The Goal Of It Must Be Human Liberation

Jack Hitt, writing in Mother Jones has some good things to say about Hillary:

Ask your friends if their fear and loathing of Hillary has anything to do with her being a woman, and you'll undoubtedly get a denial. That might be someone else's problem, but certainly not mine. But after a Lazio moment, or when John Edwards' wife told guests at a Ladies' Home Journal luncheon that her "choices" had made her "happier" and more "joyful" than Hillary, an epiphany can occur, as it did for The Nation's Katha Pollitt, who wrote, "If people keep making sexist attacks on Hillary Rodham Clinton, I may just have to vote for her. That means you, Elizabeth Edwards!" One has to wonder, especially considering the massive voter support she's received in two elections, if Hillary doesn't already have her own hidden vote: not just feminist columnists, but moderate and even Republican women who might exult in [hating Hillary] until they step into the seclusion of the voting booth, where all the watercooler chitchat, pissy remarks, and catty complaints fall away to reveal a working woman getting harassed in a man's world—and they recognize what they see.

Hillary is an icon of our most transformative personal revolution. Racial integration was about bringing excluded people to a metaphorical and literal lunch counter that was already there. A public place. But the feminist revolution was about remaking the private world, the nest and resting place for all us careerists.

Hillary explained it in that notorious speech at Wellesley in 1969. She said, "But we also know that to be educated, the goal of it must be human liberation. A liberation enabling each of us to fulfill our capacity so as to be free to create within and around ourselves." She was in the first class of women's libbers, back when "the Working Woman" was more an idea than a reality and the future held infinite possibility. She left Wellesley fired up with the rhetoric of Steinem and Friedan. They had revealed to the world the new theory; she would show them how it worked in practice. Hillary is the real revolutionary: She had a career. She had a family. She had a husband with a career. They were both ambitious boomers—perhaps the most ambitious. They wanted not just good jobs but the very best of all possible jobs. And every step of the way she demanded and got—to use the old-school rhetoric—the freedom to choose.

That language pops up with Hillary from time to time, such as one curious moment during her first Senate campaign when men and women, liberals and conservatives, all still had inflamed opinions on whether she should stay in her marriage or not. Asked after a speech about her decision to remain with Bill, she said: "I fought all my life for women to make their own choices, in their personal and professional lives. I made mine."

How retro-1970s an answer is that? Hillary is still talking that talk and walking that walk, even though the revolution never really worked out as drafted. Those day care and health care support systems never arrived. Glass ceilings appeared, lower pay persisted. Feminism gained an angry militant opposition that now works to outlaw abortion state by state. Without widespread public support, the movement fell onto the shoulders of the individual women who could tough it out, women like Sister Frigidaire, the woman who could visit Buffalo 26 times. A lot of women just got tired. Many shrugged off the fight for full professional independence and happily went home to raise the kids. Feminists gamely tried to make the argument that their intention all along was to allow any of these fine choices to be made. But a lot of compromises were made all around. Now Gloria Steinem is like some oldest living Confederate widow occasionally showing up on TV to remind us what it was like, back in the day. Then, a certain ideal seemed inevitable—the feminist enjoying both the pleasures of motherhood and the Eisenhower-era man's life of full professional reward. Of those idealists, Hillary is arguably the only one still in our face.

In her Wellesley speech, she concluded with a poem, a portion of which eerily captures the trajectory of the woman she would become: "And the purpose of history is to provide a receptacle / For all those myths and oddments / Which oddly we have acquired / And from which we would become unburdened / To create a newer world / To transform the future into the present."

History's receptacle. And an entire nation has been filling it with our myths and oddments ever since: Hillary Clinton. Who soldiers on, even as the rest of America has backed off from 1970s-style feminism just a little (or a lot). Once upon a time, to use the old-school rhetoric again, people like her said, "I can have it all." She wholeheartedly believed it. She would like to have it all. And in two years, she just might get it.

What Jamison Foser Said

Foser's always good, but this week, he's especially good. Whether Hillary wins or whether Hillary loses, whether you love Hilllary for her smarts and domestic policies or hate her for her stand on the war, we've got to keep calling the media on this bullshit. Forser does an especially good job of it.

"Media Matters"; by Jamison Foser
Poodle Skirts & Cooties

The Hotline's On Call posted capsule reviews of the speeches at the February 2 DNC Winter Meeting by various presidential candidates. The reviews included such categories as "Standing ovations," "Subtle Theme," "Discordant note."

The "Discordant note" the Hotline crew chose for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's speech? "Voice climbed into a yell five times."

We happened to watch some of Wesley Clark's speech, some of Dennis Kucinich's, much of Barack Obama's, and nearly all of John Edwards'. Enough to know that Hillary Clinton wasn't the only candidate whose "voice climbed into a yell five times," anyway.

She was, however, the only candidate to have her yelling described as "discordant." Indeed, On Call didn't even mention any other candidates' yelling. Or shouting, or screaming, or anything else about their speaking style or voice at all. (See reviews of Clark, Dodd, Edwards, and Obama.)

Hillary Clinton's yelling, though, was "discordant."

It is entirely possible, of course, that the fact that Hillary Clinton is a woman didn't have anything to do with On Call describing her "yell" as "discordant."

But it reminded us of something that's been bothering many of us: On January 22, ABC aired an interview of Clinton conducted by Charles Gibson. Gibson's third question was:

You are a strong, credible female candidate for president of the United States, and I mean no disrespect in this, but would you be in this position were it not for your husband?

Which made us wonder if Gibson will ever ask Sen. John McCain the following question:

You are a strong, credible male candidate for president of the United States, and I mean no disrespect in this, but would you be in this position were it not for your wife's money and political connections?

We suspect that Gibson will not. Why not?

The justification for Gibson's question of Clinton is presumably that she would not have the national profile that enables her to run for president if not for her husband. Given Sen. Clinton's own accomplishments, that's a debatable premise.

But if you accept the premise, then shouldn't Gibson also ask if McCain would ever have been elected to the House of Representatives if he hadn't left his first wife for the wealthy and connected Cindy Lou Hensley?

***

On February 1, The Daily Howler's Bob Somerby described Chris Matthews' comments about Clinton earlier in the week:

On Monday and Tuesday, Matthews had spent considerable time bashing Dem hopeful Hillary Clinton for telling a meaningless joke. As usual, he had directed gender-based insults at her, endlessly calling her a "girl" and complaining about all her "giggling." Nothing new -- last Thursday and Friday, he had referred to her as an "uppity women," implying that her husband refers to her the same way. But then, Matthews has long had a jones about Clinton that won't let his tortured soul go.

On January 31, Media Matters noted:

On the January 29 edition of Hardball, host Chris Matthews asked Massachusetts Gov. Paul Cellucci (R), who has endorsed former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R) for president, how Giuliani could "go into a debate with [Sen.] Hillary Clinton [D-NY] and land a punch against a woman." Matthews continued: "Isn't that going to be tricky for somebody like Rudy, who knows how to land a punch, to go up ... against a woman?"

Also on January 31, Maureen Dowd wrote in her New York Times column that, as first lady, Clinton "showed off a long parade of unflattering outfits and unnervingly changing hairdos." Dowd went on to claim that when Clinton "expressed outrage about Iraq," she "ended up sounding like a mother whose teenage son has not cleaned up his room."

On January 29, Media Matters noted that on the January 28 edition of The Chris Matthews Show, Time blogger Andrew Sullivan said of Clinton, "when I see her again, all the cootie vibes sort of resurrect themselves."

On the January 21 broadcast of The Chris Matthews Show, Newsweek's Howard Fineman and Matthews went on about "Miss Perfect" Hillary Clinton in a "poodle skirt" -- complete with a Photoshopped picture of Clinton in a poodle skirt on screen.

In early January, Media Matters noted Chris Matthews asking Chicago Sun-Times reporter Lynn Sweet if Clinton "doesn't look a little bit like a prohibitionist? ... A suffragette?" -- leading Sweet to say, "Come on, Chris. ... Oh, Chris. Are you playing to a stereotype or what? Where -- why --"

In December, Matthews compared Clinton to a "strip-teaser," asked if she is a "convincing mom," and said "her hair looked just to be cosmetic."

Last year, when the New York Daily News reported that Sen. Clinton's opponent in her Senate re-election campaign said "the senator used to be ugly -- and speculates she got 'millions of dollars' in plastic surgery," MSNBC's Tucker Carlson suggested the story was a plant from the Clinton campaign because "that's how she wins in every case, when people think that she's wronged." Carlson added, "Hillary Clinton is saying, on the one hand, 'Treat me like a man. I'm a man. I mean, I'm as good as any man'; and, on the other hand, she is saying, as a lot of female candidates do, frankly, 'No, I'm a woman, and treat me as a woman.'"

***

Hillary Clinton may be the person most capable of serving effectively as the next president of the United States. Or she may not be.

But this sure as hell isn't the way to find out.

And, Chris Matthews, I am squishing your head.

