“We’ve got the best two family system of government in the world.”
—Mark Donnelly
As the wheels on the HRC Inevitability Bus lose air, the muck they’re stuck in rises daily. And, out come the left darlings in support. First, Ambassador Joe Wilson weighed in with a sappy pro-Hillary piece that was incomprehensible. Then, in a strange effort to shore up Sen. Clinton’s dwindling female base, author Erica Jong weighed in Wednesday with a piece titled “Patriarchy: 1000, Hillary: 0” demanding that women vote for Hillary based on shard chromosomes — alone.
Jong dismisses all who don’t support Clinton as “Hillary-Haters,” without once examining the real reasons she isn’t getting their support. Jong mindlessly claims in the case of males it is because “They are crossing their legs for fear of castration.”
But, she saves her most vitriolic attacks for fellow women. First she conflates Hillary Clinton with great women of the past: Geraldine Ferraro; Bella Abzug; Eleanor Roosevelt; Victoria Woodhull and, impossibly, Emma Goldman.
Jong notes Goldman was ridden “out of town on a rail — for being Jewish, liking to dance and supporting the rights of the working classes”–three things unassociated with HRC, unless her fealty to Israel somehow equates to Jewishness.
Jong then goes after public women who have spoken or written out against the HRC campaign. Columnist Maureen Dowd is chastised for bringing up Clinton’s “baggage;” said “baggage” duly dismissed or ignored completely by Jong. Obama supporter Oprah Winfrey comes under special attack as someone who “used to identify with women.”
She even takes a shot at Michelle Obama–“If Hillary attacks Michelle — well she can’t because that would be racist.” (After ranting of the “Hillary-haters,” “What’s their ammunition? Oh, it’s simple. They call her Mrs. Clinton, not Ms. or Senator,” Michelle Obama, Esq. doesn’t even warrant a last name!)
Under Erica Jong’s “Genitalia First” theory, I guess every British woman was required to vote for Margaret Thatcher.
If her take on such women “traitors” isn’t telling enough, here’s her earlier ludicrous take on dastardly “pink men” who don’t support HRC
The fact that now even older, white women are choosing Obama has nothing to do with their being “self-hating women.” (Nor does it by any means mean that the nomination is now Obama’s. But, that’s another column.)
What it indicates is that people across the spectrum are trying to gauge who best can get us out of the mess we’re in. And, that they are looking at HRC’s many contributions to that mess.
The Fine Mess Hillary’s Helped Get Us Into
Jong assiduously avoids Clinton’s many public positions and votes that could be seen as anti-human–XX or XY. One doesn’t even have to get into the shady financial dealings baggage, her setting back Health Care for 15 years and counting or even Bill. Her record does, indeed, stand alone on such things as; Voting for the Iraq resolution and every continued funding of the crime; voting for designating the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a “Terrorist Organization;” voting for BOTH versions of The Patriot Act – and just the other day, failing to vote in the FISA/Telecom Immunity Bill. She’s attacked Obama for past “present” votes in the Illinois Legislature, while she couldn’t even make it to such a serious vote eroding Constitutional Rights. Her “good friend” in the Senate, John McCain had no trouble making the vote and voted for it!
Speaking of Health Care: 150,000 Illinois children gained it due to Obama’s efforts. He also gained Child Care for women who were kicked off Welfare by Bill Clinton, in a cynical move championed by none other than Hillary Clinton herself.
Ultimately, many women, like many men, are simply tired of the two family system of government that got us in this mess. There has been a Clinton or Bush on the ticket since 1980. All are simply taking note of HRC’s actual record contributing to the malaise and voting accordingly.
A Champion of Women?
And a good part of that record reveals Sen. Clinton’s lack of Sisterhood, herself. Such Sisterhood, like anything else that gets in the way of her ambition is jettisoned.
If Jong is trying to shame women into a solid front re: Hillary, maybe she should look at just what kind of woman would say this about other women who were speaking up about sexual harassment they received: “These women are all trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.”
Or, how about this one? “You know I’m going to start thanking the woman who cleans the rest room in the building that I work in. You know, maybe that sounds kind of stupid, but on the other hand I want to start seeing her as a human being.” (New York Times Magazine, 05/23/93).
Not merely “stupid,” but at least, after long dismissing such people, Clinton had such an epiphany (not that she lived up to it. Read Dee Dee Mayers book.). Erica Jong and other comfortable, white women could use a little “seeing” of blue collar women and men as human beings who vote accordingly; not as pawns in someone’s life-long ambition.
The real shame is Jong’s attacking women (and men) who never were so oblivious in the first place.
MICHAEL DONNELLY has often voted for women who share his beliefs. Someday, he’ll be able to do it in a presidential race. He can be reached at pahtoo@aol.com
