome -- fell when it spent more on war than on its people. This is history, kids. But we don't read history any more. History begins with Britney and ends with Paris.
I give up. If I have to watch another great American woman thrown in the dustbin of history to please the patriarchy, I'll move to Canada -- where they live four years longer than we because they have universal health care. Or Italy -- where Berlusconi played at being Mussolini but life is sweet anyway and people take vacations in August and at Chanukah (Christmas or Diwali or Kwaanza) and Passover (Easter).
Ok folks, stick your heads in the sand like Maureen Dowd who thinks we're not against women but just against Clinton "baggage." Or Barbara Walters who seems to have forgotten how viciously she was attacked when she got her first million dollar contract -- worth only half a million in Euros today.
Or Oprah who forgets she wasn't always Oprah -- I knew her when she had two names. She was always really smart, but she used to identify with women. And now she's joined the Obamarama. I get it. I understand. People want their own color in the White House (pun intended). And nobody said Barack wasn't brilliant.
But the truth is, we have no idea what he stands for. At least I don't. All we have are soundbites and attacks on "the" Clintons. But I guess the great American Amnesiate prefers it that way. And they always get what they deserve in the White House. Last time it was Dubya -- the dumb son of the CIA who showed them by never heeding their warnings. We lost Al Gore to sound bites about his nerdiness. Then we lost him again to hanging chads in Florida. We lost Adlai for being too intellectual. They used to say "egghead" in the olden days. And we lost Kerry to touch screens in Ohio and to election officials later indicted and tried and convicted. I didn't like him anyway. I especially hated his not returning fire at the Swiftboaters, and that stupid salute at the Democratic convention where Barack was born from the head of Athena.
Flip Flop, Flop Flip. This is the nature of our political dialogue. Might as well vote Repugnican as Democratic -- though I never have in my whole life. They're all just pols who secretly pledge to ignore fifty three percent of the population. And guess what? The fifty three percent is resigned to it. We don't like it. We wish it were otherwise. But we adore our sons and grandsons and husbands and fathers and grandfathers -- not to mention our nephews whom we happily nepotize.
One of my nephews works for Hillary. I bet his heart is breaking too.
Loading comments…
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
Dear Erica Jong,
If you wrote in this article that the reason you support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama is because she's a centrist who'll get more done. We could have logical debate about why you feel that, why I disagree, and we'd probably go off not feeling totally sickened by engaging in that debate.
When you start on this tiresome claptrap, I have to tune you out. This arguement is wearing so thin-T.I.R
Don't pee on my leg and tell me it's raining.
Hillary Clinton, over her 35 years of change, has managed to throw women and children under the bus with her policies and the policies she supported under her husband's watch.
Tastic - you mean like Clinton helping David and Susan Axelrod's children and their life cause to cure epilepsy for children and others:
http://www
It was January 1999, President Clinton’s impeachment trial was just beginning in the Senate and Hillary Clinton was scheduled to speak at the foundation’s fund-raiser in Chicago. Despite all the fuss back in Washington, Clinton kept the appointment. She spent hours that day in the epilepsy ward at Rush Presbyterian hospital, visiting children hooked up to machines by electrodes so that doctors might diagram their seizure activity and decide which portion of the brain to remove. At the hospital, a local reporter pressed her about the trial in Washington, asked her about that woman. At the organization’s reception at the Drake Hotel that evening, Clinton stood backstage looking over her remarks, figuring out where to insert anecdotes about the kids. “She couldn’t stop talking about what she had seen,” Susan Axelrod recalled. Later, at Hillary Clinton’s behest, the National Institutes of Health convened a conference on finding a cure for epilepsy. Susan Axelrod told me it was “one of the most important things anyone has done for epilepsy.” And this is how politics works: David Axelrod is now dedicated to derailing this woman’s career.
Tastic:
What a refreshing post.
A lot of "liberals" are showing their true colors. We expect the right wing to be racist, sexist and elitist. But when the Krugmans, Jongs and Steinems act similarly it is fking depressing
GWB is not charismatic, and he has no speaking skills.
What you are basically saying is that anyone who can charm us should be President of the United States. That's shallow and silly. I want a leader that knows what to do and how to can get things done. That's not Barack Obama. He knows how to charm us.
Nothing was ever his fault.
Nothing is ever her fault.
If one disagrees with them such person must be a tool of rightwing extremists, a bigot (closeted or out and out), or just not too bright.
And, if events are not going to suit them, well break out the umbrellas because the self pity is going to come pouring down (he with the red face and the wagging finger, she with the narrowed eyes and the set jaw).
No, the record numbers of voters taking part in the Democratic nominating process this year should just stay at home because they are obviously too dumb or too prejudiced to make informed decisions.