Goodbye to All That -- Part the Second

I was fourteen when I sat in my bedroom with the purple gingham bedspread and ruffled curtains and read Robin Morgan's earthquake manifesto Goodbye to All That. It was, for me, like drinking ice-cold water on a hot, steamy day. It was my baptism as a feminist. It snapped on synapses in my brain that have stayed "on" all my life. It was one of the most important things that I've ever read, and I've traveled all the way around the sun almost thirty-eight times since then.

Now, Robin Morgan has written Goodbye to All That (#2). It's worth reading all the way to the end.

Goodbye To All That (#2) by Robin Morgan

February 2, 2008

“Goodbye To All That” was my (in)famous 1970 essay breaking free from a politics of accommodation especially affecting women (for an online version, see http://blog.fair-use.org/category/chicago/).

During my decades in civil-rights, anti-war, and contemporary women’s movements, I’ve avoided writing another specific “Goodbye . . .” But not since the suffrage struggle have two communities—joint conscience-keepers of this country—been so set in competition, as the contest between Hillary Rodham Clinton (HRC) and Barack Obama (BO) unfurls. So.

Goodbye to the double standard . . .

—Hillary is too ballsy but too womanly, a Snow Maiden who’s emotional, and so much a politician as to be unfit for politics.

—She’s “ambitious” but he shows “fire in the belly.” (Ever had labor pains?)

—When a sexist idiot screamed “Iron my shirt!” at HRC, it was considered amusing; if a racist idiot shouted “Shine my shoes!” at BO, it would’ve inspired hours of airtime and pages of newsprint analyzing our national dishonor.

—Young political Kennedys—Kathleen, Kerry, and Bobby Jr.—all endorsed Hillary. Senator Ted, age 76, endorsed Obama. If the situation were reversed, pundits would snort “See? Ted and establishment types back her, but the forward-looking generation backs him.” (Personally, I’m unimpressed with Caroline’s longing for the Return of the Fathers. Unlike the rest of the world, Americans have short memories. Me, I still recall Marilyn Monroe’s suicide, and a dead girl named Mary Jo Kopechne in Chappaquiddick.)

Goodbye to the toxic viciousness . . .

Carl Bernstein's disgust at Hillary’s “thick ankles.” Nixon-trickster Roger Stone’s new Hillary-hating 527 group, “Citizens United Not Timid” (check the capital letters). John McCain answering “How do we beat the bitch?" with “Excellent question!” Would he have dared reply similarly to “How do we beat the black bastard?” For shame.

Goodbye to the HRC nutcracker with metal spikes between splayed thighs. If it was a tap-dancing blackface doll, we would be righteously outraged—and they would not be selling it in airports. Shame.

Goodbye to the most intimately violent T-shirts in election history, including one with the murderous slogan “If Only Hillary had married O.J. Instead!” Shame.

Goodbye to Comedy Central’s “Southpark” featuring a storyline in which terrorists secrete a bomb in HRC’s vagina. I refuse to wrench my brain down into the gutter far enough to find a race-based comparison. For shame.

Goodbye to the sick, malicious idea that this is funny. This is not “Clinton hating,” not “Hillary hating.” This is sociopathic woman-hating. If it were about Jews, we would recognize it instantly as anti-Semitic propaganda; if about race, as KKK poison. Hell, PETA would go ballistic if such vomitous spew were directed at animals. Where is our sense of outrage—as citizens, voters, Americans?

Goodbye to the news-coverage target-practice . . .

The women’s movement and Media Matters wrung an apology from MSNBC’s Chris Matthews for relentless misogynistic comments (www.womensmediacenter.com). But what about NBC’s Tim Russert’s continual sexist asides and his all-white-male panels pontificating on race and gender? Or CNN’s Tony Harris chuckling at “the chromosome thing” while interviewing a woman from The White House Project? And that’s not even mentioning Fox News.

Goodbye to pretending the black community is entirely male and all women are white . . .

Surprise! Women exist in all opinions, pigmentations, ethnicities, abilities, sexual preferences, and ages—not only African American and European American but Latina and Native American, Asian American and Pacific Islanders, Arab American and—hey, every group, because a group wouldn’t exist if we hadn’t given birth to it. A few non-racist countries may exist—but sexism is everywhere. No matter how many ways a woman breaks free from other discriminations, she remains a female human being in a world still so patriarchal that it’s the “norm.”

So why should all women not be as justly proud of our womanhood and the centuries, even millennia, of struggle that got us this far, as black Americans, women and men, are justly proud of their struggles?

Goodbye to a campaign where he has to pass as white (which whites—especially wealthy ones—adore), while she has to pass as male (which both men and women demanded of her, and then found unforgivable). If she were black or he were female we wouldn’t be having such problems, and I for one would be in heaven. But at present such a candidate wouldn’t stand a chance—even if she shared Condi Rice’s Bush-defending politics.

I was celebrating the pivotal power at last focused on African American women deciding on which of two candidates to bestow their vote—until a number of Hillary-supporting black feminists told me they’re being called “race traitors.”

So goodbye to conversations about this nation’s deepest scar—slavery—which fail to acknowledge that labor- and sexual-slavery exist today in the U.S. and elsewhere on this planet, and the majority of those enslaved are women.

Women have endured sex/race/ethnic/religious hatred, rape and battery, invasion of spirit and flesh, forced pregnancy; being the majority of the poor, the illiterate, the disabled, of refugees, caregivers, the HIV/AIDS afflicted, the powerless. We have survived invisibility, ridicule, religious fundamentalisms, polygamy, teargas, forced feedings, jails, asylums, sati, purdah, female genital mutilation, witch burnings, stonings, and attempted gynocides. We have tried reason, persuasion, reassurances, and being extra-qualified, only to learn it never was about qualifications after all. We know that at this historical moment women experience the world differently from men—though not all the same as one another—and can govern differently, from Elizabeth Tudor to Michele Bachelet and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf.

We remember when Shirley Chisholm and Patricia Schroeder ran for this high office and barely got past the gate—they showed too much passion, raised too little cash, were joke fodder. Goodbye to all that. (And goodbye to some feminists so famished for a female president they were even willing to abandon women’s rights in backing Elizabeth Dole.)

Goodbye, goodbye to . . .

—blaming anything Bill Clinton does on Hillary (even including his womanizing like the Kennedy guys—though unlike them, he got reported on). Let’s get real. If he hadn’t campaigned strongly for her everyone would cluck over what that meant. Enough of Bill and Teddy Kennedy locking their alpha male horns while Hillary pays for it.

—an era when parts of the populace feel so disaffected by politics that a comparative lack of knowledge, experience, and skill is actually seen as attractive, when celebrity-culture mania now infects our elections so that it’s “cooler” to glow with marquee charisma than to understand the vast global complexities of power on a nuclear, wounded planet.

—the notion that it’s fun to elect a handsome, cocky president who feels he can learn on the job, goodbye to George W. Bush and the destruction brought by his inexperience, ignorance, and arrogance.

Goodbye to the accusation that HRC acts “entitled” when she’s worked intensely at everything she’s done—including being a nose-to-the-grindstone, first-rate senator from my state.

Goodbye to her being exploited as a Rorschach test by women who reduce her to a blank screen on which they project their own fears, failures, fantasies.

Goodbye to the phrase “polarizing figure” to describe someone who embodies the transitions women have made in the last century and are poised to make in this one. It was the women’s movement that quipped, “We are becoming the men we wanted to marry.” She heard us, and she has.

Goodbye to some women letting history pass by while wringing their hands, because Hillary isn’t as “likeable” as they’ve been warned they must be, or because she didn’t leave him, couldn’t “control” him, kept her family together and raised a smart, sane daughter. (Think of the blame if Chelsea had ever acted in the alcoholic, neurotic manner of the Bush twins!) Goodbye to some women pouting because she didn’t bake cookies or she did, sniping because she learned the rules and then bent or broke them. Grow the hell up. She is not running for Ms.-perfect-pure-queen-icon of the feminist movement. She’s running to be president of the United States.

Goodbye to the shocking American ignorance of our own and other countries’ history. Margaret Thatcher and Golda Meir rose through party ranks and war, positioning themselves as proto-male leaders. Almost all other female heads of government so far have been related to men of power—granddaughters, daughters, sisters, wives, widows: Gandhi, Bandaranike, Bhutto, Aquino, Chamorro, Wazed, Macapagal-Arroyo, Johnson Sirleaf, Bachelet, Kirchner, and more. Even in our “land of opportunity,” it’s mostly the first pathway “in” permitted to women: Representatives Doris Matsui and Mary Bono and Sala Burton; Senator Jean Carnahan . . . far too many to list here.

Goodbye to a misrepresented generational divide . . .

Goodbye to the so-called spontaneous “Obama Girl” flaunting her bikini-clad ass online—then confessing Oh yeah it wasn’t her idea after all, some guys got her to do it and dictated the clothes, which she said “made me feel like a dork.”

