Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Hillary and the Rat
"Why can't a woman be more like a man?" is the question that Professor Henry Higgins famously asks in Frederick Loewe and Alan Jay Lerner's "My Fair Lady."
"Why is thinking something women never do?" he sings despairingly. "And why is logic never even tried?/Straightening up their hair is all they ever do/Why don't they straighten up the mess that's inside?"
You'd think this kind of conventional thinking had gone out of fashion in the days of George Bernard Shaw, or at least in the days of Betty Friedan. But certainly not when Americans are thinking about a woman president.
These are the times that try women's souls. Those of us who were lucky enough to experience the heady days of Seventies feminism are torn between our desire to see a woman lead the country and our utter despair that that woman might be Hillary Clinton.
Back in the day, women were credited with having "nurturing souls" which would make them better leaders. They wouldn't posture over whose weapons were bigger than whose; they wouldn't start wars. Instead, they would fight for social justice. They would reach out a hand to the poor and needy, help educate children to the highest standards, and work to insure that everyone has the medical care they need. In other words, they would act like Democrats.
Now we have a candidate who is a Democrat, and she's acting like the worst Republican on the block.
Of course, the myth of the "nurturing" female leader exploded almost instantly, or doesn't the name Margaret Thatcher mean anything to you? We had the dynasty-building Indira Gandhi in India, the corrupt Benazir Bhutto in Pakistan (and welcome home, Benazir!) and a host of others. We've also had wonderful female leaders, especially in Asia and Africa.
To no one's great surprise, good leadership turned out to be a trait defined by character, not by gender.
The Professor Higgins characters among us, however, are livid over Clinton. As they march lockstep to a richly deserved apoplexy, we hear their cries of "lesbian" echo in the land.
This label has never made sense when it comes to Clinton, who would have been - at the very least - a U.S. Supreme Court justice in her own right. But she ditched her politics (she was a proud Goldwater Girl), her baseball team, her urban identity and her Ivy League career path to follow a very hot young dude named Bill Clinton down to Arkansas. This is not a life choice that a lesbian would normally make.
The cry of "lesbian!" is supposed to make us quake in our beds (those of us who are not lesbians, I suppose), but the right-wingers are going to be disappointed when their scare tactics fail. The image of lesbians has changed. The concept once frightened members of the white male ruling class because lesbians - as well as older women - are not dependent on male approval, and therefore, live outside of men's control.
But it is hard to be afraid of lesbians now when they are corporate power players, fabulously successful entertainers and rock stars as well as nurturing moms. Just as it is hard to be afraid of older women now that the concept of the "cougar," or older-woman-younger-man mating, has been let loose in the land.
When the label of "lesbian" doesn't work, the wingnuts will cry "corruption." This will be hard to do with a straight face, given the current makeup of Congress and the White House. There are so many corrupt and sleazy hypocrites in Washington today that you might well ask, what are a few more?
"Men are so honest, so thoroughly square," sings Professor Higgins, and we all know how that turned out in Iraq. "Eternally noble, historically fair/Who, when you win, will always give your back a pat/Why can't a woman be like that?"
Clinton's past has been thoroughly vetted - there's hardly an inch of her that hasn't been under the microscope. But a few weeks ago the The New York Times, Adam Liptak wrote a piece called, "Attorneys at Politics: Would You Hire One to Represent You?" In it, he told a remarkable story that, I believe, illustrates the dangers of Hillary Clinton more than anything I've ever read.
"The first jury trial Mrs. Clinton handled on her own, for instance, concerned the rear end of a rat in a can of pork and beans," Liptak wrote - and if here you're thinking, "Go get 'em, Hillary! Evil corporations are trying to poison us!" you are sadly misled. She represented the corporation, and "she argued that there had been no real harm, as the plaintiff did not actually eat the rat. 'Besides,' she wrote in her autobiography, describing her client's position, 'the rodent parts which had been sterilized might be considered edible in certain parts of the world.'"
So there's your warm, caring, nurturing female political leader for you. Hungry? Eat a rat!
As the professor sings, "Can't a woman learn to use her head?/ Why do they do everything their mothers do?/Why don't they grow up, well, like their father instead?"
