Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« La Puerta: It Lives | Schumer and Feinstein to Back ... »

Friday, November 2, 2007

Am I Sexually Jealous of Hillary? Mary Gordon Thinks So.

posted by on November 2 at 14:52 PM

Novelist Mary Gordon, quoted in an odd piece about “trophy” political wives by Karen Keller, speculates that Hillary is unelectable. Why?

I think no woman is electable in America, and particularly not Hillary, because she is married to this guy whom everyone is libidinally attached to. I think there is unconscious sexual jealousy of her among women.

Huh? I’ve heard a lot of crackpot theories about what makes women vote this way or that (we like Edwards because we think he’s handsome; we like Hillary because we see ourselves, and her, as helpless victims) but I’ve never heard anyone say women vote with our clits. Especially unconsciously. And hey, didn’t an awful lot of women vote for Mrs. Bill Clinton for Senator?

RSS icon Comments


Mary Gordon: Another stupid bitch.

Posted by Mr. Poe | November 2, 2007 2:53 PM

First your vagina. Then (my God) Hillary Clinton's vagina. Now? Your clit.

Obviously we would be forced to admit these things must exist, were we to ever consider the matter. But we wouldn't have considered the matter without you bringing it up. OK?

Please. Stop.

Posted by elenchos | November 2, 2007 3:07 PM

First, all men think with their pricks; now, all women think with their twats. That may be equality but it ain't progress.

Posted by derek | November 2, 2007 3:16 PM

My theory is toxoplasmosis.

Posted by laterite | November 2, 2007 3:29 PM

voting with ones clit, only if the ballot is attached to a magic wand.

ahhh the benefits of an all mail in election. no more lugging candles, lube and tequilla to the voting place.

Posted by pissy mcslogbot | November 2, 2007 3:39 PM

I think @3 said it best.

I miss the old ballot curtains of my youth in Pennsylvania ... think of all the hot sex one could have with a partner of one's choice inside ...

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 2, 2007 3:43 PM

Any woman who doesn't want to fuck a bright pink sixty-year-old married man just doesn't understand politics.

Posted by Fnarf | November 2, 2007 3:59 PM


Posted by Will in Seattle | November 2, 2007 4:19 PM

I don't get it. Doesn't Mary understand that she can vote for Hillary and score some action with Bill? Doesn't she remember 1998?

Posted by Greg | November 2, 2007 4:19 PM

Eli, I most definitely take your side. On whatever this is.

Posted by Amelia | November 2, 2007 4:24 PM

Hey Erica, my girlfriend and I were the jerks at the other table at La Cocina last night, talking loudly, derisively, and sarcastically about your article on Hillary. It was probably an unnecessary means of expressing our distaste for your article, but it was just so hard to resist when I realized you were a part of the table talking loud and self-satisfied. Fire with fire, ya know?

Ultimately, if Hillary gets the nomination, and if she's able to overcome the large chunk of those on the left and the right in the general election (many of them who, believe it or not, don't want her as our president for non-sexist and bigoted reaons), she will likely get a 2nd term. Heck, even Dubya did. That'll give us 28 years of Bushes and Clintons. Maybe by then Jeb (the more competent son, well-liked governor of a swing state), and we can make it 36 years. And by then we'll know whether or not Chelsea has national ambitions (I kid on that last bit -- sort of.)

Thanks for helping perpetuate a caricature of our two-party system. I do not stand alone, penis or otherwise, in having further lost respect for you.

Posted by Graham | November 2, 2007 4:26 PM


Posted by Amelia | November 2, 2007 4:26 PM

greg @9:
I don't get it either. Shouldn't we all vote on either what we (the mens) have between their legs, or them (the sor-sisters) want between their legs? IMO, Politics are about men, and our brotherhood of men getting together to affirm our manhoods to each other, right?

Posted by clueless frat boy | November 2, 2007 4:33 PM

And yet, nowadays in Seattle, most of the players in politics are women.

What does that say?

Posted by Will in Seattle | November 2, 2007 5:07 PM

@11: Go Storm!

Posted by brent | November 2, 2007 5:17 PM

@15: I'm down with the Storm.

Posted by Graham | November 2, 2007 5:47 PM

Is Graham 2?

Fire with fire?


I agree, I think the media has blown this out of proportion because they want to see a race cuz HRC was stomping the rest of em. I'm not a supporter of her, but she is running one hell of a campaign.

Posted by SeMe | November 2, 2007 5:49 PM

17, I'll certainly admit that. She -- or at least her team -- has run a good campaign. She's got one giant whiz-bang contraption and countless engineers pushing its buttons. Of course the media wants a race. The main reason Obama has been picked as the primary rival is because, honestly, his campaign is impressive. Record numbers of individual donors. A well-organized and widely energized support base. You can count me as one of them.

Possibly the biggest difference is that Obama's trying hard to run on a message of bringing as many into the fold as possible. There are a heck of a lot of Republican defecting to the Democratic party just to get behind him. A large number of uninitiated citizens are shedding cynicism and getting involved. I'm sorry if this sounds like overblown Obama propaganda/rhetoric, but I say it because I believe it to be true.

Hillary, on the other hand, is campaigning quite hard against Bush. This is an effective strategy given that her greatest strength is capitalizing upon people's nostalgia of the moderate 90's (Clinton years) over the horrendous last 7. Ultimately, this just further perpetuates division and heavy partisanship. It's a good tool. But it's an exhausting tool.

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton ad naseum.

Part of me has a secret dream that Hillary will get the nom, so will Rudy, the religious right will fall out and support a third party candidacy (there's been talk and secret meetings) and that'll give many progressives the breathing room to campaign hard for another third party candidate. An uneasy and unspoken alliance will be made with the left and right ends of the spectrum...and come election day, it may be Hillary or Rudy, but we sure as hell will have results worth talking about.

It's not likely, but it's a fun thought. Just think! a break from the binary! Sigh.

Posted by Graham | November 2, 2007 7:40 PM

And no, 17, I am not 2.

11, 16, and 18 (and 19 now.)

Posted by Graham | November 2, 2007 7:42 PM

Monica proved that anybody who wants to get with Bill certainly can. Why not consider the theory that women hate Hillary because she couldn't keep Bill's pecker in his pants? Or at least keep him from publicly cheating on her.

Posted by anyone but hrc | November 3, 2007 10:29 AM

@20, are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that it was HILLARY's job to keep Bill from cheating on her? That she was somehow responsible - maybe if she'd worn racier nighties or cooked a better pot roast Bill wouldn't have strayed?

Fuck you!

Posted by MLeaver | November 4, 2007 6:06 AM

@21: I'll put it a different way:
Who will respect a woman as the leader of the free world when her husband
1. disrespects her and their marriage by cheating as often as possible?
2. publicly humiliates her by cheating on her with women who have nothing to lose by revealing their affair?
3. disrespects and publicly humiliates their child by cheating on her mother in their own house?

If a woman cannot earn the respect of her own husband in her own home, how can she earn the respect of anyone else?

Posted by anyone but hrc | November 4, 2007 9:10 AM

Gotta say that the adultery issue does give me serious pause. My wife wouldn't stick around if I was F'ing my intern. Know what I mean?????

It's hard for me to respect HRC for standing by Bill's side...

Posted by BillyBob | November 4, 2007 11:16 AM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).