Goodbye to some young women eager to win male approval by showing they’re not feminists (at least not the kind who actually threaten thestatus quo), who can’t identify with a woman candidate because she is unafraid of eeueweeeu yucky power, who fear their boyfriends might look at them funny if they say something good about her. Goodbye to women of any age again feeling unworthy, sulking “what if she’s not electable?” or “maybe it’s post-feminism and whoooosh we’re already free.” Let a statement by the magnificent Harriet Tubman stand as reply. When asked how she managed to save hundreds of enslaved African Americans via the Underground Railroad during the Civil War, she replied bitterly, “I could have saved thousands—if only I’d been able to convince them they were slaves.”

I’d rather say a joyful Hello to all the glorious young women who do identify with Hillary, and all the brave, smart men—of all ethnicities and any age—who get that it’s in their self-interest, too. She’s better qualified. (D’uh.) She’s a high-profile candidate with an enormous grasp of foreign- and domestic-policy nuance, dedication to detail, ability to absorb staggering insult and personal pain while retaining dignity, resolve, even humor, and keep on keeping on. (Also, yes, dammit, let’s hear it for her connections and funding and party-building background, too. Obama was awfully glad about those when she raised dough and campaigned for him to get to the Senate in the first place.)

I’d rather look forward to what a good president he might make in eight years, when his vision and spirit are seasoned by practical know-how—and he’ll be all of 54. Meanwhile, goodbye to turning him into a shining knight when actually he’s an astute, smooth pol with speechwriters who’ve worked with the Kennedys’ own speechwriter-courtier Ted Sorenson. If it’s only about ringing rhetoric, let speechwriters run. But isn’t it about getting the policies we want enacted?

And goodbye to the ageism . . .

How dare anyone unilaterally decide when to turn the page on history, papering over real inequities and suffering constituencies in the promise of a feel-good campaign? How dare anyone claim to unify while dividing, or think that to rouse U.S. youth from torpor it’s useful to triage the single largest demographic in this country’s history: the boomer generation—the majority of which is female?

Old woman are the one group that doesn’t grow more conservative with age—and we are the generation of radicals who said “Well-behaved women seldom make history.” Goodbye to going gently into any goodnight any man prescribes for us. We are the women who changed the reality of the United States. And though we never went away, brace yourselves: we’re back!

We are the women who brought this country equal credit, better pay, affirmative action, the concept of a family-focused workplace; the women who established rape-crisis centers and battery shelters, marital-rape and date-rape laws; the women who defended lesbian custody rights, who fought for prison reform, founded the peace and environmental movements; who insisted that medical research include female anatomy; who inspired men to become more nurturing parents; who created women’s studies and Title IX so we all could cheer the WNBA stars and Mia Hamm. We are the women who reclaimed sexuality from violent pornography, who put childcare on the national agenda, who transformed demographics, artistic expression, language itself. We are the women who forged a worldwide movement. We are the proud successors of women who, though it took more than 50 years, won us the vote.

We are the women who now comprise the majority of U.S. voters.

Hillary said she found her own voice in New Hampshire. There’s not a woman alive who, if she’s honest, doesn’t recognize what she means. Then HRC got drowned out by campaign experts, Bill, and media’s obsession with everything Bill.

So listen to her voice:

“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.

“It is a violation of human rights when babies are denied food, or drowned, or suffocated, or their spines broken, simply because they are born girls. It is a violation of human rights when woman and girls are sold into the slavery of prostitution. It is a violation of human rights when women are doused with gasoline, set on fire and burned to death because their marriage dowries are deemed too small. It is a violation of human rights when individual women are raped in their own communities and when thousands of women are subjected to rape as a tactic or prize of war. It is a violation of human rights when a leading cause of death worldwide along women ages 14 to 44 is the violence they are subjected to in their own homes. It is a violation of human rights when women are denied the right to plan their own families, and that includes being forced to have abortions or being sterilized against their will.

“Women’s rights are human rights. Among those rights are the right to speak freely—and the right to be heard.”

That was Hillary Rodham Clinton defying the U.S. State Department and the Chinese Government at the 1995 UN World Conference on Women in Beijing (look here for the full, stunning speech).

And this voice, age 21, in “Commencement Remarks of Hillary D. Rodham, President of Wellesley College Government Association, Class of 1969.”

“We are, all of us, exploring a world none of us understands. . . . searching for a more immediate, ecstatic, and penetrating mode of living. . . . [for the] integrity, the courage to be whole, living in relation to one another in the full poetry of existence. The struggle for an integrated life existing in an atmosphere of communal trust and respect is one with desperately important political and social consequences. . . . Fear is always with us, but we just don't have time for it.”

She ended with the commitment “to practice, with all the skill of our being: the art of making possible.”

And for decades, she’s been learning how.

So goodbye to Hillary’s second-guessing herself. The real question is deeper than her re-finding her voice. Can we women find ours? Can we do this for ourselves?

“Our President, Ourselves!”

Time is short and the contest tightening. We need to rise in furious energy—as we did when Anita Hill was so vilely treated in the U.S. Senate, as we did when Rosie Jiminez was butchered by an illegal abortion, as we did and do for women globally who are condemned for trying to break through. We need to win, this time. Goodbye to supporting HRC tepidly, with ambivalent caveats and apologetic smiles. Time to volunteer, make phone calls, send emails, donate money, argue, rally, march, shout, vote.

Me? I support Hillary Rodham because she’s the best qualified of all candidates running in both parties. I support her because her progressive politics are as strong as her proven ability to withstand what will be a massive right-wing assault in the general election. I support her because she knows how to get us out of Iraq. I support her because she’s refreshingly thoughtful, and I’m bloodied from eight years of a jolly “uniter” with ejaculatory politics. I needn’t agree with her on every point. I agree with the 97 percent of her positions that are identical with Obama’s—and the few where hers are both more practical and to the left of his (like health care). I support her because she’s already smashed the first-lady stereotype and made history as a fine senator, because I believe she will continue to make history not only as the first US woman president, but as a great US president.

As for the “woman thing”?

Me, I’m voting for Hillary not because she’s a woman—but because I am.

Hat tip (and a big "thank you!" to Jen in comments.

A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies.

State Package for Hillary Clinton by Maya Angelou

You may write me down in history

With your bitter, twisted lies,

You may tread me in the very dirt

But still, like dust, I'll rise.

This is not the first time you have seen Hillary Clinton seemingly at her wits' end, but she has always risen, always risen, don't forget she has always risen, much to the dismay of her adversaries and the delight of her friends.

Hillary Clinton will not give up on you and all she asks of you is that you do not give up on her.

There is a world of difference between being a woman and being an old female. If you're born a girl, grow up, and live long enough, you can become an old female. But to become a woman is a serious matter. A woman takes responsibility for the time she takes up and the space she occupies. Hillary Clinton is a woman. She has been there and done that and has still risen. She is in this race for the long haul. She intends to make a difference in our country. Hillary Clinton intends to help our country to be what it can become.

She declares she wants to see more smiles in the family, more courtesies between men and women, more honesty in the marketplace. She is the prayer of every woman and man who longs for fair play, healthy families, good schools, and a balanced economy.

She means to rise.

Don't give up on Hillary. In fact, if you help her to rise, you will rise with her and help her make this country the wonderful, wonderful place where every man and every woman can live freely without sanctimonious piety and without crippling fear.

Rise, Hillary.

Rise.

What She Said

Ellen R. Malcolm, founder and president of Emily's List, in today's WaPo:

It's not surprising that low-income working women are the cornerstone of Hillary's success. Many of these women live on the edge of disaster. A pink slip, a family member's illness, a parent who can no longer live alone, a car that won't start or a mortgage rate that goes up -- all are threats that could devastate the family. And yet these women do what women have done for ages. They put on a confident face, feed their children breakfast and get them off to school. They don't quit. They suck it up and fight back against whatever life throws their way.

They see in Hillary Clinton a candidate who understands the pressures they face. As they watch her tough it out against all odds, refusing to quit and continuing to compete against whatever the media and her opponents throw her way, they see a woman as tough and resilient as they are. They clearly want her to win. Her victory, I believe, is their victory.

So here we are in the fourth quarter of the nominating process and the game is too close to call. Once again, the opponents and the media are calling for Hillary to quit. The first woman ever to win a presidential primary is supposed to stop competing, to curtsy and exit stage right.

Why on earth should one candidate quit before the contest is finished? Democrats need not be so fainthearted. Both of the party's remaining candidates have raised tens of millions of dollars. Both have the respect of Democrats nationwide. Each has a progressive agenda that stands in stark contrast to Sen. John McCain and his adherence to Bush administration policies.

So why are some Democrats so afraid? We simply need to count every vote, let the remaining states have their say and see the process through to its conclusion.

Hillary Clinton certainly has the right to compete till the end. But I believe Hillary also has a responsibility to play the game to its conclusion. For the women of my generation who learned to find and channel their competitiveness, for the working women who never falter in the face of pressure, for the younger women who still believe women can do anything, Hillary is a champion. She's shown us over and over that winners never quit and that quitters never win. We'll cheer her on until the game is over. And we hope that when the final whistle blows, we will have elected the first female president and the best president our country has ever had.

