Democrats & Liberals Archives

Erica Jong Accidentally Endorses Obama

This pro-Clinton op-ed piece by Erica “Zipless F__k” Jong is probably the least convincing endorsement I have ever read. In fact, it is a great argument for Obama.

I urge everyone to read it in full, but I will just hit the highlights, or rather the lowlights.

Nothing [Clinton] did was ever enough to stop her detractors.

Uh, yeah, we noticed. People hate her guts. A great reason to support Obama.

If she seemed uncomfortable in her skin, if she kept changing her hair, her image, her style, her way of speaking, how could we blame her? She was trying to be self-protective. Who wouldn't be if constantly attacked by a beastly press?

Poor Hillary. Poor, poor Hillary. Let’s vote for the victim.

Since she is a woman, she has to show she's ready to be commander in chief. Hence her "triangulation" on Iraq and her signing the absurd Lieberman-Kyl resolution, which calls on our government to use "military instruments" to "combat, contain and [stop]" Iran's meddling in Iraq.

This is the scariest passage in the piece, and there are many of them. Jong is flat-out saying that the only way Clinton can succeed is by caving to Republicans on security issues. If this is true, Democrats would have to be crazy to vote for her (in the primary at least). By Jong’s reasoning, Clinton could end up invading Iran just to show that she can pee with the big boys. Remember, she will be worried from day one about getting re-elected.

[Obama] was lucky enough not to be in the Senate when the Iraq war resolution was floated after then-Secretary of State Colin Powell lied about WMDs.

… and he was smart enough to say it was a “dumb war” in public.

Obama is also a token -- of our incomplete progress toward an interracial society. I have nothing against him except his inexperience. Many black voters agree. They understand tokenism and condescension.

This passage is so breathtakingly insulting I almost left it out. I love how she complains about “tokenism” and then cites unnamed (token) black voters who agree with her. The point of this is not to make Jong look like an idiot, however, but to show how her arguments actually favor Obama. The fact is that the claim of tokenism applies at least as much as Hillary as Obama. After all, look at all of the people like Jong telling women to vote for the woman.

Posted by Woody Mena at February 4, 2008 8:01 AM
Comment #244576

Bill triangulated as a matter of political necessity. He was stuck working with a self-righteous Republican Congress that thought it had a mandate from the people to tear apart every progressive improvement this country has ever accomplished. So he was forced to either snap up useful ideas from Congress and make them his own in order to take the wind out of their sales or he was forced to play ball with them in order to feed them enough scraps to keep the Right from eating him alive, though they obviously tried anyway.

Hillary, on the other hand, triangulates as a matter of political expediency. She tries too hard and too often to please all parts of the political spectrum, which comes across as wishy-washy at best and duplicitous at worst. Erica Jong looks at her and sees a woman who stayed with her straying husband out of love. I look at her and see a calculating politician who stayed with her straying husband because polls told her that being a divorcee would hurt her future chances in the political arena.

Hillary Clinton personifies everything that has frustrated me about the Democratic Party ever since 1992, when I first started paying attention to politics. Barack Obama personifies everything that gives me hope for the Democrats. I don’t agree 100% with everything he stands for and promises to do (for instance, his health care plan doesn’t go far enough and he is too soft on corporations), but when he claims to be an agent for change, I believe him. That’s enough to get my vote.


Posted by: leatherankh at February 4, 2008 9:17 AM
Comment #244578


I don’t agree 100% with everything he stands for and promises to do (for instance, his health care plan doesn’t go far enough and he is too soft on corporations), but when he claims to be an agent for change, I believe him. That’s enough to get my vote.

I agree. I also find it important that he does not make preposterous claims that he knows can not be fully met in the short term. I find this approach reassuring from a practical point of view. Anyone who buys the claims that the world will suddenly change under a dem president is not being realistic. It will take years to clean up the financial, organizational, and legislative mess left by GW and his legislative minions. It is my opinion that Hillary will only insure another term or terms of the hatred and stalemate that currently plagues the governmental process. I just heard McCain in Boston claiming that he is the man to unite the parties and end political stalemate. Yeah, right. We tried that with Bush the uniter. I love how the repubs are suddenly jumping on the agents of change bandwagon after all these years of my way or the highway legislation. Unfortunately for them they squandered over the last decade what credibility they may have had. The repubs simply used and abused the electorate until they finally figured out they were getting reamed at their expense.

I see Obama as the only candidate of genuine concern who honestly believes that change can be effected. The rest are simply playing the game and telling us what they think we want to hear. And I might add that the repubs did not take this avenue until Obama won in Iowa.

Posted by: RickIL at February 4, 2008 9:59 AM
Comment #244586

This is what the Hillary Vs Obama discussion here is soundign like:

I really think I’m the best judge of what I mean, you paranoid Berkeley shiksta
feminista! Whoa. That was way too far.

