Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Politics | 05/09/2008 9:06 am

Everything I Hate About Myself I See in Hillary, by Judy Bachrach

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.

294 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

zut alors
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.
By zut alors on 05/09/2008 5:27 pm
E .
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.
By E . on 05/09/2008 6:12 pm
zut alors
Elizabeth, OK,well we can just agree to disagree. Believe me, it never fails to surprise me how intelligent people can read the same thing and see two vastly different things. In a bookclub of about 30 of us we were reading the Pulitzer Prize winning collection of short stories, “Interpretation of Maladies.” I loved that book and was dead shocked at some of the ungenerous interpretations from friends in the club who have Stanford undergrads and Harvard grads. I’ve been disappointed here by a lot of comments, lack of awareness/sense of urgency on critical things, lack of action but that’s life. And misogyny…oh yeah alive and well. Until 2000 I thought our culture had progressed to…in some ways yes, in giant steps backwards, sadly no.
By zut alors on 05/09/2008 7:41 pm
Mike Fulton
And misandry is alive and well, but that doesn’t seem to resonate with anyone.
By Mike Fulton on 05/09/2008 10:44 pm
E .
M Fulton - it resonates with many. That is another topic for another thread and not pertinent to this discussion.
By E . on 05/10/2008 9:03 am
zut alors
Mike—Love your avatar…Groucho…a favorite.
By zut alors on 05/10/2008 11:05 pm
E .
Well Suzanne, I suppose we can, at the very least, celebrate our differences as well as our similarities. In my opinion it is generally only through diversity of thought that sound progress is possible. Idle or egocentric cognition, even in cooperation among well-credentialed intellectuals, cripples advancement. So, here’s to us who dare to dissent.
By E . on 05/10/2008 9:32 am
Diane Judge
It’s lovely gossip you deliver. No one comments that history is repeating itself. Blck men voted long beofe white women. so whatg else is new? DJudge
By Diane Judge on 05/12/2008 1:50 pm
Diane Judge
It’s lovely gossip you deliver. No one comments that history is repeating itself. Black men voted long beofe white women. so whatg else is new? DJudge
By Diane Judge on 05/12/2008 1:51 pm
Diane Judge
It’s lovely gossip you deliver. No one comments that history is repeating itself. Black men voted long before white women. so what else is new? DJudge
By Diane Judge on 05/12/2008 1:51 pm
Diane Judge
It’s lovely gossip you deliver. No one comments that history is repeating itself. Black men voted long before white women. so what else is new? DJudge
By Diane Judge on 05/12/2008 1:52 pm
mary lou s
code pink and much of the progressive left decided that hillary was a warmonger and barack a peacemaker. i think those labels stuck. however, many of those same people think nancy pelosi is also a warmonger because she could not get a withdrawal timetable past the presidential veto, and none of the legislature wanted to leave the soldiers in war but unfunded. also, the image of hillary as a liar and manipulator stuck to hillary but not to barack. if you ask, you can probably see HIS lies and manipulations, too. unfortunately, we in michigan feel like the tennis ball being batted between them.
By mary lou s on 05/09/2008 10:31 pm
Nikki Franceschini
Very important correction - Peggy Noonan very carefully entitled her piece “Damsel OF Distress” to describe HRC’s characteristic and bullying politico/psychodrama played out on the national stage once again. However, despite all the deliberate or unconscious shadowing, back-lighting, projecting and editing inherent in staging our roles in this life, we can still recognize a familiar “type.” HRC is the nations angry ex-lady, and hell hath no fury like an entitled yet scorned candidate. And just like with the vengeful ex, if you give her enough rope, or air time, or court appearances, the real woman comes out: not the supermom, defender of children and health care champion who worked tirelessly for the Black Panthers, but rather a self-important, entitled and even ruthless (“hard working WHITE MEN [not lazy n*****s]) child who threatens to throw a tantrum - “It’s MY party and I’ll cry if I want to.” And yes, I do sometimes see some of myself in our own Resident Odious Ex - but that doesn’t mean that by any objective observation she isn’t a monster.
By Nikki Franceschini on 05/10/2008 9:49 am
zut alors
Great writing Nikki, thanks for the catch “Damsel OF Distress.” I’m reading in Intl papers that people around the world have been glued to the drama and that Obama could stroll in and take over the EU. And saw Sam Donaldson on a Gawker vid remembering going weak in the knees over JFK noticing him…and misty over the beautiful Jackie “wished I had the courage then.” Whoa…love it when newspeople do candid spots half in the bag.
By zut alors on 05/10/2008 11:35 am
Nikki Franceschini
Right - without an aristocracy (unless you count hollywood), we can imprint on any passing celebrity - and we haven’t changed a whole heck of a lot since Henry James wrote about the Naive American - but I’ll take the candid over the calculated any day, and am glad to entertain those from the Old Country!
By Nikki Franceschini on 05/10/2008 5:05 pm