You know what they'd be saying about a guy who was as close behind the front runner as Hillary is and who wouldn't quit: He's the come-back kid! A real competitor! This guy just won't quit; he's got a lot of heart and a lot of guts. You've got to admire him; he's courageous and, win or lose, he's reminding Americans what it's like to fight to the finish, yadda, yadda, yadda. Hil, becuase she's a woman, is so egotistical that she's willing to "bring down" the party, should quit before she hurts Obama any more, is letting her ambition run away with her, blah, blah, blah. Liberal male bloggers, I'm looking at you.

Goodbye To All That

Kind of like Poe and Anabelle Lee, I love Molly Ivor's writing with a love that is more than love. She's smart and incisive and kind and she writes from the place that we all want to believe that we have within us where genius and learning come together with smarts and wisecracking and a great love of life, and I could read her dissertations upon the phone book, if that's what struck her fancy for writing.

Today, however, she turns her gifts to explaining how many women are feeling on the eve of what I hope is not, but fear may be, the end of Hillary Clinton's run for the White House. Readers of this blog know that I'm a huge supporter of Hillary Clinton. I like her a lot. She invented smart. She keeps getting back up from the shitty things that life hands her and somehow goes on with a generous spirit bent on doing good. She digs down into the details and really learns what's going on. She gave a world-changing speech equating women's rights with human rights. She's got great ideas about how to fix our energy mess and she's always been a huge promoter of women. Whatever happens tomorrow, or at the Democratic convention, or in November, we haven't seen the last of Hillary Clinton. She's blazed a trail for future women to follow and she's done it with grace and humor and strength.

Supporting Hillary on liberal blogs for the past year or so has been an interesting experience. Lots of folks who somehow managed to get right behind John Kerry, his "I was for the war before I was against it" and his vote for the war notwithstanding, started off this primary season full of screaming hatred for Clinton because she voted to authorize the war. To be clear, she was wrong to vote that way, just as Obama has been wrong to vote to continue funding the war every time that vote has come up since he's been in the Senate. But there's been, IMHO, a different tone, a demand that she, far more than Kerry or Obama or Edwards or anyone else, should somehow crawl through broken glass with ashes on her forehead and that nothing she said was somehow "enough."

I've watched people who insisted that they were for Edwards because he was more progressive than Clinton (fair enough) switch directly to Obama when Edwards dropped out of the race (not so fair). Obama is less progressive, and far more willing to adopt the kind of shit-on-the-liberal tactics that many liberal bloggers used to disparage, than Clinton. Forgive me for perceiving a different organizing principle behind the behavior.

And so we who look at this primary season as another example of systemic prejudice often have reasons for doing so. Dismiss them as personal or petty if you like, but don't pretend that we are emotional and you the disinterested arbiters of what is and is not fair game. I have been accused of everything from willful stupidity to “vaginal solidarity” over these last weeks. It's insulting and demeaning, and intended to be so, as much as major opinion pieces on how dumb girls are and how Hillary should just climb on the Obandwagon. I've always said that it's not the sexists who get to define what kind of speech and behavior is sexist, what kind of office behavior is harassment.

I'm going to try to only say this once. I've got concerns about Obama. The notion that we're "one America" is bullshit. The idea that there's some grand level of compromise between me and the people who want to turn this country into a theocracy is bullshit. The notion that you can "reach across the aisle" to people like Grover Norquist and John Boehner is bullshit. They've explained as clearly as they possibly can that they view bipartisanship as date rape and that they intend to be the rapist, not the rapee. The notion that the details of policy don't matter as much as just getting a bunch of people excited about "change" is bullshit. The notion that "we worship a mighty God in the blue states" and that I'm supposed to want to vote for yet another candidate who puts out campaign literature saying that he's "called to serve" against a sacristy background is bullshit. And, as a proud member of the "anti-war left," I'd like to invite Mr. Obama to bite my ass.

I hope that I'm wrong. I'll be as quick to say I was wrong, come the Obama presidency, as I will be to say, "I told you so." But I'm tired of reading on liberal blogs that Obama is engaged in some form of Matrix-like ju jutisu whenever he adopts Republican talking points and concedes the battle ahead of time to the Republicans, while Clinton is bullheaded and dumb for not just giving in. It would help if those same liberal blogs hadn't spent years beating (correctly, IMHO) on vichy Dems. The level of nastiness and glee at Clinton's demise can have, IMHO, only one explanation. I'd be lot more impressed if the Obama supporters that I know spent more (aka almost any) time explaining which of his positions they like and less time shitting on Hillary Clinton.

And, so, if, as it looks like tonight, the nominee is Obama, I'll vote for him, as, I believe, will Hillary Clinton. It's possible, although not likely, that he'll realize that he has fences to mend with the feminist community ("You're likable enough" is not something that I'm likely to easily forget when I'm being asked to open my checkbook. Just sayin') and that, by November, I'll be more enthusiastic than I am tonight. But, as Molly says:

Indeed, it seems that Senator Obama will be the candidate, not because of (or in spite of) my vagina, but because of his ground game. I respect that. But I also ask respect for my position, for my experiences. Win with grace, not with sneers at old ladies who have repeatedly been told that it wasn't their turn yet, only to be told that sorry, their turn has passed by. That's about as alienating as you can get. I don't think his followers are shallow—at least not most of them—but many are rudely dismissive and do not seem to know whose framing they're adopting.

My favorite episode of the Sopranos is the one where the psychologist tells Carmella, "Whatever you do, you can never say that no one told you."

Sexism

As NTodd points out in comments to one of my posts from yesterday, I overgeneralized. The Hillary Hatred didn't really extend to every white, male, 30-something blogger. Guilty, as charged.

There was, however, when you look back at it, a few months out, an absolutely AMAZING amount of hatred -- all out of proportion to reality -- directed towards "that woman" (and anyone foolish enough to speak up and support her or even suggest that perhaps the sexism was not too becoming for supposed liberals) and regular and v shrill demands, starting quite early, that she STEP DOWN RIGHT NOW in favor of the "more deserving" man. You couldn't go 15 minutes on some blogs without hearing that, by insisting that everyone get to vote in a primary and that every state mattered, Hillary Clinton was "destroying" not only Obama's only chance to beat McCain, but also the entire future of the Democratic Party. And all "for her own ego."

I said at the time, and I believe today, that any guy who'd done exactly what Hillary did would be celebrated for "having heart," being "a real fighter," having "what it took" to "stay in it to the end," for "never giving up, even in the final quarter," for "staying focused through the ninth inning, " [insert your sports metaphor here]. He'd also be the VP nominee for the Democratic Party. Cf., e.g., John Edwards.

Now, with 20/20 hindsight, it's pretty clear that, by forcing Obama to develop a ground game in all 50 states, by creating a situation where voters were seeing Obama ads months and months before McCain (who was doing his victory lap around the other Republican primary candidates and ignoring many states since they "no longer mattered,") Clinton did not only Obama, but also the entire party a favor. When you look at it, you can see it as a logical outcome of Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy. If Democrats show up in every state, spend money in every state, contest every state, not only can they win states that they never dreamed before that they could win, they can exhaust the Republicans by making them spend money, time, and energy defending what should have been "safe" states, even if, in the end, those states stay red.

So was there a lot of sexism behind the out-of-proportion hatred? Yes. Yes, there was. There certainly was. And many of the proponents believe to this day that they, of course, aren't sexist, at all. Some of their best friends are women and they would, of course, support the "right woman" -- if she ever came along. And paid her dues. And was "more qualified" than the man.

It's odd how many unintended good things often result from doing the right thing. Hillary Clinton was right to fight the primary out to the very end, even if it made that "more deserving" man fight harder for his job than he "should" have had to if only she'd been "gracious" and given up, as girls are taught to do. It was the right thing for her, for her supporters, for women, for Democrats. And it was the right thing for Obama.

Since the primaries ended, Hillary's also done the right thing. She gave a gracious and inspiring concession speech. She's supported Obama in state after state and and she's raising money for other Dems. And I've yet to hear nearly as much, "Gee, thanks, Hillary," as I heard "That Eviiiilllll Woman." But I have a long memory.

Best Candidate To End The War

Polls show that Dems favor Hillary to end the war.

Within the liberal blogosphere, Hil takes quite a bashing for what's perceived to be her less-than-adequate disavowal of her vote (along with many other Dems, including Edwards) to authorize Bush to go to Iraq. Josh Marshall reports, however, that among Democrats in general, Hillary is: actually viewed as the best Democrat to end the war.

Hillary wins easy victories among Democrats in Iowa, New Hampshire[,] and South Carolina on this question: "Regardless of your choice for president, who do you think would be best at ending the war in Iraq?" Hillary scores in the mid-30's in all three states, outpacing Barack Obama by over 15 points in all three states, with John Edwards in third.

And among voters who said the Iraq War is the most important issue to them, Hillary still leads the pack: 30% in Iowa, 32% in New Hampshire, and an astonishing 63% in South Carolina.

A possible explanation could be that despite her 2002 vote for the war, Hillary Clinton is consistently viewed in polls as the best experienced top-tier Democratic candidate.

I suspect that Josh's explanation may be correct.

What Eric Said

by Eric Boehlert

Within the fast-forward world of campaign journalism, it's not considered cool to examine the recent past in order to provide context for today's events. (We know it's not cool because nobody does it.) Nonetheless, here's a very brief history lesson that the political press prefers to ignore.

