Monday Reading List

Insurance Company Revokes Depressed Woman's Benefits Over Facebook Photos:

When it comes to disability, able-bodied people tend to have an idea of what disability “looks like.” This results in proclamations about who is really disabled and who is really faking it (presumably, for all of the awesome government benefits that are inadequate to live on, and the fun social stigma). And for the person being proclaimed a faker, that frequently means not only the hurt of having their identity and lived experience dismissed, but also the denial of accommodations that they need.

Great, now Demi Moore's Torso Is Missing:

In all of the chatter surrounding the Demi Moore W cover controversy, many people have insisted that her vanished hip is part of a perfectly natural pose. They were correct. The photo shows the natural standing pose... of a runway model in her mid-twenties. It appears that Moore's head, legs, and arms were superimposed on the hips and torso of model Anja Rubik.

Why Anti-Feminism is Illogical, Unnecessary, Evil, and Incredibly Unsexy (quote taken from second page):

The point of feminism is not to alienate men, but for women to focus on our own concerns and needs, to establish our own values. These may or may not coincide with the already established values of our dominant culture, just as our concerns and needs may or may not fold neatly into a relationship. The point is to work on making decisions based on choices that are really choices instead of following a script--in other words, it means learning to laugh at what we find funny instead of just following along with the laugh track and to make trouble when trouble is necessary.

And, because I absolutely adore Hillary Clinton,
Her Brilliant Career:

She is a rock star. Students camped out in line for hours to get tickets to the event, which sold out in minutes. When she first appeared onstage the audience leaped to their feet, and the applause was deafening. "They weren't cheering Bob Gates," said a fellow in uniform sitting next to me. And despite the gravity of the occasion, a young woman bellowed at the top of her lungs, "I love you, Hilllllary!!!!," as if she were at a Lady Gaga concert. Seeming to acknowledge her superstar status, Clinton made a crack at the very end of the proceedings, saying that Gates had served most of his 43 years in public service "in secret" (referring to his CIA days). "And I have no secrets." The crowd roared with laughter.

On princesses, Ruthie-style (who is, actually, pretty much an accurate representation of one of my little sisters):

Betty vs. Veronica

I rarely - like, very rarely - find The Colbert Report funny. Usually, I find it funny when Stephen Colbert breaks character slightly, but normally the actual character Colbert plays doesn't do anything to tickle my funny bone. This, though? Is amazing:

The Colbert Report	Mon - Thurs 11:30pm / 10:30c
The Word - Arch Enemies
www.colbertnation.com
Colbert Report Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Protests

Not only do I love the description of why it would be bad if women were to stop fighting one another, I especially love the defense of Hillary Clinton. Funny, and erudite.

A Kennedy for Clinton's Seat?

How cool would this be? Caroline Kennedy is reportedly interested in Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, which was once her uncle's. It would be pretty awesome to have Caroline Kennedy get Robert Kennedy's seat.

Clinton Named Secretary of State

Well, I'm pretty happy with today's news. I've avoided commenting about the "will they-won't they" aspect of the news of the past couple of weeks about this appointment, but I do think Obama's team of rivals idea is a good one and can work. I also, as I've said before, really do admire Hillary Clinton.

Intensified Allegiance

So, in my drunken state last night, I came up with an analogy. Never mind that I don't like analogies. This is going to be a good one:

Imagine you are putting money down on a fighter. You analytically look at his (or her) record. You examine his or her style of fighting. You know which punch he or she uses most often, and what little tricks (like rope a dope) she or he has. You like the fighter's record; you like the fighter's devotion to the sport. You even kind of admire the fighter. But even with the money down, you are not truly and purely emotionally invested in the win. From an intellectual standpoint, yes; but emotionally, you're still on the outside.

The day of the fight comes; your fighter is getting beaten badly. Not from the opponent. They're pretty evenly matched. But from the audience. Cups are flying. Peanut shells are hitting the fighter (miraculously, only your one), and the opponent is getting a few good hits here and there. Now, some fans who were rooting for your fighter have crossed lines and are rooting for the other fighter. Some fans are now rooting for your fighter mostly because of the peanut shells and the cups, and the amount of trash being thrown. And some fans are still with their fighter, because he or she has done very little wrong and certainly didn't tell the audience and refs to throw shit. But you are now emotionally invested in this fight in a way you hadn't been previously. Now, you want your fighter to win, and you want them to win badly. Your allegiance is intensified because of the amount of shit your fighter has to deal with in addition to fighting the actual fight. You didn't come to the fight thinking, "Well, trash is going to get thrown because (insert reason here), so I'd better support them." Your reasons were already set in stone. But actually and fervently and passionately wanting to see them win stems from this; it is merely icing you neither anticipated nor wanted on the cake you'd been eating.

That is why I ardently supported Hillary Clinton, and why I'm now becoming more and more aligned with Obama. In the beginning, I could honestly say that I liked their positions. I'm socially liberal; and I'm a pump-primer as opposed to a trickle-downer. Plus, McCain's "Bomb Iran" song scared me. But with the crap Hillary dealt with in the primaries, I desired her win partially to shut up those who would malign her based on her gender and who worried about her cleavage or wrinkles or menopause - or even how she reached the upper levels of politics (that one irritates me because it isn't like she married a Kennedy or a Bush or a Rockefeller; she married a guy from Arkansas whom she then assisted in his own political aspirations). But I had wanted her to win before. Now, Barack Obama is ahead of John McCain in the polls; but the "baby momma" stuff on Fox News, the Obama Bucks, the monkey dolls at McCain rallies, etc., makes me want him to win all the more. I want him to win, because I've always wanted him to win. But now, I want him to win even more. It is unexpected icing on an already-baked cake.

Identity Politics

A while ago, I was accused (or, more accurately, diagnosed) by one of my friends of subscribing to identity politics because I like Hillary Clinton. My indignation of such an accusation has not yet entirely dissipated, and that is partially because I like Hillary Clinton for a variety of reasons wholly separate from her gender and partially because claiming someone has engaged or is engaging in identity politics is a way of diminishing their opinion. Claiming that I engage in identity politics is a way of silencing me, and my experience. It is a way of dismissing my view and my concerns and my point, because if all of those things are intrinsically linked to my being a woman and my politician being a woman, obviously I have very little of substance. That angers me, as a feminist, as a political junkie, as a voter, and as a citizen of the United States. I know why I like Hillary; I know why I like Barack Obama. And to claim that someone knows better than I strikes deeply of paternalism and signifies a deep lack of respect for me as not only a woman but as an informed individual. Why do I bring this up now? Well, because Colin Powell's endorsement of Barack Obama has opened up a shitstorm of controversy, much of it aimed at the idea that of course Powell endorsed Obama. After all, they are both black. Colin Powell has been hit with the same diminishing stick I have been hit with previously. And what offends me more than being treated as something of a brainless wonder who merely follows her ovaries to a woman politician is how the people who dare label others with the identity politics stick never seem to check their own privilege.