I'm sorry if it seems wrong to you that "Senator ?Clinton" has lost my vote, but she has done so because of her support of the war and her willing embrace of special interests and corporations.
Your broad brush stroke seems to be made more out of frustration than logic.
Obama supports this war as well with his funding votes. Clinton has a chance to get us out. What does Obama know about this? Just because he gave a "speech" does not deem him capable of getting the U.S. out of Iraq without disaster. I have heard specifics with Clinton's plan, not with Obama's. The only thing I have heard is the tired line, "I will be as careful getting the troops out as Bush was careless going in". Sure that sounds nice, what EXACTLY does his careful plan entail?
Supporting the troops who are already in harm's way is different from supporting the authorization of war in the first place. Ms. Clinton belongs to second category; Obama, the first. The problem with Ms. Clinton is that she wants it both ways. She is both the pro-war candidate and the anti-war candidate. And, she flip flops when she gets cornered. As to the "speech", it is one speech (available here: http://en.
I think the American public should be spanked
for not being nice to Hillary!
At the very least, maybe we should take away their right to vote.
It's just not right. Just a lot of stupid people saying all these bad things about her when we all know it's just because she is a female and that's just not right!
Yeah, that's it!
Spin it however you like, I'm still voting for
Barak Obama.
Don't count me in your 53%. I don't like being associated with your brand of feminism, even though I'm your age and gender, and a strong feminist.
You need to take a step back from your anger and frustration over your reason d'etre, the gender war. Hillary is one of the reasons why we spend more on war than education, she's not the solution. She voted us into this endless occupation, remember?
Please, go over to Obama's website and do some reading. Obama supporters don't depend upon the main stream media to show/tell them what they need to know about the candidates, and you shouldn't either. You'll find that Obama's got some good ideas, an excellent record of competence and success, and a refreshing approach to solving our problems without us having to hate our Republican neighbors anymore.
I'm tired of the vast, right-wing conspiracy approach. And I'm tired of people telling me that I'm a victim.
i totally appreciate your sentiments. what is disappointing to me is that we expect the right wing to be racist, sexist and elitist. but to see the krugmans, jongs, and steinems act similarly is a real let down. now we know who our real friends are!
The new campaign strategy is to demean Barack Obama as the new "Messiah who can walk on water" ...touted by both Clinton AND McCain. Are these the politics that will change the country or keep it the way Rove wanted it?
Skycontrol:
I like Obama. But unlike you I don't put my hands over my ears and scream "No-no-no-
If Obama gets the nomination, the GOP will SWIFTBOAT him on his voting record. See the following article about Obama's voting record in Illinois and please read to the end before you demonize me or anyone who disagrees with you: http://www
Sure, they'll swiftboat Obama, but they'll give Hillary a cakewalk.
Have you ever read the Whitewater testimony? Why don't you go and read to the end of that.
I wouldn't worry about it. Obama's proving to have something of a Reaganesque teflon quality. Because the whole point of his candidacy is the promise that he can reposition the game onto a fresh playing field, he's turning the conversation away from the subjects that the old pros would like to keep bringing up -- making them largely irrelevant.
(As opposed to Hillary, who doesn't offer anything transformative. Her candidacy is based on playing the same game we've been playing, only switching the person at the head of the table.)
Any candidate will have stuff that could be attacked as "baggage." The fear early on was that Obama couldn't stand up to it. But that's fast proving to be a myth. The proof is in the pudding.
Barack's big idea has been that the country is ready, right now, to embrace significant transformation as long as it can get the right kind of leader. If he succeeds in rallying the people -- even if part of his success is from soaring rhetoric, personality, etc -- then, by definition, his theory will have been proven correct. And that's what's happening. To ignore it makes no sense. You can't admit that, yeah, he's tapping into something significant in the American psyche -- that more than any other candidate he's tuned into what the people want and need right now -- and then make the same old tired arguments that he'll crumble under the pressure of conventional politics.
I've been a big fan of Obama for several years now, but I've always said to myself: if he wins, THEN his "big idea" will have been proven right. He IS winning, and I will continue to put my money on him.
That article is over a year old. Turns out that it wasn't a gold mine for anyone.
Thank you skycontrol: People are so stupid! It is annoying how easily manipulated you people are. "Those polls" showed McCain beating Obama by 20 points just four months ago, "those polls" showed Obama beating Clinton by double digits in New Hampshire.
