Why Tom Hayden Makes Me Scream

posted by Katha Pollitt on 04/24/2008 @ 1:48pm

Email
Print
Share
- Buzzflash
- del.icio.us
- Digg
- Facebook
- Mixx it!
- Reddit
What is this?
Take Action
Comments (115)

Subscribe Now

I want to do my bit for Obama, so I vowed I would give up attacking Obama-supporting progressives for the duration of the presidential campaign. No circular firing squads for me! Believe me, it hasn't been easy, and now Tom Hayden's "Why Hillary Makes My Wife Scream" has pushed me over the edge. Who cares what Tom Hayden's wife, the peaceful organic Barbara, feels when she watches Hillary on TV? Hayden is employing an ancient literary-political device, in which a man wards off charges of sexism by citing the example of a woman: I'm not averse to votes for women, but my wife, sir, won't hear of it! Barbara is female -- so that makes it okay for Hayden quote her comparing Hillary Clinton to "a screech on the blackboard" and Lady Macbeth. Because those are certainly similes that have never been used before! And that have no misogynist connotations, as in a woman who seeks public power is shrill and strident, a would-be despot who'll stop at nothing to achieve her evil ends, and is just so darn unlikeable, too. So bitter! As for Clinton flack "that Kiki person" -- when Hayden makes fun of a woman's girly first name and finds her just too ridiculous even to have a last one, that is not at all like rightwingers mocking Lani --Lani! ha ha ha! -- Guinier back in the day.

By rummaging in the tired old grabbag of male-chauvinist cliches, Hayden undermines the point he eventually gets around to making: that Clinton's attacks on Obama for guilt-by-association with Rev. Wright and Bill Ayres are vile and low and will come back to haunt her should she win the nomination. Not only is she alienating Obama supporters she'll need for the general election, she's inviting attacks on herself for her own past connections with leftwing figures and causes. Hayden calls on progressives to "send a message" to Hillary to "immediately cease her path of destruction." (Cease her path?) Fair enough.

Well, here's my message to Tom Hayden: Cease your path! Every time you and your fellow progressives write your sexist/nasty/catty garbage about Hillary Clinton -- and every time the Nation publishes it, which is far too often -- you alienate women whose energy and votes you will need if Obama wins the nomination. When you start talking about "millions" of young voters and black voters refusing to work for Hillary because of her unfair attacks on Obama you invite "millions" of women to say, well, why should I work for a candidate whose prominent supporters call my candidate Lady Macbeth?

Be the one you've been waiting for, Tom person. A man who respects women or if that's too big a stretch, who pretends to, for strategic reasons, at least till the election is over.

Comments (115)

Posted by SRJENKINS 04/24/2008 @ 8:05pm

I see Ms Pollitt as being in a bit of a political if not philosophical dilemma.

For YEARS, she's probably waited for a female candidate with a good shot at the Presidency...and all the historocity and "image to young women" and "showing the US is moving closer to gender equality", etc.

And unfortunately ...it turned out to be Hillary. And it also turned out to be when ANOTHER "historic" candidate with a good shot at it was her main rival.

And of course he's 80% won it and she knows that Hillary's DLC roots make her a pariah with the male AND female liberals Ms Pollitt hangs with.

But she must still defend Hillary, if for the fact that NEXT time, these "sexist attacks" might be used against a female candidate that is both likeable and politically closer to the mark AND electable.

Posted by Mask at 04/24/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/24/2008 @ 8:05pm

I see Ms Pollitt as being in a bit of a political if not philosophical dilemma.

For YEARS, she's probably waited for a female candidate with a good shot at the Presidency...and all the historocity and "image to young women" and "showing the US is moving closer to gender equality", etc.

And unfortunately ...it turned out to be Hillary. And it also turned out to be when ANOTHER "historic" candidate with a good shot at it was her main rival.

And of course he's 80% won it and she knows that Hillary's DLC roots make her a pariah with the male AND female liberals Ms Pollitt hangs with.

But she must still defend Hillary, if for the fact that NEXT time, these "sexist attacks" might be used against a female candidate that is both likeable and politically closer to the mark AND electable.

Posted by Mask at 04/24/2008 @ 8:18pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/24/2008 @ 8:05pm

I see Ms Pollitt as being in a bit of a political if not philosophical dilemma.

For YEARS, she's probably waited for a female candidate with a good shot at the Presidency...and all the historocity and "image to young women" and "showing the US is moving closer to gender equality", etc.

And unfortunately ...it turned out to be Hillary. And it also turned out to be when ANOTHER "historic" candidate with a good shot at it was her main rival.

And of course he's 80% won it and she knows that Hillary's DLC roots make her a pariah with the male AND female liberals Ms Pollitt hangs with.

But she must still defend Hillary, if for the fact that NEXT time, these "sexist attacks" might be used against a female candidate that is both likeable and politically closer to the mark AND electable.

Posted by Mask at 04/24/2008 @ 8:20pm
Posted by SRJENKINS 04/24/2008 @ 8:05pm

I see Ms Pollitt as being in a bit of a political if not philosophical dilemma.

For YEARS, she's probably waited for a female candidate with a good shot at the Presidency...and all the historocity and "image to young women" and "showing the US is moving closer to gender equality", etc.

And unfortunately ...it turned out to be Hillary. And it also turned out to be when ANOTHER "historic" candidate with a good shot at it was her main rival.

And of course he's 80% won it and she knows that Hillary's DLC roots make her a pariah with the male AND female liberals Ms Pollitt hangs with.

But she must still defend Hillary, if for the fact that NEXT time, these "sexist attacks" might be used against a female candidate that is both likeable and politically closer to the mark AND electable.

Posted by Mask at 04/24/2008 @ 8:20pm
Sorry, new website forced a "quadruple".

