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
Glad you're not a hater Ms. Jong.
Not a hater at all...
I simply cannot get past her votes..
For the Iraq resolution
For the IRAN (Revolutionary Guard)resolution,
For the "patriot act, & act2,
and for MISSING the Fisa/Telcom Immunity vote
which McCain DID make.. and voted FOR!!!!
Ditto, Ditto, Ditto.
Who would have thunk that this country of ours is having so much difficulty acknowledging the experience of a woman and is willing to dismiss all her years of working for women and children and the people of this country that actually need government assistance, for a person who gives great speeches and "proves" they are not biased!!!
marcia, give me a list of her work helping working women and children. do you have a list? Obama got healhcare for 150,000 children in Ill. Obama got daycare for the women in his district who got kicked off welfare by the Clintons, Obama got a tax break for working families as a Ill. senator. Obama has accomplished more in the US Senate in 3 years that Hilary has in 8. If you don't believe me, look up the Congressional Record. It tells you all the bills Hil sponsored, and Obama's. Surprise yourself. Take a look. It's a president we are electing, not a gender.
I have given my vote to Obama after a tremendous amount of thought. I was supporting John Edwards. My problem with Hillary and the Democratic party in general is the problem they have with catering to the middle 6% of the country. That, along with many other reasons I voted for Obama. He is speaks to all the country. We need someone who can successfully compete and get young voters, disenfranchised voters, the poor and all the other groups that I don't think Hillary can get. Otherwise it will be a middle 6% election again.
KSAndrews:
I'd look at your percentages again my friend. Given the votes... Hillary speaks to well over 50% of the country, Florida and Michigan aside that is. So please speak for yourself - vote for who you want.. but don't make up numbers that make little sense and negates half the country.
Erica,
Where was this outstanding piece of writing months ago when she needed it??? If more attention had been brought to the forefront long ago, those quivering men who fear women in charge would not have voted for Obama. Now we are going to be stuck with the option to either vote for another war mongerer, or slick Willy. In all the great choices in this nation, how can this be happening?
I'm sorry, did you say slick Willy? You mean the nickname of Bill Clinton? Are you passing that appellation onto Obama then?
I am sad to see that sound detailed policies have been swept away in the ubiquitous sea of "change" and that the glass ceiling is an architectural feature found in the white house.
As much as I'd like to see a woman at the helm before I die, I can't vote for a president primarily on the basis of gender... or race. My first priority is someone not beholden to the corporate entities that have taken over the government.
Clinton, like her spouse, comes with mucho dinero in corporate gratitude to be rewarded come post election.
Bush was the worst, but Bill added to the foundation to international corporate takeover of America-- without responsibility to workers-- dug by Reagan and Bush 1 and even Carter, who started with deregulation of our banking laws... and their respective Congresses.
I fear Hill will do little about American jobs going overseas; foreign corporations buying out American assets; not to mention dwindling worker benefits and pay while the price of all necessities of life climb higher and higher with no end in sight.
This election should not be decided because of sex or race when a true advocate of the American people is what we need.
lindro wrote...
> I fear Hill will do little about American
> jobs going overseas; foreign corporations
> buying out American assets; not to mention
> dwindling worker benefits and pay while the
> price of all necessities of life climb higher
> and higher with no end in sight.
One of the more unattractive aspects of liberal dogma is the economic jingoism expressed here. People in e.g. India are desperate for jobs; they need them far more than the average American. It's inexcusable to rant against jobs going overseas. Where's the reasoning behind such a stance, other than an anti-foreigner prejudice?
Regarding worker salaries and the price of necessitie
Stuart's "Random Thoughts" blog
lindro:
Maybe take a peek at Mr. Obama's corporate ties and who he'll be beholden to. And by the way, it's rude to suggest women are voting for Hillary strictly because she's a woman. My God that is as bad as saying race is voting for race instead of for the man, no?
And in my opinion if you want a true advocate of the American people.. Hillary is the only proven qualified choice.
I mean Obama can't even get in front of the public and debate her. So come now.
Obama does not take PAC money or federal lobbyists money to fund his presidential campaign. He has over 679,000 individual donors. Hilary does take PAC money and money from federal lobbyists. Who will be beholden ??????
Please check out this article (link below). It discusses Obama's concessions to the nuclear power plant industry who now send the marjority of their campaign contributions to Obama.
http://www
You mean the SAME bill Hillary supported?
Come on Erica, I thought you were one of those tough women who can take it, like Hillary?
The question, again, is why are you not using your bully superstar pulpit to write abuot matters of consequence--Like the War, Darfur, or our Economy that has one foot in the rabbit hole, just for starters?
Why continue to pander to an non-issue except to front for a candidate--which brings to mind a sixties slogan; If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem. This isn't about Women! It's about Hillary. When your level of writing should be put to work for bigger and more important things.
when the playing field gets level, her blog will have become an anachronism. meanwhile, why have separate sets of rules for men and women?
