Elle Magazine - political analyst?

Ok- I don't usually look for political opinions in my beloved fashion magazines, but I was flipping through the January issue of Elle a couple of days ago, and I came across an article that I had initially overlooked- not for lack of interest, but for lack of energy. The article is entitled, "The H-Bomb," written by Katha Pollitt, and addresses exactly the issue I've been talking about over my last couple of posts: the incredible and shocking amount of sexist rhetoric that Hillary Clinton has had to endure since she declared her candidacy for president of the United States. (I've hotlinked the article here).

The article begins by stating out right what the author thinks is on everyone's mind: Hillary presents a threat because she is "an older powerful liberal woman whose power is illegitimate because it is bound up somehow with sex- how else could a woman get power over men, its rightful possessors?" And I agree with her- this seems to be a feeling that men (I can think of examples out of the ones I know) have deep down inside, but would never directly vocalize. Or wait- maybe they would?! It seems Don Imus has- in fact, he did so 11 times in one of his shows. Glenn Beck referred to her as the Antichrist, and Michael Savage called her Hitlerian. Have these people gone mad?? Since when did serious and business-like start to come off as cold and bitchy? And since when are presidential elections run like beauty pageants? Even women have dared cross over onto the misogynistic side: columnist Maureen Dowd compared Hillary to the power-hungry Tony Suprano. And a FoxNews clip I happened to catch a couple of days ago features a couple of female anchors offhandedly commenting to a couple of anchors that they wear skirt-suits rather than pant-suits because they enjoy looking "feminine"... Somewhere in there, an-ever so subtle reference to Hillary was made. On live TV! Have I been living under a rock? Why am I so surprised/offended??

Oh the plus side, I suppose, many women have actually taken these accusations to heart- Pollitt writes that, "I come across one of these sulfurous emanations from the national collective unconsciousness and I want to sit down and write Hillary's campaign a check immediately." I heard this type of response on the NPR show I commented on last week- a right-wing caller told Tom Ashbrook that, after hearing the remarks thrown at Clinton, she decided to vote for her. "Sisterhood is powerful!" adds Pollitt. 

True, sisterhood is powerful- those of us attending Wellesley certainly know this. But is this the way it should be? A nomination based on race and gender? When was the last time that articles (especially in these alternate forms) addressed policy-based aspects of the Democratic race? "Let's show our daughters that they can break the glass ceiling- the greatest of all the glass ceilings we have." Yes- I agree, I would love love love to see a woman in the White House. But this is not, and shouldn't be, the only reason to vote for Hillary Clinton. Or a reason NOT to vote for her. After all, Pollitt keeps reminding us that "women are just as much- well, almost as much- a part of this double standard as men are."

Sadly, Pollitt reminds us that "If she were a man, there would be no doubt she'd win the primary, and the general election, too." Even though we've known this all along, it is SO disheartening to actually see in print.

To leave on a happier note, here's my favorite line of the whole article: "Think of it this way: If all the castrating bitches voted for Satan's daughter, we might actually move the feminist revolution out of the parking lot where it has been sitting, low on gas and with major transmission problems, for the past decade and a half."