Sadly, Professor Higgins, it seems that they do.
A collection of Joyce Marcel's columns, "A Thousand Words or Less," is available through joycemarcel.com. And write her at joycemarcel@yahoo.com.
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...
80 Comments so far
Show AllI'm a feminist since back in the 70s, too, and it infuriates me that NOW, supposed to represent women's best interests, endorsed Hillary Clinton, way back, just because she's a woman.
When everything is peaches, it's okay to push women ahead because they can then take their chances at making it in a slightly more level playing field.
But when there is an urgent Constitutional crisis as there is today, you don't push anybody because of her gender at the expense of the constitutional survival of the US, particularly if the woman has supported an unconstitutional agenda as Hillary has supported Bush's.
As for Hillary's past "lawyering", I'm sure it's no worse than that of many other lawyers who represent those accused of crimes. This is probably the key to why lawyers are universally disliked -- in order to do what they do, most leave any semblance of adherence to doing what's right in the garbage. It just seems to be the nature of the lawyer-beast. I HAVE met and really appreciated some attorneys whose principles are admirable.
But I sure don't base my opinions about Hillary on what she did before she was elected to the Senate. There's plenty in her "service" since then to make a judgment about.
She's simply macho in drag.
All this anti-women crap which still exists cannot hide the fact that Mrs. Clinton is not the best candidate regardless of gender. She has consistently supported Bush on the gutting of civil liberties, the war in Iraq and the next one with Iran and those who want real change will not vote for her.
There's a method to right wing madness. They make Hillary a feminist cause, and she's riding that one. It is so ironic that a woman whose career has been "First Lady", playing the Third World path to female power, is seen as such a threat. Or not. They are handing her the credentials she never earned. Now when the media talk about her problem with people who would never vote for her, they don't need to mention the anti war crowd; they can use their right wing hate group. Message: the right wing hates Hillary, so progressives must love her. Not. Not. Not.
The only way for women to raise to power in America is to be utterly corrupt and manipulative like men, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are two perfect examples.
Hillary is a Republican at heart, look how she started her career. The fact she switched to the Democratic Party (which historically has been even more corrupt than the GOP) is proof that her intention is to deceive, to use pretty rhetoric while stabbing Americans in the back.
There is a good reason for feminists to oppose Hillary's drive for power: it is little more than a way to put BILL back in the White House. She has been a lackluster Senator; the only reason she is prominent now is her last name - which she changed for his career's sake.
There are women who have earned a try for the White House. Why aren't they leading the pack?
She may be a woman, but mostly she's a whore, who peddles not her body but her soul.
Hey Folks we are dealing with Washington DC politicians here. Do you think that any survive in that cesspool without getting any on themselves? Some are deeper into it than others but with few exceptions there are none that remain if they want to keep their personal integrity. I do not believe that it is possible today, to do so in Washington DC. The ones that do maintain their principals leave after one or two terms before the sickness over comes them. OR they are ignored by the majority around them because they cannot be trusted to cooperate.
Hillary is a professional politician and will do anything to keep her seat. Not unlike a professional wrestler who will use any gimmick to please an audience. But that's the nature of America politics today. There is no place for the compassion and unselfishness that a real woman would bring to the table.
Hoa binh
Lesbian? I wish!
Hillary is HoJoe Lieberman with (bigger) tits.
tetti_tatti,
You wrote:
The only way for women to raise to power in America is to be utterly corrupt and manipulative like men, Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi are two perfect examples.
Isn't that a bit hateful and sexist? Why can't we agree that the only way for anyone to raise to power in America is to be utterly corrupt and manipulative?