I always thought that the effects of war, starvation, atrocity, applied to men and women equally? And are more important than flacking for Hillary.
I'm a woman, an individualist and a commercial subcontractor. That means hard hats, hammers, heavy lifting and port-o-johns--oh yeah, and lots of men. I know that being the boss in a 'man's world' can be tough. It can also be tricky. It's easy to think that by speaking out ferociously against what we perceive as sexism we'll make positive changes in the minds of those we seek to reach. Wrong! It backfires every time, trust me. All that people hear is an imbittered, angry, paranoid, condescending whiner. If you want men, or anyone for that matter, to respect you and consider what you have to say, show them that you can't be diminished by their criticisms and doubts. Show them that you can keep up the pace and not be distracted by the attitudes of others. Let them see what you can do and they'll change their own minds. Hillary this goes for you too.
KPeters - first thanks for what you do - every day for the sake of all women to come after you. You have told the real truth here, the realistic view of what we are still working to get right.
And to those who think that a stance against Hillary Clinton is failing Woman I say, "you have not seen anything yet". She is the wrong candidate for President. Why? ELECTABILITY, she can't win in November - simple as that.
I'm most likely voting for Obama--he used to give full, detailed responses to questions until being accused of being long-winded and boring got to him--but that does not mean I don't resent how viciously Hillary is attacked, most especially by that bitch Maureen Dowd whom I no longer read. Fair is fair and Hillary's treatment by MSM has been execrable. MSNBC is the worst. Chrissy Matthews most likely wishes he had been born a Republican, preferably a war hawk and torturer of men instead of the loud-mouthed sissy he turned out to be. Good for you, Ms. Jong. Someone educated and respected finally has spoken on Hillary's behalf. Though Joseph Wilson attempted to the other day, his reasoning was unsound. I like the way your guts come through your words and you address the crux of the matter concerning Hillary. What we need is an open-faced election free of bullshit. Let's talk about issues and let race and gender fall to the wayside where they belong.
dugan:
Unfortunately Obama has been hiding from talking about issues behind his pretty change, change, change speeches.
An open faced debate would have allowed the public to decide, but he's refused that challenge over and over again. Makes one wonder why. It certainly makes me wonder what he's afraid of.
Grouped By Vote Position--Obama voted not to extend immunity--Hillary abstained! Who is looking out for your Constitutional Freedoms?
YEAs ---31: to deny immunity
Akaka (D-HI)Baucus (D-MT)Biden (D-DE)Bingaman (D-NM)Boxer (D-CA)Brown (D-OH)Byrd (D-WV)Cantwell (D-WA)Cardin (D-MD)Casey (D-PA)Dodd (D-CT) Dorgan (D-ND)Durbin (D-IL)Feingold (D-WI)Harkin (D-IA)Kennedy (D-MA)Kerry (D-MA)Klobuchar (D-MN)Lautenberg (D-NJ)Leahy (D-VT)Levin (D-MI)Menendez (D-NJ) Murray (D-WA)Obama (D-IL)Reed (D-RI)Reid (D-NV)Sanders (I-VT)Schumer (D-NY)Tester (D-MT)Whitehouse (D-RI)Wyden (D-OR)
NAYs ---67: to grant immunity
Alexander (R-TN)Allard (R-CO)Barrasso (R-WY)Bayh (D-IN)Bennett (R-UT)Bond (R-MO)Brownback (R-KS)Bunning (R-KY)Burr (R-NC)Carper (D-DE)Chambliss (R-GA)Coburn (R-OK)Cochran (R-MS)Coleman (R-MN)Collins (R-ME)Conrad (D-ND)Corker (R-TN)Cornyn (R-TX)Craig (R-ID)Crapo (R-ID)DeMint (R-SC)Dole (R-NC)Domenici (R-NM) Ensign (R-NV)Enzi (R-WY)Feinstein (D-CA)Grassley (R-IA)Gregg (R-NH)Hagel (R-NE)Hatch (R-UT)Hutchison (R-TX)Inhofe (R-OK)Inouye (D-HI)Isakson (R-GA)Johnson (D-SD)Kohl (D-WI)Kyl (R-AZ)Landrieu (D-LA)Lieberman (ID-CT)Lincoln (D-AR)Lugar (R-IN)Martinez (R-FL)McCain (R-AZ)McCaskill (D-MO)McConnell (R-KY)Mikulski (D-MD) Murkowski (R-AK)Nelson (D-FL)Nelson (D-NE)Pryor (D-AR)Roberts (R-KS)Rockefeller (D-WV)Salazar (D-CO)Sessions (R-AL)Shelby (R-AL)Smith (R-OR)Snowe (R-ME)Specter (R-PA)Stabenow (D-MI)Stevens (R-AK)Sununu (R-NH)Thune (R-SD)Vitter (R-LA)Voinovich (R-OH)Warner (R-VA)Webb (D-VA)Wicker (R-MS)
Not Voting - 2
Clinton (D-NY) Graham (R-SC)
Reply | Parent | posted 12:03 am on 02/14/2008
Not voting. Is that like "present?"