White men have the luxury of rarely having their reason for voting one way or the other be determined by the fact that they share testicles and skin color with the politician of their choice, both because white male politicians are ubiquitous in politics but also because being a white male is the default. It is a position of power whose biases have gained a certain amount of invisibility. If a white man is voting for John McCain, there is not a media-wide *wink-wink, nudge-nudge* about it. We do not quibble over whether or not Joe Lieberman endorsed John McCain out of racial solidarity, even though Lieberman has a liberal domestic policy record, even though he supports abortion rights and the rights of homosexuals to adopt and to be protected from hate crimes. We accept that Joe Lieberman and John McCain are friends; we accept that Joe Lieberman has chosen to support McCain because he honestly and genuinely believes a McCain presidency would be the best thing for our nation. That is a privilege Colin Powell, another isle crosser, has not been afforded. That is something women for Hillary were not afforded. That is something African-Americans supporting Obama have not been afforded. It has seemingly been forgotten that African-Americans have long been a solid base for Democrats; it has also seemingly been forgotten, what with all the accusations flying around about PUMAs, that if Barack Obama loses this election (though that is becoming more and more a faint possibility), it won't be the women voters' fault but the white men who support Barack Obama to the tune of 33-37%. Obama is roughly splitting white women's votes, like Al Gore before him. But it will not be the white men who are blamed. The meme has been set for white women to take the fall; white men's negative impact very rarely enters into the media's consciousness, let alone the general public's consciousness, when it comes time to discuss the polling. White men are afforded that; white men are deemed to concentrate on more important things than gender or race. They have a leg up on women and African-Americans in that for every election until this one, both of the major parties have had white men at the top of the ticket. White men do not have to question whether or not they are playing identity politics, because even if they are it is indistinguishable due to that fact.

I often wonder if men may play the identity politics game more often than not; it seems that women and African-Americans would be more used to looking beyond who we look like, or who we share procreative organs with. We often have to find some other reason to vote for the candidate, even if it is as simple as figuring out which of the two white men we would most want to have a beer with. When Pat Robertson accuses Colin Powell of engaging in identity politics and only endorsing Obama because of the shared color of their skin, I wonder if Robertson will vote for McCain in this election because of the shared color of their skin. I wonder if the reason some white men are so quick to cry identity politics is because they suspect they see something reflecting in others they recognize in themselves. That is actually the same question I have with some conservatives, who talk about the Democrats being corrupt while they shove military contracts toward Haliburton. I have the same question about Democrats and gun restrictions, and whether they want to keep guns out of people's hands because they recognize what they could potentially do if they owned one.

Mostly, though, my view of the identity politics cry is that it is a simple and easy way to discredit someone else's argument, opinion, and experience. It is like a weird game of chicken; whoever cries "identity politics" first wins. A professor I had used to comment that once something became a moral argument, there was no use arguing it any more, because a line had been irreparably drawn in the sand; once someone says something is morally right - or morally wrong - the argument is stymied. Same too in this way. The clarion cry of identity politics is often not a genuine and analytical assessment, no matter what those trumpeting it will claim. It reveals an inherent bias, and a will to shut down discussion; it undermines the conversation, and allows the crier to reign on top, his credentials unquestioned and his motives found pure from such dastardly motive.

Alfred E. Smith Memorial Dinner

John McCain and Barack Obama roasted themselves and each other at the memorial dinner, and it was John McCain who went first:


Barack Obama was pretty funny as well:

I'm incredibly partisan; but I have to admit that although I think Barack Obama had the best line of the night, that being "And I got my middle name from somebody who obviously didn't think I'd ever run for president", I thought John McCain's speech hit many more funny moments. He had an easier time of it; he could be self-deprecating in a way it would be difficult for Barack Obama to be, because McCain's campaign has eff'd up so often in the past weeks and months. The reason why John McCain's speech worked better was because at times, I really was frightened he was going to do something crazy instead of funny. Like when he started off talking about this being "as good a place as any to make a major announcement"; when he switched it up to the ridiculous, it just further highlighted how potentially true that moment could have been, and how good it is that - even if only for pretend - McCain acknowledges it. I also found his roasts of Bill and Hillary Clinton hilarious. I'm a fan of both of the Clintons, but the best humor comes with a hint of truth and I don't think anyone can deny that it bothered Bill greatly that Hillary lost. It probably bothered Hillary greatly as well, but she seemed to move on more quickly. McCain's humor - "strict constructionists", driving away "anti-Clinton conservatives" - did well there. It had an edge to it without actually crossing the line into meanness. So too did his Keith Olbermann comments. I like Keith. Not as much as some, but I find him to be a fun guy to watch and he's got some of the best suit and tie combinations I've ever seen. But I laughed hysterically when McCain mentioned Keith Olbermann being in a padded room if McCain managed to pull this off, with his "Mission Accomplished" banner. Rachel Maddow was less than pleased with McCain's roast of Olbermann, but I loved the amount of issues crisscrossing that one section. Obviously, McCain is not a fan of Olbermann - a condition possibly exacerbated because Olbermann stepped in when McCain blew off Letterman, and being on hand to step in again in the even of a McCain no show - and Olbermann is not a fan of McCain's. And honestly, I don't think Keith Olbermann can last four more years of a Republican White House without going (more) bonkers. The Mission Accomplished banner in preparation for Obama's win was a sweet burn, even for this liberal, because it played off of Olbermann's final words every night of his broadcast (no, not his Edward R. Murrow riff but the count of how many days it has been since we declared "Mission Accomplished" in Iraq). Rachel Maddow may have felt McCain crossed the line, but I thought he was merely dancing around it.

Obama didn't have as easy a time of it. Sure, he could have roasted on John McCain more; but McCain did a pretty thorough job of that himself. Obama also seems less likely to go for caustic humor than John McCain. His speech was at times self-deprecating; but it was never incendiary. He gently poked at Sarah Palin with the "Russian Tea Room". But he never got so far into jokes that he couldn't get out of them. McCain delved into the very depth of the issues he was facing and made them funny. But Obama is the one riding high; there is less about him to riff off of; and to make it about something else, to make it about actual issues and complaints he had about the campaign, would have had the potential to backfire. One thing I did like about Obama was his tendency to look around after telling a joke, with a "That was pretty good, right" enjoyment. He laughed at his own jokes, and it was a good thing to see. I also think that was something McCain had going for him that Obama did not. McCain had Obama as an audience, and Obama laughed hard. At times, I'm sure I laughed because Obama (or Hillary Clinton, during the Bill segment of McCain's roast) was laughing, with that great smile of his. Obama had McCain had his primary audience. And although McCain found a few things funny, overall, the guy didn't seem to be as prone to rapturous guffaws as Obama was. Overall, an enjoyable twenty or so minutes spent watching these two attempt to rack up the yucks.

Hillary Clinton and Joe Biden

If you have 30 minutes, watch this question and answer session with Joe Biden and Hillary Clinton. It is a little odd, since they are responding to each other -and presumably both Biden and Hillary are not only well-versed on these issues but also extremely literate in Obama's views regarding these issues- but it is a well thought out, well presented piece. I like the calm tone and the measured, respectful atmosphere.

And if you have 8 minutes after that, take a look at this video from Chris Hayes. I know that it is from February and that it details why we should have supported Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton, but I think -since most of the points Hayes made were about Obama and not about Clinton- the point he makes still stands about how in 1980, the Republicans were able to push forth a shifting of national agenda through Ronald Reagan's rhetoric and overall vision; and how now, in 2008, we have the same sort of opportunity via Barack Obama to put forth a new national shift for progressivism. If nothing else, it is an interesting commentary, especially considering Hayes' belief that Obama's most crucial role would be in regards to foreign policy and fundamentally shifting our interactions with the rest of the world.

"I Was Told I Would Be Addressing You Alone"

This is the first time I've laughed, serious out loud laughed, at an SNL sketch in years. Sometimes they get my chuckling. Sometimes I smirk. But I pretty much feel like SNL's best times were of Land Shark and the Coneheads and Gilda Radner and the Blues Brothers. But this cracked me up!

