My rebuttal to the Hillary backlash

If I hear or read one more time that Hillary Clinton is really smart and has dedicated her life to helping others, I will scream. That description fits about half the women in Oak Park. Ms. Clinton was the presumptive nominee because quite simply she is the most famous cuckquean in American history. (The term “cuckold” is exclusively used for a male whose wife takes other partners; a woman whose husband strays in such fashion is known as a “cuckquean”. You’re welcome.)

This throw-away paragraph in my Feb. 20 column, “I have a dream,” which was about an interim evaluation of the new village trustees, elicited more response than any I have ever received in the 10 years I have been writing this monthly column. One letter writer wanted me fired; another thought me misogynistic. Even my editor wasn’t sure he should have run my “swipe at Hillary.”

The whole reaction kind of caught me by surprise. I’m not going to lie about it: Sometimes I’ve written things that were purposefully provocative, even incendiary, but when I wrote these words, I had no idea I would get such powerful blow-back. That alone may evidence what a chowderhead I am on this gender business. Or not.

Much like Ricky Ricardo to Lucy: I’ve got some splainin’ to do. (Baby Boomer reference to 1950s TV Show I Love Lucy in which bandleader breadwinner Ricky is often upstaged by housewife Lucy. Not intended as misogyny. See also Laura Petrie [Mary Tyler Moore] in Dick Van Dyke Show.)

Since writing my column, I’ve read Jeffrey Toobin’s A Vast Conspiracy and Gil Troy’s Hillary Rodham Clinton. I recommend both as balanced and thoughtful. Ms. Clinton was no doubt a driven, brilliant student. She gave a famous student commencement address at Wellesley College and could have worked for almost any law firm in the country when she graduated from Yale Law School. My comment connecting her to Oak Park women was less in denigration of Ms. Clinton and more in praise of the many smart women in Oak Park who, had they married the President of the United States, would have no doubt had enhanced success in their lives as well. To be sure, this comment was also made to critique Ms. Clinton’s claim that she has so much more experience than my guy, Barack Obama. In my opinion, Ms. Clinton has overstated her experience and puffed her resume to be President of the United States.

Ms. Clinton’s biography is significantly derivative of her husband’s. Compare it to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the highest-achieving woman in our federal legislative branch, or Sandra Day O’Conner or Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the highest-achieving women in our federal judiciary branch.

Tell me all you know about Messrs. Pelosi, O’Connor or Ginsburg. The point: how ironic that the first serious woman candidate for president is derivative of her husband. Ms. Clinton is a very smart, capable person, but in my opinion, she would never be where she is if she hadn’t married Bill, who served 10 years as the governor of Arkansas, and eight years as President of the United States. The male Current Occupant of the White House would surely not be where he is had he not been the son of the President of the United States. Exactly my point.

But the real problem here, I have a feeling, is the “cuckquean” business. Let’s review. Bill, who is a very smart, able politician who can do the New York Times crossword puzzle in ink, is a serious hound dog. He has been unfaithful to his wife many, many times. (See Jennifer Flowers, Katherine Willey, Paula Jones, etc.). Bill’s lack of fidelity was never more sordidly on display than when he had a 6-month sexual liaison with a 22-year-old White House intern named Monica Lewinsky. (Talk about misogyny.) Bill is responsible for such wonderful memories as the “semen-stained blue dress” and the embarrassing national discussion over whether fellatio is sex. Gross.

Ms. Clinton, once again in defiance of feminist orthodoxy, stands by her man, characterizing The Affair Lewinsky as a “vast right wing conspiracy.” Why oh why this brilliant woman would believe her husband, given his history of perfidy, is astonishing to me. I would hope my wife, sister, daughter or female friend, presented with this appalling pattern of behavior by their spouse, would file for divorce and stop enabling the husband and demeaning herself.

Now I appreciate that millions of Americans don’t see it my way. In fact, Hillary’s poll numbers spiked upwards because of the graceful way she handled Bill’s unfaithfulness and mendacity. That decision certainly helped her launch her campaign for the New York senate seat where she has, by most accounts, done a good job.

Harvard Professor Barbara Kellerman got this right: “There can be no question that Hillary Rodham Clinton’s longtime defense of her husband aided and abetted the persistence of his outrageous and risky behavior-even after he became President of the United States. Calling Ms. Clinton the President’s “enabler-in-chief,” Professor Kellerman said the scandal was “about a man who became president even though it was clear from the start that he had a character problem. It is about a woman who chose, for whatever constellation of personal and political reasons, to go along.” (Kellerman, Barbara, “The Enabler”, Presidential Studies Quarterly 28 (Fall 1998): 890.

I still believe she is the most famous cuckquean in U.S. history, but perhaps “scorned woman” would have been better. That she stayed with Bill despite his serial infidelity is-for better or worse-an essential part of her biography.

So what did I learn from this little tempest in a teapot? I learned that I need to be more careful in writing this column.

Words matter, but so does character.