No, in this case it's like "couldn't be bothered to attend". Our Hill was out (nearby, though) campaigning during this momentous vote. Telling, isn't it? Though I don't think she has any intention of rolling back the illegal, unconstitutional perks Dubya grabbed for the the office, should she ever sit there. I think they suit her style just fine!
Ms Jong -
You are an amazing writer (I read "Fear of Flying" as a teenager), but there are three points I'd like to make.
First, I thought you'd do better than to trot out Senator Hillary Clinton's talking point this week that somehow after roughly 20 debates - including that really wonkish two-candidate shindig on CNN the other day - we have no idea what Senator Barack Obama stands for.
Second, both senators have been attacked for things that are a matter of birth. I'm sure you're aware of the viral e-mail claiming Senator Obama was a radical Muslim. He felt compelled in his stump speech as well as in debate to reiterate on no uncertain terms his Christian faith.
Third, dismissing Mr. Obama as a charismatic speaker is damning by selective praise, and you know it. It's the same rhetorical construct as dismissing Ms. Clinton as a "great mother". You fail to note that Mr. Obama has brought in a very sizable number of new voters who could well tip the scales to the Democrats in November the way Reagan's coalition did for the GOP in 1980.
I'm not the only one who's noticed this. I heard Reagan's son Ron Jr. make essentially the same point on CNN the other night.
It is unfortunate that some have chosen the reductionist argument - most succinctly put by Michael Moore at a recent screening of Sicko in LA for Creative Screenwriting magazine - that the Democratic primary will show us whether we're more racist or misogynist.
While I have the greatest respect for Mr. Moore and LOVE his movies, I reject out of hand this analysis.
Perhaps, after seven years of unabated and unabashed fearmongering and Constituti
Dear Mheister, good post, thank you, but, just so you know...? M. Moore was on Larry King a few days ago and he said while he would vote for Sen. Clinton in the general, while he had a chance in the primary, he would have to vote for Obama. He said this was because of her immoral stance on the war. Even though he claimed still to love her, he could not, in good conscience vote for her in the primary. So... i think Moore more naunced than you have given him credit for being. Yes?
No, Moore not nuanced, at least in this case. Because if he analyzed it at all he would vote for Senator Clinton in the primary too so that we will not have to live with a McCain presidency. Love Obama? Learn to love McCain.
mheister, go ahead and tell us what Obama stands for except undefined change, that even if defined, will have to go through much vetting, not just oration; and not his wimpy partial health coverage scheme that he never ilucidates. Are you smitten with his dreams, his speeches, his books? This crap will not work with congress.
The 'Reagan coalition' was neocon propaganda. It NEVER existed. Reagan was a dreadful president, he opened the door for neocons. This is basic knowledge to lefties who know their history. The idea that any right wing person would vote for any democrat (except for Obama in primaries and caucuses ONLY)exposes exposes the believers as neophytes and worse, totally lacking in any historical perspective.
Jong wrote...
> She [Oprah] was always really smart, but she
> used to identify with women.
People start out with small, narrow identities, and as we mature, they widen. It may well be true that Oprah used to identify with women, and now she identifies with all Americans, or perhaps all humans, or all beings. This is a type of growth that most of us respect.
In the Democratic race, Clinton has been much much more likely to place importance on the narrow identities (gender, race, political party, etc), where at least Obama's rhetoric points to a more inclusive view.
The Democratic party in general, and Clinton in particular, is correctly associated with the narrow, "identity politics" that Jong seems to support here. The population (including Oprah, Obama, and the Obamites) seems ready to move beyond it.
Stuart's "Random Thoughts" blog
Random Stu:
Had Oprah given Hillary the same air time on her program she would not have lost all credibility.
Her Obama crush, threw all reason out the window.
And yet, we can only hope Oprah has Obama on again, for another full hour, so we can once again witness 1) the huge, fake, puppy-like, aw-shucks Opie grin 2) loooong, boring, self-conscious self-reflection submitted as reasoning 3) savvy-clever brain assessing every angle of every question Oprah poses, pausing and stuttering tick-tick-tick as he answers toughies such as 'Who does the grocery shopping in your house?' 4) the irritation both Oprah and Michelle evince when he hems and haws; they appear to want to slap him upside the head. B.O. should be great when meeting with world leaders, especially hard-bitten foes. He appears to think if you glue on that lovable grin, everyone, from McCain to Bin Laden, will melt in a pool of love. Oprah is supposed to have Hillary on, so we'll see how a genuine, intelligent, worldy person responds to the questions, instead of a brilliant opportunist who seems to have all the angles figured. Did anyone see Katie Couric last night ask Jackie Kennedy, I mean Michelle Obama, how she keeps Obama's big ego in check?