The difference really is character, not gender. I am a man who will work very hard to put Cindy Sheehan in Congress and just as hard to keep Hillary Clinton out of the White House.
kivals, You are right to call folks on engaging in any level of sexism in this discussion, even if the article we are commentimg on, has that for a premise. I am one of those 70's feminists ( a bra burning, consciouness raising, don't shave my armpits/legs kind of woman), and I once believed that the problems of the world could be solved by women being placed in positions of power instead of men. At this juncture ( I am 61), I look for not matriarchy, not patriarchy, but a balance of the two, drawing on human experiecne in all of its complexity. We all have yin and yang energy and our task is to balance and harmonize them in spite of our assigned gender. Unfortunately, many women who engage in the current structures where power resides, are having to figure out how to fit in without becoming overly yang. But becoming what you are trying to change, changes nothing and I fear that women are now seeing that in HC's candidacy. Perhaps we should focus less on despising her for what she has done to get where she is, and feel compassion for what she must have given up as a woman and a human being to get to there. She is not other than us, but mirrors a great lesson for us as well. In many respects we should be grateful. I do not support her because her values, or the ones she has chosen to showcase, do not reflect mine. I bear her no ill will because she let me down as a woman. Dennis Kucinich, in my estimation, simply has a better grasp of that harmony and balance I was referring to.
I would love to see a Madam President in the Whitehouse. But, it is not Hillary that I envision in this dream. It will be someone who is not indebted to the corporations, to the lobbyists, but someone who will be indebted to the folks that vote for her whoever she may be. She will be someone who actually puts the interests of every American above the interests of big money and big corporations. Not Hillary.
starofthesea,
I am not sold on yin and yang, but I agree wholeheartedly about the need for more cooperation and balance of female and male input. Humanity evolved and survived for hundreds of thousands of years with such a balance of input and such cooperation, and the past few centuries with overbearing male input could in part be blamed for some of the current predicaments we face.
On a related point, I have argued for decades that social progress will come from men behaving more like what is thought of as traditionally feminine, not from women behaving more masculine (which is what I have seen the last few decades).
re oregoncharles 12:06 pm & annabelle 1:08 pm:
the woman hrc replaced as the senatorial nominee from new york, liz holzman, served honorably on the watergate commission. i could have voted for her as the D's candidate for president without holding my nose, but she was swept away under a flood of corporate megabucks in favor of carpetbagger-in-reverse hrc.
it's another argument in favor of getting corporations out of the political process, as if we needed one.
kivals your extreme political correctness blinds you. There was nothing sexist about what I wrote, most people who have reached power in history have been corrupt and manipulative, AND they have been men. Women with similar ambitions know they have to act the exact same way, what's exist about that? Get a clue. In fact, I was being very fair. By the way, this is an article about sexism, feminism and powerful women if you haven't noticed.
Why do Repugs hate her?
Hegardless of gender, Hilary has shown herself to be a warmonger which makes her unfit for office, any office, including the one she presently holds. I wonder if she is personally invested financially in the war machine, making her a war profiteer.
ezeflyer---at the risk of oversimplifying, I think because she is what they consider and "uppity woman" There is a great deal of patriarchy in the most extreme of the Republican base. Women are supposed to be subject to their husbands and are supposed to remain barefoot and pregnant and in the kitchen. Clearly to them HC is a very prominent face of the feminist movement. It's really all publicly successful women that they hate/fear but she'll do fine for a representative.
Or were you being ironic in your question? If so forgive my belabored explanation.
We could all argue that Kucinich is the best Democrat and Ron Paul is the best Republican, so perhaps we could have a 2008 two-party election with them as the national nominees. Well, that might be interesting, but it ain't gonna happen.
In front-runner land (always subject to change), as of now, Mrs. Clinton, mother of Chelsea, a former first-lady with one long marriage to a living ex-president husband (who is popular over much of the world) is running against Mr. Giuliani, a "Chamber of Commerce" type who dumped a second wife in a press conference, now takes lovey-dovey cell phone calls for schtick during speeches from a way-younger third wife, has dubious relationships with his other family members, and promises you more strict constructionist judges.
And this author and posters above are slamming Mrs. Clinton? With references to lesbianism and how she once defended a corporate client about a rat in a can of beans? About how she's somehow too "Republican" when she's running against a REAL REPUBLICAN.
If progressives can't see an advantage in Mrs. Clinton over Mr. Giuliani, they're not progressive at all and do not really give a darn about the real "progress" on any social issue in this country. Fortunately, I think Mrs. Clinton (IF she is nominated, still a significant IF) is going to garner more support from "family issue" voters than anyone is expecting. Lesbian crap, rat crap, and any other crap notwithstanding. In fact, it may turn out that the more crap is thrown at her, the better she'll do against either of the two leading bullies, Giuliani or Thompson.
