
EDITOR’S NOTE: Judy Bachrach writes for Vanity Fair, and is the creator of thecheckoutline.org, an online advice column for friends and relatives of the terminally ill.
When I was 25 (okay, 32), I got dumped by my first untrue love. He’d fallen, six years into our relationship, for his next-door neighbor, a really pretty actress with the IQ of an asparagus and the ability to fill many a conversational lull with tributes to liposuction. But I digress.
The point is what happened after I got dumped. There was no stopping me. I wrote the guy letters. Long ones. I wrote articles, nominally on other topics, but really about him and the way he dumped me. These, unfortunately, got published. I phoned him in the pathetic hope of raising my stock by trashing his new girlfriend, along with the caliber of the movies in which she very, very briefly appeared. This was, as you will likely surmise, amazingly easy to do and also totally ineffective. I didn’t – couldn’t — let go of a guy who exchanged me for a moron, and I can’t believe these many years later that I’m telling you all this because the memory of my mortifying, excruciating almost erotic attachment to stone-cold failure haunts me to this day.
I was, in other words, simply a younger version of Hillary Rodham Clinton. I simply could not get out of the race, even though, let’s face it, the race was over.
What can I say? Everything I hate about myself I see in Hillary. It’s not the stuff you might suspect, either. Hillary’s self-absorption; her sense that the election is not about Iraq or defaulted mortgages or Wall Street piggery, or her; her Bosnian strolls down memory lane; her long and eventful relationship with Bill — this is why much of the press dislikes her, maybe with reason. But not me.
I don’t even hate Hillary because she screwed up health care. Frankly, anyone can screw up health care. It’s the other aspects of Hillary that make me squirm. To put it bluntly: they are uncomfortably familiar.
What kills me is the way Hillary deals with men other than her husband, especially powerful men. Whenever Hillary thinks Obama is onto something – a phrase, say, or even a piece of rhetoric, however tedious – she doesn’t do what most politicians do: which is to, say, challenge it. No, what Hillary does is fiddle with a syllable or two and then appropriate the last thing that pops out of her rival’s mouth as though it were her own (Yes we WILL!!).
Whenever Hillary hears a new idea, however stupid – ‘Let’s suspend the federal gas tax for the entire summer, and to hell with the laws of supply and demand! Let’s authorize Bush to take military action in Iraq and sit back and see what happens!’ – she grabs it, devours it, and calls it her own.
Then, if some new powerful guy comes along and disputes the very strategy she’s adopted from a previous powerful guy – like, oh, let’s say, maybe Obama might come along and dispute the wisdom of our military presence in Iraq — Hillary will turn around and repudiate every previous position in order to espouse that one too. In fact she’ll say she completely regrets “the way the president used the authority.” Like she never gave it up, panting and groaning.
I know I’m not supposed to talk about her that way, as though she were a groupie groveling before a rock star. I’m supposed to, as a close friend recently suggested, “understand that Hillary has to pander.” But you know what? One of the wonderful things about getting older is that you can actually stop pandering, and make your decisions clear-eyed, without reference to gender.
I’m voting for a guy.





Home
Conversations
Posts
The Women
Question of the Day
Change the World.jpg)

A close woman friend of mine who is highly intelligent and very successful in her endeavors said exactly the same thing to me about Hillary: “I see too much of myself in her and I’d make a terrible president.” At that time I was extolling Hillary’s fine points but as time went on I slowly let her go and now I, too, am voting for the guy. Your piece, by the way, gave me laughs to start my day–––wonderful!
I found the title of this article so intriguing. I thought it was going to be something - so much more than what it is. More of the same ever so popular self-indulgent Hillary bashing.
“Hillary” is no more you or you …. or any other woman than Theodore Roosevelt was any particular man. Why and how men, and even more disturbingly WOMEN, give themselves permission to project and hoist their own failures, foibles and weaknesses onto Hillary Clinton escapes me. It shakes and disappoints me to no end.
Elizabeth…Another point of good writing is to make the topic emotionally resonate so there are strong opinions for or against, and esp for a commercial enterprise because you want people to read, and hang around and discuss it/duke it out and boost the site’s stats. Opps just saw, “Hillary is Negotiating Her Withdrawal pop up on the Latest from WOW….outta here.
Having read several biographies of Theodore Roosevelt, I can assure you, Hillary Clinton is no Theodore Roosevelt.
Did you feel a blast of air over your head just then Brett?
Thank you Elizabeth Flynn. If we had more women thinkers like you, the world really would be better off. I cannot, for the life of me, understand how so many women take pleasure in kicking another woman, especially a woman who has more courage than most, who lean on….whatever they can find to lean on. Senator Clinton didn’t get a helluva lot of help from anyone but herself, especially in the early days of struggle. Surely to God people know why the Health Care thing failed long ago…..it wasn’t Hillary silly….it was the ruddy Pharma’s and the Corporate squeezers. Thanks Elizabeth.
This article isn’t about Sen. Hillary Clinton. It’s about shadow work. http://www.soulfulliving.com/july02features.htm What you are doing is projecting onto her and misunderstanding and misreading her based on your lack of understanding of your true nature and your true self. In Sen. Clinton, not giving up until the race is over is the sign oif a thoroughbred; you are calling it something different because that’s your experience. I encourage everyone to learn as much as they can about their own projections. It’s very very freeing.