Posted by Mask at 04/24/2008 @ 8:22pm
Katha, this time I'm with you, that's for sure:

Scraped hath the bottom of the barrel our dear Tommy

Whose banality shines so bright and pure

it has turned off my germainegreerian mommy.

Posted by chinpoko at 04/24/2008 @ 8:31pm
Katha, this time I'm with you, that's for sure:

Scraped hath the bottom of the barrel our dear Tommy

Whose banality shines so bright and pure

it has turned off my germainegreerian mommy.

Posted by chinpoko at 04/24/2008 @ 8:32pm
Thursday, April 24, 2008 9:15:47 PM

ground control, come in ground control........

html good-bye?

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2008 @ 9:12pm
<b><i>testing

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2008 @ 11:13pm
a

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/24/2008 @ 11:36pm
∞∞∞∞∞so that makes it okay for Hayden quote her comparing Hillary Clinton to "a screech on the blackboard" and Lady Macbeth.∞∞∞∞∞

comparing sen. clinton to falstaff seems rather odd.

after having listened to mr. bush's yaletwang for the last 8 years, i'd rather not have to listen to ms. clinton's chameleontwang.

i see your point about proxies, however.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 12:38am
∞∞∞∞and is just so darn unlikeable, too.∞∞∞∞

well.......

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 12:40am
∞∞∞∞A man who respects women or if that's too big a stretch, who pretends to, for strategic reasons, at least till the election is over.∞∞∞∞

perhaps it's too soon to accuse "tom" of not respecting women.

after all, ms. clinton is just one woman, not 3.02 billion.

her recent behaviour leaves her with fewer reasons for people to "respect" her.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 12:43am
Friday, April 25, 2008 12:48:02 AM

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 12:44am
K. Pollitt, Why the severe editing? Seems to me that this afternoon there were 25 or more posts, including mine. What happened?

Posted by Sorelish at 04/25/2008 @ 01:56am
---Hayden is employing an ancient literary-political device, in which a man wards off charges of sexism by citing the example of a woman: I'm not averse to votes for women, but my wife, sir, won't hear of it!---

Katha... this is might be an inflammatory and knee-jerkish take on what Hayden meant...

Hillary is not a woman first and a politician second as she runs for President... she is considered a rather opportunistic politician by many, and has been known to say one thing, say another, and then do some other thing entirely... rather regularly.

To many of us, these qualities do seem like fingernails on a chalkboard... when we are watching her in action... no sexism about it.

If we wish to change the way Washington does 'the people's bidding'... then electing a woman that uses 'traditionally considered' base tactics might just be 'putting the cart before the horse', so to speak.

Especially in light of the 'status quo' right now.

Posted by ttr at 04/25/2008 @ 02:43am
I don't know why there is always this defensive gender juxtaposition to any of the political commentaries on Hillary. I was tempted myself to support her about 7 or so months ago. Until after I found first Edwards more radical and finally Obama more compelling. It is a pity that Hillary has turned into this. Her advertising against Obama has converted her in a "de-facto Republican" because of her methods and scary tactics. One can tell with her it is all about the prize, not how we win it. The old "goals justify means", and if not why don't you ask her about Michigan and Florida.

I know one thing for sure, it is hard that a principled man be elected to the highest office, so it is 10 times harder when it is a woman. But not with Hillary now. Surely women deserve better representation.

Posted by Frank42 at 04/25/2008 @ 03:18am
Hayden is right- and so is his wife. If for no other reason than she has a right to have an opinion, and happily he does what many of us do- he shares that opinion with us, since his wife Barbara has not. To ascribe devious intent to Hayden for sharing his wife's opinion makes me wonder about your intent- which is unfortunate, since I admire a lot of what you write.

Posted by wazoo at 04/25/2008 @ 04:36am
Hayden is right- and so is his wife. If for no other reason than she has a right to have an opinion, and happily he does what many of us do- he shares that opinion with us, since his wife Barbara has not. To ascribe devious intent to Hayden for sharing his wife's opinion makes me wonder about your intent- which is unfortunate, since I admire a lot of what you write.

Posted by wazoo at 04/25/2008 @ 04:39am
HILLARY MAKES ME SCREAM - AND I AM A MAN!

I think Katha is being overly sensitive here. It could be entirely the case that Hillary DOES make his wife scream, and to simply describe this fact in a humorous way is not sexist.

Posted by Metteyya at 04/25/2008 @ 06:04am
Personally, I don't see why I should be excited about either of them. I just don't see anything progressive.

Posted by brianlundberg at 04/25/2008 @ 06:32am
I agree with Mrs. Hayden. Hillary is a pathological liar and mean to the core. I don't like Mrs. Clinton as a person, not because she is a woman. I also watched one of her idiotic surrogate, James Carville, take on Gov. .Richardson on the Larry King show. Have you ever watched Kiki McLean? That crew is arrogant , self serving and give off the sense of dynasty.