Maybe we'd like Obama or Edwards better, but if Mrs. Clinton turns out to be the nominee, we'll be nothing but LUCKY to get her in The White House.
"Mrs. Clinton would have been a Supreme Court Justice in her own right"? With her character, she would more likely be copping a plea to insider trading in her own right.
if the enrgizer bunny of political brand loyalty would simply log on and type "ditto my previous post," he could save HIMSELF a lot of keystrokes, and us a lot of scrolling.
tetti_tatti,
Your statement: "The only way for women to raise to power in America is to be utterly corrupt and manipulative like men" could be interpreted to mean that women, like men, must be utterly corrupt and manipulative to gain power, which you seem to suggest in your second comment is the intended interpetation. However, if that was the intended interpetation, it could have been phrased more clearly (e.g. "like men have had to be", or "women, like men, ..."). As written, the most likely intended meaning appears to be that women must stoop to the base level of horrible evil men if they are ever to gain power. In any case, I am glad to learn that you are not full of hate. Thank goodness for that.
If the self-appointed heroes of CD could make defensible arguments in the context of political reality, they wouldn't need to resort to criticism of "brand loyalty" as their main thesis.
"Brand loyalty" or partisan allegiance leaves one blind to political realities since the frame of reference is defined by loyalty to team not to issue. Sucker.
And the wise counsel on what to do in the two-party political reality that exists was what?
Are you suggesting that we should resign ourselves to our fate enthusiastically? Gees, why did the American revolutionaries bother--they should've just accepted the status quo--after all, the odds were stacked against them too.
Perhaps one day -- I sense no day soon -- we may finally put all this comical and tragic, divisive logic behind us. Bottom line, we're all in this together. Forget the gender, the color, the age, etc. Some visionary guy named King expressed a vision in 1963 that human beings should be judged by the content of their character?
Forget Hillary the woman -- the white -- the age -- the democrat. Look at the content of her character. What I see are demonstrated qualities -- or lack thereof -- that truly disappoint and disgust me.
Why do the Repugs hate her? That's easy. Each political party is made up of frauds and dupes. The Republican frauds don't hate her. They are giving her record amounts of money, seeing her as more useful to the power structure than the buffoons running for the R nomination. The dupes hate her because the frauds have propagandized them into thinking she is the left wing boogey woman.
She is the perfect right wing candidate. If she wins, she will do what they want. If she loses, another right wing nut job gets in and the get what they want.
So I have a question for you DDavid., If it's Hillary against, say, anyone except Ghouliani ( the current Democratic boogeyman) would you still maintain that we support her in spite of her Rethug ties and enabling?
And I thought I already reminded you that the Supreme Court you currently have, can be blamed equally on the Democrats who rolled over and played dead after both the 2000 and 2004 elections, and the senators who knowing that ALito for sure, and even Roberts were not moderate jurists, refused to filibuster? Spare me the final act. The die has already been cast and it was with the eyes-wide-open complicity of Democrats.
Support them all you want, but please don't expect to convince anyone else here with the fear card, "IT COULD BE WORSE." Degrees at this point are rather meaningless.
to starofthesea,
Yes, if it's Hillary against anyone the Republicans manage to nominate, I will support her and hope for others to do likewise. And I base that feeling on the
statements which will be made in the respective party platforms.
I also think she, if nominated, will be attacked so violently that the attack will backfire and the single women of America will vote in record numbers and give her a big boost. Maybe even some of the married church women, too, who don't have to tell their husbands, pastors, bosses, brothers or fathers what they did at the secret ballot box. I don't know if we'll nominate Hillary, but if we do, I'm starting to expect an electoral surprise. As for character, I hear that women who actually meet her in the small group settings tend to like her more than they expected to going in.
starofthesea,
I am afraid that degrees at this point are not meaningless. Is the current USA distinguishable from Nazi Germany? I would have to answer "yes," wouldn't you? There are an infinite number of degrees of evil.