It's amazing, how some people reason, as though life exist in a vacuum. Obama is leading McCain, and threats such as swiftboad and crucify have to be placed into context. Look who Obama, if the Nominee, will be running against, John McCain. Start looking from both sides here. Obama won't be out there buy himself, the poor thing, helpless, with the big bad GOP crucifying, swiftboating, blah, blah, blahing him. C'mon, Think already - Obama the nominee, who now is already a formidable presence, with the hardest part behind him - he got his message out - Hillary is still finding hers, will be even more formidable once he becomes the sole Democratic candidate That's why the GOP is shuffling and consolidating and trying to link arms with McCain, even though they don't agree. There looking at what's happening - The voter turnout, the message. The GOP has to put on a formidable campaign of their own, and it is NOT going to work with Swiftboating, and those aspects. Even Newt Gingrich, who is a Republican stalwart and do not doubt him not wanting his party to survive, is telling his members, "you guys need to change"
I dare the Republicans to swiftboat him and I guarantee, you will see such a reactionary action by the voters, why? - because his candidacy is about us, the voters, and how we want to deal with politics, and what we are tired of. By the time Obama, gets to the Democratic nomination, the voters will already have changed in their "Way of Thinking" that Swiftboating, or just say politics as they were - won't be the acceptable playbook.
You dare the GOP to swiftboat him? Naive. Very naive. Four short years ago they swiftboated Kerry and gave G.W. Bush a slim win for re-eleaction.
All the GOP has to do is generate a few thousand Evangelical votes (they load them up on buses) in key states in November.
And Obama loses to McCain.
They will accomplish this by pointing to Obama's voting record on guns, abortion and the death penalty.
Listen to Fox news -- they're already saying Obama is "to the left of Clinton," and "an ultra-libe
This is red meat for extreme right-wingers.
Pat Buchanan is already quoting from this 2007 article:
http://www
I believe you are ignoring the fact that Rush STILL has a huge audience, Glen Beck's book was number 2 on the bestseller's list. Red America has not disappeared. Maybe your network of people all agree with you. In my social contacts, I can't find anyone who would be willing to cast their votes for Obama. So, while it would be nice to believe swiftboating won't happen, it will. The media will also turn on Obama, he won't be their darling forever. Right now, the focus from the right has only been to make sure Clinton is NOT the nominee. When they accomplish that goal, they will move on to their next, destroy Obama. At the very least, you have to admit they know how to win elections.
Repubs are secretly supporting Osama Obama. They want him as dem contender so they can swiftboat him as a newbie lib who won't keep us safe, with result of seating Mccain in the White House. Repubs shudder when realizing Clinton will prevail over McCain, so they give O every opportunity to sound great, look great -- so they can simply lynch him in a general election. Sad but true?
Wow, bushpretzel, you managed to bring up the fear of Muslims and the fact that Obama is--gasp--African American ("lynch"--really?) all in just a few sentences. You know, I have actually lived in an African country that was 90% Muslim and managed to leave intact. Shocking, I know, but it kind of makes the whole "Muslim Fear" thing a little tired for me.
I would rather be a hope monger than a fear monger any day.
It's about the future - not the past. Turn the page people!
I agree! Anyone who needs to lean on crusty Ted Kennedy and the memory of JFK, Stevie Wonder and the Grateful Dead(LOL!) to bolster his appeal is not the candidate of the future.
"Ho hum. We've seen this all before in the United States of Amnesia (Gore Vidal's brilliant phrase). Remember Geraldine Ferraro -- tarred with the brush of her Italian-American husband, whom they claimed was a mafioso? Remember Bella Abzug, attacked for her hats (which covered too large a brain)? Remember Eleanor Roosevelt, attacked for her teeth? Remember Victoria Woodhull (the first woman to run for president) "hanged" as a whore? Remember Emma Goldman rode out of town on a rail -- for being Jewish, liking to dance and supporting the rights of the working classes?"
Do the lives of Ida B. Wells or Fannie Lou Hamer not register on your radar, Ms. Jong? Are they not women too, to paraphrase Sojourner Truth? If this truly is an issue of gender for you, why does your piece reinforce stereotypes of "the only blacks worth listening to?" The only women of color you mention -- save Michele Obama -- are all entertainers of one sort or another who do not directly work within politics.
Are they they only black women worth listening to, or do you need to turn off the TV, put the books down, and actually broaden your horizons by interacting with women of color on a visceral level -- possibly opening yourself up to the fact that your personal prejudices affect your ability to speak on behalf of *all* women since your piece so pointedly is in defense of a certain breed of woman.
You speak to (white) patriarchy, but what about the vestiges of racism to be found in such "liberal" movements as feminism and the environmental movement?