At the Democratic National Convention in 1992, Jerry Brown, who finished a very distant second to the party's nominee, had his name placed into nomination and addressed the assembled convention. After seconding his own nomination (true story), Brown delivered a fiery speech that thrilled his unruly supporters inside Madison Square Garden. Brown's ill will toward nominee Bill Clinton was so legendary that The Atlanta Journal-Constitution considered it newsworthy that Brown's convention address "avoided a direct attack" on the nominee, while the Los Angeles Times noted Brown "did not specifically endorse presidential nominee Bill Clinton."

Indeed, for weeks leading up to the convention, Brown refused to back his party's nominee, complaining to The New York Times in June that supporting Clinton was like buying a ticket for the Titanic.

Four years earlier, the Democratic convention in Atlanta witnessed even more tumult from the second-place finisher when Jesse Jackson, furious at being passed over for the vice-presidential slot by the party's nominee, Michael Dukakis (who failed to call Jackson and tell him the VP news), threatened to withhold his delegates' support from the party's nominee. In fact, just hours before the convention began, Jackson's supporters threatened to place the candidate's name into nomination for the vice presidency, which would have created a massive floor fight between Jackson and Dukakis' pick, Sen. Lloyd Bentsen of Texas.

Pre-convention tension grew so heated that the mild-mannered Dukakis was quoted as saying, "I don't care what Jesse Jackson does. I'm going to this convention and I'm going to win." During his convention keynote address, which lasted nearly an hour -- much longer than expected, Jackson did not specifically endorse Dukakis.

End of history lesson.

Now, take those historical nuggets from 1992 and 1988 and transport them to Denver this week, and try to imagine what the press reaction would be (not the political reaction, but the press reaction) if Hillary Clinton delivered her address Tuesday night and did not endorse the Democratic Party's nominee.

Honestly, I have trouble even picturing the response, mostly because there has already been such an unhinged media response (see Maureen Dowd, if you must) to Clinton's finishing second, speaking at the convention, and supporting the party's nominee. If she snubbed the nominee? We'd probably see a media-credentialed riot, with hordes of pundits and reporters roaming the late-night streets of Denver (Pitchforks? Probably) in search of Clinton and looking to inflict long-term pain.

Fact: Many in the press have portrayed Clinton's planned convention address, as well as the fact that her name is being placed into nomination, as an unprecedented, heavy-handed power grab.

Fact: It's not. In years past, Democratic candidates who won lots of primaries and accumulated hundreds of delegates (sorry, Howard Dean and Bill Bradley) have always been allowed to address the convention and very often place their name into nomination. It's the norm. It's expected. It's a formality.

This newly manufactured media attack on Clinton is just the latest in a long line of press grenades thrown her way this year. But this time, she's not the only victim, because the media's concocted story line is being used to unfairly skewer Barack Obama, too.

Consider New York magazine: "Obama Agrees to Roll-Call Vote for Clinton. Does That Make Him a Sissy?"

What's so startling in watching the coverage of the Clinton convention-speech story has been the complete ignorance displayed about how previous Democratic conventions have dealt with runners-up like Clinton. It's either complete ignorance or the media's strong desire to painstakingly avoid any historical context, which, in turn, allows the press to mislead news consumers into thinking Clinton's appearance (as well as the gracious invitation extended by Obama) represents something unique and unusual. Something newsworthy.

Based on previous conventions, if a candidate had accumulated as many delegates and votes as Clinton did during the primaries and then did not have her name placed into nomination, that would represent a radical departure from the convention norm.

But, boy, in 2008, an awful lot of media outlets have played dumb. When covering the August 14 announcement about Clinton's role in Denver, they miraculously forgot to make any historical reference to similar names-placed-in-nomination at previous conventions.

Instead, readers and viewers were left with the obvious impression that what was scheduled to happen in Denver was remarkable, an anomaly. And I suppose if you look at the events through a soda straw, it does look unusual. But if you include the slightest bit of context, the story changes into something normal and routine.

But that's not the story the press wants to tell (the Clintons are not normal!), so the press simply erased the context and stuck to its preferred story line that Clinton's appearance in Denver and the placing of her name in nomination are one for the record books.

Searching the recent news archives, it's hard to find many articles or television segments that reported on Clinton's symbolic nomination and also mentioned that runner-up Jerry Brown had been nominated in '92 or that Jesse Jackson had been nominated in '88 or that Gary Hart had been nominated in '84. (You get the idea.)

When The New York Times reported on Clinton's pending nomination, it made no reference to historical precedents. Neither did The Boston Globe, nor The Wall Street Journal, nor The Washington Post. And on and on and on.

On CNN, Jack Cafferty commented, "The Democratic National Convention is now shaping up to be quite a party for Hillary Clinton. Her name will be placed in nomination. She'll give a prime-time address." He made no mention that that's what previous runners-up had done at conventions.

Let's give credit to the Los Angeles Times, though. In the final two sentences in an article reporting the Clinton convention story, the Times miraculously found space to note that Brown, Jackson, and Hart all had their second-place names placed into nomination.

Actually, the real credit goes to CNN polling director Keating Holland (figures, he doesn't work in the newsroom), who posted a lengthy analysis at CNN.com. Holland's piece not only put Clinton's role in Denver into historical perspective ("Overall, between 1972 and 1992, 10 Democratic candidates who lost the nomination in the primaries went on to have their names formally placed in nomination at the convention."), it also pointed out that Clinton represents the only runner-up to speak at the convention who formally endorsed the party's nominee months before the convention; i.e., all the others grudgingly held out on endorsing their rivals.

But not Clinton. Yet she's the one slimed by media venom.

Even after all these months, I still don't completely understand why Clinton's essentially centrist campaign for the White House ginned up so much open contempt from the press corps, which has felt completely comfortable addressing her in an openly derogatory and condescending manner. The issue of her convention involvement simply allowed the press to whack her around like a piñata one more time, regardless of the facts.

Just take a look at a recent edition of ABC's CW-worshipping daily bulletin The Note as it mocked Clinton's convention role with barely containable contempt:

Maybe it was better for the Obama campaign to invite you inside, since you would have made an ugly scene outside. Surely Sen. Barack Obama can afford to be gracious, even to you, since he'll leave Denver with the only prize that counts.

"Even to you." That's a nice touch, coming from the same press corps that erupts with indignation whenever somebody suggests Clinton might have been tarred with sexist campaign coverage. (Y'think? National Review Online, August 15: "Sure, Hillary's fat and waddly and screechy and gives pantsuits a bad name.")

And this from Radar magazine:

Barack Obama has approved Hillary Clinton's dubious campaign to put herself up for nomination at the upcoming Democratic National Convention. We have to ask: Is it because she's a woman or just power-hungry?

Note that Clinton's convention campaign was "dubious," which was accurate if Radar, y'know, ignored facts and precedent and history and all that annoying stuff.

Meanwhile, what was The Note's proof that Clinton would have "made an ugly scene outside" the convention if not included? The Note had none. And that's what's been so amazing about watching the brazen, Clinton's-trying-to-steal-the-convention-with-a-speech coverage: The narrative is built on a swamp. The press has provided virtually no facts, not even anonymous quotes, to support its beloved narrative that Hillary Clinton's planned speech ignited some kind of civil war inside the Democratic Party.

What's curious is that journalists who have actually bothered to cite campaign sources about her speech and symbolic nomination came away with a very different picture of what was unfolding behind the scenes.

Writing at his Atlantic blog, Marc Ambinder, who seems to enjoy regular access to Obama sources, noted that "reports of strife between negotiators for Sen. Hillary Clinton and Sen. Barack Obama are exaggerated" and that "multiple sources in both campaigns have described the negotiations as relatively free of acrimony."

The next day, Ambinder returned to the topic perplexed, wondering why so many members of the press were pushing the clearly inaccurate story line that the Obama and Clinton camps were practically at war over the convention schedule.

Ambinder was either being naïve or playing nice with his Beltway colleagues. (My guess is the latter.) Because it was obvious the press didn't care whether the rift about Clinton's speech was real or imagined. The story helped journalists advance their beloved narrative that Clinton is a political-party wrecking ball and that Obama is too weak to control her. So even if the evidence ran counter to that, the press was sticking with its story line.

Like Ambinder, another journalist who actually reported the story was Joan Walsh at Salon.com, who wrote, "My sources say the Obama campaign was enthusiastic about the idea of putting Clinton's name in nomination, having independently reached the conclusion that it was the best way to honor her achievement and do more to win over her supporters."

She then included a quote from Obama spokesman Bill Burton:

"The conversations with her folks were very cordial and we've been able to work very closely with them as we unify this party. ... We couldn't be happier about how things are going with Senator Clinton and her team."

Burton made several public pronouncements like that regarding the Denver convention schedule, but New York Times columnist Gail Collins mocked the idea that the scheduling had been cordial and easy, instead comparing the convention task to negotiating a Middle East between "enemy forces."