I absolutely love the whole thing!

Men, You Gotta Be Women

Hey, Donny Deutsch says so:

"So the huge lesson here is: Before you can sell the candidate, whether it's a man or a woman, you gotta first sell her as a woman".

You heard him, guys. If you're in politics and you're a man, go get yourself a sex change and a skirt and sell yourself as a woman. 

And darn that Hillary Clinton for not figuring out that you actually have to sell being a woman, with skirts and shit, and instead believing that just by actually being a woman you were selling yourself as a woman. Darn her for not playing to gender norms! Oh, that feisty Hillary! She was so crazy to think that raising a polite, articulate, and well-educated daughter would be a good example of her as a good mom! She was so stupid to wear pantsuits and trust that the American public would figure out her gender on their own! Oh wait - they kind of did! At least enough to call her "bitch" and "cunt" and all sorts of other derogatory terms relating to her sex! 

I hate the mainstream media.

How Democrats Lose Elections

The Republicans have been on the ground here in Denver. They even threw parties for Clinton supporters. They did what Obama acolytes should have done.

This is from Gina at What About Our Daughters, and I think she's dead on. Some fun historical facts, via PBS' coverage of the DNC: in 1976, both parties (on a national scale) supported abortion rights; both parties supported passing the Equal Rights Amendment. And then, the Republicans lost. And they decided to do what Republicans have been doing best ever since; they decided to go out there, change their message, and woo voters who traditionally would not have voted for them (and also, fight dirty). They became more evangelically friendly, after years of the evangelical branch of Christianity staying out of elections. Now, those people are their voting block. What the Democrats do, what they have continually done, is expected voters to come to them. And that doesn't work. The historical lesson the Democrats should have taken from Al Gore's loss in 2000 wasn't that Ralph Nader cost Gore the election, but that Democrats have to work harder to earn their constituents' -and people who should be their constituents- votes. But they still don't. I'm now an Obama supporter. I'm firmly and keenly planted behind Obama. But my hackles are still being raised by editorials like Nora Ephron's. Why? Because Obama won. He won, and Hillary Clinton, although she has been maligned by the press even after she conceded, has done something different in giving Obama her pledge of support even before going to the DNC. Seriously, that is incredibly rare. What is even rarer is to have the defeated opponent offer up a speech like hers at the DNC -or a speech like Bill Clinton's for that matter. Ted Kennedy, Jerry Brown, Ronald Reagan, Jesse Jackson, all of these people did not endorse their party's candidate when they spoke at their national convention. Jerry Brown's speech was considered a win by the The Atlanta Journal Constitution because it did not contain a direct attack of Presidential nominee Bill Clinton. Hell, Jesse Jackson refused to release his delegates and threatened to put his name into nomination for vice-president. And you know what happened? 3/4 of the time, the candidate lost. Ford lost; Carter lost; Dukakis lost. But Ted Kennedy isn't reviled for it, and Ronald Reagan certainly wasn't reviled for it.

So, as I said before, I don't understand Clinton supporters who would vote for McCain. But it takes enormous hubris on the part of Obama's supporters to assume that they can strong-arm Clinton supporters into endorsing Barack Obama. Some of these people devoted years of their lives to getting Clinton elected. Others have felt like their hopes have been crushed; still others feel like this is one more example of an older woman being usurped by a younger man (and yes, that last one is a bit emotional; but it is a response, especially for women who know that the older they get, the more invisible and less valuable they become). It is easy to say, "my party, right or wrong", just like it is easy to say, "my country, right or wrong" -but as John Kerry said, "Absolutely my country right or wrong; when right, keep it right, and when wrong, make it right". Obama is an incredible candidate. He has not engaged in the politics of fear; but he also has a long way to go, and one of the things we have to accomplish is true party unity. What Obama supporters have to do -and should do, if they truly wish to see their candidate elected- is to stop attacking Clinton, and stop maligning and attacking Clinton supporters. There are certainly reasons for Obama supporters to dislike Clinton, but she is no longer part of the narrative. She is not the nominee. She is not the vice-presidential nominee. She is now part of the greater Obama narrative, and her job is to do her damnedest to get Obama elected. So let it be. Because the more the attacks grow, the more it seems like the Obama supporters -at least those on the interweb- are sore winners, are petty, and refuse to extend the hand of friendship to Clinton supporters. Who may very well refuse to accept it. But there has to be an offer made first.

John McCain is very crafty. He is also an incredible politician. He grabbed all of Barack Obama's post-convention air time, and he made a vice-presidential pick based at least partially on the fact that some Clinton supporters are angry, some Clinton supporters are feeling attacked, and some Clinton supporters -and women in general- are being overlooked under the assumption that they will come back to the pack because there is no where else for them to go. That kind of thinking hurts Democratic chances in national elections. That kind of thinking loses elections. Because women -and gays, and blacks, and environmentalists, and progressives- make up the Democratic base. But if these different groups are only being thrown a bone every so often while legislation is being pushed through that continually erodes their rights, the cold comfort of this party being the better of the major two may not be enough to get them to the polls come November. Cater to the base; always cater to the base first and foremost. And Obama supporters need to not assume that Clinton supporters -or independents, or Edwards supporters- are selfish, aren't considering the consequences of their non-vote for Obama, or are in some way defective. As Bill Clinton said, "People the world over have always been more impressed by the power of our example than the example of our power", and that same sentiment should reverberate among Obama supporters. Threats aren't going to work; but examples and thoughtful analysis and respectful discussion -along with the in roads Obama made last night by mentioning abortion rights and gay rights- may help turn the tide.

We've got two months to make to make the case for Obama. We've got two months to make those who feel invisible to this campaign feel like they are not only visible but an important consideration. We've got two months to prove that McCain doesn't care for women much, and that his VP isn't a victory for women on the national scale either -though it is definitely a step forward for there to be a woman on a presidential ticket of a mainstream national party; too bad it is mostly in an effort to get the disenfranchised Clinton voters. And too bad it took 24 years to get another woman on a ticket since the last one.

DNC Speeches

Here are what I feel to be the most powerful speeches of the convention so far; Hillary Clinton has really improved as an orator:

Bill Clinton, whatever else he is, was, or could be, is someone who can deliver one hell of an incredible speech:

I watched John Kerry wondering where the hell this man was four years ago:

And Joe Biden:


I can't wait for Obama's speech tonight!

"Were You In This Campaign Just For Me?"

Where PUMAs (Party Unity My Ass, for those not in the know) falter is the fact that they are summarily dismissing their chosen candidate's policies and goals and lifelong (presumed) voting record in order to feed their own narcissism and anger. I understand that anger. I understand feeling dismissed and undervalued. I understand wanting to punish those people who may have contributed to those feelings. What I don't understand is allowing those instincts to override one's own self-preservation, which is what Clinton Democrats who vote for McCain would be doing. I understand not voting for Barack Obama come November; I understand feeling underwhelmed by an electoral candidate (though not really feeling underwhelmed in regard to this one). I understand voting for a third party candidate if one was once a Hillary supporter who feels abandoned by Obama and his camp and who feels like they are being treated derisively because the prevailing powers that be believe there is no other place for women who care about issues like equal pay, women's rights, children's rights, ending the war in Iraq, and protecting Roe v. Wade to go. I pretty much think that the attitude right now toward women voters -that those who voted for Hillary Clinton in the primaries will come back to the pack without much (or any) wooing- is kind of demeaning, because it refuses to acknowledge that the Democratic Party needs those women voters just as much -if not more- than those women voters need the Democratic Party.

