Media on Hillary's Hairstyles, Etc.

By Big Tent Democrat

Speaking for me only

Via Bob Somerby, the "progressive" writer Barbara Ehrenreich writes:

She has displayed a “tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton.”
Wow. Just wow. You gotta love the "progressives" we have these days.

< Oregon Primary May 20 Could Be a Close Race | Easter Sunday Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Work of that quality deserves (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by MarkL on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:16:15 PM EST
    the minimum wage she is familiar with.

    You are right..Jeralyn (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:31:19 PM EST
    <blockquote>You gotta love the "progressives" we have these days.</blockquote>

    Up is down, down is up.  

    Now Hillary said she loves head bands.  If she still wore them people would find all kind of comments about being controlling, stuck in the 60's, it would not end.  

    I was frankly thinking how much harder it is for her to be the candidate on the road than for men.  Hair, makeup, clothes, accessories...She must have someone who takes care of all that.  

    Men, just a couple of suits and no one can tell what they wore they day before.  

    I always think of Ginger Rogers' comment (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:36:32 PM EST
    that she didn't do anything more than Fred Astaire did - she just did it all backwards and in high heels.

    Correction...not by Ginger (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:36:24 PM EST
    or even Faith Whittlesey...but cartoonish Bob Thaves gets the credit!

    Ann Richards popularized it with Democratic women when she used it in a famous speech.


    But it's a great line (none / 0) (#58)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:17:09 AM EST
    Perception (none / 0) (#31)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:07:36 PM EST
    She gets up showers, washes hair, blow dries hair, styles hair, puts on make up.

    He gets up showers.

    And if she did not get the hair and make up right, the media would be all over it.Zit on forehead.

    I still wear the same long blond bob she use to wear. Why? Because I zap the thing in a ponytail 99% of the time. If she appeared at a debate with a ponytail, holy molely, they would rip her to shreads. Don't they care about the issues? In a fair and balance media, they would not even discuss hair as we all from time to time reinvent ourselves but we do not call it that. We call it staying in style, giving ourselves a uplift. Without the style and maintenance, the commericals would all be like Geiko. I love those guys BTW.  


    Sexism Is A Progressive Value (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by BDB on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:37:37 PM EST
    That's what I've learned this election season.  I think I'm going back to liberal.  I support those excesses of the 60s and 70s.

    sexism is a progressive value (none / 0) (#44)
    by noholib on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:08:30 PM EST
    You are absolutely correct.
    Not that I ever dropped "liberal" BTW.

    The comments about her hairstyle (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by muffie on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:59:41 PM EST
    isn't even the worst part of the hit job.  The line before the posted quote: "What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right?"  I could have done without the Nazi references as well.

    I'm still confused as to why (none / 0) (#30)
    by lilburro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    someone who actually wants universal health care and has made that her core concern is supposed to be our sworn enemy.

    i havent read "nickel and dimed" (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by english teacher on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:00:25 PM EST
    but have always meant to.  the linked piece by her is comically over-wraught, with full - on intonations of clinton's "sinister" and "fascist" religious views.  the essay does little more than attempt to deflect criticism away from obama and wright with childish "she did it too" relativism.    the comic hyperbole gives away the ruse.  

    perhaps ehrenreich has written elsewhere about how harmful a clinton administration would be to women working in the service sector, or how obama would be better for the working class in general and working women in particular.  but i saw neither reference nor links to any such piece.  

    which candidate would be better for that constituency?  that would be something from her really worth reading, even on huffpo.  

    this is an attack on clinton based on common media conventional wisdom talking points.  that ehrenriech would bother with this kind of media driven analysis, particularly when an honest and sober analysis more closely aligned with her academic specialty could aid voters to make an informed policy choice between the candidates, is disappointing.  

    A proper analysis (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 01:56:42 AM EST
    would show Obama less progressive than Clinton.  The media has told us all through the primary campaigns, even when Edwards was still in the running, that there were only minor insignificant differences in all the candidate's proposals.  

    But look closely and the gap is enormous.  I just don't get why so many so called "liberals" support Obama, the most conservative of the two by far.

    Many of the people, elected officials and otherwise, who've endorsed or are supporters of Obama give strong clues about him that many "liberals" seem to miss.

    Endorsers like Chris Dodd (D-Insurance Industry)whose benefactors are happy that Obama would not offer a government health insurance program to compete with private insurers. Government health insurance is a part of the Clinton plan as it was with Edwards. Then there's recent endorser Bill Richardson a DLC type and enthusiastic supporter of 'free' trade just like Obama. Then there's the enthusiastic support of DLC founder Al From.