There are currently four fascists on the Supreme Court (Alito, Thomas, Scalia, Roberts) who support the idea of the "unitary executive," which is really a fancy way of saying that a president can declare himself/herself dictator. Then there is one conservative Republican, Kennedy, who will go along with the fascists on the ordinary political issues, but will stop short of throwing the Bill of Rights and the rest of the constitution in the rubbish.
With one more fascist on the Court, the whole game is over, and the means to organize and grow a third party (the Internet and street protests would be limited, while electronic surveillance and police powers would become unlimited) or even to resist may well be removed, even overnight. Giuliani, being an obvious fascist himself, is the most likely to name a fascist to an opening in the Court, and the most likely to get a Democratic Senate to approve one, as he could easily nominate a pro-choice, pro-gay rights fascist and the Democrats would cave.
And with Podhoretz as Giuliani's main foreign policy advisor, we know WWIII is a distinct possibility, not to mention the almost certain slaughter of millions of innocents.
I had a horrible feeling about all the damage Bush could inflict, both at the state and national levels, back in 1994 when he was first running for governor (I live in the Austin area), and I have an even worse feeling about Giuliani. I sincerely believe that he would make us all long for the days of dear old Dick and his addled charge.
When women finally assume seats of power all over the world, i wonder if they'll redesign nuclear missiles and if so, what shape those ICBM's will take?
Good Lord, you have a whole line of exemplary PM's in Norway to refer to. Why does everyone forget Norway. There women are truly equal as citizens. But even if one like Clinton were running for office in Norway, her equivocation, seeming lack of principal, and ties to the corporations and moneyed elite would probably sink her.
Hillary's far from being a lesbian...in fact, she said during the Human Rights Campaign debate on gay issues, with that big "I can do no wrong I have Wall Street in my pocket" smile on her face, to a panel of gays and lesbians, that she opposed gay marriage for personal reasons that she did not want to discuss. This is just indicative of the fact that many "1970's feminists" are not necessarily the progressive humans on the political scene.
Where is Virginia Woolf when we need her? She said the best minds are bi-sexual, that thinking (contrary to what Lawrence Summers of Harvard seemed to assume) is not a gendered activity. These arguments that jump off from assuming a certain gender will act or think a certain way are hackneyed. Judge candidates on their deeds, not their "essential identities."
Still, kivals, that doesn't answer my point about who is just as responsible, or maybe even more responsible for the composition of the Supreme Court. The Dems had a chance to take a stand against the fascist take over of the Supreme Court and what did they do? Nothing. And now I am to believe they've learned their lesson if we just give them one more chance? They could have filibustered Roberts and Alito, just as the remainng Rethugs will fillibustrer any "liberal" appontment. Remember "activist judges?" I have to assume that they knew what I knew following the confirmation hearings about those 2 idealogues. They rolled over. It's all a sham!
They don't give a flying f--k about we the people. Hey! Let's just suppose that they decided to stack the court to exactly the point it is now to keep us unruly (scared) progressives from bolting the party for the very reasons you state? Hey, my hypothesis has no less merit then their gutlessness, or their complicity? Do you actually think the Dems are above using " BE AFRAID...BE VERY AFRAID," any more than Rethugs? Fear works, let's face it. But not with me. Look to yourself for salvation---you'll have much more success than looking to it from the current rigged system. I'll take my chances with working for real change, and yes, I know I know, if the next rigged election hands us the like of Ghouliani, you can blame folks like me, instead of Ralph Nader. But god forbid you consider taking alittle blame yourselves because you are the righteous pragmatists who think you can hold back the slide toward fascist rule with a piece of scotch tape. Good luck with that!
I think if Hillary is nominated, my vote will be as irrelevant as ever before, because she will lose. It doesn't matter if she loses by 5 points or by 20, she still won't be the first female president. Too many people dislike her, including all republicans, many progressives, and tons of independents. Her 'base' is the portion of the Democratic party that dislikes progressives. The last two times that wing ran for president, it lost.
Sorry Marcel, that arguement doesn't work with me .... any lawyer worth their salt would have given that defense .. sounds like Hillary was doing the job she was hired to do ...
You have a line here ... in your own words
"when the label lesbian doesn't work, the "wingnuts" (your word) will holler "corruption" ... isn't that what you are doing??
vern ... get over it ... you have your OWN personal choice and you know it ... and you always let everyone else know it ... so don't bash others because they have theirs!!
so many constant sexist remarks at a supposed liberal/ progressive site ... you guys are so totally hypocritical!!