But a vote for McCain is one I absolutely cannot understand, and it is a vote that only furthers the idea of the woman scorned. Which, let's not go there again, okay? Let's not give more ammunition to political pundits, men, other women, and society at large to use against women. Let's not pretend that McCain is a viable choice for a woman who is concerned with the issues Hillary Clinton was concerned about. Let's not pretend that McCain will protect the pro-choice agenda. Let's not pretend that John McCain is good on gay rights. Let's not pretend that McCain's experience will really go far into creating new green collar jobs. Let's not pretend that McCain will do much for the middle class. Let's not pretend that John McCain is similar in many ways to Hillary Clinton other than in the pigment of their skin. John McCain won't be much of a help on health care. McCain won't be much of a help in weening our nation off of our love of fossil fuels. And McCain will absolutely not protect women's rights in our society, because his voting record shows that is not a priority. I like McCain. I'm sure he's a swell guy. But if PUMAs think that they aren't cutting off their nose to spite their face, then they are idiots.

And now, they would have to be publicly defying the candidate they swore their allegiance to. Which is infuriating as well. Hillary Clinton has thrown her support behind Barack Obama, and while her supporters don't have to fall in line, it would seem pretty disrespectful to cast their vote for a man Hillary Clinton herself deemed, "No way, no how". It is at the very precipice of being kind of insane. Clinton's speech last night should go a long way to convincing PUMAs and those who are yet to make up their minds to vote for Obama by placing the emphasis where the emphasis should be -on the issues. And if these voters will vote against Obama for a behavior he did not contribute to on top of having Hillary Clinton emphasis the need for a Democrat in the White House, then I don't know what could possibly convince them.

But I'm not really convinced that this is a really large contingency of Hillary Democrats. I'm sure there are some, but I honestly -perhaps naively- cannot believe that these women aren't going to come back to the fold in November and vote for Barack Obama or for a third party candidate. I'm not convinced that PUMA influence hasn't been exaggerated by the media. It is a good story, the "woman scorned" story. It has been a part of our history for a long, long time. Hera, in jealousy over Zeus' infidelity, drove his son Hercules into killing his children. That story comes from pretty far back, and deals with the totality of destruction potentially wrought by women. It sucks, but there it is. And if PUMAs really are there, really are intent on destroying Obama's campaign, then they are at the bottom of the pool of acceptable women. If a woman actually and honestly wants to vote for McCain due to political beliefs, I can't see what that same woman would have been doing voting for Hillary Clinton -ever. And so voting for McCain after Hillary becomes something else, a punishment that will reverberate back upon the voter and cast onto women throughout the next decade or so. Let's not do that, okay? If Obama isn't your guy and you voted for Hillary, go third party. The stakes are too high -for the nation, for the Democratic Party, for women in general- otherwise.

I Don't Support Female Leaders (Or, Why You Shouldn't Dismiss My Arguments Based On My Gender)

Well, I do (I should also mention that this is a follow up to yesterday's Bite Me So Hard For That, which in turn stemmed from Boston and Chicago Are Now States). But not all of them, and not all of the time. Which is why this question, "Did [Andrew Sullivan] offend your feminist sensibilities simply because he attacked a female leader?" galls me so. Which is why my friend's further comment, "Clearly identity politics is a big part of the reason why you like Clinton so much" kind of makes me want to tear my hair out. But I'll get to that point later. First up is this: there is a right way and a wrong way to criticize and critique and condemn human beings in general and politicians in particular. Let me get this out in the open right away: comparing a politician to a nagging wife is not the right way. Calling a politician a she-devil is also not the right way. Criticizing and commenting endlessly on a candidate's love of pantsuits, her hair, her make-up, what shirts create cleavage, and her skin all also fall under the "wrong way" of criticizing a political candidate.

You know what else falls under a bad way to criticize a candidate? When you call them out for something that other candidates have done, and do not call out those other candidates as well. Take, for instance, Andrew Sullivan. When he criticized Hillary Clinton for using the Senate as a stepping stone to the White House, he lost credibility with me as a Hillary Clinton critic because he -as far as I know- failed to make the same criticism of Barack Obama. I think in both cases it is a ridiculous criticism, but by making it about one candidate and not about another who has done the exact same thing (and with less time served), the critic shows an obvious bias. Same sort of deal when Sullivan calls Hillary Clinton's feminist credentials into question (and her political integrity) for utilizing her position as the wife of one of the most skilled politicians of our time in her bid for the presidential elections. For capitalizing on the fact that she -through no want of her own, mind you- shares the Clinton name. And a case can be made that political families are bad, especially in this society which is supposedly a meritocracy. But Andrew Sullivan -again, as far as I know- offers up no criticism of those other political families, the Kennedys, the Roosevelts, or even the Adamses, who trade on the family name and recognition for political prizes. And for the record, Andrew Sullivan is not the only person who irritates me when he does this; Keith Olbermann also committed a similar bias when he called out Hillary Clinton for going on Fox News and for not calling out Obama even though he had appeared on the channel 3 days before. That is not sound punditry, and in both Olbermann's and Sullivan's cases, it hurts their own credibility in their critique of Hillary Clinton -based not on sexism but just simply on an incredible bias.

And this has nothing to do with identity politics and everything to do with fairly and objectively criticizing a politician and a human being. So let us get to the second part of this, the identity politics. Say, some conservative woman was running for president. Phyllis Schlafly, Condoleeza Rice, Ann Coulter, or Laura Bush. I would not, ever, vote for any of these women for even the school board. They run the gamut from people I respect but disagree profoundly with to women whose very spot in the public eye makes me fume. If analysis of Ann Coulter focused mainly on her hair style or criticisms of her outfits, I would be just as mad as when this happened to Hillary Clinton. If Condoleeza Rice was called a bitch by another candidate's supporter, only to have that candidate laugh it off and say, "Good question", I would be irate. If Laura Bush's economic policy was ignored so joke after joke after joke could be made about how she made men cross their legs and how men didn't like her because she reminded them of their shrill first wife, I would see red. If Phyllis Schlafly was called a she-Devil and had devil graphics pop up every time her name was mentioned, I would react in disbelief and disapproval. Why? Because even though I disagree with these women, even though I would probably feel as though the country would go to hell in a handbasket if they were elected, it is still demeaning, dehumanizing, sexist, and wrong. These comments are reserved for women. These remarks that limit women are meant to make sure women know their place in society, and that place sure as hell isn't the leader of the United States of America. Because that is the sort of treatment no human being should be subject to, let alone a candidate for higher office.