Posted by julien38 at 04/25/2008 @ 09:36am
Posted by Sorelish at 04/25/2008 | ignore this person

pollitt is infamous for deleting comments she does not like. makes it kind of useless to post here if there is any chance your opinion is offensive it seems. which is why i avoid posting here almost exclusively. yeah! the tyranny of political correctness.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2008 @ 10:10am
Posted by Sorelish at 04/25/2008 | ignore this person

pollitt is infamous for deleting comments she does not like. makes it kind of useless to post here if there is any chance your opinion is offensive it seems. which is why i avoid posting here almost exclusively. yeah! the tyranny of political correctness.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2008 @ 10:10am
Clicked on Joan Connell's "Things Have Changed" (for the worse as many here have said)...then went down to the bottem and clicked on "More" about Ms Connell...and got this-

System error

error: Can't use string ("2062") as an ARRAY ref while "strict refs" in use at /web/nation/dev/common/htdocs/funcs/getDocsBy.imhtml line 17, <FILE> line 53.

context: ... 13: 14: $people_ids = [ map { $_->getId() } @$people ] if ! $people_ids && ref $people; 15: return if ! $people_ids; 16: 17: my $key = join ':', @$people_ids; 18: my( $result, $cached ) = $m->cache_self( expire_in => '10 min', key=>$key ); 19: return $result if $cached; 20: 21: my $docs = $api->getDocsByAttr_typeAttr_id('bylid', $people_ids, {order=>'start DESC'}); ...

code stack: /web/nation/dev/common/htdocs/funcs/getDocsBy.imhtml:17 /web/nation/dev/prod/htdocs/directory/bios/include/getBio.mhtml:97 /web/nation/dev/prod/htdocs/directory/bios/dhandler:46

raw error

Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008 @ 11:59am
Needless to say...doesn't inspire confidence!

heheh

Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008 @ 12:01pm
Posted by Freiheit at 04/25/2008 | ignore this person

no duh einstein! really?

but she has. perhaps this time its website related though.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2008 @ 12:04pm
Jesus, whose idea was this?

I know people have a natural tendency to resist the new for a while-so wait till next Tuesday and read this again.

Posted by CHIP THORNTON at 04/25/2008 @ 12:43pm
The Nation upgraded their Website interface you dorks.

Posted by Freiheit at 04/25/2008

it did?

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 12:54pm
raw error

Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008

i got the same thing on EVERY blog last night.

<i>raw error.........the sordid tale of a geek and his mouse

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 12:56pm
Friday, April 25, 2008 1:00:21 PM

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 12:56pm
i like my errors medium well done - on the medium side...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2008 @ 1:24pm
Anybody else getting that "Login" TWICE, then you get stuck on the Subscribe page with no means of escape except a total dump-out of IE?

Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008 @ 1:41pm
dump-out of IE?

Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008

huh?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2008 @ 1:45pm
Voltaire must be smiling in his grave.

Posted by Sorelish at 04/25/2008 @ 2:08pm
Mask

that's the OLD subscribe page.

yep, same deal. try to login and ¡¡¡¡kafka-mo!!!!

Friday, April 25, 2008 2:21:58 PM

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/25/2008 @ 2:18pm
Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2008

It keeps taking me back to the a subscribe to the magazine page. Even if I type in a new http....snaps back to it.

Sooooo, I have "X" out Internet Explorer and start from scratch.

Really buggy.

Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008 @ 2:29pm
This column by Katha, unfortunately, sounds a bit like badly squeaking brakes.

But even more disconcerting is the new web page format.

Too much info stuffed onto the page with crappy small fonts (even on my 20 inch flat screen), clunky and hesitant navigation, shitty little blog typing window that makes me feel like I'm looking through a keyhole to see what I've just typed, no functioning preview window that displays the text in a comfortably readable window etc....

I'm just thankful it's only a website and not a nuclear power plant we're talking about.

P.S. Katha, I realize that we all possess our blind spots (African American's widespread belief in OJ's innocence is but one memorable example), but jeezuz, Hillary has so long ago crossed the Rubicon of decency that it rather befuddles me that she can find any defenders who aren't whacked out of their minds themselves in some similar fashion.

Et tu, Katha?

Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2008 @ 2:33pm
Oh please. This gets tiresome.

Don't know why Tom Hayden is somehow behaving any worse than Gloria Steinem, Geraldine Ferraro or Pat Schroeder, who applauded Hillary Clinton as "our warrior" which I suspect is not only about her tenacity but also her willingness to obliterate Iran, not to be outdone by the machismo of McCain or any male.

Somehow I really doubt what Tom Hayden writes in The Nation has much influence on how women in PA or OH or anywhere else will vote.

If there is a criticism to be made of the Hayden article is that it would be more straight forward if he spoke for himself instead of warning Clinton of the possible disaffection of the young or African Americans.

I do not support Hillary Clinton. My wife does not support Hillary Clinton. But it is true that it was my wife who first turned against Senator Clinton because of her macho belligerence. She feels the way she does because she is tired of all this war talk whether from a male or female, and rejects a woman has to speak in this way to be politically competitive.

Charlie M.

Posted by cmsandia at 04/25/2008 @ 2:41pm
once again, thanks katha! i know we are both voting for barack. but i get real irritated as well, with the sexist attacks against hillary. there is plenty of legitimate criticism. why must so many of them constantly echo old cliche stereotypes?

Posted by loveloki at 04/25/2008 @ 3:01pm
i agree with the others here in that i liked the old system better.

Posted by loveloki at 04/25/2008 @ 3:02pm
Posted by loveloki at 04/25/2008 | i meant the old web design, not the old system of bashing women with some stupid male fantasy of what women are.

Posted by loveloki at 04/25/2008 @ 3:08pm
Posted by loveloki at 04/25/2008 |

As conservatives need to learn that "just because something's old (or traditional) doesn't make it good"....

liberals (including liberal web designers) might need to learn that "just because something's NEW doesn't mean it's BETTER!"

Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008 @ 3:09pm
Hey, an endorsement from Mark Canyon!

That ought to make Katha's day.

:-)

~I agree with LoveLoki that there are plenty of legitimate criticisms of Hillary without resorting to sexist hand grenades, but I believe that the more glaring problem at informed sites like The Nation is the knee-jerk reaction to any writing that is perceived to contain even the tiniest scintilla of sexism.

Hillary has proven herself to be a grotesque human being regardless of her gender. Do we have to substitute "Bill" everytime we refer to "Hill" to elicit an appropriate level of revulsion among the feminists?

Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/25/2008 @ 3:16pm
i agree with the others here in that i liked the old system better.