I've seen Oprah on TV a few times years ago. Never watched her with Obama. I don't get my political preferences from Oprah.
I did read Jong's article that we're commenting on. Jong implies that she'd rather see Oprah idenitifying with women so strongly that she'd automatically support Clinton. I say that it's far more mature to identify with humanity, rather than narrowing it down to a segment of humanity.
Stuart's "Random Thoughts" blog
No one arrives in DC without baggage. Most unfortunate is that the baggage is typicall in the form of a "debt" owed to a list of big corporations who made significant contributions. The debt owed to each of our individual votes is lost in the mix.
It is a side effect of the huge costs to run for election that no one really in touch with "Middle America" will see the oval office in my lifetime.
I've arrived in DC without baggage plenty of times. Usually it was in Chicago!
Best laugh I've had all day!
Erica has written a call-a-spa
Yes, the penis is still considered to be god in America, never mind how easily it can be cut off whilst sticking straight out, never mind that all life is brought into the world by generous women putting their lives at risk to carry non-working, non-taxpaying, resource-f
It's a shame Hillary was married to and thus relegated to serving literally under Bill as first lady at all, she being the smarter of the two.
Alas, a true giver of life is a threat to those having generous women to thank for their very existence, but who chose instead to give thanks to a made up male diety invented by a castration-insecure society. They should all be vasectomised, for starters. Let's see how badly they really want to stop their so-called sin of abortion.
Erica Jong is making people think without really taking a stance. . Such writing is only marginally useful to people like myself, who are seeking the bare truth. But I commend her for writing in dichotomies! Why is Obama always fine, and Hilary always assaulted? A good question. I don't like Hilary for her anti-patriarchal hate of men as women's protectors and providers. I despise her stance pro abortion. I have doubts about Obama for similar reasons. I need to know how many Moslems are in his family, and in which countries they live. Will these people move into the White House? How can America be sure whether all these Moslems are trustworthy? These are the things I, an American citizen, need to know!
When has Hillary indicated any type of anti-patriarchal hate? Although I truly belief that Obama is form over substance, he's not a Muslim. You have no facts. Surely your post is in jest?
Erica: Thank you for writing the truth so beautifully!! I only hope the Obama crowd doesn't end up responding in their typical bit bull gone mad, style.
I also hope the American Public sues the networks for their unbelievable - bias - and the anti Hillary pundits - for their disgraceful, unprofessional - disgusting behavior. The American Public has been sorely wronged with this primary coverage.
Yes but would you agree that the public was wronged equally by the media's treatment of John Edwards?
You need to know??'
First thing you need is to learn to spell.
How many Christians are in your family?? In which countries do they live? How can America be sure they are trustworthy?
How? By using the new FISA legislation to spy on you.
You waste your time worrying about right wing talking points... this republican administration is more of a threat to your family than any Muslim.
Grow up.
Troubledgoodangel
I notice in your profile you seem quite fixated on the Moslem thing. And you say it all so innocently. Insidiously, if you will.
Who are you?
"Agent provacateu
Troubled..
I am not a Hillary hater! She is the one who changes to fit the situation, I was uninsured when she told America that health care for everyone is on the way. Have you ever been uninsured? I only made 22,000 a year and when blue you know who told me 900$ a month i was shot right down. I am not the one that told America that we will all have health care, And I was appalled when Hillary took lobby money from health care to stop trying to change things. I'm not a Hillary hater but, remember fool me once shame on me fool me twice? see you on election day!!!
wrabbit:
Boy oh boy oh boy. You have your information all mixed up. If it wasn't for Hillary, the subject of Universal Health care would not even be on the platform. She's been fighting to get YOU health care for years! She has never quit trying.
So you should take back your fool me once statement, do your homework and then, in my opinion of course, apologize and be grateful you've had her tirelessly champion for healthcare for YOU! Mr. Obama certainly never did, and still doesn't really. He jumped on that bandwagon, because Hillary's efforts made it possible.
Obama does not want universal health care anyway. He wants to stigmatize those who cannot afford or obtain regular health care. Even if he just wanted to exclude the rich, it is just another way to apply that much beloved right-wing policy of stigmatizing the have-nots. Besides, universal is the only way it will work. Giving doctors the choice of participating or just serviceing the rich --now that is just like Obama's covering 150,000 children in Illinois when this number represents just a small percentage of the children in Illinois. He wants to do the same thing nationwide. AND he shows little enthusiasm for even that. It would mean real work, not just "inspiring" oration.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