    The list goes on but I'm really curious about just what constitutes a liberal. The term seems to mean different things to different people.

    A few years ago Eric Alterman wrote that the charge that most reporters are liberals was actually true. He said that most reporters were socially liberal supporting right to chose, racial equality, etc., but were conservative in economic matters and had a built in animus towards labor unions.

    IMO these people can't possibly be liberals.  IMO without economic justice there is no social justice.  If social liberalism alone is adequate qualification then a significant majority of the entire nation is liberal.

    I'm a Roosevelt Democrat, probably too old and slow to really get it but it seems to me that social liberalism without economic justice is rank elitism in disguise.


    Send books back (none / 0) (#36)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:21:51 PM EST
    can I send books back to the author.  LOL...just kidding.  I loved her book on ecstatic human stuff..don't remember the name.

    Dancing In The Streets? (none / 0) (#37)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    yeah... (none / 0) (#43)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:00:53 PM EST
    Ehrenreich was once (5.00 / 0) (#29)
    by Foxx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:06:30 PM EST
    a feminist, a real one that is, way back when. How said to see her degenerate so far that she would make sexist remarks like this.

    Reminiscent of Samantha Power.

    I Don't Think (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:13:03 PM EST
    That you can write her off because of this one gaffe, chalk it up to the dangers of drinking too much kool-aid.

    Ehrenreichs main point which also may be kool aid driven is that joining the Family was a move that was less about religious belief than adjusting herself to the most politically DC expedient fashions.

    After reading the mother jones article is seem that even if there is a grain of truth to Ehrenreich's claim, HRC has always been a hard core christian.


    Ehrenreich article (none / 0) (#48)
    by womanwarrior on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:09:58 PM EST
    Actually, her article in the Nation is sourced, among others, to a book by Jeff Sharlet that is supposedly coming out in May or June? I don't know much about him either. Senator Clinton's book also says positive stuff about Doug Coe, who strikes me as scary.  I have to say the snarky comments seem really beneath BE.  

    I was wondering if this would hurt or help Hillary?  Or if it is one reason the R's are not beating up on her so much?  CBN has nice things to say about her.  The MSM certainly is not picking up on this right now.  


    The hairstyle comment is nothing (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:08:00 PM EST
    I read the original Ehrenreich article on HuffPo. It's an unbeliveable screed alleging that Hillary belongs to a religious sect somewhere between Scientology and the Illuminati. There isn't a single bit of sourcing anywhere in the article, but of course all of the comments start from the baseline that the article is entirely true.

    I can't believe this ridiculous article hasn't gotten more attention. It's really shameful, even for HuffPo (and that's saying something.)


    The Family (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:17:55 PM EST
    Is as she typified, imo. Very right wing and very powerful. But that is not HRC's sect or church. She just meets with them once a week to pray and enhance her power.

    sourcing (none / 0) (#61)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:21:27 AM EST
    Here is your sourcing.

    today's Obama adulate progressive (5.00 / 0) (#47)
    by pluege on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 05:45:10 PM EST
    sounds indistinguishable from a wingnut.

    With progressives like that, who needs (5.00 / 0) (#57)
    by BlueMerlin on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:34:53 PM EST

    I hope this isn't a post to invite more insults (none / 0) (#3)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:18:06 PM EST
    No personal attacks on the candidates or anyone else will be tolerated here.

    An invitation? (none / 0) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:21:59 PM EST
    What does this have to do with Obama?

    I do not know what you mean.

    BTW, my gmail address is not working for me. You need to send e-mails to my yahoo e-mail.


    it seems destined to invite (none / 0) (#10)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:23:59 PM EST
    personal attacks instead of substantive criticism of both candidates. I'm going to delete comments that personally attack either candidate.

    To be honest (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:26:34 PM EST
    This is about the Media.

    I can not imagine why anyone would criticize Obama for Ehrenreich's offensive sexist remarks.

    As I have written before, I beleive one of the most serious issues to emerge in this campaign season has been the malign acceptance of sexism, particularly in the Media.

    I do not believe Obama has had anything to do with that.


    fine, you moderate the comments on this one (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by Jeralyn on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:30:22 PM EST
    Ok (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:37:49 PM EST
    IM? (none / 0) (#54)
    by leonid on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:34:05 PM EST
    You two don't have some form of instant messaging on your computers or phones or something?

    Ehrenreich was a prominent Naderite in FL (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:19:19 PM EST
    in 2000.

    To wit (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    Normally I'm more responsive when summoned to help save a drowning man. But none of the lefties for Gore are arguing that Gore has said or done anything recently to earn progressive support. He's going down, is all, and going down so quickly and inexplicably that no one can call him "wooden" anymore--there's a question whether he's even carbon-based.