Posted by loveloki at 04/25/2008

Where's your progressive spirit?

Posted by ACook at 04/25/2008 @ 4:01pm
Posted by ACook at 04/25/2008

If it ain't broke, don't fix it...

If it's terribly broken, don't elect the guy promising you "4 more years" of the same!

Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008 @ 4:11pm
Posted by Mask at 04/25/2008 Once again. An answer please!A suggestion?

Posted by Sorelish at 04/25/2008 @ 9:35pm
you just cant speak with a hard core activist feminist unless you assidiously follow her rules of speech. it almost invariably turns gutwrenchingly unpleasant whether you dare disobey her speech rules or whether you spend the entire conversation tiptoeing through the PC speech minefield. generally a no win situation for anyone with their own opinion and a shred of dignity.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2008 @ 9:41pm
I've spilled. And I'll spill again. Thank you, Katha, for saving me from myself.

Posted by Sorelish at 04/25/2008 @ 9:45pm
i tell ya...its not just awful chauvinist males who don't respect the rules of the way too easily insulted feminist (or any other type) who insists upon others following her prickly rules of speech.

its truly obnoxious, self grasping, and not likely to garner respect from those not easily insulted.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/25/2008 @ 10:00pm
" i meant the old web design, not the old system of bashing women with some stupid male fantasy of what women are."

Posted by loveloki at 04/25/2008

Clarification, just in time. I was just about to agree with you.

Posted by Malcontent at 04/25/2008 @ 11:36pm
very funny eric.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:35am
hi acook. glad to see you're still posting.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:43am
Hey, an endorsement from Mark Canyon!

~bkool.

yeah, what's up with that? civilish on the other thread, too.

have you decided to come back to earth mr. canyon?

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 12:53am
loki!!!

i thought i'd never find you in this fog!

thank god you're o.k.

Saturday, April 26, 2008 12:58:09 AM

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 12:54am
i find it just as reprehensible when people like frankgrits and others reach into the old grab bag of racist stereotypes and use them against barack. people should be called on this behavior every single time they do it.

we should give it up.

it's so cute when white guys complain about people trying to eradicate the bullshit stereotypes created by the white guys as tools of oppression. it's even cuter when they threaten to not "respect" people who insist on eradicating these stupid stereotypes.

"hey barack, i'll work for your campaign but if you don't allow me to refer to you as a watermelon lovin magic boy....well, you're self graspin and obnoxious boy, and i won't respect ya no more....hear me boy?"

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:57am
hey frosty! good to see ya posting away still.

:)

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:58am
ooh,

soon the watermelon.......

soon....

ooh.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 01:09am
sorry, nationeers if i'm not more "serious".

new blob format confuses.....

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 01:10am
if you think about it,

¿how many people know who tom hayden is?

anybody who does know already has their political mind made up and NO argument will shake the firmness of their "choice".

here, let's judge ms. clinton's voice on its own merits:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfZ_gXCHaMw&fmt=18&fmt=18

Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:23:19 AM

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 01:19am
very funny frosty. the shrill screeching reminded me of a cackling witch. and there was not a drop of rational ability in that voice. all i heard was someone ruled by her emotions--in need of logical male guidance just to get the poor little thing through the day.

frosty, you do remember that katha said she is voting for barack, don't you?

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 01:28am
oh and let's not forget the castrating undertones.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 01:30am
stereotypes created by the white guys as tools of oppression. it's even cuter when they threaten to not "respect" people who insist on eradicating these stupid stereotypes.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

yeah...never hear black guys referring to women as bitches...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 01:41am
or ho's

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 01:41am
loveloki:

it's not that she's a woman.

it's that she has an irritating voice. sorry, but it's not pleasant.

many men have unpleasant voices, too.

ms. clinton is very smart.

but she lies. she's set herself up karmically for the onslaught she receives.

goes around, comes aroundish stuff. you go low, it comes around low.

sure some people attack her because she's a woman. but i think those people are far fewer than those who criticize her because she's nasty.

Saturday, April 26, 2008 1:52:52 AM

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 01:49am
loki,

don't you realize how long i've had to listen to bad presidents talking about invading somewhere or other, all with really annoying voices?

at least obama will sound good when he declares war on micronesia or bhutan.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 01:54am
There's definitely some compulsive urge that makes both Hillary and hubby soil their underwear by public utterance of sheer idiotic lies with nothing to gain and a lot to loose. Think about Billy boy's "I didn't inhale" or the "I didn't have sex with that woman" dungballs.

And her advisors are real dumb: no voter expects a president to pull General Patton stunts.

Posted by chinpoko at 04/26/2008 @ 03:39am
From Pat Robertson...

--On the big issues of 2008 -- amnesty, the hemorrhaging of American jobs, Iraq -- McCain is on the same side as George Bush, whose approval rating is 28 percent. McCain can be defeated on those issues.

But if, with a little help from Hillary, McCain can paint Barack indelibly as a man of the trendy and radical left, he can win. America will have nowhere else to go.

Journalists disagree on whether immigration, Iraq or the economy will be the major issue in 2008. The real issue may be -- and this is what is causing heart palpitations among Democrats -- is Barack Obama one of us, or is he one of them?--

Posted by ttr at 04/26/2008 @ 03:56am
Hey loki, ibbs, and fz.

I enjoyed the tragically bad anthem by the croaking "Lady MacBeth". Speaking of croaking, it'd sure be swell if something sticky and deeply damaging would show up soon on Youtube that would finally pull the plug on Hillary's hopes --although when it comes to the Clintons, "sticky" might not be the best adjective.

By the way, the Bob Herbert column in today's NY Times, "Heading Toward the Danger Zone", looks like a pretty accurate description of the current situation.

