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
Those who invoke the gender-bias flog (as has Erica Jong) in defense of Hillary Clinton's campaign are the worst offenders in terms of sexist behavior. Neither Ms. Jong nor any of Sen. Clinton's other advocates make a case FOR her; merely that support of anyone else amounts to male-centric sexism.
This is utter nonsense. I am not (yet) a supporter of Sen. Obama, but I KNOW I will never support Sen. Clinton BECAUSE OF HER ABYSMAL SENATE VOTING RECORD, and her arrogant demolition of universal healthcare in the 1990's with her clueless soul-mate, Ira Magaziner.
Sen. Hillary Clinton voted FOR the USA PATRIOT Act. There is no excuse for this.
No one need be guilt-tripped by the likes of Ms. Jong's sexist rants. Sen. Clinton earned her own poor record without any help from sexists. I, for one, would like to see a woman in the White House--just not Hillary Clinton.
This is totally inaccurate. I live in NY, Hillary is my Senator.
Yes she's made a few bad voting choices but she has a stellar voting record in the Senate, has claimed no credit and gets no credit.
As they say to the wacko right: you're entitled to your own opinion but not to your own facts.
Sexism is just ugly.
So what? Obama can pretend he would now have voted for the Patriot act because he was still a state political in Illinois. Tell us, people from Illinois, did he accomplish anything besides rhetoric, the same insubstantial rhetoric he preaches now? Most of us, including most of you, haven't a clue about what he really stands for. We absolutely know what Senator Clinton plans to accomplish.
If you acted as a responsible citizen and did your homework about where the candidates stand on the issues, and what their policy proposals are, you would know exactly where Obama stands.
Go to his website, barackobam
When did it become acceptable to be ignorant of where candidates stand? When did we start expecting every piece of information to be delivered to us? It is our responsibility, as citizens, to research this very important vote--period. If you don't know where he stands you have nobody to blame but yourself. And let us not forget that in Iowa he was told that he was being too detailed, so he toned down the detail and brought on broader themes. Can't have it both ways.
In the past couple of days, Sen. Clinton introduced a measure to outlaw flag-burning, according to the "Washington Post." What "sexist" mistreatment impelled her to that level of utter nonsense?
Apparently, not even a "stellar voting record" keeps her from being a fool.
The responses to this post are so numerous, I cannot find the time to read them all. Forgive me if my views have been expressed before.
I am a white male.
I would love to see a woman as the POTUS.
I do not hate Hillary.
I simply disagree with her voting record and stance on a number of issues, including Iraq. Obama is, I believe, the only prospective Presidential candidate to vote *against* the authorization for the use of force in Iraq.
We actually have a progressive candidate that is willing to lay his (or her) neck on the line by going against the majority and vote with their conscience. To stand up and be extolled for being *weak*. A candidate so eloquent and inspiring, and backs it up with his VOTE.
Obama is not playing a political game. He's an intelligent person that has a different view of politics than Clinton or McCain. He assesses the situation and decides what is *right*, not what will help him get the most votes in the future.
A person of vision? Isn't that what this Democratic party needs? Someone willing to actually NOT care if their view is not what the right wing will excoriate them for?
I've read so many posts among users here that focused on race or gender. Erica, you are a party to this. I could care less about the race or gender of a person that could potentially lead us away from this abyss that Bush has brought us to. I want the person who can lead us away from that abyss, with that vision.
The sexism and racism I've read so far has been disgusting, and beneath people for whom, as "progressives", should not be an issue at all. Don't vote for a man because you're a man. Don't vote for a woman because you're a woman. Don't vote for a person because they have the same or different color of you.
Vote for the person you think can lead this country away from these abysmal 7 last years.
My vote goes to Obama.
Actually, Obama wasn't in the U.S. Senate when the vote for Iraq came up; he was in the Illinois State Senate, so he didn't vote one way or the other on Iraq. He wasn't in a position to. He did give a comment about the war when asked about it and said he was against it. He also said he doesn't know how he would have voted had he been in the United States Senate. It was real easy for him to say he was against the war when his political career wasn't on the line. Now, he's courting independents and Repugnicants (or as he calls them Obamacans). I'm just not sure what his views are, if he has any at all. Again, I voted for Hillary because she's the one who "can lead this country away from these abysmal 7 last years" (that we do agree on).