    That is a telling comment. (none / 0) (#9)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:23:56 PM EST
    And she leans strongly Socialist (none / 0) (#11)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:24:31 PM EST
    which makes it hard for me to understand why she supports Obama, who seems the more right-leaning candidate of the two.

    I could understand her opposing both candidates, but it's hard for me to see why she's writing what's nothing more than a hit piece on Clinton.


    She's recycling her anti-Gore (5.00 / 2) (#12)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:26:31 PM EST

    Given what the rest of the "progressive" blogosphere has turned into, this is all really funny.


    Obama is a blank slate (none / 0) (#51)
    by leonid on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 07:11:10 PM EST
    I think the reason so many people support Obama, regardless of the issues, is because he is perceived as a blank slate on which they write their own desires. If you hope you have to hope for something. Obama offers hope but he never says what for. People fill it in with what they hope for. Each person sees in him the opportunity to achieve their political dreams. That becomes a passion and that passion is powerful.

    ((I'm so insecure at the moment about a mistake I made in another discussion that I feel the need to say this. This isn't intended as derogatory towards Obama. It isn't about Obama himself. It's about how (I think) Obama is perceived by many of the people who support him.))


    If it helps any (none / 0) (#60)
    by cal1942 on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 02:05:46 AM EST
    leonid, I completely agree with your comment.  So that's one anyway.

    I believe your assessment of support for Obama is a bases loaded home run.


    Attacking her for this is just sad (none / 0) (#8)
    by kenosharick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:23:47 PM EST
    it shows a desperation to change the conversation away from what many Americans are still discussing- the Pastor Disastor.

    progressives? (none / 0) (#18)
    by wiredick on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:34:31 PM EST
    So glad they are now using the term "progressive",
    cause there arent 2 dozen genuine liberals left in the country.  When the leading dem contender praises Ronald Raygun, talks down social security,
    wants to suck up to righ wingers; maybe its time to set this election out.  Cant vote for saint john the devine nor can i vote for Lord Obama.
    You can hardly separate the right wingers from the left wingers without a score card.

    The new Progressive... (none / 0) (#24)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 02:47:20 PM EST
    is just an anti war libertarian; who is a feminist, but....; is not a racist, but their child is too special to go to a public school with "disruptive children"; thinks the working class is a bunch of lizard brains ; does not believe in the wars of the 60', 70's but likes the speeches, music and clothes from that era; is an American who just wants the good things from America without taking responsibility for all the nasty little bits, cause, they just want to be liked.  (list is partial)

    Amen (none / 0) (#28)
    by badger on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:05:33 PM EST
    most self-identified progressives are far to the right of Richard Nixon, and seem to have similar morality.

    I've actually become more comfortable with my unprogressive, more apolitical neighbors (irrespective of age), who at least have some idea about the kinds of things that need to be accomplished and some sense of decency and fairness.


    I now avoid that term (none / 0) (#35)
    by Stellaaa on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:20:08 PM EST
    it has no meaning.  Lakoff and the bunch diluted it the way Rove diluted conservative and they mean nothing.  It's all marketing for votes.  It leads to nothing as far as I am concerned.  No change no hope.  Just the same old in another outfit.  

    I still have affection (none / 0) (#40)
    by TeresaInSnow2 on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:39:43 PM EST
    for the term "liberal".

    When I inform my right wing brother that his daughter is taking "liberal arts" classes in college, his head nearly explodes.  Then I chuckle.

    I'm a "Liberal, 'low information' voter" and darned proud of it!


    Unfortunate Comment (none / 0) (#27)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:03:51 PM EST
    By Eherenreich. I have always admired her writing, sense of play and surprising imagination.

    Just goes to show that kool aid drinking can twist the minds of even the most sane people.  The point of Eherenreich's piece was new to me though. I never had imagined that HRC was a member of the ultra conservative right wing religious evangelical power group, The Family. That is scary.

    OK at least two democrats go the the weekly evangelical prayer meetings:

    These days, Clinton has graduated from the political wives' group into what may be Coe's most elite cell, the weekly Senate Prayer Breakfast. Though weighted Republican, the breakfast--regularly attended by about 40 members--is a bipartisan opportunity for politicians to burnish their reputations, giving Clinton the chance to profess her faith with men such as Brownback as well as the twin terrors of Oklahoma, James Inhofe and Tom Coburn, and, until recently, former Senator George Allen (R-Va.). Democrats in the group include Arkansas Senator Mark Pryor, who told us that the separation of church and state has gone too far; Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) is also a regular.