Although I think Herbert, unfortunately, does a disservice by not explaining the context of Jeremiah Wright's inflammatory sound-bites, or even make mention of the excellent Moyers interview (even if it was perhaps aired too close to his deadline to allow for significant comment), he should have at least attempted to enlighten the Times readership to a larger framework for Wright's preaching style, and to the readily apparent humanity of Wright himself.

Even so, the key point is a good one: Obama needs to express himself loudly and clearly on what has become the central issue of the campaign --the economy.

Herbert:

He should be pounding that message home with a jackhammer. Give the voters an economic program to wrap their arms around. Let them know: "I'm for you! And this is what we're going to do!"

~In the end I still think Obama manages to pull out a win in November, but his now exposed weakness is the reason that so many of us here at The Nation favored John Edwards over Obama in the first place.

Namely: Where's the f@#&ing fire?!

It might serve him well to take a page from his pastor and deliver his economic message from a lower and deeper abdominal area.

The gut I mean.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/26/2008 @ 04:27am
Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

sup!?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 07:53am
Fine heres th efacts why this White, 'middle Class' college educated 44 yr old Female will NOT support Hillary in the General. first '35 yrs of experience' -being of sound mind an dDeductive reasoning- i would never use the last 35 yrs as proof I could do the Job (unless I was applying to Cheney & Co). Being from MI- the Rust Belts Buckle, We ahve been circling th eDrain for the last 3 decades- never recovered from the '70's. Women still are fighting for equal pay- maybe a 2 cnet raise from the '70's. Roe V Wade is back on the ropes, Our Unions members have been kneecapped by Corps & psuedo union & political 'leaders' , we've gone from Pollution to Global Warming, Buying Oil for the ME instead of using the innovation which began after th efirst Oil crisis (but buried by Oil & auto Industry)....Now should I get into the last 6 yrs of our rights Freedoms, economy, blood & treaures that have been Usurped. Now tell me Hillary has Anything to brag about with her 35 yrs of experience, add to that her ineffectual work in the Senate (even with the majority since '06) and the evidential lack of Oversight she faile dto provide on the Armed Services. Now add her comments about "obliterating Iran , using Nukes to Defend not only isreal( who has their own & a great military) But ALSO the saudi's & the UAE??? What kind of Dem is that? Please don't pertpetuate that fallacy that there have ever been 'Reagan Democrats' I've lived to long and been one, with a clear memeory of how much We Hated and Feared Ronny's Admin Too. This Propped up female has not only infiltrated & destroyed th eDem party,and th eNation- she ahs undermined REAL female values. I've seen her 'Resume' I've seen her at work- I wouldn't hire her to clean up my dogs crap-she's just throw it on my neighbors lawn! Iknow Her and her mentor cheney all to well! And Yes she could remain in the Kitchen- just NOT the Nations! The DNC should kick her out- she's been a covert operative for Decades! SEXISM is when you hire someone JUST BECAUSE OF THEIR REPRODUCTIVE PACKAGE TOO! She is the Worst candidate for the Democratic Nomintion- Might as well just give it to the latest senile Puppet Cheney &Co have Propped up on th eRepub side- Two sides to the same coin.And Yes she makes me Scream! Same goes for those who refuse to really look at her record and review what has Truely transpired over the last '35 yrs' !

Posted by Purple girl at 04/26/2008 @ 09:29am
Posted by Purple girl at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

hell yeah!

i'd love to see a woman get the top job - just not that one. lord help us - not that one!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 09:39am
"I'd love to see a woman get the top job - just not that one." This is the kiss of death, that will be repeated again and again for whatever woman happens to come up to bat. Until this is recognized, no change will truly take place. For the 'woman' that will take the top job has to be 'perfect', like no man has ever been asked to be. I think it was Françoise Giroud who wrote, 'Women will be equal to men the day they can be mediocre too.' Françoise Who, you ask? Yes, I know I'm showing my age... We need someone to help us deconstruct sexism to see how deeply ingrained it is, not only among men, but worse among women... What a pity.

Posted by claraba at 04/26/2008 @ 10:45am
For the 'woman' that will take the top job has to be 'perfect', like no man has ever been asked to be

Posted by claraba at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

the same might be said of a non white such as mr. obama.

my opposition to ms. clinton has to do with the fact that i think she is worse than mediocre and obama is better than mediocre.

i hold that pandering spineless liar personally responsible for the needless deaths and suffering of all involved in the iraq campaign, for enabling the neocons to draw us ever closer to fascism. i don't like her associates, i don't like her, and i don'[t trust her farther than i could throw her. i think she is almost as much of a menace to our country as the repugnants.

i do not oppose her because she is a woman - i oppose her because she is SUB-MEDIOCRE in management, character, and i suspect she is secretly no different than any republican.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 11:59am
For the 'woman' that will take the top job has to be 'perfect', like no man has ever been asked to be

Posted by claraba at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

the same might be said of a non white such as mr. obama.

my opposition to ms. clinton has to do with the fact that i think she is worse than mediocre and obama is better than mediocre.

i hold that pandering spineless liar personally responsible for the needless deaths and suffering of all involved in the iraq campaign, for enabling the neocons to draw us ever closer to fascism. i don't like her associates, i don't like her, and i don'[t trust her farther than i could throw her. i think she is almost as much of a menace to our country as the repugnants.

i do not oppose her because she is a woman - i oppose her because she is SUB-MEDIOCRE in management, character, and i suspect she is secretly no different than any republican.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 12:00pm
oops - double trouble...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 12:01pm
claraba at 04/26/2008...

--This is the kiss of death, that will be repeated again and again for whatever woman happens to come up to bat.--

I would have been likely to agree with you for most of the last 35 years... that is... until the last few years...

