Politics By Ordeal
What is this foolishness? Obama is pure and not a politician and Hillary is "tainted"?
Does anyone get to be a presidential candidate in our country without being a politician?
Does anyone run for political office -- a humiliating and exhilarating marathon -- without wanting power more than sleep?
Come on. Get real. You and I could never endure the punishment of debates, of columnists who don't fact-check, of swift-boaters, of dumb pundits and corrupt colleagues, without the lust for power being the overriding emotion in your life.
I do a book tour of six cities and come down with the flu -- and I'm pretty strong and healthy. I can hardly imagine what candidates go through. Yes, they fly on private jets. Yes, they don't take their shoes off at the airport, but they don't sleep either. I'm amazed they can even croak a coherent sentence.
I once did a lecture tour of Australia and New Zealand with bronchitis and laryngitis. I caught it in Hong Kong, I think, and it lingered for three weeks. My voice barely functioned. But I spoke anyway. And I signed hundreds of books after every appearance. Once I got home, I took to my bed for two weeks. The jet lag was awful and the bronchitis turned into a resistant infection. No antibiotic worked. I was silenced for six weeks and my vocal chords still have their off days.
How do these candidates do it? I still can't understand. They must be bionic. By the end of a book tour, I'm so sick of answering questions about myself that I start to interview the journalists about what they like to do in their spare time -- skiing, sailing, snowboarding, golf? The intensity of being interviewed by hostile reporters is absolutely exhausting. No wonder people misspeak. It's amazing they don't throttle the press. And the public. By the time they get in office they must hate the public. Why do we put them through this torture? Shouldn't they be thinking about governance, coming up with new ideas for the commonweal rather than being flogged by the press?
This is no way to audition for "the most powerful job on earth." I doubt that the ordeal helps anyone -- neither the candidates nor the public.
And is it really the most powerful job on earth? The way our country is going -- with our deficit, our plunging dollar, our $100 oil, we are becoming a banana republic, ruled by corporations that deceive us and buy our politicians.
Where is this pure politician? In your dreams, folks, in your dreams.
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
Thank you Ms. Jong for the POV from a person who has some inkling of the physicality of the process by the marketing nature of your work. I find the most disturbing aspect of this year's presidential race to be the nastiness of the press and many of the citizens who comment on the website as well as the over sexism of the media. The double standard has comeback big time! There seems to be no real discussion of the issues or the proposed solutions to our country's pressing problems. I wanted to find out what the candidates were actually proposing, so I checked out their websites as well as various other sites and made my voting decisions after that. I haven't gotten stuck on one single issue like so many of the voters (ie. war, taxes, christma, being black, etc.). It is almost like the process is broken, but no seems to know how to fix it. Maybe there is such a thing as "too many cooks in the kitchen". Thank God for PBS and C-Span.
Running for President is a very dehumanizing experience it seems to me. One must endure the ignorance of both opponents and supporters in the electorate, the irrational hostility (partisan and personal) that is so much a part of politics, and a media herd that is after a "story" but always misses the point. One must have either extraordinary (perhaps even unhealthy) ambition or severe mental illness to run. I think Morris Udall had it right. After running once he had had enough. Asked in another election if he would accept a draft for the presidential nomination, he said "if nominated I shall run...for the Mexican border. If elected I shall fight extraditio
I agree. It's precisely that kind of single minded selfishness that makes politicians terrifying, destructive, erratic and sometimes even tyrannical. It's been said that those who most desire power deserve it the least. So far, I've seen nothing to disprove that statement.
I am not voting for a commander in chief, but a President who'll end perpetual war.
p.s. to Erica Jong's basher. She is not a fictional writer. She is quite real and can write fiction as well as anything else with panache, insight and elan. An then there is you.
There are many fans of Erica Jong's fiction here. That does not invalidate our criticism of her political commentary, or lack of it.
That would be "and then".
correction to previous post-
The only "ordeal", in the scheme of political campaigning and change, is happening to you and to those that think like you - whether running, walking , or being dragged forward, you are resisting and choosing to wade through all your elective therapeutic BS and weight of excuses.
Can it be that Senator Obama has taken a novel approach to running for President. And his good judgments, and forward thinking actions have a lot to do with why you're still way back there - blocks back, maybe even miles back; excusing, and arguing about: sexism, gender, race, experience, inspiration, misogyny, purism, puritanism, smiles, haircuts, and handshakes.
Looks like same ole crap to me. Speeches that say nothing and allow the listener to project their wildest dreams onto his vague language, nasty fliers that distort the opponenet's position because the position actually is quite good, and then bait on your strengths.
What's new and different about this crap?
Correction: Hillary is 10 percent "pure", compared to Obama's 97 percent.
Well, Erica, think of "purity" this way:
Ivory Soap: 99 and 44/100ths percent.
Barack Obama: 97 percent.
Hillary Clinton: 3 percent.
"Only 10 percent of Clinton contributors DID NOT donate the legal maximum $2,300 for her primary campaign. In contrast, only three percent of Obama donors gave the maximum. The rest of the cash came from small sums from many more people."
- See "The Democratic Take: From Top to Bottom" at http://the
If obama's so pure why didn't he wait to present his case regarding Hillary's position on NAFTA during a debate?
Well, Erica, think of "purity" this way:
Ivory Soap: 99 and 44/100ths percent.
Barack Obama: 97 percent.
Hillary Clinton: 3 percent.
"Only 10 percent of Clinton contributors DID NOT donate the legal maximum $2,300 for her primary campaign. In contrast, only three percent of Obama donors gave the maximum. The rest of the cash came from small sums from many more people."