No, no. Well, I’ve got a staff meeting to go to and so do you, you elitist, Harvard
fascist missed-the-Dean’s-list-two-semesters-in-a-row Yankee jackass!

from TWW s1 ep3, APR

Michelle Obama was on GMA this morning saying that she did not know if she would support Hillary if her husband did not get the nomination. That is the level of savvy of the Obama campaign.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 4, 2008 12:22 PM
Comment #244592

Does anyone really care who Erica Jong endorses. I can’t imagine that Hillary would care and may not even be happy to get that endorsement. Candidates can’t always control who endorses them. Then again maybe that was Ms. Jong’s purpose all along to give an endorsement for Hillary that was really not an endorsement. Maybe Ms. Jong is an Obama supporter in sheep’s clothing.

If Michelle Obama said that she did not know if she could support Hillary and if she means that she would vote republican instead-I find that very scary. I did not hear her on GMA this morning.

I don’t like Hillary but I don’t hate her as it appears many posters to this board seem to. I am sure if she is president she will do many things I don’t like and many things I agree with. I don’t like or hate Barack either. I am sure if he is president that he will also do things I don’t like and things I do. But to continue to position him as some savior of the democratic party I think is setting him and the party up for failure. I have said before and will say it again. He is a great motivational speaker. He is smart and would probably surround himself with talented and experienced (theres that dirty word) people but to believe that he is going to beable to bring coporations, republicans, democrats, to the table and get them to agree requires compromise. So far the democrats have proven that they can compromise to the point of giving in and what do we have to show for it. The corporations have no reason to compromise and I can’t imagine that the republicans will compromise. So where does that leave us-exactly where we are today. Democrats giving in. I firmly believe in compromise but also believe that there are times that compromise is wrong. I have listened to Obama and listened to Obama but I still have not heard him talk clearly about what this change would look like and how exactly he will make it happen.

I have already voted in the primary so I will sit back and watch. I will vote for a democrat in November. If it is Hillary she will get my full support. I personally think John Edwards would have made a far better choice than Hillary or Barack but alas the corporate media machine did not think so.

Posted by: Carolina at February 4, 2008 1:22 PM
Comment #244596
People hate her guts.

Yeah, I noticed, but I am perplexed as to why. I mean, she seems pretty standard issue when it comes to politicians. She’s well spoken, bright, and knownledgeable. What is it, exactly, that she has done to make people actually hate her? I mean, she hasn’t gotten us into any stupid wars and hasn’t destroyed the economy, taken health care from babies, or questioned military heroes’ bravery. I just don’t get the “hate” part.

Posted by: mental wimp at February 4, 2008 1:59 PM
Comment #244599
Poor Hillary. Poor, poor Hillary. Let’s vote for the victim.

Errr, isn’t this the basis of the progressive movement of the Democratic Party? Seems that it should work internally if it is to be applied to us all…

Nevermind the Forgotten Man…

Posted by: Rhinehold at February 4, 2008 2:17 PM
Comment #244603

Hmm, why do they hate Hillary??

I think it is a carry over of the hate Bill attitude that the Republican/Conservatives generated.

I don’t know why all those people hated Bill as much as they did (and still do) — that sort of hatred is normally a result of a perception of a serious threat.
But threat to what??
Really have to ponder that one.

And WE get accused of “blindly hating Bush” for “no reason” — this after 8 years and several million taxpayer dollars on a witch hunt that went no where.

and this from the party that put out “Impeach Clinton” bumper stickers even before he was inaugurated (I know, one of my neighbors proudly displayed it on his pick-up!)

Association with Bill
what more do you need?
add color and sexual orientation to that mix and then you would REALLY see some hate generated from fear (perceived threat)

Posted by: Russ at February 4, 2008 3:09 PM
Comment #244608

Bill Kristol:
“Look, the only people for Hillary Clinton are the Democratic establishment and white women. The Democratic establishment — it would be crazy for the Democratic Party to follow an establishment that’s led it to defeat year after year. White women are a problem, that’s, you know — we all live with that.”

Gary Trudeau in Doonesbury this morning, “Obama is the first black Kennedy”

On the Michelle Obama quote this morning, I just meant to show that it was something that should have been anticipated by his staff before booking her on GMA. As for what she said, it sounds like burning your bridges in front of you. There is a level of arrogance involved in that. She also said that she would not be willing to put her family through another campaign if he did not win. Sounds like, if you don’t elect my husband, I’m taking all my marbles and going home. Obama supporters are playing into the Rpblcns hands. I hope McCain does not get their nomination, even though I like him better, I do not think we should stay in Iraq for 100 years. Besides any other concerns, the oil will run out long before that.