And then there was Washington Post columnist Jeff Birnbaum who announced Obama never should have allowed Clinton to be nominated, suggesting it was a huge political mistake. How did Birnbaum know? He just knew. The fact that polling found Democrats by an almost 2-to-1 margin thought Clinton's nomination would be good for party unity was of no interest to Birnbaum or anyone else in the press spinning the event as a Democratic catastrophe.

FYI, Birnbaum told The Wall Street Journal he was "grateful" for "Hillary Clinton's attempt tacitly to take over the Obama victory" because it was a great story that the press could cover throughout the convention. (Oh, goody.) As one blogger wrote after reading Birnbaum's quote, "I thought journalists were supposed to uncover the facts and report the story, not decide on the story and then interpret the facts to accommodate their storyline."

Meanwhile, let's be clear: Clinton isn't the only injured party here. After the press constructed the phony premise abut Clinton's convention speech, critics then used it, unfairly, to tag Obama as a softie who can't even stand up to a woman. (Gasp.)

"Russia rolls over Georgia, Hillary Clinton does the same to Barack Obama. Now we know who's boss." (Michael Goodwin, New York Daily News)
"If Hillary Clinton can ride [roughshod] over this guy what do you think bin Laden will do?" (Dick Morris, on Fox News)
"Russia invades Georgia. Hillary invades Obama's convention. Obama does nothing constructive on either count." (Amanda Carpenter, at Townhall.com)
Why were critics able to get off those cheap shots? Because the press, strenuously ignoring facts and recent history, was determined to paint Clinton as the ultimate party crasher.

—E.B.

Why I Want Hillary To Win -- Part II

Do you remember where you were when the O.J. Simpson verdict was handed down? I do.

I work at a law firm where everyone -- and I mean the lawyers, the support staff, everyone -- was fascinated by the trial, by the attention that it got, by the tactics of the lawyers on both sides. So when the verdict was about to be announced, they rolled big TVs into some of the conference rooms and people flocked there to watch the verdict. I'd imagine, on a rough guess, that the room that I was in was composed of about half African Americans and half whites. And when the verdict was announced, the most amazing thing to me was the difference in the reactions. Nearly all of the whites were appalled and nearly all of the African Americans were desperately trying to stifle their desire to break into cheers. I like to think that, while I can never know what it's like to be black in America, I am sympathetic and empathetic and at least conscious of the fact that the privilege afforded by my white skin makes me unaware of an entire ocean of discrimination. But that day reminded me just how different and difficult it is (still) to be be black in America and how differently it can cause people, even people who like each other and work with each other every day, to perceive events. Eventually, I kind of got it, or at least a piece of it: white people who murder black people have been walking away from deserved guilty verdicts for centuries and that was, well, perhaps regrettable, but acceptable, and finally, finally, the tables had been turned. And,the LAPD's treatment of African Americans is so odious that no one in the black community was going to feel anything but good about seeing them get a bit of commupance.

I thought about that experience earlier this morning when my good friend, the gifted music critic, Steve Simels, said to me:

Kiddo, I read your post yesterday about how much it means to you about finally having a woman with a shot at the presidency for (perhaps) the only time in your forseeable future, and I must confess I still don't get it.

To me, it's no different than electing the first Jewish president. As a Jew, I totally don't give a shit on any level....

Maybe that's a bad analogy, but for what it's worth, to me it's the same thing.

Steve's a great liberal and a feminist to boot, but he's no more going to "get" what a having a woman in the White House would mean to me (and a lot of women like me) than I could "get" what the African Americans in that conference room were feeling when they heard the O.J. verdict. (Jews in America have certainly been subject to disgusting discrimination. I'm not sure that I can articulate the difference in the analogies. Maybe Steve's just a bigger person than I am.)

I've got no real way to know why Hillary did well in the N.H. primary, nor why Obama did well in the Iowa caucuses. Hillary has, obviously, lots of male supporters who like her for her policies, her experience, her smarts, and who would probably like those same characteristics in a man. Some women hate Hillary. But women broke strongly for Hillary last night. If the media, the "Iron My Shirts" types, and the progressives who just don't get what she means to a lot of women keep piling on her, they may get a verdict that surprises them.

(Photo: Joe Raedle/Getty Images)

Bah! Humbug.

An interesting discussion over at Eschaton about the absolutely hysterical "gift item" that depicts Hillary Clinton as "nutcracker" has me considering the amazing notion that any woman who aspires to a position of power must be harmful to men's genitalia. As far as I know, Hillary's never expressed any desire to "crack" any man's "nuts." It's the simple fact that she wants to lead that makes it obvious, and obviously hysterical, that she's a danger to every man's cock.

And, I wonder what the converse would be. A toy Rudy Guliani that kicks women in the crotch? A "gift item" that depicts Huckabee cutting off women's breasts? A "novelty" Romney that rips off a woman's clitoris? A McCain doll that says, "I want to control women's wombs," whenever you press the button? Where's the Obama doll that depicts him fucking white men in the ass or whipping them and calling them "Toby"? If those items are "beyond the pale," how come the Hillary nutcracker is OK? How come the humor only goes one way?

Would those xmas gifts get the same grudging chuckle as the nutcracking Hillary? If not, why not? Because from where I sit, toys showing Republican men harming women's reproductive organs are far more spot on than a toy based on the notion that Hillary Clinton wants to do damage to men's penises.

Hil Defends Bill

Go, Hillary, Go Hillary, Go Hillary. It's your birthday. Go Hillary, Go Hillary


She's even picked up a NY accent. That woman has brains where other people have empty space.

Just sayin'

I Am Going To Turn Someone Into A Newt

Kali on a cucumber! There is nothing -- NOTHING -- about Hillary Clinton that the mainstream media won't criticize.

In the 11,046 pages of Hillary Clinton's White House schedules released yesterday, every minute is scripted, down to when she takes her seat on a bench, when she is presented with a gift (1:35 p.m.) and when she makes a speech accepting it (1:40 p.m.), when she is escorted to an elevator and by whom and on what floor.

But not why. Never the why.

This is the briefest outline of a life, all mechanics and no feeling. If there are any insights here into the presidential candidate's interior life, they are between the typewritten lines and the reader's imagination.

If her schedules were sloppy and vague, she'd get criticized for that. If, as appears to be the case, they're detailed, that shows that she's too scripted. But here's the real idiocy. Take a look at your own calendar. Does it tell you why you do things? Does it offer any insights into your interior life? Mine either. For today, mine says: [Agency] meeting: 10:00, Dentist: 11:00, Logistics Subgroup Call: 4:00. All mechanics. No feeling. Guess I'm unfit to be president, as well.

I guess we're supposed to be surprised that her day as First Lady is busy and full. Here's how that plays out:

What must it be like to live inside such a script? It's as close as we mortals can get to being able to predict the future. Walking into a children's hospital, Clinton (or her handlers) would have already known that she would be "escorted to rocking chair by 4 patients who will sit next to her." This is comforting or this is maddening, depending on your point of view. For Clinton, whose poise and preparation are legendary, the bubble might be a lovely place. So cushioned. So controlled.

The bubble? Knowing ahead of time what she's going to be doing and what's expected of her is living in a bubble?

But somehow, Hillary is to blame for the fact that her calendar doesn't reveal all of her feelings and emotions and show us some deep revelation about her psyche:

As a matter of fact, there's a difference between being transparent and being scrutinized. Clinton is one of the most studied figures in public life, but she's also one of the most opaque. This is why the release of these documents seems like much more of the same. Just paper. [Of course, she was an evil, secretive bitch for not having already released this document, and now that she's released it, it's her fault that the document is -- horrors -- "just paper."] We know what she did on any particular day -- we might even know where she stood -- but not what she felt. Not what she said to her husband, the president. Not what she thought about it all.

All mechanics.

That cold, unfeeling bitch! Why, it's as bad as "Dentist: 11:00." No one would know how I FELT about the dental appointment. No one would have any insight into what KIND OF PERSON I AM! All mechanics.

You know, I'm going to take a wild guess here and suggest that George Bush's schedule and Laura Bush's schedule are as detailed, tightly-scripted, and as unrevealing of their true feelings as was Hillary Clinton's. The schedule of every CEO of a Fortune 500 corporation that I've known has also been as detailed and as scripted. The details are often there as much for the benefit of their staff (who get printed copies of the daily schedule) as for them. But I guess it's ok for them to have busy, tightly-scripted schedules.

It's amazing to me that the mainstream media can't find anything actually worthwhile to discuss about Clinton's released schedule. She's claimed to have gained experience in the White House that makes her a better candidate for president than her Democratic rival, Barack Obama. Any evidence of that in her schedule? Either way, that would be something interesting and worthwhile for voters to learn about. Or maybe the "reporter" could at least report. On the day that she visited the hospital, did Clinton adhere strictly to her timetable or did she stop along the way and chat with parents concerned about their child's medical bills? If you listen to her campaign speeches, she somehow has managed to talk to a lot of people about their medical bills; did any of that happen on the trip that this article singles out? The fact that a person's calendar is different from their Dear Diary is hardly instructive. But it's sure a cute way to bash Hillary Clinton and continue to stereotype her as a cold, unfeeling, mechanical bitch, living inside a "comforting bubble."