You want to criticize Hillary Clinton, Laura Bush, Condoleeza Rice, or any other woman in the national spotlight? Go right ahead. Do so with your grown up words, though, and not those crappy adolescent words like "bitch" or "whore". Do so by criticizing her actions, and refrain from criticizing actions she takes when other men have taken them without comment or reproach -or reproach and criticize men who take that path alongside your criticism of the woman. It isn't that difficult. It isn't that hard to treat women as equals, and not fall back into sexist, baseless, and ridiculous arguments. And this goes for all politicians and human beings; if Andrew Sullivan really dislikes Hillary Clinton for Hillary Clinton, it would do him some good to point out where her policies were flawed and by scraping the parts of his article that criticize Hillary Clinton for doing what countless politicians -including one running right now as the presumptive Democratic nominee- did without taking into account the hypocrisy of doing so. If you want to criticize Hillary Clinton's feminism, fine. But do so without pulling out Margaret Thatcher as your counterpoint of what a feminist rise to power looks like, because that does nothing to further the point that Hillary Clinton could have done it better. In fact, if you want to talk about what feminists should acknowledge or shouldn't acknowledge, maybe the first thing the writer should do is take a look at what feminists care about and not presume to know best who is or is not a feminist. If you want to make a case for how it is more feminist to rise to power without help than it is to enact feminist legislation or further a feminist agenda once in office, more power to you. But accept that feminists don't have to think that Clinton is a feminist dream soured, and that they may be just as right based on their own criteria as you feel you are based on your own. And let me make it absolutely clear that I do not -do NOT- think every criticism of Hillary Clinton is based in sexism or stems from sexism or connotes sexism. But some of it was, and some of it continues to be, and some of it will continue to be fostered upon women in the media in the same way with the same level of rebuke -which is to say very little. It affects Michelle Obama to this day, because we did not call it out when it happened to Hillary Clinton forcefully enough and strong enough and with important enough backers. If those people who made sexist remarks about Hillary Clinton -and now Michelle Obama- were given the Don Imus treatment, there would be much less overt and outright sexism in the news media. But that did not happen, and it should have. 

I wanted Hillary Clinton to win, first and foremost, because I think she would have made an excellent president. I wanted Hillary Clinton to win because I think she is one of the best and brightest our country has to offer. I wanted Hillary Clinton to win because I calmly and objectively looked over much of what I cared about in relation to Clinton, Obama, and McCain, and decided that Hillary Clinton was my candidate. That isn't identity politics. It isn't not identity politics, but it isn't that Hillary Clinton has ovaries and so she was the one I chose. And yes, over time, the baseless attacks strengthened my desire to reach the Oval Office. But that also wasn't entirely about identity politics. It was based partially on how she handled the constant attacks based on little more than just her gender. And it was based, once again, on the fact that dealing with that level of criticism day in and day out only made me more aware of how extraordinary she was as a human being -and as a woman. I identified with what was being done to her; I recognized it as abuse on the basest level. But I would have done that if any woman, conservative or liberal, had been placed in that same situation.

At the same time, I fail to see exactly what is wrong with some of identity politics. It makes sense to say, "This is a person who cares about what I care about" as long as that thought has voting records and a history to back it up. I'm not talking about the identity politics that led to George W. Bush getting elected because he was "ordinary folk" and couldn't deliver a speech, but real honest-to-God identity politics where the person in question is able to identify this candidate as being someone with a similar take on the issues and a similar outlook on how best to achieve their goals. That isn't about being a woman and connecting to a woman because year in and year out, women have had to play the identity politics game with no women in the field. Women are constantly being asked to identify with men politicians, with male characters, and with male stories. We constantly have to insert ourselves into the story when there are no females (or very few females) on the horizon . So to suggest that I -or countless other women- were drawn to Hillary Clinton through the identity politics of gender is to ignore how long and how many times women have had no woman on the scene -and we've done just fine countless times identifying with what we were given. And we'll do it again this year, and four years from now, and probably four years after that.

Bite Me So Hard For That

Oftentimes, people will tell me that their dislike of Hillary Clinton does not lay in her gender but the fact that she's Hillary-fucking-Clinton, like she is such a force as to be beyond gender itself. And maybe sometimes they are truthful. Maybe their antipathy stems from the fact that she's still married to a man derisively called "Slick Willy". That she's, according to a friend of mine, "managed to be ALMOST as phony and self-gratifying as her philandering asshole husband". But I think a lot of this animosity is at least partially about gender norms and how Hillary Clinton has subverted them; or at the very least, people's hatred of Hillary Clinton expresses itself in disparaging, misogynistic, and sexist ways and so becomes about gender norms -and how Hillary Clinton's gender is wielded against her, along with those who admire her. There is a reason there are now 109 recorded sexist remarks and products on Shakesville. You can disagree with the site and the commentary found on it (as I often do), but the list and the remarks and the items on it (like the ubiquitous Hillary nutcracker -"the most popular political product in history") speak for themselves.

Hillary Clinton is not what one would term traditionally "feminine". She's tough. She's at times uncompromising. And she has never been exceptionally good at playing the traditional wife and mother. She friggin' kept her name after marrying her husband as a way to symbolically remain an autonomous individual with her own strengths and interests and life. And she had to give that up because she was seen as being too uppity and too independent by Bill Clinton's constituents; he lost in part because his wife had the audacity to keep her fucking name. And that is reason #1 why I admire and love Hillary Clinton, both in the fact that she kept her name after marriage -and the reasons for doing so- and the fact that she was forced to conform for the good of her husband's career. I imagine that it must have killed her to do so; but she gave up a part of what she felt made up her identity because American society insisted upon it. Because her husband and herself could not have succeeded in the political sphere if she insisted upon being seen as an individual and not simply as an appendage. And that is reason #2 as to why I love Hillary Clinton. She has, over the years, refused to be Nancy Reagan. She refused to be defined as simply a wife and mother. She refused to be seen as anything less than she was. She didn't bake cookies and sit at home. She was out fighting for children's rights, and she wasn't going to apologize for it. Until her uppity ways once again hurt her husband's political career, and she had to come back to the pack and downplay her intelligence, her strength, and her individuality.

Truth is, there was a time when I was at most ambivalent-leaning-toward-like about Hillary Clinton. When Barack Obama gave the keynote address at the 2004 DNC, I was blown away. When he chose to run for president, I actually had a bit of a debate about who I would vote for. I chose Hillary Clinton. It wasn't that I didn't believe in Obama. I did and do. It wasn't that I thought he wouldn't make a good president. I did and do. It wasn't that Hillary Clinton was a woman, and that I absolutely had to have a woman president if given the opportunity. I've said it before and I'll say it again, "I didn't want to elect 'a' woman president. I wanted this specific woman to be president". I looked at her plans and Obama's plans and even McCain's plans -because if McCain had won the Republican primary in 2000, I may have voted for him in 2004- and I decided that as close as Obama's and Hillary's platforms were, I liked Hillary's better. And as the attacks on Hillary Clinton grew in fervor and in animosity, as I felt myself as someone who had ovaries as being subject by proxy to those same, baseless, sexist, useless attacks, I grew closer to Hillary Clinton's campaign. I wanted her to succeed in spite of the fact that the phrase "Take out the garbage" was said over and over and over again in response to her voice. I wanted her to succeed because of every frickin' critique of her hair, her clothing, her wrinkles, and every other insult that was hurled at her but was not hurled at a similarly qualified male candidate. I didn't start off liking Hillary Clinton because she was a woman, but after a while her being a woman and being subject to what was basically highly televised and publicized street harassment made me want her to win more. Because what was hurled at Hillary Clinton, the belittling she faced, is the belittlement women in general face. And anyone -man, woman, child- who doesn't accept that fact, who doesn't acknowledge that fact, is not acknowledging the reality of being a woman in America.

