|
Forgive the long post but I have an essay on this and can't think of any better place to post it:
Let’s assume that Ed Klein is not a sexist pig. Any man who has served as the editor of the New York Times Magazine and a contributing editor to Vanity Fair, hired by Tina Brown no less, couldn’t possibly be a male chauvinist. Or could he?
If there is one thing I’ve learned in my short time in the adult world it’s that no one is infallible. It doesn’t matter if your credentials are impeccable and your work is of the highest quality or if you went to the finest of schools, at the end of the day you can still be an unpleasant, vindictive jerk.
Not knowing Ed Klein personally I hesitate against making any assumptions on what type of person he is like. Still, in light of his most recent literary work on Hillary Clinton and the various insinuations into her psyche and sexual background, one could say that although Ed Klein has some serious issues with powerful women, and I don’t mean female bodybuilders.
The work in question is “The Truth about Hillary” and upon its release pundits from both sides of the aisle have voiced their opinions. Those on the left call it a hatchet job that aims to derail the possible candidacy of Hillary Clinton for President in 2008. Those on the right call it “the feel good book of the year.” Political posturing aside, the book hits upon a very serious issue that has thus far been mostly ignored by the media.
The obvious hot button issue is the speculation in regards to the sexual orientation of Hillary Clinton and her high preponderance of lesbian and/or masculine female friends and confidants. Despite her long standing, if oft-troubled marriage, and being a mother of a successful young daughter, Klein goes to great lengths in questioning whether Hillary Clinton is, or has ever been, a lesbian. He puts great weight in the fact that Senator Clinton attended Wellesley and was profoundly affected by the radical liberalism and lesbianism that “permeated” the campus at the time. I don’t put any great stock in those assertions as I’m not even sure how being exposed to lesbians would shape a political sensibility but that is another issue for another time. In fact, those statements by Klein, the ones which the mainstream is latching on to, are not even what bother me. Instead there is another quote by Klein that speaks to an even greater problem, not just with the author, but with society itself and marks just how far we as a people have to go in creating a truly equal society.
“She isn’t maternal.”
Long has been the opinion of most in politics and media that Senator Clinton does not outwardly exhibit a maternal nature, despite being the mother a daughter, Chelsea. It is based on that opinion, along with the close clique of lesbians and the unbinding commitment to a man who has routinely cheated on her that Klein bases his profile of Hillary. You might think that since Klein is merely repeating an oft-said claim about Senator Clinton that he would feel no shame or embarrassment about making such claims. But then he makes a mistake and it’s of a classic nature.
When asked about the seemingly condescending attitude towards Hillary as well as the potential archaic opinion of what a woman should and shouldn’t be like, Klein pulls out the most obvious and least genuine response. Contending that he, as a man, doesn’t feel threatened by Senator Clinton, a strong woman, he says, “My wife is a strong woman. My mother was strong woman. I like strong woman.” Not to be sophomorically dismissive, but c’mon Ed, you can do soooo much better than that. Are you really pulling the old “my best friend is” defense? You know like when some public figure is caught making a racially insensitive comment they always counter with the fact that “so and so” who is of that race that you offended is your best friend. Sure it always sounds good and makes for a great photo opportunity or sound bite, more times than not it is totally untrue. It’s called spin control and it’s what people get paid to do so I don’t blame those who revert to that defense mechanism from time to time but don’t expect us to believe it. I’d be willing to bet that if some public figure, say Pat Sajak for example, made an off-color joke about Eskimo’s while not realizing that a microphone was on that within a matter of days after enough public outcry that Pat would be on some show like Access Hollywood apologizing for his remark and offering the mea culpa that he is no way racist towards Eskimos and this Aunt is part Inuit and that he is creating a foundation to provide wireless internet to the Eskimo population south of Anchorage. Sure it’s a little extreme but it’s necessary and it usually works, just like Ed Klein and his obvious love for strong women.
The statement by Klein regarding the supposed lack of Senator Clinton’s “maternal instinct” speaks to a much larger problem, the long standing view of how a woman should act. While it’s true that women has made substantial gains in equality on all fronts, books by people like Klein and other pundits make it abundantly clear that we still have a long way to go.
The best way to prove this point is to compare the public’s opinion of Clinton as opposed to current First Lady Laura Bush. Both of their husbands have served, or a currently serving, as President of the United States. Due to this circumstance both women have come under intense scrutiny for better or for worse. Hillary has gotten the worst of it, both from her various missteps such as the failed Healthcare reform and her adopted New Yorker status in her successful Senatorial election campaign, and her husband’s numerous indiscretions. It’s no secret that the Clinton collective has been among the most scrutinized families in modern history, right up there with the Kennedy’s and to a lesser extent the Bush’s. The difference is that with both the Bush and Kennedy family the focus, at least politically, has been exclusively on the male members, with Jackie Kennedy serving as an engaging personality from a more celebrity standpoint.