Mugsy, I think Judy was using it as a metaphor, a writing device. Different strokes. But we can all agree about Candace Bergen—all her work. Murphy Brown was one of the best shows ever. Here’s a perfect TGIF laugh riot from MB:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VyAsPD9IMkk
And a really beautiful tribute to Ms. Bergen: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DZtQTdgDPaI&feature=related
Kissing your feet as you go tripping by, Suzanne. Thank you for these beautiful links. Who was singing and what was I hearing over the Montage.
MS. Dee—Isn’t that beautiful? I didn’t know, and I saw in the comments others asked too and the poster didn’t respond..too bad…really beautiful…glad you enjoyed.
I disagree.
Ten paragraphs.
Seven paragraphs on Hillary.
None of them nice.
Please. The piece has little to do with Carl Jung.
It may have lipstick on it and be disguised as an erudite nod to H. Clinton. It is nonetheless little more than an excuse for lowly bashing.
Ms. Flynn, yes, what you are saying is true. It is Hillary-bashing bs, yes. However, my point is, when she says what she doesn’t like in herself, blah blah, that’s the shadow. She is saying things about a woman she doesn’t even know which are actually true about someone she knows very well — herself.
Well Mugsy, I see what you are saying. True enough the article starts out as a shadow piece. However I’ll hold firm to my initial review. It begins humbly enough with all the embarrassing disclosure but it quickly takes on a speed which transforms it into something, although cleverly disguised as a piece about the author, about H. Clinton. I read the meat of it as a rehash of the popularized detritus that the media has been spewing about H. Clinton for time immemorial. The piece is then wrapped up with Ms. Bachrach doing a compare and contrast and finding herself a woman superior to H. Clinton in that she has grown out of pandering to men while H. Clinton has not and in fact panders “as though she were a groupie groveling before a rock star”.
Elizabeth, Because I respect your opinion and Mugsy’s I reread the piece again critically and twice. I mean critically as we would do in the UCLA writing program to really find fault. For today’s markets, and Judy writes for Vanity Fair one of the best magazines in the country, that is a well written, pop culture piece. To me, it’s not about Hillary-bashing, it’s not about ‘shadow projection’ it’s about using a metaphorical device to describe NOT LETTING GO OF A LOSING SITUATION, while the writer admitted it seems unfathomable from a distance, and perhaps even exaggerated it for effect. There’s no evil intent, it’s pretty standard ‘pop culture’ writing device.
Today, in the WSJ, Wow’s PEGGY NOONAN has an OpEd piece about Hillary NOT LETTING GO (which Renata provided a link to in this further down in this thread) It’s entitled “Damsel in Distress’ http://online.wsj.com/public/article/declarations.html
Anyone care to describe it as Hillary-bashing or ‘shadow projection’? The Obama side says they’ve won and the HRC is dragging this out. The HRC camp says heroines stand till there’s absolutely no way out. It’s pretty easy on this one to see both sides, right?
If you read this excellent Vanity Fair piece on lefty blogs maybe you’ll see what I mean about a style
that you see frequently on Gawker, Huffington Post, Kos, Wonkette, etc.
http://www.vanityfair.com/politics/features/2008/06/wolcott200806
But what I’d really like you and/or Mugsy or any other HRC supporter here to explain to me, as a lefty, feminist, politically wonky/activist who lives in Nancy Pelosi’s 8th San Francisco District that hugely supported Bill Clinton, why’d it go 70% for Obama. This was HRC’s District to lose.
It’s 50% female,
White: 49.4%
Black or African American: 8.8%
American Indian/Alaska Native: 0.5%
Asian: 28.9%
Native Hawaiian/Pacific Islands: 0.6%
Hispanic/Latino (of any race): 15.7%
Mostly college educated with income twice the national average, and a high density of multi-millionaires, and billionaires that were huge Bill Clinton supporters, It was practically a coronation every time the Clintons came here, which was exceedingly frequent, even before Chelsea started at Stanford.
Why did this District go for Obama? Why are writers for both Vanity Fair AND WSJ-ie left and right leaning, saying essentially give it up?
I don’t believe you weren’t around for some of the fire-fights, I don’t stand aside for bashing of any woman and have gone after men here who do.
The author’s obsession with the ex is not an uncommon situation that’s why I believe she used it, admitting that she was chagrined by it from a distance.
Anyway….that’s just my take.
Wow Suzanne did I really inspire such a voluminous response. I stand respectfully and firmly with my initial response. Judy B. summed up her piece with a harsh criticism about H. Clinton, evidence enough for me to determine for myself that the point was to slam H. Clinton and not merely to humbly review her own shortcomings. As for “Obama vs. Hillary” - that has little to do with my objection to this piece. At the root of my objection is my surprise and utter disgust at otherwise intelligent women embracing and using misogynistic tactics. Many of the attacks against H. Clinton, complaints no one would level against a male - especially not an African American male for goodness sake, are ridiculously sexist and yet this junk often slithers off the tongues and fingertips of women themselves. It is a heartbreaking disappointment for me as a woman and as a mother of two young men and a daughter. I thought that our culture had progressed a bit further than this.
“Why did this District go for Obama?” - not my point. Go ask Alice palmer.