I do not know if George Will knows anything, but he claims that Obama will not accept the Vice Presidency, but would rather run for Governor of Illinois after serving 4 of 6 years of his Senate term. It would be a good deal for us if he did that.

Posted by: ohrealy at February 4, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #244609

It’s my feeling that we are still far more fearful of having a woman in a position of power than we are of a black man having that same position.
I’m neither sexist, nor racist, and feel that both of these candidates are highly intelligent, compassionate and determined to make integral changes in the direction we’ve been going. I find it nearly impossible to think that we could be in much more dire staits than where 8 years of Bush has put us.
And again…fear…that the end of a Republican run in the White House seems at an end.

Posted by: Jane Doe at February 4, 2008 3:39 PM
Comment #244610

The Forgotten Man. Hmm.

You have to remember that you’re talking to people who don’t get all their ideas from conservative sources.

Let me put it plainly: The average American wants the government on their side, not watching from the sidelines as the more powerful demand more and more sacrifices from them.

The real problem is that the Marketplace has been elevated to some kind of God, as if the Market were a conscious creature capable of being moral, just, and wise. There are a few problems to this.

The marketplace is not conscious. It’s not even a real thing. It’s an estimate individuals make of the behavior of many others based on imperfect information. To speak of it as a real thing is to reify it, to envision a thing being there which really isn’t.

This is critical. Many people followed Al Dunlap’s style of management, and still do. Chainsaw Al’s style absolutely demolished the business capability of Sunbeam, reduced their effectiveness. But Wall Street bought it. Why? Numbers. For many executives, business is a numbers game, rather than a real world interaction.

Enron is another example, where the market’s blindspots can lead to situations that are anything but optimal. The Dark Market of of Energy Trading, created by Enron, is widely considered to be a major economic drag on the economy, as speculation drives prices higher on the least pretext. You could also look into what market deregulation has done to the power grid; the recent region-wide blackout that afflicted America was in part due to the way that power companies now manipulate supply and demand towards greater profitability rather than best efficiency.

When Regulation on business is too light, fraud, speculation, malicious and reckless practices become more common. You talk of the Forgotten Man, but forget that this is supposed to be the little guy, and fail to see that the Average American consumer has absorbed more and more of the consequences of these “market reforms”

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at February 4, 2008 3:55 PM
Comment #244665

” People hate her guts.

Yeah, I noticed, but I am perplexed as to why.”

Okay, here’s one possibility: when Bill was in office she tried to ram her health care down the nation’s throat. She was not voted into office by anyone — and the whole “behind closed doors” scenario really pissed a lot of people off and created an atmosphere of distrust which still lingers.

That’s why I don’t like her. A difference of opinion is not only not welcome, it’s not allowed… and that’s not the government or society that I want to live with. Do you?

Posted by: Karen at February 5, 2008 11:47 AM
Comment #244760

I cry BS at that one.
The people who hate Hillary and Bill have done so since long before they were actually in the White House.
I have heard the whole Health Care thing and if you are threatened by that, or pissed off by that then you really need to dig deeper into your own motivation.
Hillary was in no position to ram anything down anyone’s throat.
She was given the job by Bill, she came up with something and she tried very hard to get passed something she worked for.
to you hate all the other politicians with equal vehemence (or perhaps better. appointed officials) for staunchly supporting (err trying to ram down your throat) some destructive policy you don’t agree with??

The EPA and FDA administrators who have made (not try to make, but actually DID) verious policies that have set this country back 20 years — they are not elected and they DID ram something down America’s throat — I would be against them, but I wouldn’t HATE them with the same sort of bile that Hillary (and Bill) seems to have generated.

In my opinion Bush generates the same sort of level of hatred, but he has EARNED it — I did not HATE him when he first gained office, I was weary and interested to see if he would live up to his campaign (which I would accept) or whether what he campaigned on would not bear any resemblence to reality.
My disaffection (?) for Bush has only grown as he has continued to demonstrate his various incompetence, corruption, and lack of respect for the Constitution (the latest bit with the signing statements saying he is not going to enact nor obey the laws passed by Congress is only the latest example)
How dare Hillary try to provide all Americans with Decent Health Care, damn now THAT is EVIL!!

Posted by: Russ at February 6, 2008 6:19 PM
Comment #244761

you made a curious statement about Hillary

A difference of opinion is not only not welcome, it’s not allowed… and that’s not the government or society that I want to live with. Do you?

easy answer
That is why I have HATED the past 8 years of Republican rule — they have ruled by trying to marginalize, discredit, smear, slander, anyone who DARE to criticize or disagree with Right Wing ideology.

Posted by: Russ at February 6, 2008 6:22 PM
Post a comment