ModMS - Just one little thing - Obama's political career was square on the line, he was in the middle of a Senate rate in Illinois. He spoke up when it was not the PC thing to do and told the Truth as he knew it. So far, Hillary has not demonstrated that type of courage. Please do some research before you take all the Clinton pander babble you are being handed. I will say, you are completely correct on the last 7 years - abysmal doesn't even come close. Thanks for listening.
He was running for the US Senate at the time. He gave a speech at a peace rally in front of thousands of people, against the advice of many of his advisors who said it would ruin his career. Don't write lies. He has never wavered in his position against the war.
Firefox, your positions are yours to have but please check your facts. Sen. Obama did not vote against the authorization for the use of force in Iraq because he was not in the Senate at the time. He did however make a speech against the war but later softened his position to agree with Bush.
Sing it sister Jong! I couldn't agree more. Obama is operating under different rules. I mean he just had to be told by his wife to quit smoking! Is this who we want in charge of healthcare? Sheesh what a shame. A sham too. Nice post.
Oh stop!
Can't you just realize that Obama has run a better campaign than Hillary has? Do we really want to go into the lapses of judgment the Clintons have displayed over their political careers?
Obama is operating under different rules - he isn't stooping to the Rovian tactics that Hillary has.
Again, my heroine Geraldine Ferraro wouldn't have pulled the stuff that Hills has and she encountered real sexism. Again, she rocked and I was glad to work for her and Mondale's campaign.
As a woman I am ashamed how the feminists, Free Speech activists who I used to look up to are all mindlessly throwing around the terms "sexist", "empty suit", and "cult-like"
Sorry, no sale. I had too much of Hillary's Karl Rove tactics from the current Dunce-In-Chief. I'm sick of the same old shit.
And BTW, talking about being able to take the punches, Barrack Obama got his start as an organizer in Chicago. I think he can take it.
Obama's staff are all ex-Clinton people. You do realize that? And Obama as Saul Alinsky, you tell me?
Paul Krugman and others suggest that venom is coming from the Obama camp. I don't disagree.
i forgot how much i liked Erica's writing...
not that i in anyway agree with this article.
In my short life, I have voted for the woman
over any man that ran for presidency. My thoughts after reading all the messages it is amazing how alot of women say, I'd vote for a woman, but not now, not her, until then. Then
alot seem to think racism and sexism is extinct. It is not, it thrives right here, in
alot of your posting.
Hillary will rebuild our econonmic prosperity.
She will continue to break the barriers for all
humans, not just women or blacks, or hispanics.
She has made her issues clear.
Come on now let me hear your attacks, especially from the democrats. You people
get nastier as each day goes on. It's midwinter madness when you think I will buy into the dream/hope concept. Get real good men and women! Vote Hillary.
I won't attack your choice or the reasoning that you choose to employ, however I might disagree with both.
What I will do is give you a reasoned, rational, non-emotional response that is empty of prejudice and bigotry (you know those go both ways, right?)
I won't vote for Senator Clinton based on her policies. On her voting record. On the stands she chooses to take.
Stands such as: voting on the bankruptcy bill to protect lenders over consumers; voting to label a nation's army as a "terrorist organization"; negotiating with health insurance companies and lobbyists to "fix" the health care problem in the USA; taking campaign contributions from lobbyists; attacking video games when there's an illegal, immoral war being waged in our name; voting to give President Bush authority to invade Iraq and trying to make us believe that either A - she was naive and believed he was going to let inspectors run their course then try diplomacy with the UN or B - she didn't believe she was actually giving the President the authority to invade.
Not one word there about other candidates. Not one derogatory statement about Senator Clinton other than looking specifically at her votes and what she chooses to speak out against. I didn't even go into her past before she was a Senator.
If you see sexism in my post, then the problem lies with you, electress, and not me.
Apparently it's not just the "Hillary-Haters" who fill Jong's inbox who can't spell. For the record, there is no such word as "alot," although you like that word. It's two words-- "a lot--" unless you mean to apportion, which is "to allot."