Ditto,
Makes you wonder whether Erica Jong whose work I had to read in my women's studies classes was this enthusiastic about Shirley Chisolms's presidential candidacy in the 1960s or Carol Mosley Braun's recent bid or the countless progressive women who have launched independent presidential bids. I am truly sick and tired of these so-called iconic feminists showing their true color's in this contest where race and gender has truly intersected in more sharpened ways than all our theorizing in gender studies in our classrooms (and I actually teach courses in feminism!) has shown
The irony of it all is that, one wonders where the the Gloria Steineims, Robin Morgans, and Erica Jongs stood when the debate over including Sojouner Truth in the suffragette statue raged a decade ago? The so-called race-gender strategic alliance exists to them only on paper?
I have also yet to hear any proof that Sen. Clinton is a bona fide feminist symbol. Did she fight in the trenches of the women's movement while simultaneously working Barry Goldwater's campaign (who platform was anti civil-rights?) in the 1960s? What part of her narrative demonstrates a struggle to achieve her present status if it were not for her husband's name? it does complete disservice to the many accomplished women political figures who could be more viable symbols of women's fight against the glass ceiling.
Besides, why this internecine war?Is Sen. Obama not some white woman's son?
Exactly!!!
"Or Oprah who forgets she wasn't always Oprah -- I knew her when she had two names. She was always really smart, but she used to identify with women. And now she's joined the Obamarama. I get it. I understand. People want their own color in the White House (pun intended).
This statement is very telling. Where the hell does Erica Jong get the audacity to say that Oprah used to identify with women? Does Ms. Jong really think that Oprah hasn't identified with african americans? Does her femaleness trump everything else that she is? How does not supporting Hillary indicate that she no longer identifies with women (as if she could ever stop identifying with and BEING a woman)?
This post illustrates the classism and racism that has long been a part of feminism.
well, what about The 10-year-old african-american girl in a beauty parlor in South Carolina who told Michelle Obama that if Barack wins the White House, "it means I can imagine anything for myself."
In the midst of all the gamesmanship and jockeying it is easy to lose sight of what is really unfolding here, in front of our eyes. It sounds simplistic and obvious to repeat it, but truly consider how fundamentally transformational it will be when a regular, everyday dark-skinned dude with a foreign name raised by a poor single-mother and born to a muslim father is, by dint of his own efforts, elevated to the presidency of the US.
Never, not once, since the earliest days of organized society has power been so wholly corralled by ideals. Ideals that the American experiment dared to offer the world in a fit of brazen and visionary impertinence. 232 years later we finally have a chance to make them real.
Susan1968,
You're right on...That'
If you can read check his web-site if not have someone read for you!!!
Why do you, Obama and all of his backers just tell me what he stands for instead of always telling people to read his web site? Can't you read? Back up your words
with the facts of your leader.
We are so completely and totally sick of the Clinton soap opera. We need a fresh start. A fresh start only Obama can bring.
ah thank you.
after seeing intelligent "feminist" and performer eve ensler write such propaganda about not voting for hilary BECAUSE she is a white woman, i've wondered why i've been hearing all hilary slander. in day to day conversations, the most i can get out of people is that - are you ready?- "she didn't leave bill. she let him get away with it." and that affects a possible presidency how?? how is that situation anyone's business? personal affairs are no one's business and any european would laugh off a president's sex life. and to judge the wife in that situation? and then try to say that it would affect a candidacy? it's so insane to me.
so yes, the hilary-haters. a symptom of the over-righteous and threatened. and i'm saying this as someone yet undecided, yet ready for whatever comes next. your vote is your responsibility. i would rather more attention was paid to policy and ability. education even (you know, the frat boy in the white house we have now).
For too long, the history of women has been a history of silence. Even today, there are those who are trying to silence our words. They are called Hillary Haters and comprise the majority of postings on this site.
BREAKING: New Battleground Head-To-Head Matchup Polls
by dansac
Sun Feb 17, 2008 at 10:40:10 AM PST
A subtitle should be: super-delegates look in here!!
Rasmussen put out new head-to-head match-ups between McCain and Obama and McCain and Clinton in the battleground states of Pennsylvania and Oregon.
Here's what you're saying to yourself: "Pennsylvania and Oregon, battleground states? No way. Not in this year of all years, those are safe Democratic states!" Really? Read on:
dansac's diary :: ::
First, the top-line news:
Pennsylvania:
Obama 49%
McCain 39%
McCain 44%
Clinton 42%
Oregon:
Obama 49%
McCain 40%
McCain 45%
Clinton 42%
The "polls" also told us that Al Gore, and then John Kerry, would be Presidents.
The ONLY thing this poll presently shows is that people in those states are for Obama. Should Clinton actually win the nomination, the left will not vote for McCain. All this is, is a show of present-day solidarity for the candidate of their choice, who is in a fierce battle for the nomination.
.....and you mean what? That current poll infomation shouldn't be shared because polls are unreliable. Like duh!!!!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