Some would say that Laura Bush is the most beloved member of the Bush family, with family matriarch Barbara running a close second. People love Laura because of her kind nature and even-keel that serves as a nice counterbalance to her husbands somewhat “quirky” and some would say adolescent personality. From her grounded upbringing and her early professional career as a school teacher to her current role as wife to the President and mother of twin daughters she easily ranks as one of the most admired people in the country today. Hillary Clinton is the complete opposite. Those who love her truly lover her, and those who hate her really, really hate her. They say she is self-serving, vindictive and dishonest. If given the chance of having lunch with Hillary or Laura the majority of people would no doubt choose Laura. The question is why? Not to dismiss the current First Lady who I’m sure is an extremely affable and lovely person but what makes her more engaging and admirable that Hillary Clinton? Hillary Clinton not only is a successful lawyer but also a U.S. Senator who currently serves on several high ranking committees. Hillary Clinton has toured the globe meeting with leaders from numerous countries to discuss issues ranging from free trade to global warming. She is by all accounts extremely intelligent and well spoken and has worked hard to solidify her standing as a resolute politician, as much as one can be. Despite her supposed lack of “maternal instinct”, she too is the proud mother of a daughter, who unlike the infamous Bush twins, never once made the newspapers for being caught drinking underage or cavorting in New York City nightclubs with social “it” boys of bad repute. I’m not looking to savage the Bush girls for doing what anyone their age has done nor am I painting Chelsea Clinton as a saint. It’s just that with the common refrain being that children are a reflection on their parents, what does it say that the one who is supposed to be a “great mother” has two kids who routinely embarrass their family with their exploits, and the one who supposedly lacks “maternal instincts” has a daughter who has grown up to be a successful professional and has never once made the papers for a misdeed? But that’s not all there is about Hillary the mom or Hillary the wife. In fact, there is so much more.
Hillary Clinton has raised a great daughter, instilling in her the values that have helped her lead a virtuous life. Hillary Clinton has stood by her husband in times of trouble, when his deeds threatened the sanctity of their marriage. Hillary Clinton has gone on record as being an extremely religious individual who believes in the word of God. Hillary Clinton has been eternally faithful to her husband, Vince Foster rumors aside, and has spoken out against violence in entertainment and has preached tolerance for all races and cultures. If you didn’t know any better you would think that Hillary Clinton is the poster child for everything that the GOP stands for and looks for in a woman. But yet, they hate her. Why?
The reason is that Ed Klein and those like him are intimidated by her, no matter what they might say to dispute that. It may not make sense considering the long and storied career of Mr. Klein, but thus it is the case. What else to explain the motivation, aside from pure politics, which one must refute based upon Klein’s claim that he is a registered independent with no obvious agenda towards derailing the potential Presidential campaign of Hillary in 2008? Clearly he, along with many others, still does not feel at ease with the idea of a woman being smart and successful and possessing enough political capital to serve as President of the United States. As basic and remedial as that sounds, the big bad boys are afraid of the equally big girl, just like back in elementary school.
Supporters of Klein and his line of thinking will no doubt serve up Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice as evidence to the contrary based on the fact that she is both a female and an African American, thereby disproving the notion that they are in any way threatened by women, or minorities for that matter, in positions of power. The big difference is that Secretary Rice was appointed to her position, not elected, so she is technically beholden to those who appointed her, who just happen to be men. I don’t mean to denigrate Ms. Rice, who despite her spotty political record and tendency to nothing more than regurgitate White House talking points, is an extremely accomplished and brilliant woman. The point remains though that she wasn’t elected to her position, nor has she ever been elected to any position, she has always been appointed, which is a huge difference.
Hillary on the other hand, was elected, and is on track to be elected for a second term in the Senate in 2006. The fact she was the First Lady for two terms no doubt aided to her getting elected, but it wasn’t the main reason. Anyone who was read up on Hillary Clinton and her husband surely knows that Hillary has always been a smart and politically minded individual who, even if she had not married President Clinton, could have very well wound up as a Senator from the state of Illinois or in the Congress at some point in her life. That she is considering a potential run for the White House in 2008 is not that surprising but instead an inevitable conclusion based on her life thus far.
Yet, in spite of all of this, people don’t like her. Some people hate her. She is such a polarizing figure that even well educated people like Ed Klein get confused and bring up age old opinions on what a woman should and shouldn’t be like. If Hillary Clinton never got involved in politics and instead played the role of doting wife to Bill and love mother to Chelsea she would be a much more beloved figure, just like Laura. Thankfully she hasn’t played by those rules and instead has forged ahead with her own plan. At this point it is not clear whether or not she will run for President and I for one have no feelings as to whether I would even vote for her. However, the more I read from people like Ed Klein about her personality faults instead of personality strengths the more I explore the option of President Hillary Clinton.
Hillary Clinton is smart. Hillary Clinton is successful. Hillary Clinton has served in the U.S Senate and has extensive knowledge of inner workings of The White House. Hillary Clinton is and has done everything our current President isn’t and has never has done and he’s now on his second term. So how bad could President Hillary really be?
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