I would agree with you now... if Hillary had ever stood up to the 'status quo' when it wasn't an 'abundantly clear' political expedient.

It's the 'Dynasty' thing... 'business as usual'... lowball tactics for the hidden agenda... still the wife of a man who 'really got around' and chuckled about it while lying under oath... it's the old connections, decent and not so decent... it's the 'same ol' same ol' with a woman's face...

The US is no stranger to the notion of... "Throw the buggers out... we need a fresh deal"...

...and this little morsel of America's traditional political feast sounds SO palatable and yummy right now!

Posted by ttr at 04/26/2008 @ 12:04pm
ibble, just because women and men of all colors use the stereotypes against others does not change the origins of these stereotypes. i'm surprised you didn't think of that before you clicked submit.

and i don't think it's too secret anymore that hillary is a republican. Penn is a union buster and is pushing through horrid free trade deals as we type. in addition, last time i checked opensecrets she was getting more money from mic than anyone else--also from insurance and pharmaceuticals. i've watched her use all sorts of rovian tricks during this campaign.

see, all of those criticisms and not a word about her being a screeching ball buster. i've seen way too much of this sort of criticism from every corner except barack's. it really gets old. it wouldn't fly if it were the same type of overt stereotypes being used against barack. we need more kathas in the world.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:18pm
Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

i'm being polite for pollitt...(and you too, dear)...heck - i'm almost being chivalrous...lol...

i think if you check my response to claraba as well as my earlier posts you will be hard pressed to find anything that could be construed as chauvinist heresy - in terms of language, terminology, etc....

i still think the american woman's worst enemy is no man at all but her own sisters and herself. i have seldom been more sickened than when ms. clinton pulled that boo hoo episode on national television then hid behind her gender when criticized for it.

hmmm...wonder how far that sort of pathos will play out on the world stage?

honestly i think the woman is mentally unstable.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 12:35pm
hey b kool. when barack was here, he spoke specifically about the economy and his ideas and plans to rescue it. i was impressed. he also says what people do not want to hear. for example, he tells people that certain jobs will not return. i think it's great that he is honest even when the truth is tough to hear.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:42pm
the crying incident pissed me off too. lots of male politicians have cried. h.w. is a regular bawl baby. reagan was too. it was endearing when they did it. but when hillary did it, all of a sudden her ability to lead was called into question. grrrrr.

and ibble, i've noticed that for a long time now you've avoided using sexual stereotypes against hillary. i'm sure that's a great source of irritation for you. but thank you anyway.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:47pm
honestly i would love to see an obama attack add with a montage of tough, evil world leaders then fade to a clip of ms. clinton crying after losing that primary.

but he's probably too good for that. thats really my only serious concern about obama himself - that he might be TOO good.

sometimes a little evil is a very good thing and indeed sometimes one must become a monster to slay one.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 12:50pm
no man at all, ibble? you gotta be kidding! there are lots of men and women who work against women.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:52pm
that's a great source of irritation for you. but thank you anyway.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

its one thing to shed a few tears over the death or suffering of others, but to do so because one lost a primary is inexcusable. would maggie thatcher do that? not that i agreed with thatcher's policies, but one day we will have our iron lady as well and she will be elected president.

ms. clinton is a straw lady...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 12:53pm
no man at all, ibble? you gotta be kidding! there are lots of men and women who work against women.

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

reread what i wrote more carefully. "i still think the american woman's worst enemy is no man at all but her own sisters and herself."

i don't see how that could be honestly construed as "no man at all".

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 12:56pm
i'm sure you would love to see that montage, ibble, way too much. perhaps crave to see it would be a more accurate description. what about the same montage of reagan with his plethora of bawl baby moments? how effective would that have been?

Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 @ 12:58pm
oops...oh - i see where you are coming from - i actually did say that! lol...

but i did not intend to give the impression that i find no male responsibility - rather that i don't believe such is the primary cause of american women's woes.

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 1:01pm
Posted by loveloki at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

never been a big reagan fan. did he ever boohoo publicly for losing an election?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 1:03pm
hey - remember that MALE judge who got ridiculed for boohooing publicly over the anna nicole on ice follies? were people making fun of him being sexist?

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 1:08pm
Thanks for bringing up Lani, a woman who the Clinton's dissed when convenient for their politics. Senator Obama has tons of support from women, if you consider black women and young women as "women". I do.

Not all women support Senator Clinton, unless your view is monolithic. You need to say white women, especially those over 45. Obama is doing great with black women, and well with young women.

Thanks for the reminder of an old fissure in the feminist movement: racism. Reminder: African American women are as much "women" as white women.

Posted by twotimes at 04/26/2008 @ 1:14pm
Posted by twotimes at 04/26/2008 | ignore this person

thats a great point. hillary's supposed monolithic female support is indeed no such thing. thank god for young and black women!

(lol)...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/26/2008 @ 1:24pm
Posted by claraba at 04/26/2008

nonsense.

ibbs is right.

just not this lying woman....

no one expects perfection, just a little more integrity.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 2:35pm
and remember,

when you submit and it sends you back to the blog page,

just go back one page and refresh...