Bah!

Grrrrrrrrrrrrrr!

I see that the LAT has jumped on the "HURRYUPANDOFFERHERSOMETHINGELSEANYTHINGELSE" bandwagon, coyly asserting that, "It's obvious that someone wants word of this bargain to be fruitful and multiply." Yeah. Like the people who write editorials about it under horrible photos of Hillary. Those someones.

Desperately pushing John Edwards ("Many of her potential competitors score far better on likeability indices, notably John Edwards, . . . ") and practically begging Hillary to be a good girl, a nice girl, a bipartisan girl who really, really, really shouldn't want to get her hands dirty with a nasty presidential campaign, the sort much better left to the boys, the LAT ignores recent polls that show Hillary almost even with McCain in spite of incredibly different press treatment and never bother to tell us how Edwards stacks up against McCain.

I like John Edwards and I think he's done some good work since 2004. I was horribly disappointed in his debate with Dick Cheney. Cheney pantsed him and Mr. Edwards smiled sweetly and looked humiliated. Sure, as the LAT notes, Mr. Edwards is "likeable." In 2008, apparently "likeable" is the new "electable." And no powerful woman is EVER going to be "likeable" in this culture. But "likeable" is NOT what we're going to need in the upcoming mudbath, cheatfest, slime marathon politely referred to as the 2008 election. (The Republicans will NOT go gently into that goodnight and, thanks to Messers. Kerry and Edwards being too "likeable" to fight over the 2004 results, the Republicans will have had 4 MORE years to perfect their one-two punch of Rovian-Dieboldian tactics.) Ms. Clinton, on the other hand, has pretty well shown that she can take everything they throw at her and then turn around and, for example, dress Rumsfeld down like he was a red-headed three year old.

The LAT is forced to admit that: After all, Clinton is the unquestioned front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. She commands an unmatched war chest, an unrivaled collection of political talent (headed by her legendarily adroit husband) and star power that most putative candidates can only dream of.

And, in trying to sell her the "nice" job that ANY sensible woman would take instead of that silly old pain-in-the-neck job of president, the LAT says:

So whatever the hype, Clinton's path to the presidency isn't an easy one. But the road to Senate leadership may be. Clinton possesses qualities that could turn the thankless, grueling realities of congressional preeminence into something glamorous and powerful. She's a human megaphone, for one, able to focus the press corps on whatever it is she wishes to say that morning. Such a skill would prove invaluable to a legislative leader, allowing her to set the agenda and advance her priorities even from the minority.

Second, she's an extraordinary fundraiser, far and away the best the Democrats have. She's raised $33 million for a Senate reelection campaign that lacks a serious opponent — partly the benefit of retaining the Clinton Rolodex, partly a function of her own magnetism.

Perhaps most important, her ability to bury enmities and forge alliances has been astonishing. She's reached out to the bitterest foes of her husband's presidency, seeking rapprochement with everyone from impeachment manager Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) to bête noire Newt Gingrich. In the famously collegial Senate, where success relies on odd bedfellows and mountains of goodwill, she's that rarest of creatures, able to conjure partisan passions when elections beckon but also to resurrect constructive relationships when legislation need be passed.

Then, the LAT delivers the gee-honey-wouldn't-you-really-rather-get-a-nice-play-kitchen-than-a-silly-old-tool-set coup de grace: All those qualities would make her a superlative Senate leader, both for the health of the Democratic Party and the workings of the legislative body. Clinton, a serious policy wonk with a deep-seated drive to improve the world, could effect real change, possibly even more than the relentlessly partisan position of president would allow.

Yeah, Hil. You're smart. You've raised a shitload of cash. You're the front-runner. You would make a "superlative" leader and be good for both "the Democratic Party" and the larger government, but, really, honey, girls who are "serious policy wonk[s] with a deep-seated drive to improve the world," well, they're just not very likeable, you know, honey? But here, you take this nice consolation prize and let one of the boys be president. It's for the "good of the Democratic Party and the workings of the legislative body." Maybe a girl can be president AFTER we [free the slaves, win the War, end the war, get civil rights, . . . .pigs fly].

*************************************************

Obligatory post script: You want to disagree with Hillary Clinton's stand on the issues, fine. I agree with some of her stands and disagree with others -- JUST AS I DO WITH EVERY SINGLE OTHER POLITICIAN, INCLUDING EVERY SINGLE (MALE) CANDIDATE FOR WHOM I'VE CAST MY VOTE FOR PRESIDENT. What pisses me off is the sexism. Let's dig up Likeable John's positions on the war, Israel, whatever and compare them to Hil's and have the debate about who we agree with on a more frequent basis. But saying that you can't support Hillary because of her stand on issue X or on issues X,Y, and Z when you regularly support males with whom you also don't completely agree is . . . well, it's sexism. And it's sexism when it comes from women (who have grown up in a sexist culture and absorbed its tenants every bit as much as have men) just as much as when it comes from men. Successful, powerful women don't only make men in this culture uncomfortable. I.am.just.saying.

Tiny Penis Disease

It always brightens my day when a man completely gets it. Paul Waldman, a Senior Fellow at Media Matters for America and author of Being Right is Not Enough: What Progressives Must Learn From Conservative Success shows in this Alternet article that he completely gets it.

Last month saw Al Gore's triumphant return to Capitol Hill -- the once-ridiculed candidate now acknowledged as a visionary and treated with long-overdue respect. But the most remarkable moment of Gore's hours of testimony in both houses may have been one in which he wasn't even involved. It shined a light on both the changed atmosphere in Washington today, and the fear and loathing that that change is bringing on.

The most confrontational part of the day came when Gore was being questioned by Oklahoma senator, famed global warming skeptic and former chairman of the environment committee James Inhofe, in a battle of wits that was not exactly an equal match. Inhofe had trouble getting Gore to answer questions the way he wanted to, and kept interrupting him and complaining about the limited time he was given.

After some back and forth between Inhofe and Gore, the new chair of the committee, Barbara Boxer of California, put a hand on Inhofe's arm and said, "I want to talk to you a minute, please." After Boxer suggested that Inhofe give Gore the time to answer his questions, Inhofe replied, "Why don't we do this: at the end, you [Gore] can have as much time as you want to answer all the questions..." Boxer then interrupted: "No, that isn't the rule. You're not making the rules. You used to when you did this," she said, holding up the chair's gavel. "Elections have consequences. So I make the rules."

Boxer spoke with appropriate authority: not angry, not loud but unmistakably firm. There was no doubt who was in charge in that room. You could almost see the steam coming out of Inhofe's ears, not only because he had been deprived of his power, but because he was deprived of it by a woman. She even held up the gavel, the symbol of that power, and practically taunted him with it. Freud couldn't have scripted it much better.

The response in some quarters was unsurprising. Michael Savage, whose hateful rants are reportedly heard by 8 million radio listeners every day, hit the roof. Referring repeatedly to "foul-mouthed, foul-tempered women in high places bossing men around," he opined that the image of a woman giving a man orders would lead to more terrorist attacks (or something like that -- it was a little hard to follow).

And it isn't only extremists like Savage who are having trouble stomaching the idea of women in positions of increasing power. We now have a female speaker of the House, and the strong possibility of the first female president; the prospect is sending some men over the edge. MSNBC host Tucker Carlson recently described Hillary Clinton as "castrating, overbearing and scary." Why Carlson looks at the junior senator from New York and immediately fears for the safety of his testicles might be something he and his therapist should explore, but he's hardly alone -- after the election Chris Matthews wondered on the air if Nancy Pelosi was "going to castrate Steny Hoyer." And Matthews has gone through a series of man-crushes on politicians whom he sees as super-hunky in their masculine ways. First it was George W. Bush, then John McCain and the current object of Matthews' affections is Rudy Giuliani. "I think he did a great job," Matthews said about Giuliani's tenure in New York. "And I think the country wants a boss like that. You know, a little bit of fascism there."

If Rudy ends up getting the Republican nomination, it will be because the GOP primary voters ignore his stands on hot-button culture war issues in favor of that little bit of fascism they crave. And if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee, we can expect a virtual explosion of sexist rhetoric, every last drop of it based in fear and anxiety. She already gets described with a whole series of derogatory adjectives that don't seem to ever be applied to male politicians -- she is "ambitious" (unlike the men running for president) and "calculating" (unlike every other politician), to take just two. U.S. News recently noted that a speech she gave "was devoid of hard edges, contrary to her longtime image among critics as a harridan and a polarizer." She must have appreciated the compliment. Conservative radio and TV host Glenn Beck admitted that Hillary Clinton's voice drives him crazy. "She's the stereotypical bitch, you know what I mean?" he said. "After four years, don't you think every man in America will go insane?" (ABC News recently announced that Beck will be offering his insightful commentary on Good Morning America.)