Which is why I am so astonished that a good friend of mine -the same one who felt that Hillary was a phony- would ever say, "Did [Andrew Sullivan] offend your feminist sensibilities simply because he attacked a female leader?" So, I still love you but in the words of Sports Night's Dana Whitaker, "You know what, bite me so hard for that". Andrew Sullivan offended my feminist sensibilities for many reasons. Reason #1: he said, "it became clear pretty soon that the Senate was indeed merely a stepping stone back to the White House". I'm not a disciple of Andrew Sullivan the way my friend is -my worship is already taken by Joss Whedon, Aaron Sorkin, and Anna Quindlen- so maybe I'm wrong here but if Andrew Sullivan didn't have the exact same complaint about Barack Obama and his 2004 Senate election, then I cry foul. It may not be sexist, but it is certainly baseless. Reason #2 is that he invoked the specter of the tears of femininity in order to show how Hillary was a bad feminist; actually, the term he used was "anti-feminist". Which, "you know what, bite me so hard for that" Andrew Sullivan. But instead, I'll let Kristen Schaal do the honors of a rebuttal:

Plenty of politicians tear up. Plenty of elected -male- leaders get emotional. But no, when Hillary does it, it must be that she's a calculating, cold-hearted bitch who is setting feminism back a hundred years. I'll listen to Andrew Sullivan's criticism of Hillary Clinton's anti-feminist tendencies when he seriously looks at how he and many other media outlets play to anti-feminist themes. Until then, ciao, Andrew Sullivan; your feminist critiques have no teeth -especially when you seem to imply that Margaret Thatcher makes a better feminist icon than a woman who fights for things like women's rights, children's rights, comprehensive health care, and the environment (heretofore known as Reason #3). Which, last I checked, were all issues the feminist side of the spectrum were pretty down with.

There was an article questioning why women are still not running for office published a while ago; I pretty much think that the treatment Hillary Clinton endured answers that pretty soundly. I don't know of any single person who would voluntarily place himself or herself in a situation where political pundits, newspaper columnists, Maureen Dowd, and anonymous bloggers would do their worst to humiliate, dehumanize, and diminish the candidate. But that is what Hillary Clinton faced. Time and time again, that is what Hillary Clinton faced. And so, reason #? for why I admire and respect Hillary Clinton is that she was able -day after harrowing day- to step back onto the podium and make her historical run for president. That she didn't just crawl under the covers and never come out due to the jeering, the misogyny, and the idea that she should just be nagging her husband to take out the garbage.

You want more reasons? How about a neutral one? I don't hate her for staying with Bill Clinton. I don't even suspect she stayed with him for the political boost. I don't think she's anti-feminist for staying with a man who cheats. Maybe the Elizabeth Edwards situation will better Hillary's decision, but since people actually like Elizabeth Edwards and think of her as human -which I attribute partially to the fact that she is traditionally feminine- maybe not. I am not a part of her marriage to Bill Clinton. Because I'm not, I don't feel comfortable making judgements about it; but I've read about it. I've read their accounts of it, and I've read others' accounts of it, and what comes out time and time again is that these are two people who seem to genuinely care about one another and who enjoy each other's company, talents, and intellect. There is a story about how Bill Clinton's mother asked him why he was marrying Hillary, and he responded it was because he could talk to her. I think their marriage is a little odd; but I also believe that everyone's relationship is a little odd. I like Bill Clinton -I have a love affair with good oratory that knows no bounds, which is partially why I like Ted Kennedy and why I fell for Obama so quickly- and I certainly can understand why Hillary would be attracted to him, and how she is able to like or love him enough to stay with him regardless of his many personal faults.

Need some more? Every article I've ever read where she's been interviewed, she has been intelligent, moderate in emotion, and has addressed real issues stemming from her campaign. I have yet to read an interview where she railed against the press for what they did to her; and it would have been completely understandable if she had, if a little self-serving and naval-gazing. Need more? Read Courtney Martin's "Dear Hillary" letter. Need more? How about we discuss the cult of personality, and how men and women have to fit into their prescribed roles more often than not in order to succeed, and how men and women who go against the current are maligned, demonized, and made into the worst of the worst. And how we have to, as women, as progressives, as human beings, celebrate those few who don't allow the threat of being maligned, demonized, and made into the worst of the worst to affect how they act, how they dress, and what they see as being the most important aspect of their lives.

Hillary Clinton is one hell of a politician. And we can criticize how she got to where she is; we should critique political families and their influence in American culture. But we celebrated RFK and Edward Kennedy, and we wanted JFK Jr. to go into politics, and so criticisms of Hillary Clinton riding on her husband's coattails fall short of being purely altruistic in motive from where I'm standing (reason #? for why I didn't like that Andrew Sullivan piece). I firmly believed that Geraldine Ferraro's assessment of the Obama campaign was right, that Obama's meteoric rise is due in part to his race and his post-1960s racial construct in addition to his obvious intelligence and skill and talent. Just like John McCain's rise is attributed in part to his having been a POW and being seen as a maverick in addition to his 30 years in Washington DC as a successful politician. Just like Hillary Clinton's popularity is in part due to her gender and who she married in addition to her skill, intelligence, and talent. Geraldine Ferraro wasn't wrong; the American public -and I would assert any public- likes a good narrative. These three have good, inspiring narratives. But you can only get away with criticizing one of their narratives and have your job in the morning. Guess who's narrative that is?

Boston and Chicago Are Now States

In all seriousness, I really do admire Hillary Clinton, and I think she would have made a wonderful president, that she would have made a great vice-president, and that she is a very good surrogate. I think she handles herself very well here, and with aplomb.

My only question is how does she hear the reporters' questions? I certainly can't. I don't know what she "never said", and I don't even know if she's answering the questions being asked of her!

Why Does Maureen Dowd Still Have a Job?

The New York Times has got to fire Maureen Dowd. That bastion of liberal media has time and again pushed women and women's issues off to the side (or rather, to the Fashion and Style section), and that has to change as well. But they have really, really got to fire Maureen Dowd. This is a woman who, as Jesse Taylor of Pandagon.net writes, "honestly believes every woman in America has the God-given ability to be as stupid as she is, but are just less jaded". This is a woman who thinks it is a "nutty idea" to discuss some of what has been exposed in the primary season: the sexism of the political pundits, of the fact that the DNC didn't stand up to attacks on Hillary Clinton's voice, her "nut-cracking" ways, and the myriad of other remarks -some of which were made by Dowd herself. Dowd gave those remarks credence when she failed to elucidate how absolutely ridiculous statements like, "We are at war. Is this how she'll talk to Kim Jong-il?" after Clinton teared up on the campaign trail, and instead supported the idea that Clinton's tears were unbecoming a president and claimed there was something "Nixonian" about the whole affair. Really? Nixon? Kristen Schaal managed to say how ridiculous that whole tear-gate was in two sentences on The Daily Show: "Presidents aren't supposed to cry? Well, I suppose those are just freedom drops" as a picture of teary-eyed George W. Bush flashed on the screen.

Maureen Dowd seems impervious to the idea that she herself has managed to create some anger and some resentment in her columns, especially when she quotes from Amy Chozick's Wallstreet Journal article about how Obama is too skinny to win women Clinton supporters, and ignores the fact that Chozick apparently started a Yahoo! message thread in order to do "research" for that article. That is what I call having your fingers on the pulse of the Clinton Nation, because people who respond to questions like "Does anyone out there think Barack Obama is too thin to be president? Anyone having a hard time relating to him and his "no excess body fat?" definitely represent the majority of Clinton's constituents. And Dowd, along with many other Obama supporters and quite a few Clinton supporters, seems to be under the impression that Obama automatically deserves all of the votes with no complaints from the women voters who have felt bashed and bruised and marginalized by the treatment Hillary Clinton was subject to on the campaign trail. And I'm one of those Clinton supporters who would rather we all just fall in line and vote for Obama, because he matches up with Clinton on almost every single issue under the sun and because a McCain presidency would be a bit of a catastrophe regarding such trivial issues like environmental policy, economic policy, foreign policy, and -of course- women's rights. But not for one second do I think it is remotely appropriate to minimize what we've learned from this election cycle: that sexism and racism are and continue to be a large motivating force in American society, that sexism is allowed to reign free through the media outlets purportedly designated as "news-gathering organizations", that something ought to be done about it, and the people who feel burned by it should not be poo-pooed or told to suck it up and get in line.