Notwithstanding this parsing, I really object to Jong's claims on more substantive grounds.
Not all of us who support Obama hate Hillary; supporting Obama does not equate to supporting a patriarchy; Clinton's campaign played the race card, over & over, directly and through surrogates; Obama has not played the gender card; if the mainstream media, some Republicans, and some Democrats play the gender card, blame them and not Obama.
Hillary is a complex person who, while being intelligent, capable, experienced, dedicated, and qualified, is also polarizing, divisive, pandering, and a champion equivocater.
I am a 51-year-old white, college-educated female,and a life-long Democrat. I am a feminist. Do these characteristics require me to support Sen. Clinton? Your argument seems to suggest that.
While Jong accuses others of playing the gender card, isn't she really the one conducting the litmus test here?
Great response!
Obama played the race card himself. He is Bi-Racial, NOT African American, just half. His Mom is white, Obama can't even be honest about being bi-racial. He speaks of Dr.King, but Sen. Clinton is right. LBJ,was needed & signed the civil rights bill in 1964. All Senator Clintons work since her collage years are what helped young folks like Barak get his education. I like Obama, but his record is not tested, there really is no record. Vote Clinton, you may not like her voting record. Hillary is just playing ball so she CAN get in the Oval office. Then get out of Hillary's way & watch her turn this country around. Stop being lemmings & listening to the ALL corporate owned MSMedia, and our facist government. They are pulling the wool over the eyes of the American people again. America has been so dummed down,so sad. Hope + change = H.R.CLinto
Obama hasn't had to play the gender card, only because the Entire Media has been doing it!!!
Wake up! Open your eyes. Don't you see what's going on?
Obama's had a cake-walk. The media's attacking Hillary, no one is pinning him down about anything, people have gone ga-ga over him for no reason.
Hillary Clinton has more depth of knowlege than
any other candidate, Democrat or Republican,and that's all that should matter.
Get your head out of your A.. and do something
good for our country. Vote for Hillary Clinton.
I LOVE this article! Thank you for writing it.
Barack is great but I don't believe in idols or kings or royalty - we've had enough of that crap the past 7 years - plus I don't really know him.
But I know he thinks the softballs he's gotten from the Clintons have prepared him for what McCain and the rightie wackos will do to him. I don't scare easily but THIS naiveness terrifies me. Obviously he doesn't have a clue what's really coming.
Lately I can't even listen to 2 of my favorite progressive shows; not only are they brutally bashing all things Hillary every day, they're now lobbing every manner of insult out to the listeners who dare to support her instead of their candidate. Divisive and derisive. I am shocked and disappointed.
I thought there was a huge difference between the Republican people and the left. Not lately. It's disgusting. I guess you don't have freedom of choice according to the lefties anymore, either.
My belief is that it's sexism, as alive and well on the left as it is on the right, even among women!
Yep, I love this article. God (or whatever) help us.
If you want to know him,read Obama's books, "Dreams from My Father" and "The Audacity of Hope." He knows what's coming. When his opponent in the senate race had to drop out due to a sex scandal, the republican machine imported Alan Keyes to run (attack). He actually said, "Jesus Christ wouldn't vote for Obama" (because of his voting record in the Illinois senate).
Blue, I know, I know. We seek the relief of straight shooters such as John McLaughlin, Sam Donaldson, Cokie Roberts and others, where we can hear what's happening and get unadulterated opinion without all the bashing and thrashing and Rodhammering. I've said before that the ugly Obama supporters are making a huge mistake with all their aspersions cast at Hillary, because they are taking on the likeness of Rumps, and I cannot support a candidate of Rump-like people, even if their candidate is a Dem. The uglier Obama supporters become, the uglier Obama becomes.
I 100% agree. The vitriol directed at Hillary by the media and Obama supporters is just shocking. All you have to do is read the responses to the few pro Hillary posts on the very anti-Hillary Huffington Post to see it. I was at a democratic club recently where the nastiness and hatred towards Hillary was shocking to me... and I think my decision to switch to independent was clinched when I heard Bob Sheer on Left Right and Center spend five mimutes quoting Ann Coulters remarks about supporting Hillary as evidence against Hillary... tell me when he would ever give an ounce of credence to her remarks except in service of Hillary hate? Of course, if she had said she would support Obama, all would have seen it as evidence of how he can bring us together. Give me a break. This will be my first election and I am saddened that it will be not as a democrat but as an independent.
