Thursday night, Hillary Clinton took the stage to formally accept/steal the Democratic Party's presidential nomination and, as Bill feared, it was Shrill Hill on the stage. None of the vocal training took. With no breath control, no breathing from the diaphragm she was left to force every sound through the throat as starting point. It was one of the most unattractively spoken speeches ever just based on sound.
She showed up, all in white, looking like some modern day Aimee Semple McPherson -- but in a pantsuit.
As she yammered away in that one note manner, she went after Donald Trump and how he made his money.
Many were no doubt thinking of how she left the White House "poor" by her own statements but she and Bill are mulit-millionaires now thanks to countries paying millions for speeches from Bill as then-Secretary Hillary urged that they receive weapons and what not.
It's called corruption and Hillary knows all about it.
More importantly, her own narrative is so empty.
It argues, marry a man, follow him to his home state (that you hate), put up with his cheating, even in the White House in front of everyone, and maybe someday you too can be a president.
This is not about women, it's about Hillary and we'll get back to that.
She made a laughable comment about how when there are no ceilings, there are no limits.
For the 1%, that may be true. For most women, the ceiling is the least of the obstacles. Most women are having to break through walls.
But Hillary never cared about most women -- as her public life has made so very clear. (Especially true, she never cared about Iraqi women.)
When she was being embarrassed publicly in 1992 by her husband's affair with Gennifer Flowers, what did 'feminist' Hillary do? She sat down with VANITY FAIR and asked why no one in the press was talking about George H.W. Bush's affairs?
In other words, "I'm humiliated so let me humiliate another woman!"
No, it's not feminism but Hillary's never offered feminism.
How could people be so mistaken?
Because feminism been watered down and perverted.
Not solely by Gloria Steinem but she's done her share.
Over the weekend, I pulled some letters from friends in preparation for the piece Ava and I wrote Sunday "Why Gloria Steinem's CIA past still matters (Ava and C.I.)" The late Ellen Willis is quoted in that from a 1973 letter: "A reformer can never lead a revolution."
Gloria and her buddies knocked off Betty Friedan so Gloria could be leader and one of the arguments there was Betty was "old."
Gloria's now twice the age Betty was at that time.
Why hasn't she stepped aside?
Because she's a lousy leader.
Gloria's watered down feminism and completely distorted it while making it "her" life and "her" legacy.
No surprise, Democratic Socialist Gloria went for Hillary and not her own party's Bernie Sanders.
The personal is political.
Today's understanding is a perversion -- advanced by Gloria.
Those of us who know political science know that the are "spheres."
Issues in the "public" sphere are political.
Those in the personal ones are not.
That's what feminism had to tackle in the 60s.
Because what was defined as public and political were male concerns.
So if you were a woman whose husband beat you, for example, that was supposedly "personal."
These and many other issues are in fact political.
And when women are included in defining public, they are recognized as such.
Somehow this was perverted into "I wear this and it's political" or "I drink this and it's political," etc.
Those are personal choices and you're welcome to make them.
But they're not political.
But Gloria pushed towards personal choices.
And in doing so, she robbed feminism of its meaning.
Read Amanda Erickson's idiotic 'analysis' of Liza Featherstone's FALSE CHOICES: THE FAUX FEMINISM OF HILLARY RODHAM CLINTON and you'll see just how misled some are.
Feminism is collective.
It is not one individual.
Time and again, Gloria has robbed feminism of the political. This is why radical feminists had their problems with Gloria to begin with.
Gloria was going around whining (and I use that term deliberately) about the lack of "role models." Women would be this, Gloria would insist, if only they had role models -- let's elevate this one woman.
Radical feminists at the same time (1973 through 1978) were pointing out that women were already in positions and were facing problems. The need wasn't for "role models," it was for the system to be changed. Flex schedules, children's daycare, etc. Equal pay for equal work.
That's what was needed, not her "role models."
Time and again, instead of making demands for change from the system, Gloria has recommended women ignore systematic realities and instead placed the blame on them -- that's what her methods do. "We failed to have a role model."
Honestly, Gloria's practiced nothing but victim feminism, at best.
And it's really time she step aside.
If this is new to you, Ava and I've been writing about this since 2009 and referring people to Veronica Geng's "Requiem for the women's movement," November 1976 cover story of HARPER'S and "McGovern, the big tease," October 1972 issue of HARPER'S which show Gloria selling out early on, undercutting other women and feminism. Harper's.
And that's what Hillary is.
She asks everyone to support her, all women, for the good of women.
What good of women?
What's she promising?
Nothing that's going to improve the lots of most women or address problems that have been defined for decades.
Hillary's 'feminism' is: Vote for me, I'm a woman, and that's enough.
No, your personal wish and/or desire does not translate as feminism.
No, a woman in power does not translate as feminism.
Not when she's not a feminist, not when she's refusing to help other women (especially Iraqi women when she was Secretary of State), not when she's refusing to address the needs of women.
Hillary's no different than any Democratic Party nominee since 1976 except that she's double X while they had a dangling Y.
Hillary's not even the only woman in the race.
Jill Stein will become the Green Party's presidential candidate next month when they hold their convention in Houston.
Note her first Tweet about racism. The same is true of combating sexism (the whole point of the above paragraphs).
Feminism is not illegal war or war of choice.
Hillary supported the Iraq War with a vote for it and then continued to support it until public opinion turned against it. Once Secretary of State, she did nothing to help Iraqi women but did everything to continue the ongoing illegal war.
In her speech, she presented no way to end the war or no desire to.
That's not feminism.
Feminism is not funding a bloated military system while children go hungry in America, while needed social programs are slashed and killed.
Feminism is not Hillary Clinton.
She can pretend it is but she's done nothing but promote herself.
That's not -- it never was -- what the slogan the personal is political means.
Hillary can't tell us what she learned from Iraq -- and she can't outline what she'd do to address the current problems.
She's just another typical politician -- regardless of gender.