Obama represents change; that is his line, his platform, and one of the reasons for his shining star. Because of that, it doesn't seem nutty to suggest Obama include the devastating affects of sexism in his rhetoric for change. It may not happen, but it doesn't seem 'nutty'. Nor does it seem nutty to expect to open up the New York Times opinion page and not find a woman comparing Obama to Mr. Darcy in an attempt, so it seems, to "explain" to all of those ungracious women voters who may still be angry, why they should -as Elizabeth Bennett does in regard to Darcy- take Obama to their hearts; to explain why Obama should be more popular with women voters, because he embodies the ever-elusive Romantic hero both in temperament and appearance, instead of focusing on -just reaching here- women as informed voters first and overly emotional fiction readers never.

But of course, that seems to be a pipe dream. And Dowd's seemingly strained understanding of Obama herself -is he really proud and haughty, or is that just an "ill-founded and mistaken premise"- is presented as a conundrum all women face. Plus, I have to say, I'm pretty sure she is presenting a version of Pride and Prejudice I myself have never read -a version where Darcy is almost universally acclaimed for his charisma, his charm, and his ability to ensorcell (™ Aaron Sorkin) crowds, and where only Elizabeth Bennett (in this case, women voters who preferred Clinton) just doesn't get it. And for all of those reasons, Dowd needs to either get a clue and fast, or write about those silly women and their silly emotional impulses elsewhere. And maybe the New York Times can get someone who actually seems to respect women; someone like Anna Quindlen.

Meet The New Boss...

I've been reading some disparaging remarks about Barack Obama, John McCain, the two-party system, and the electoral college -though mostly about Obama, because I visit mainly liberal blogs and many liberal bloggers are feeling "betrayed" by him at the moment. Some of those liberal bloggers, like Liss from Shakespeare's Sister, are planning to assert their political strength by voting third party. Which is their right and their prerogative; and yes, sometimes third-parties become one of the dominant two. Like, we don't hear that much about the Whig party or the Federalists any more outside of history books, and the Republican party has been a major player on the political spectrum for over a century and a half now. But these people aren't really voting for a third party candidate because they believe that particular party will become one of the dominant two but because they want to punish the Democratic party and make the party recognize how important they as leftists are and how important their particular issues (and their particular take on issues) are to winning; and in so doing getting things like Women's Issues and Gay Rights to the forefront as national issues of concern. We in Connecticut tried the same "punishment" tactic on Joe Lieberman last time around by voting for Ned Lamont during the democratic primary after Ole Joe made it known that if he lost he'd run as a third party candidate. It is a nice thought, but entirely impractical, especially in terms of a national election; because in order to win elections in this day and age, candidates need votes from people not just at the furthest end of their particular political table but also the people who aren't entirely Blue or Red but varying shades of purple.

This basically means appealing to the guy who is vaguely uncomfortable with sharing a locker room with a gay man but really thinks that the war is no good and that the Trickle Down Theory of Economics was a stupid idea; and so that means highlighting an economic plan that appeals to that particular voter rather than highlighting the "Gay Marriage For Everyone" idea. And it isn't exactly idealistic, but it is politics and the political process. It is more about meeting people in the center and resolving differences through mediation and compromise than it about distinct and full victories. That is why a Republican from Connecticut is normally about as liberal as a Democrat from Texas. The last two candidates immediately springing to mind who didn't live in the center and who didn't forego their own political ideals in order to appeal to the masses were Adlai Stevenson on the left and Barry (AuH2O) Goldwater on the right. These two had one thing in common and it is that they lost and lost big. Also, both had a keen sense of humor.

And this is the reason most radical, lasting change occurs through forces outside of the elected political spectrum. It is why groups like NARAL and NAACP and -God help me- the NRA are important, because they don't have to compromise their values and they are able to stress why it is deeply important politicians fight hard for women and minorities and second amendment rights. Ralph Nader did real good when he was a safety advocate, because he wasn't beholden to voters and was able to distinctly highlight his issue of choice without fear of political backlash; he didn't have to worry about not going whole hog because his next bill may get bogged down in committee as retribution. His job was to be a conscience and he was a good one because he wouldn't back down. This is also, ironically, why he makes a good third party candidate -a man who can highlight issues that should be discussed on the national scale but that the two parties won't bring up out of fear of rocking the boat and losing votes.

I don't envy politicians on the national circuit. They have to both appear genuine and appeal to the vastest population they can. What ends up happening is a lot of flip-flopping, a lot of leaning toward the center. Both Barack Obama and John McCain have rested their laurels on the idea that they represent a new, integrity-driven candidate. Both have garnered fans due to the idea that neither one is going to play the traditional political games. That was part of Obama's appeal over Clinton during the primary season; Clinton was Old DNC, the Establishment with a capital "E". She was too crooked to really fight for what matters, to shine the light in the dark places. And lo and behold, Obama is now pretty much the same.

Obama has made some statements about abortion rights that are, in a word, demeaning to women. He has made some overtures about keeping faith-based initiatives, and he voted for FISA, all as a way of connecting to more voters. John McCain? Well 'The Maverick' has backtracked on his no-offshore-drilling policy, and is trying to portray himself as a "friend to women" even though he voted against having birth control covered by health insurance (Viagra is, by the way) and has told a "lovely" joke about gorilla rape many times over the years. There are other examples on both sides of flip flopping, but I'm too cynical/lazy to dig them up because this, my friends, is politics. It is the worst system in the world with which to pick a leader, until we compare it to all the others.

And so, the mantra remains the same: "Meet the new boss; same as the old boss".

Review: 30 Ways of Looking at Hillary

In a recent trip to my town's library, I unexpectedly picked up a book about Hillary Clinton. I've never had the inclination to pick up her book, Living History, so I was a little surprised that my attention was held by Thirty Ways of Looking at Hillary: Reflections By Women Writers, a book among the 6 or so new arrivals (I also picked up Stephen Prothero's Religious Literacy and a book entitled When Did Jesus Become Republican?, leaving precious few other new selections for the other residents of my sleepy little town). The book is what its title proclaims it to be: 30 different takes on Hillary Clinton by 30 different women writers. I wouldn't necessarily recommend that everyone I know go out and have a look. Like all compilations, it has some essays worth reading and some that are best skipped. No one needs to read "Political Animals" by Susan Orlean, an essay that examines what Hillary's lack of personal pet ownership says about her and her candidacy. "RE: Hillary" was kind of a bust as well.

Unsurprisingly and unfortunately, the essays that were my favorites played to my preconceived notions of Hillary, gender, and the like. "Monarchy in the Making" was just the ravings of a liberal lunatic, someone who seemed incapable of recognizing how political families aren't necessarily a bad thing, and that it takes more than two people from the same family being democratically elected to make a monarchy. "The Road to Cleavagegate" was one that I was looking forward to reading when I first glanced at the table of contents, and was deeply disappointed with the level of analysis the nature of the beast was given. Plus, it had the ire-inducing statement, "No one thinks it diminishes a male candidate when he fluffs up his masculinity by discussing his favorite sports team in an interview. Clinton -or any woman- should not feel aggrieved if she is asked about her favorite designer". I shook my head violently at that statement, and not just because I can tell you more about my favorite sports teams than any designer; I mean, I'm someone who thought for the longest time that the designer Hermes was pronounced the same way the Greek god is. It is because as long as the male candidate isn't asked about his favorite designer along with the sports questions, and the female candidate isn't asked about her sports teams period, it is still an inherently sexist question.