The "Eureka" Moment.
"Ask not, what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country"*
Sometimes you can't exactly explain why one candidate over the other.
Maybe it's a feeling of uneasiness.
You just can't put your finger on it.
Then something happens to put your whole decision into sharp focus.
To justify where you stand.
Earlier today, I had a conversation with my cousin. She is a staunch Hillary supporter, but she asked why I was backing Obama.
I didn't have an exact answer at the time she posed the question.
However, later on in the conversation something came up.
I was talking with her about the concept of a dream team ticket.
Obama/Clinton or Clinton/Obama.
She said she would have no trouble with Obama being vice president, but Hillary would never agree to it because she "had too much to do".
Which leaves us with what?
The candidate who accepts the office of veep for the good of the country, or the candidate who can't be bothered because it fails to meet her own agenda.
You decide who you want to support.
But, no matter how you cut it, for me, it's not about hating Hillary.
It's about the sense of entitlement that she projects that I (and many others resent).
*John Fitzgerald Kennedy "The Inaugural Address"
It seems overly obvious to point out, but it was your cousin, not Senator Clinton, that said the Senator would not accept the VP position. Wow, try to remember the source of your information. Or are you just grasping for any old reason to reject Senator Clinton.
Thank you for your insightful post Erica. You listen to Chris Mathews and even Bill Maher and the diatribe continues without measure. It is refreshing to hear your perspective. It seems to me no matter what Hillary says, it is criticized left, right and center. But any thing Obama says is as a golden egg of change. Give me a break. I'm afraid if elected Obama will learn the hard lessons of Carter and the sticky wheels of change that will be a total reality check.
Thanks again
Touche, dballard, I lived through the Carter years too and they were disastrous. Carter also went to Washington with the intent to change things because he was an outsider. He got nothing done and was one of the worst presidents we ever had. He didn't have a clue how to run the government and work within the parameters. Obama thinks that rhetoric will give him the edge to get things done. I think he is drinking his own punch.
They'd rather vote for a weak, ineffective, agenda-less man than a woman, any woman. Queen Elizabeth I could come striding back across the void, and they'd find some excuse not to vote for her.
Did you vote for Carol Moseley Braun? Probably not. I wonder why not?
If I recall, Carol Moseley Braun got out of the race before voting even began because she had some controversial activities in her political career that would most likely have made her unelectable. I can't recall what, but I am fairly certain that is why she was not much of a contender. Even *she* knew that.
I am definitely a supporter of Senator Hillary Clinton but I could accept an Obama presidency. I simply do not believe it will happen. His electability in a real, no-holds-barred national election is so low that I do not want to take the chance in these horrible times.
I think you should look at some national polls. On Yahoo there is a political dashboard, and some national polls show that if Hillary ran against McCain, she would lose by about 2%. I know that's close, but the same poll shows that if Obama runs against him, Obama will win by 5%. There are a lot of independents who would vote for Obama, but not Hillary. The same goes for many republicans.
Really, Hillary a great woman?
I think not.
She is smart, she has admirable goals, she is politically skilled, she has worked hard to climb the ladder of success one rung at a time, but greatness is not one of her characteristics.
Fact is, Hillary is just plain outclassed by Obama who is a great man.
Get off your gender bandwagon and learn something.
Obama is simply a well-strategized man, relatively new to the political scene, which is why he can often claim he is a "Washington outsider" and usually get away with it.
Unfortunately, Obama supporters do not realize that he is just as savvy at Washington politics as Clinton. If he wasn't, he wouldn't be where he is today. He has made deals, compromises, and promises to corporate big-wigs just as much as the other candidate who is so readily vilified. Please wake up to the plain realities.
When were you elected to define greatness?
You could, at a minimum, have observed that this is the opinion of some.
Erica, you are correct. My spouse and I had
supported Kucinch, Edwards et al and we both
voted for Hillary because competence matters.