    And I always thought she was almost identical to Obama, but not this identical:

    But the senator's project isn't the conversion of her adversaries; it's tempering their opposition so she can court a new generation of Clinton Republicans, values voters who have grown estranged from the Christian right. And while such crossover conservatives may never agree with her on the old litmus-test issues, there is an important, and broader, common ground--the kind of faith-based politics that, under the right circumstances, will permit majority morality to trump individual rights. The libertarian Cato Institute recently observed that Clinton is "adding the paternalistic agenda of the religious right to her old-fashioned liberal paternalism." Clinton suggests as much herself in her 1996 book, It Takes a Village, where she writes approvingly of religious groups' access to schools, lessons in Scripture, and "virtue" making a return to the classroom.

    mother jones

    This reduces Obama's unity talk to wishful thinking, relatively speaking because The Family is one major seat of Republican Conservative Power that I cannot imagine Obama ever having access to.

    Oh Well (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    I guess it was old news that everyone knew about. Or maybe it is just a minor revelation, but I am still reeling with the knowledge that HRC has made it to the top tier of The Family.

    I will adjust and regain my senses soon. Maybe it is a good thing for us in that somehow she will be able to turn those nut jobs into more reasonable people.

    What knowledge? (5.00 / 0) (#50)
    by ChrisO on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:48:37 PM EST
    "still reeling with the knowledge that HRC has made it to the top tier of The Family"

    And this is nowledge because Barbara Ehrenreich said it? I have no idea if it's true or not, particularly since Ehrenreich didn't offer a single source for any of her allegations.


    did you... (none / 0) (#62)
    by mindfulmission on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 09:25:16 AM EST
    ... even look at the link in the above comment?

    Lets try again.


    At least it's more transparent (none / 0) (#41)
    by oldpro on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:49:52 PM EST
    than Skull and Bones.

    Cripes.  All believer people have a wierd side which, when revealed, makes the neighbors gasp and their friends order a double.

    Get out the Wild Turkey...


    Barley (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 03:59:06 PM EST
    Besides that is where skull and bones members go if they grow up. Not sure if GW is a member.

    One day, some day (none / 0) (#49)
    by zyx on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 06:34:57 PM EST
    let's have a thread just about Maureen Dowd.

    These people make me so mad--and they get paid to do it.  One day I'll have to find a sympathetic doctor who write Xanax scripts.

    Not necessarily sexist (none / 0) (#53)
    by Lora on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 08:23:13 PM EST
    Here's the full paragraph from Ehrenreich:

    What drew Clinton into the sinister heart of the international right? Maybe it was just a phase in her tormented search for identity, marked by ever-changing hairstyles and names: Hillary Rodham, Mrs. Bill Clinton, Hillary Rodham Clinton, and now Hillary Clinton. She reached out to many potential spiritual mentors during her White House days, including new age guru Marianne Williamson and the liberal Rabbi Michael Lerner. But it was the Family association that stuck.

    It seems to be more of a psychological assessment, and, while unflattering, may be correct, for all I know.  Maybe Hillary did search for her identity.  Maybe her search did torment her.  Maybe her hairstyles and name-changes were evidence of that, along with her changing spiritual mentors.

    While I appreciate calling out sexism whenever it rears its ugly head, sometimes a banana is just a banana.

    No (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 11:27:04 PM EST
    It is sexist. That there are other offensive passages in the piece do not mean the portion I quote is not sexist.

    bananas are not always sex symbols (none / 0) (#63)
    by Lora on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:21:04 PM EST
    And the subject of hairstyles when discussed by a woman about another woman in the context of a search for identity, is not automatically sexist.  It was open season on Edwards' hairstyle and no one thought of it as being sexist.  (In fact, as I recall, his public image was commented on in terms of HIS changing hairstyle!)  You are saying that the subject of Hillary's hairstyle is automatically sexist no matter the speaker or the context.

    If I were to accuse Ehrenreich of anything, it would be that she demeaned Hillary in order to promote Obama, but not for being sexist.


    Jeebus snaps (none / 0) (#55)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 10:06:11 PM EST
    I change my hair style about twice a year, it has gotten shorter as I've gotten older because long hair started looking and feeling silly on my mature beauty ;)  Now that I'm much grayer I tend to get very creative with my hair coloring, it is chocolate right now according to the stylist but I also like black cherry and auburn shades as well and go there whenever I please.

    Sounds Sexist (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by squeaky on Mon Mar 24, 2008 at 12:54:07 PM EST
    Errrm ooops I mean sexy......