The book definitely has some worthwhile moments; my anger toward Robin Givhan ("Cleavagegate"'s author) was alleviated and my enjoyment of the book as a whole grew when a later essay by Leslie Bennetts, "Beyond Gender", looked sourly upon Givhan's Washington Post fashion editorial about Clinton's cleavage -thought without name checking Givhan directly. It was an excellent moment, though probably a red-faced one for both authors involved. I bet when Givhan was proclaiming that the Clinton campaign overreacted to her statements of Clinton's femininity, she wasn't expecting to be quoted as comparing that femininity to seeing a man with his fly unzipped. And Bennetts herself probably hadn't anticipated Givhan's own participation in the project.

Several of the authors made it about the personal first and then connected their own history to Hillary. A couple failed, boring me completely. "The Validator" by Kathryn Harrison is one of those, more about her dictator of a grandmother than Hillary. But a couple really succeed. "Hillary's Underpants" by Lara Vapnyar and "Hell, My Name Is..." by Cristina Henriquez both manage to find the balance necessary for a compelling essay. (Hint: the balance is more toward the subject than toward the author.)

There is one contention made time and time again through the book; well, two. One is about Hillary's outward appearance. The very first essay is entitled "Yellow Pantsuit" and it rambles on and on and on about how Hillary-in-pantsuit (of presumably any color) is putting on a costume that belies her hippie clothing and coke-bottle frames of the past, instead of acknowledging that no one is going to get elected president wearing a pooka-shell necklace or peace beads; please, that would be like getting elected without wearing a flag pin. It also neglects the fact that Obama and McCain both would probably be more comfortable in jeans than their suits. Several others talk about how unattractive she is/was, or how she is perceived as unattractive. I went on the 'web and googled up a few images; what I found didn't horrify me. In fact, the woman of those pictures, especially the early pictures, is a woman I could see befriending. Mostly though, the articles about her looks and sense of style were boring and ignored the real issues of women in politics, one of them being "Why the hell are we so hung up on their clothes?" One essay attempted to cover that, but instead highlighted statements made by Hillary's detractors without offering many reasons as to what influenced their opinions.

The second assertion is that women don't like Hillary. I find that odd; I know there are women out there who dislike her. But a majority of the women I know like Hillary well enough. A few, like my mother and I, love her. And really, how many politicians do people really and truly love, or even like? There is a reason Bill, JFK, RFK, and the Gipper are held up as beacons; they are four politicians in modern times who managed to elicit an at times logic-defying, rock-star equivalent love from their constituents among the hundreds who are met with more tepid responses. No one truly loved Jimmy Carter or Richard Nixon (especially now with Nixon). No one went ga-ga over LBJ. The Roosevelts, yes. But a vast majority of our politicians fall into that nether region of necessary more than likable.

The essays I liked the best were the ones that surprised me; the ones that went beyond the surface of the thing and really looked at some of the issues writhing underneath. Some of them reverberated with anger. Others were more tongue in cheek. But the ones I liked said something. And the ones I didn't like? Well, they said the same old thing.

Alas, Poor Hillary

I am depressed over the end of the Democratic primary season. I, like many others, saw the writing on the wall weeks and weeks ago. And yet, I still held some perverse hope that Hillary Clinton could do it, that she could clinch the nomination. It isn't that I don't like Obama. I do. He will most emphatically be getting my vote for president in November. It is just that I am a devotee of Hillary. And not because she is a woman. I didn't want to elect "a" woman president. I wanted this specific woman to be president. I wouldn't have voted for Condoleezza Rice or Phyllis Schlafly even though they are also in possession of ovaries. No, I like Hillary. Scratch that, I admire Hillary; I would even say that I love Hillary. I like her politics, her policies, and I think she is a phenomenal woman. Smart, articulate, tough as nails, and someone who has struggled to overcome adversity -and more adversity than just Bill's philandering ways. My devotion to Hillary almost seems predestined. She came into my life when I was six, and she has remained a part of it ever since. My parents, hug political buffs who develop a fascination (obsession) with certain political families like the Roosevelts and Kennedys, quickly took to the Clintons. So much so that My mother bought Living History; so much so that my father's anniversary gift to my mother one year was Bill Clinton's autobiography My Life.

And so the Clintons entered my life; and we went through their ups and downs, their victories and defeats , their triumphs and humiliations. And through it all, Hillary seemed like a woman who would, in the words of Tina Fey, "get stuff done". She seemed to really care about the nation, to care about politics, and how politics and policy could better America and the lives of Americans. She and Bill appeared to be regular Sorkin characters in that mindset. She had more than a few blunders -the dismissal of cookie baking comes to mind. But that made her more real to me. More like a woman I could relate to, a woman who would not allow herself to be marginalized or penalized for not having been Susie Homemaker and who was instead doing pro bono work to further the cause of child advocacy. As I grew up and learned of the fears she harbored about losing her autonomy in marriage, she became more real. Keeping her own name after marriage was, to put it in a juvenile fashion, so cool. And it hurt -though it took place a couple of years before I was born and decades before I was cognizant of it- that she had to give up that statement of autonomy in order to help further her husband's political aspirations.

Over the years, Hillary became someone deeply ingrained in my life. She was someone I didn't always agree with, or even fully like. But she was there, present, reassuring, and powerful. I completely understood Dan Rydell's desire to meet her -and his anguished cry of "Hillary Clinton thinks I'm an idiot" (which also became a family catch phrase)- on the show Sports Night. And when she won her New York Senate race, I cheered. When it became apparent she was going to run for president in 2008, I was thrilled. And when she was the projected front runner, I was hopeful that this woman would be recognized at the uppermost level for being the public servant she is -and recognized separate from her husband as a talented and worthwhile politician and possible president. And then it all started to fall apart. Hillary made many mistakes in her compaign. She -we- assumed she had the nomination locked up far before she did. She then involved herself in the worst part of the political process as she saw the nomination slipping further and further away when she engaged in a campaign of fear.

But I also believe that the odds were stacked against her. I've heard complaints about a possible Clinton election because it would mean America has been in the hands of two political families for two decades -possibly more if she were elected to a second term. And political dynasties hold a strange dichotomy within American culture; we admire the families and at the same time fear power remaining in the same sets of hands for too long. And as much as we would love to believe that gender equality has been reached in this country and that a woman could run for president without the fact that she is in fact a "her" causing a big brouhaha, this is very much not the case. Obama being black gets a lot of play, gets a lot of concern; and there is a very real factor that people may not vote for him because of it. But Hillary is the one who is turned into a nutcracker. Marie Cocco examines this phenomenon better and in more detail than I can in her editorial Misogyny I Won't Miss, and that attitude of dismissal and diminishment of Hillary as a person definitely had some effect on Hillary's run. There were people who didn't like that she stayed in a "marriage of convenience" with Bill and figured that meant she was cold-hearted enough to do whatever it took to be elected, without having any actual idea of what their marriage entailed.

If Obama had lost the nomination, I would have felt badly for him. But I reacted viscerally as the presidency became a dream rather than a reality for Clinton. I have been physically and emotionally affected and mourn her loss. I wanted so badly for her to succeed, because she wanted so badly to do so. The bottom line for me is that Hillary Clinton would have been a good president. I only hope she one day gets the opportunity to prove it.