- See "The Democratic Take: From Top to Bottom" at http://the
You couldn't be more wrong! Some people are actually driven by a need to help others. Take Bono for instance. He has power, fame, money and yet he works his ass off to end poverty. Can you even imagine having the power to save that many lives? I doubt it very much. Not one human being is "pure". We all have sins in our pasts. That doesn't mean you can't change and strive for the power to make this world better. I have been pessimistic for most of my 39 years on this earth and I now have the hope that it's going to change. I have hope that someday the bigots, sexists, greedy, slothful, angry people can change their little minds and vote for an intelligent African-American man. I also have the hope that he will not be killed by the greedy assholes who have run our world into the ground. You have a voice on this post Ma'am, might I suggest you use it in a more positive way?
For all Obama supporters who are think that Obama's "Hope and Change" will make a difference in the real world:
Here is a concise comment on the power of hope from Sarah Chayes, a former PBS journalist and war correspondant who changed careers and has "lived in Kandahar, Afghanistan since 2002...lea
SARAH CHAYES: I don't think that hope is relevant. I think determination is all that counts. You just have to try. It doesn't matter if you hope you're going succeed or not. You have to keep trying. (interview with Bill Moyers)
She's right, and she knows a thing or three about getting things done.
Obama - Present.
Hillary - President!
If you think about it, determination without hope doesn't make any sense. How can you be determined to do something that you have no hope of succeeding at? Impossible. Either she chose her words very poorly for a journalist, or taking this quote out of context has hopelessly altered its meaning.
Also, look up what voting present really means. you guys just assume it's a cop out without ever being curious enough to find out. Here's a tid-bit from Pew.
"The "present" vote in Illinois is sometimes cast by state lawmakers with a conflict of interest who would rather not weigh in on an issue. Other times, members use the option to object to certain parts of a bill, even though they may agree with its overall purpose.
"The 'present' vote is used, especially by more thoughtful legislators, not as a means of avoiding taking a position on an issue, but as a means of signaling concerns about an issue," said state Rep. John Fritchey (D)."
So true! And if people really want to feel better, then we need to take action.
And that means to rebuild the country.
I was so ready, too, for that to happen.
I see not much hope for the real deal with Obama. Just a bunch of words and rallies and photo ops.
Who is claiming Obama is pure and Hillary is tainted?
Got any links to back up this assertion?
Back to "get real" again eh?
The REAL-ity is that the REAL-istic candidate has lost 11 straight elections and never planned a campaign past the first few contests.
I wish some of you Hillary haters and Obama fans would add some evidence for your assertions. Just stating your dreams and wishes makes you sound a lot like he does.
For example, why do you think Hillary is a power seeker and Obama wants to do good and only good? Any one who runs for president wants the power. Whether it is to do good things or just fumble and strut the power remains to be seen. This is even more obvious for the un vetted and inexperienced.
Sit down sweetie and let us explain it to you in words of one or two syllables.
Hillary Clinton is a power seeker because she has ridden on her husband's coattails in her 35 or so obsessive years of running for the presidency.
Hillary Clinton's background is not much more than a padded resume of AK and White House functions. She is well-spoken; she can memorize like your favorite A student. But, that kind of 'experience' doesn't cut it for the Oval Office or CinC.
And, last but not least; she voted for the war, she failed to read a crucial intel memo, she sponsored a silly flag-burning amendment.
Now, are we clear?
And, obtw, you do not have to hate Hillary to be thoroughly sick of the Clinton methods and style. They are too slick, too manipulative, too devious.
Vote for Obama.
The irrational character assassination of Hillary is nothing more than the Rovian tactics.
And the fact that so many Obama supporters thrive on those tactics is why I say, the Democratic party is pretty much dead.
I'm sick of those tactics. And the only person using them in this election is Obama.
Enuf already...
Not everyone is stupid. We don't all think a canned speech while pulling the same ole' Washington crap means anything more than he's created a cult following.
Can it be that Senator Obama has taken a novel approach to his Presidential campaign. And his good judgments, and forward thinking actions have to a lot to do with why your still 4 blocks back, excusing, and arguing about: sexism, gender, race, misogyny, purism, puritanism, smiles, haircuts, and everything in between.
The only "ordeal" that happening is that you are running to try to catch up, while wading through all your bs. Visualize.
Unfortunately, blog entries like this don't inspire intellectual debate. There was one assertion made which people might take exception to, and then there was a lot of self-indulgent talk about how the author has endured lots of book tours in "far-away" lands.
I find the assertion that my support for anyone but Hillary Clinton is suspect. Instead of being brainwashed by a demogogue, maybe I support Senator Obama because I prefer his policy of engaging our enemies around the world, instead of following the Bush doctrine of stomping our feet and pouting in a corner until a ridiculous list of preconditions are met. Or maybe it's because I don't believe that the United States had the legal, moral or intellectual right to invade a sovereign nation, no matter how bad their leader was (what about Mubarek et al?) There are plenty of sound policy reasons to distinguish the two Democratic candidates.
Honestly, I don't get it. Everyone whines about how fluffy the candidates are on TV but they never bother to dig further, and they wouldn't pay attention to a 60-minutes policy speech if it was handed to them (be honest, how many of you watch the State of the Union every year?) If we can't engage each other respectfully and intellectually within a single party, how do we expect to do the same within America?
Yep I watch Presidential addresses, even when I
have to take antacid to do it.
Of course they both want power - way more than I do. But what I have read and seen about the two candidates is that Obama is genuinely truer to himself in his campaign than Clinton is in hers. He and his team and his wife all speak about him wanting to remain authentic to himself and they have put up firewalls against the craziness of the campaigning business to make it happen. That kind of talk does not come from the Clinton campaign and her staff/aides do not speak an act as if they are extensions of her in the same way the Obama campaign werks.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