For years, our campaigns have been marked by the "gender gap," the fact that Democrats do marginally better among women and Republicans do better among men. The gender gap in the 2004 election was actually relatively small -- John Kerry won women's votes by 3 points (51 to 48), while George Bush won men's votes by 11 points (55 to 44). But it is the fact that the latter margin is so much larger than the former that is worth noting. It is men, and white men in particular, who are so easily persuaded by campaigns like the one Bush ran, which can be boiled down to, "I'm a manly man, and my opponent is a sissy." Bush beat Kerry among white men by an astounding 25 points.

Should Hillary Clinton be the nominee, the gender gap will no doubt be bigger than it ever has been before. Part of this will come from some women who might have voted Republican (or not voted) casting their votes for her. But more of the gap will come from men fleeing from her, spurred on by the likes of Savage, Carlson, Beck and Matthews insisting that if you vote for a woman, then you must not be a real man.

One can't avoid noticing that as a group, conservative media figures are not exactly secure in their masculinity. Forever promoting war when they avoided military service themselves and doubling over to protect their tender parts every time a strong woman appears on their television screens, it's no wonder they are so impressed by politicians who may not be real men but know how to present a convincing facsimile of manliness.

Much of the audience that tunes in to the corps of overcompensating pretend macho men is just as insecure about their manhood, ready to cast a manly, masculine vote lest anyone raise an eyebrow at their choice for president. That doesn't mean that Hillary Clinton -- or any female presidential candidate, for that matter -- can't win. But if she goes around holding up any long, firm objects, a lot of guys' heads might just explode.

This story about Boxer fascinates me, not the least because even after she said to Inhoffe, "I want to talk to you," Inhoffe continued to try to just keep talking to Gore as if Boxer weren't there. I doubt there's a woman in the work world who hasn't experienced something similar. The result was that Boxer had to chide him: "Elections have consequences. You don't make the rules anymore."

Waldman's spot on when he notes that conservative men sure do seem terrified of that great big Vagina Dentata in their minds. I still think that Newt Gingrich's assertion that the U.S. should just bomb Iran in order to show Iran that "you're tiny and we're not" says as much about conservative men's real concerns as anything that I've ever heard. EVER.

Interestingly, I had lunch w/ someone on the Hill who was repeating the Boxer/Inhoffe story. I think it's going to become iconic. It's sort of like Pelosi telling Bush to calm down and quit issuing threats, as if she were gently admonishing the least-bright of her grandchildren. The women are taking control. They're going to start out, at least, gentle and firm. But for those like Inhoffe who persist in pretending that the women don't even exist, much less exercise any power, well, gavels have lots of purposes.

Really, conservative men, it's going to happen. We can do it the easy way, or we can do it the hard way. You'll like the easy way a whole lot better in the end. Trust me.

~Someone at Eschaton Comments linked to this article today and I apologize for not remembering who it was.

This Shit Is Just Not Fucking Helpful.

I'm a big fan of Elizabeth Edwards, wife of presidential hopeful and former vice presidential candidate, John Edwards. She always impressed me as down-to-earth, strong, interesting, fun -- the kind of woman that I'd enjoy having in my circle of friends. In fact, I like her a lot more than I like him -- he's never impressed me all that much and, after the way that he folded in his debate with Snarly Dick, I'm not eager to see him as the Democratic candidate for president.

So I am pretty fucking disgusted to see her pull crap like this:

"[Hillary Clinton] and I are from the same generation," she said of the senator and former first lady. "We both went to law school and married other lawyers, but after that we made other choices. I think my choices have made me happier. I think I'm more joyful than she is."

Sweet Hathor on a Honda. How many times do we have to go through this? Elizabeth Edwards ought to know better.

The women's movement is all about giving women more choices in their lives and about supporting them in those choices. It is not fucking helpful to have women, like Elizabeth Edwards who have chosen (or who are forced by economic or other circumstances) to stay home and raise their children, criticize women who have chosen (or who are forced by economic or other circumstances) to raise children and work outside the home. Similarly, it wouldn't be helpful for women who work outside the home to criticize women who stay at home with their children. This should not exactly come as news to anyone with a third of Elizabeth Edwards' obvious intelligence.

Engaging in idiotic speculation about how "joyful" another woman is or isn't about the choice that she's either made or had forced on her does nothing except to divide women, to play an "us against them" game that only has one winner -- the patriarchy. I've got no goddamn idea who is "more" joyful; joy isn't, IMHO, a zero-sum resource that diminishes in one woman's life when another woman gets a big heaping helping of it. Nor is it a constant; there are days when I love my life so much that I can hardly breathe and there are days when I'd like to rip the universe a new asshole.

If Elizabeth Edwards wants to help her husband run for president against Hillary Clinton she'd better fucking find a more helpful way to do it than by insinuating -- as, let's admit it, she was clearly and calculatedly doing -- that career women like Hillary Clinton are cold, "joyless," frigid bitches. And I don't give a flying frap if she called Hillary Clinton up and apologized afterwards. She knew what she was doing when she did it and she's being sent out to do it because if her husband did it the whole world would call it unacceptable.

Elizabeth, don't demean yourself like this again. I mean it.

This Shit Gets Really Old

I'll just say, straight up, that I love LA. I love LA and I love the surrounding area -- the San Gabriel Mountains, Duarte, Rosemead, Hollywood, Santa Barbara, and the city where, were it not for the presence of an earthquake line there and of Grandson here, I'd probably live, Pasadena. So it's always a bit of a shock for me how disappointing the LAT can be.

Today, the LAT disappoints bigtime. Like the WaPo and the NYT, they say shit about Hillary Clinton that they'd never say about a man. What's weird, and we've now seen enough of these articles to call this a trend, is that the articles have to start off by admitting that she basically rocks and has the political skills that most men only dream off. Check out the first few paragraphs of the LAT article that quote one-time determined foes now voting for her and community activists who can't say enough good things about her, after she's been in office for only one term.

But then, since she's, you know, a (ewwww! scary!) powerful woman, they have to try and turn that into a negative. I love the quote from a bobo in the south who says there isn't enough money in the world to get out the good word on her between now and 2008. Dude, in 1996, I'd never HEARD of Bill Clinton. And she's, you know, raised a shitload of cash and has, you know, a lot of star power. But, hey, she's a chick, so no way can we just admit that she's done an amazing job of almost every task she's ever attacked.

I get tired of the double standard that many liberals apply to Hillary Clinton. As the LAT points out: her voting record places her to the left of 80% of her Senate colleagues, according to [what the LAT terms] the nonpartisan National Journal. Almost half of the those colleagues are Democrats, but I don't hear many of them coming in for the kind of criticism from liberals that Hillary gets. That said, she, just as was John Kerry, Bill Clinton, Al Gore, and every other Democratic candidate for president in my lifetime, is to my right.

Yet, "The bad news is she's not going to prove a whole lot running up the score in a strongly Democratic state in a strongly Democratic year." You know, fuck you, LAT. Fuck you. It's clear that Hillary Clinton is a skilled politician, a skilled campaigner, someone who -- as you touted for George Bush when he first ran for office and as turned out to be completely untrue for him -- can reach across the aisle and work with former enemies to get things done. But, fuck her. She's a smart, powerful woman and that scares the crap out of everyone in this country.

Bah.

Run For The Hills! Powerful Women!

is it just me or, in recent weeks, has the NYT been publishing an amazing amount of ignorant, sexist blather? First it was girls keeping boys out of college. Then it was a paen to the word "slut" and the way that it used to keep women in line. Then it was the fault of the women's movement that there are (suddenly! this is a totally new phenomenon!) some men who don't care too much for work. Today, it's the picky women refusing to marry nice men without college degrees. And, of course, it's Hillary Clinton.

I'm probably going to wear out my keyboard typing this between now and the '08 election, but I am sick and fucking tired of Hillary Clinton getting bashed for the very things that, in a man, would be praised as skillful statesmanship. So the same media that keeps telling us that Dems will die unless they hew a patch down the center, manages, without even blushing, to assert that Hillary Clinton's centrist politics will, they're not sure how, but they're sure SOMEHOW, be a huge detriment to her political ambitions.

That's not the worst of it though. WTF is this all about: As a woman, she could be subjected to especially intensive scrutiny of her suitability as commander in chief, making her position on the war central to her 2008 prospects. Why, NYT? Why? What is it about being a woman that will subject her to "especially intensive scrutiny of her suitability as commander in chief? Tell me why a woman can't be commander in chief? Women have led armies and navies from Boedica to Joan of Arc to Elizabeth I to Margaret Thatcher. When they're not hinting sotto voce that being a woman will make Clinton either too scared to use the army or will have her pushing the nuclear button on days when she's having hot flashes, the media is busy criticizing Hillary for being a ballbuster, a tough cookie, a steely-nerved dame. Talk about heads she wins and tails she loses. If you don't have a penis, ANY excuse is a good one to beat you with, regardless of how consistent or inconsistent it may be with the other excuses they beat you with. After all, you're a girl. You can't play.

If you're going to make sexist assertions, back them up or at least admit that they're sexist. Would a black candidate be subject to especially intensive scrutiny of his or her suitability to do anything? Were there components of the job that being a male subjected George Bush to especially intensive scrutiny over? Just stating this kind of bullshit as if it's completely understandable common wisdom gives it power. It's total bullshit. Shame on the NYT.