Daniel .... hang in!
"Meet the new boss... same as the old boss..." except that she's wearing a pearl necklace.
Progressives - vote your principles - fire the new boss with the pearl necklace before she has a chance to move in - vote Kucinich in the primaries, then if he loses the primaries, vote third party progressives in the general elections. Don't forget to do the same for Congress AND local elections.
Politics is ugly. If Senator Clinton wins the nomination, she can expect worse than she's getting now.
In the recent debate, Senator Clinton gave a very disingenuous answer to the question about the Clinton era White House Papers. She tried to be cute and hide behind the red tape at the Archives. That does not work. If she is to have any credibility with the American People, she needs to act fearlessly and forcefully to get those papers in the public record. Then she can say: "See, I have nothing to hide." Otherwisc she is just another obsfucating Washington Politican.
Keith Campbell
Denver
Kivals, you say at 4:20 PM that Giuliani would be the one most likely to get a Democratic Congress to confirm a fascist Supreme court nominee. Do you really think it would be at all difficult for any other possible Republican president?
ok,
so Daniel succumbed to temptation on this issue. can't expect too much change from him in 24 hours.
Does Nancy Pelosi often think about being President if Bush and Cheney are impeached? She's next in line.
Who would the Democrats choose between an incumbent President Pelosi and Clinton?
goeff29
Have tried unsuccessfully to get Daniel to address my contention that the Dems are, at the very least, equally responsible for the fascist slide on the Supreme Court and that there is no reason to believe that if it didn't matter to them when Alito and Roberts faced confirmation, why should any of us believe they will care in the future? And lest we forget, Rethugs have no aversion whatsoever to fillibuster as a means to prevent a Democratic president from appointing "liberal" judges, if he/she is prepared to. Remember the rallying cry? NO more activist judges???? So spare me the scare tactics. I'm not buying it. been there done that, and it just makes me madder than a hatter.
HRC's "kinder and gentler" fascism will still be fascism. Make no mistake the two party system is a smoke screen. If any one thinks that HRC will do anything to turn back the power garnered to the executive branch by BushCo they are sadly mistaken. Clinton will never get my vote!
Let them eat RAT, she said. Corporate shill, fascist enabler. Just say no to Hillary!
Even if she was naked boobs and vagina would not be the biggest concern I have with Hillary as President.
It is pretty clear that the media and big money are pushing the worst candidate forward in each party. The media must really hate their customers.
Actually, The go eat a rat part of the story I find kind of endearing.But I do not want a choice between Clinton(Bush Lite) and Giuliani,(Chaney heavy). the election is a year away and I feel its already being decided.
Carol Gilligan and others are correct that women are, in general, more affiliative and consensus-oriented, while men are more confrontational and dominating. However, women such as Hillary Clinton and Margaret Thatcher are the exceptions because they have climbed up through a male-dominated system and achieved power playing by men's rules. There are, of course, men who have a more stereotypically feminine style (unrelated to sexual orientation), too. If we had more representation of a broader range of women leaders, I have no doubt that we would all benefit--or perhaps all except war profiteers and militarists. But electing neocon hawk women does nothing to better our leadership.
OK, I see it now. I had been wondering where all this invective was coming from directed at Daniel David. Up until now, I found him to be slightly gullible and a little annoying, but now I understand. His post from 1:49pm made my teeth hurt.
Unlike some CD posters, I'll vote for a Dem if I like his positions. Kucinich is an example; Dean might've been one. Hell, I'd even go so far as to say I'd settle for Richardson if he became the nominee. But if Nader were in the race as a Green instead, that'd also be fine with me. I'd donate, volunteer, and vote with as much enthusiasm. I'm enthusiastic about the progressive movement GROWING in this country, whether within the Dem party, or in a 3rd party, or both.
But Hillary? Enthusiastic about her and all her progressive ideas?? What in the hell's wrong with you, DD? She IS Guliani... in a dress.
Face it, you're a tool.
I will never vote for Hillary Clinton..never!! never!! never!!!