2:40 pm

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/26/2008 @ 2:37pm
loki,

in regards to katha, it's pretty obvious that she's a highly intelligent and insightful woman, and she has written many a brilliant column over the years (and for the nation since '94). she is an ardent and able defender and expositor on two broad fronts that i care about, feminism and atheism. in fact, my first introduction to katha was in the excellent free thought magazine, "free inquiry", in the early 90's.

it can hardly be emphasized enough how important it is for a purportedly advanced democratic society to be continually challenged on its assumptions, and that is what katha has taken it upon herself to do. i laud her for her efforts.

that said, there's this one little thing that i must also divulge. katha has, rightly i think, criticized maureen dowd for her vixen-like self portrayal which does no great service to feminist ideals, yet the interesting thing to me is the similarity of their styles: cute (sometimes a bit too cute) turns or twists of phrase that point out ironies, but also draw attention to the writer as if to say, "wasn't that devilishly smart on my part?!"

in the greater sense it's really a minor criticism. it's a bit like a fairly large and conspicuous zit on the nose of your interlocutor. it becomes a distraction that is often frustratingly difficult to ignore, try as you might.

the line between "too cute" and "just cute enough" without being distracting is a fine one, but an excellent example is to be found here at the nation.

barbara ehrenreich is a fantastic conjurer of magical metaphors that ring musically without clanging of the author's brilliance. (by "conjure" and "magic" i by no means imply witchcraft :- )

in the final analysis, i cherish whenever anyone can effectively point out some of the larger mis-perceptions that plague us. i liken our social blindness to those fascinating visual perception tests where we swear to see what isn't there --the two fields of the same shade of grey separated by a black bar, and bordered outside by different shades of borders that have us swearing that one of the greys is greyer than the other.

katha is one of those who helps us to see the shades a bit more faithfully, and that's a faith i can buy into.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/26/2008 @ 3:17pm
here's a katha column i really dig:

"Freedom from Religion, Si!" -from Sept. 2000

www.thenation.com/doc/20000918/pollitt

~it's a shame we can't turn back the clock to the pre-dubya days. although, perhaps, we humans find it necessary to experience the pain and torture of being led by idiots to goad us into appropriate action against it.

"have we had enough?" is the question.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 04/26/2008 @ 4:08pm
Have we had enough? -- b_kool_66 at 04/26/2008 ...

It's not whether we've had enough already... It's clear to the far right... even...;^)

Sometimes it's nice to make a clean break... and now that we've been through the Bush years... and we've gotten a little more perspective on the Clinton years... Here is our golden opportunity.

The problem as I see it... is that MOST of us have seriously forgotten how to think for ourselves on the issues... and we tend to 'react' WAY more than we act... and we've grown more or less complacent with our 'who can change things anymore' cynicism, which is 'code' for 'loss of spirit,' and 'loss of pride'... and most of all, we've accepted all the rigmarole that makes every last issue a fight... as if cooperation, diplomacy and compromise... are the tools of Lucifer.

They are not.

Enjoy the journey, and wake up in a good mood... it's time we all did!

Posted by ttr at 04/26/2008 @ 7:34pm
Posted by ttr at 04/26/2008 ditto

Posted by Sorelish at 04/26/2008 @ 8:22pm
After the right wing assault of the last several years I'll be happy to have someone elected who cares about PRESERVATION of some the aspects of our daily life, like social security & medicare. Anything else is just gravy. Just don't mention McCane, please. Or perhaps Hillary.

Posted by Sorelish at 04/26/2008 @ 8:31pm
Who the hell is Tom Hayden.

Posted by nowickedwitch at 04/26/2008 @ 10:25pm
Some of us who are feminists to the core also want to scream at what Hillary's conduct. While I somehow get that perhaps Mr. Hayden's approach might have elicit some a response of sexist imagery, his main point is nonetheless on the Mark. I am also, so tired of hearing 'blacks' and 'women'. There are blacks who are women who are totally turned off by Hillary and her surrogates' race baiting of Obama. So, dear Ms. Pollit you too may have to examine your racial slip. The term 'Women' does not stand for 'white woman' only.

Posted by Tedegsa at 04/27/2008 @ 12:18am
B_COOL_66 is right on the mark. It's the problem that afflicts many progressives and it's sometimes sickning.

Posted by Tedegsa at 04/27/2008 @ 12:27am
nicely written, bkool.

Posted by frosty zoom at 04/27/2008 @ 01:03am
hillary clinton, a former goldwater girl, is a member of the bizarre fundamentalist cult of the powerful known as "the family".

hillary clinton is buddies with that goddamned aussie fascist, the satano-aynrando private sector goebbels of our time, rupert murdoch.

hillary clinton ignorantly and/or cowardly voted to send our country into the meatgrinder of iraq and did not even have the courage to, like john edwards, admit she was wrong...

hillary clinton approved the USAPATRIOT act, the neo-con's legislative/law enforcement step one on the path t their fascist/corporate version of america...

prior to her realization that she was not the unstoppable colossal heir apparent she consistantly delivered speeches that blatenetly contradicted each otheer to different groups to which she spoke in the worst tradition of old style "tell the idiots what they want to hear" insultingness...

her dismissive, sickening, patronizing (matronizing?) attitude when she was sure of her victory was turning off many long before a real challenger showed up...

then barack obama showed up preaching the high heresy of hope and speaking to people like they werent idiots, preaching hope at the same time as he reminded of unpleasant realities...

then ms. clinton, under pressure, began to really show her uglier side.

her campaign has consistently shown itself to be a mismanaged train wreck, bringing into question what the nature of her presidency would be...

she has been caught now multiple times exagerating and lying about her accomplishments and her opponant's...

she has run a campaign every bit as dirty and negative as any republican...

she has shown mental instability by her poorly thought out lies and crying because HER CAREER was endangered...

she has race baited mr. obama while at the same time hypocritically hid behind her gender when her multiple personality, character, and management shortcomings were pointed out...

and she has shown blatent disregard for the good of her party and country by remaining in the race this long and joining the repugnants in tearing down a decent and talented candidate, obama, who has won the popular and delegate lead and by rights of democratric process (not dynastic "its my turnism") earned the democratic nomination...

in the 90's i stauchly defended that woman against the evil, misogynist witch hunt attacks of the right, but you know...

whatever the truth about her was before - i think they got to her and broke her, because i see nothing more than a wolf in sheeps clothing since her senatorial election, a closet lieberman more concerned with self aggrandizement than the welfare of her party or country - an amoral opportunist and quite frankly a substandard manager and analyst of situations...

by the time these closet fascist bastards are forced out of office in early 09, this country will have seen 20 YEARS OF CONSECUTIVE RULE BY TWO FAMILIES WHOS FORTUNES WERE MADE AS A DIRECT RESULT OF THEIR HOLDONG POLITICAL OFFICE.