The sheeple following Obama are believers
who do not like smart women of certain age
as my spouse reminds me. Despite his smart wife
he is not ready for the McCain trouncing anew
which bowed him in deference recently in the
Senate. Hillary knows what the repos have
planned as divide and conquer. She is not
fooled as those who hear Obama songs and
cluster at his rail.
Patriarchy prevails, alas. May the brain dead
and blind get a clue and support Hillary.
So anyone who doesn't agree with you regarding Hillary is brain dead and blind?
Doesn't sound very smart to me.
That's the state of the so called DLC Democratic party these days. We're a one party State and this is the 'liberal' wing of the same party McCain is running for. And the use of Hillary Haters is the same as global warming "deniers". If you want more of the Clintons and consider yourself "progressive" then I must assume you have a problem with dyslexia or something, because Newts 'Contract with America' is what Bill followed with his administration, and HRC I assume will be more of the same. Whether these are the reasons so many people are flocking to Obama I know not, but I can see no reason at all to vote for him other than that he gives a good pep rally stump speech. What I mean is that neither of these people are fit to hold the office and the "New Democrat Party" are forming their standard circular firing squad and all this continual blah blahing about the same thing is such a waste. They are both losers, liars and not worth all this repetitive bosh. I do like to imagine if HRC was a man and Obama was a woman would all the comments reverse themselves? Start getting used to the term President McCain because again the Democrats have managed to fuck up a wet dream. The idea of either HRC or Obama as President is as distressing as McCain. I live in Costa Rica and while it's very imperfect, it is a real Democracy and the U.S. looks like the pathetic dying empire it is. Too bad that the people that live in the U.S. never get to see what you look like to the rest of the world from outside your looking glass. Despite a very clear record you still persist in thinking that the ultimate goals of either wing of your one party are actually different. You don't need to listen to a word any candidate says to make an intelligent judgement, but that would involve serious research and thinking and that just isn't part of anyones agenda, is it?
He is now getting the majority of the women's vote. Now, how do you explain that? I think it is sad, really, that women feel that they must somehow make up for all the hurt they have experienced at the hands of males (Hilary included, in fact, she symbolizes this) by electing a woman, any woman, president. As if that will change your life or your relationships, or make up for the hurts. I am a woman, independent, made it on my own, with no man, don't cry at work, don't flirt or try to manipulate, just do my job, admit my mistakes, celebrate my achievements. I follow no conventional rules of proper female conduct. I vote for who I want. I am voting for Obama.
If you think Obama can defeat McCain and the rebub slime machine you may not be brain dead but at least in dreamland. Personally I believe that it has been the repubs crossing party lines in caucuses and primaries and the largely pro-Obama right-wing media that has gotten the man this far. Standby and watch the turn around in the media if Obama is nominated.
and jeannekhan - you do NOTHING to advance women by going public without having done the work to find out the facts of your points. In fact, that's the point, women don't support Hillary just because they use label politics on us and get some to repeat the talking points on que.
Yes, women who say "I'd vote for a woman, but not that woman" are lying through their teeth. These are women who can't stand the thought of another woman surpassing everything that they have ever accomplished in their lives. These are usually women who would probably never patronize a female doctor or attorney, because daddy cautioned against it. Their jealousy and narrowmindedness is obvious and that includes that overbearing bitch Maureen Dowd. Her book "Bush World" stunk and so does her column. For some reason, she thinks she's being clever and humorous, but she always comes off appearing stupid and irrelevent. I think the Times keeps her on their payroll because she's one of their token women.
Shenygirl1
your attacks on maureen dowd use the sexist linguistic tools. if you want to attack maureen dowd, do not call her a bitch. call her unreasoning and deluded. if you wanted to attack hillary clinton, you could call her ineffective--except she isn't.
Did you vote for Carol Moseley Braun in 2004? Probably not. I wonder why not?
With all of the WOMEN fired up to vote for a woman because she is a woman, you would think Carol Moseley Braun would have been the dem nominee in 2004.
shenygirl1 - I soooo want to give in to reacting to "appearing stupid and irrelevent" ... but I'll simply ask if you even know what the ERA is?
Its the War stupid, plus her inposssible health plan that she took months and months to try an implement. But the War alone is enough....
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