18 - 20 YEAR OLDS VOTING TODAY HAVE LIVED UNDER THE RULE OF THESE TWO FAMILIES THEIR WHOLE LIVES AND I DAMN SURE DONT WANT TO WAKE UP FOUR/EIGHT YEARS DOWN THE LINE TO THE REALIZATION THAT 24 - 28 YEAR OLDS HAVE KNOWN NOTHING BUT THE RULE OF TWO POWERFUL FAMILIES THEIR ENTIRE LIVES!

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2008 @ 05:54am
My goodness, Ibsle... that's quite a rant. You made a lot of poignant points...

- - -hillary clinton is buddies with that goddamned aussie fascist, the satano-aynrando private sector goebbels of our time, rupert murdoch.- - -

You mean Gail? Gail Wynand...?

He's not exactly Ayn's fave...;^)

Posted by ttr at 04/27/2008 @ 1:14pm
b kool, great post. i like barbara too. and she's from butte.

:)

ibble, excellent rant. i doubt they broke her. i think she was always what she is now. look at what she did with her law degree in comparison with barack.

it's not just young women and black women voting for barack. i know lots of older white women voting for barack.

Posted by loveloki at 04/27/2008 @ 1:38pm
Hillary. About your comments today on the popular vote. Your statement on counting Michigan is all I need to know. Your true colors are showing. Wasn't the Super Tuesday fraud enough for you?

Posted by Sorelish at 04/27/2008 @ 1:39pm
Posted by ttr at 04/27/2008

Posted by loveloki at 04/27/2008

i love a good rant first thing in the morning! lol...

just trying to make it perfectly clear my dislike for hrc has nothing to do with her gender...

glad to see yer not PO'd with me anymore, love...

Posted by ibbleblibble at 04/27/2008 @ 1:47pm
ibble, right when i saw the teary eyed moment, i felt it was orchestrated. after meeting bill and hill, i'm convinced i was right. what bothered me was not the welled eyes, (i didn't care either way), but the loud reaction from so many quarters: "see a woman just ain't tough enough to be president!" b kool and i discussed it at length right here on katha's blog at the time it occurred.

and you're right. i'm not po'd anymore. we always seem to go round like that, for years now.

:)

Posted by loveloki at 04/27/2008 @ 4:35pm
There's an article in the Root this week that talks about the way that both candidates relate to the sixties and seems to agree with a lot of what Hayden says:

http://www.theroot.com/id/46012

Posted by Florida at 04/27/2008 @ 7:45pm
Right on Katha. I couldn't agree more. One recent article by the editors asked to "what lengths Hillary will go to destroy Obama?". I ask myself a similar question almost on a daily basis, only "to what lengths will the Nation go to destroy Hillary." Their thinly veiled attempt to discredit and undermine Hillary's 35 years of service on behalf of progressive causes does great insult to their supposed relevance to today's progressive movement.

Can we stop the insanity already? Hillary is leading in the popular vote, superdelegates, and battelground states. Barack leads in number of states and pledged delegates. This race is not over. Stop pretending like it is.

Posted by Josh_M at 04/28/2008 @ 9:36pm
Yo, H.T.O.T.D. or Josh-M

"to discredit and undermine Hillary's 35 years of service on behalf of progressive causes does great insult to their supposed relevance to today's progressive movement."

Care to elaborate on these 35 years of progressive service?

Eric

Posted by Malcontent at 04/28/2008 @ 10:07pm
Poor Pollitt--just can't shake that elitist feminist indignation.

Sorry, Ms Katha, female here, and I despise Ms Clinton from the tips of her frosted hair to the blue-tinted contacts. That would make me a raving sexist in your estimation, although it is perfectly fine to peer down your nose at an organic woman.

Understand this, I am a woman too, and you don't speak for me, you don't represent my interests in your transparent rallying around your girl who of late has addopted a blue collar, working class swagger and macho bravado about obliterating contries. Ultimately, what it comes down to Ms Pollitt, is despite all the hypocrisy and phoniness, ultimately you will never be called a traitor to your sisterhood class while the rest of us might be screaming at Clinton on the TV. She is not alone in yelling at the TV. That is the point--It is not gender, rather the sleazy character of the person regardless of the gender--and it is supremely offensive that due to her gender, some women are stupid enough, guillible enough to not see past it and are easily exploited.

Posted by Lil at 04/29/2008 @ 09:24am
Eric,

your dismissal of substantive posts by characterizing Hillary supporters as "trolls" is typical of a response on a forum, that, like its sponsoring magazine, has become a trite, reactionary propaganda machine. Nevertheless, for a brief overview of some of Hillary's accomplishments, I invite you to navigate to hillaryclinton.com

Posted by Josh_M at 04/30/2008 @ 02:04am
KP offers no reason whatsoever to think that TH was employing a "device," and not simply reporting the fact of his wife's disdain of HRC.

As for the language TH used, Pollitt is right. He shouldn't have said "screech," "blackboard," "Lady Macbeth, " or "Kiki- person." But this column seems overkill for those sins.

Posted by oisin at 04/30/2008 @ 6:58pm
Substantive posts?

My dismissal?

Perhaps you mean your dismissive reference to hillary's website, in lieu of answering my question about your less than substantive post about 35 years of "progressive" reform.

Posted by Malcontent at 04/30/2008 @ 9:35pm