enter the fray: our reader discussion forum
Search in:
Advanced
View:FlatThreaded
Page 1 of 2 (16 items)   1 2 Next >
The Politics of Cod
by riccaric

Hillary Rebounds Quickly--Although Hillary Clinton did not respond well to Tim Russert's wedge-sniffing question about drivers' licenses for illegal immigrants, she recovered quickly. In short order, Hillary's staff complained about "piling on" by male Democratic candidates and then Hillary herself gave a speech at Wellesley College (her alma mater) focusing on the pathbreaking nature of her status as the first female contender for the presidency. By the end of the week, the wobble had been forgotten in the deluge of commentary on Hillary "playing the gender card." Hillary needs to be stronger when challenged by people like Russert, but she proved effective at changing the terms of the post-debate debate. To the contrary, John Edwards is still suffering from his $400 haircut.

The Rally Around Hillary Effect. The most surprising post-debate development was that liberal bloggers like Matthew Yglesias, Digby, Melissa McEwan, and Matt Stoller all rallied around Hillary. This was a first for the liberal blogging crowd, all of whom are considerably to the left of Hillary Clinton and have been experimenting with giving their support to Obama (Bias alert: RSI endorsed Hillary in March). Defending Hillary's right to be proud of being a trailblazer, the liberal bloggers united to stress the fact that male candidates have been playing the gender card in every presidential election since Washington's 1792 campaign.

Digby's discussion of the politics of masculinity since Reagan is worth quoting at length for its stress on "metaphorical crotch measuring."

And now I will be eagerly looking forward to [Chris Matthews] and the rest of the commentators calling out the entire Republican field for also playing the "gender" card as they've been doing for the past few decades. Indeed, the entire Republican campaign strategy can be said to be one big gender card --- the only people they believe matter in this country are delicate, insecure creatures who are so sensitive that they have to be pampered and pandered to like a bunch of overfed princes who like to play cowboy and don't want to share their favorite binky. Every presidential candidate, and most other politicians, since 1980, have been bowing and scraping before this constituency. But for some reason, the hunting trips and codpieces and brush clearing and all that metaphorical crotch measuring isn't considered playing "the gender card." It's just considered the normal political pander to an aggrieved minority vote: the poor white males who've been treated terribly by all those powerful women and minorities and gays. What could be wrong with that?

Liberal bloggers are far from all-powerful (something which I deeply regret), but it's still a plus for Hillary that the left blogosphere is at least somewhat committing itself to defending her candidacy. There was some worry that people on the left would be unenthused about a Hillary candidacy. But the Hillary campaign may prove to be a flag that the left can rally around in the general election.

Showing Some Cod. It's worthwhile to go deeper into the the whole idea of "codpiece" politics proposed by Digby. It may turn out that the language of cod is most useful for discussing the politics of masculinity. Cod-pieces are not penises. A cod-piece is a clothing device that represents a man's penis and testicles (or "package") as being larger than they would be otherwise. It's basically "male enhancement." Macho politics functions in the same way. What Andrew Jackson, Teddy Roosevelt, George Bush, Rudy Giuliani, and countless other politicians have done is advertise their attitudes, accomplishments, or life in general as a super-enhanced maleness, or fantastically large cod-piece. Instead of thinking of politics in terms of penis-size, it might be useful to think of politics in terms of inflatable codpieces or, to be more concise, "cods." The male candidate who can inflate his codpiece the most is the most manly man in the race which is why candidates work so hard to inflate their codpiece selves while deflating the cods of their opponents through negative advertising, rumor mongering, push polls, and other tactics. Because it's so oriented toward symbolic display, contemporary macho politics is mostly about "showing some cod."

The Hillary Effect. Given the "artificial" nature of cods, women are just capable of showing a little cod, or a lot of cod, as men. Hillary Clinton is a good example of this. There isn't much doubt that Hillary is at least just as tough, just as dominant, just as shrewd, and just as tenacious as the male Democratic candidates. In fact, she has a reputation for having more of these qualities than any of the men she's running against. In other words, Hillary displays even more cod than Obama, Edwards, Richardson, Dodd, and Biden. Even worse, Hillary can play "the gender card" of being a woman who is pioneering women's history in the United States. Even if Obama and the rest began to claim more for their codpieces, they still cannot claim that they could be the first female president in American history. In this sense, Hillary isn't just "playing the gender card" against her Democratic opponents. She's squeezing them in a gender vice in which she monopolizes the symbolism of both masculinity and femininity.

Opposing Hillary. Thinking of Hillary in terms of displaying cod also gives us some insight into the Rudy Giuliani approach for opposing Hillary if he wins the Republican nomination. In attacking Hillary on an almost daily basis, Giuliani is not only trying to distance himself from his Republican opponents, he's announcing that his general election campaign will be a non-stop, intimidating, even grotesque display of his cod. If nothing else, Giuliani will seek to convince voters that he can out-cod Hillary to such an enormous extent that she will be reduced to being "the female candidate" and Rudy will have a decent shot at winning.

How should Hillary respond. Obviously, Hillary's will need to "man-up" for the general election if she's going to beat Rudy Giuliani. That means dishing out as much as she's taking, answering his put-downs with put-downs of her own, and showing that she's just as much cod as Rudy has. However, Rudy's cronyism, corruption, refusal to countenance dissent, bizarre Mafia-like rituals, cross-dressing, and three marriages provide a lot of material for the cod deflation of negative advertising. Hillary's negative advertising will have a shot at deflating Giuliani to such an extent that all his furious pumping will not be able to reinflate his cod. In the final analysis, Giuliani's cod might turn to be just a fish.

Hillary won't be voted Pres.
by gypsy
Thank Cod.
Re: Why Do You Say That?
by riccaric
She might not ultimately win, but Hillary has to be considered the favorite.
Re: The Politics of Cod
by genedio

If women are 53% of the electorate, why is masulinity (Cod) such a big issue in American presidential campaigns?

I think Hillary is the odds-on favorite, mainly because we've seen the downside of having too much Testosterone in a president these last 7 years. To the extent that she feels she has to prove her 'balls', I don't support her. I would like a mature president.

Strictly Politics . . .
by run75441

genedio:

It really has nothing to do with reality and more to do with perspective. For all intents and purposes, people want a strong and intelligent president. A Hillary who comes off demure and unable to take the kitchen heat will be perceived as weak and effeminate. Many people still perceive women to be the weaker of the sex and that includes some women when it comes to world affairs. Hillary still has to prove to the public, most of which have not been exposed to her personality, that she can take the slights from the big boys and can put them in their place.

The female gender card will work once or twice; but at some point, Hillary is going to have to belly up to the table for the stare down. She can do it and I am sure she will do it. Timing is of the essence and exposure to the quips. Be prepared for her to rattle off some remark the next time they pull a similar stunt.

If "he can out-cod Hillary to such an enormous extent that she will be reduced to being "the female candidate" and Rudy will have a decent shot at winning."

Re: Strictly Politics . . .
by JackDallas

Although she has bigger balls than any of the other Democrat candidates, Hillary will never be elected president.

You guys might as well wish in one hand and shit in the other. She cannot get elected.....go ahead and deposit that check.

Jack

Re: Strictly Politics . . .
by riccaric

Your writing seems to get more and more crude as you make less and less effort to appear smart.

The sweet scent of a new
by yastfort
piece emanting from the oval orifice ought to purge the stench of the old baloney posing as Suthren BBQ and Lone Star Brisket. It's ironic that a Southern girl with Northeastern sophistication will replace an Eli passing off as a cowpoke.
Re: Strictly Politics . . .
by JackDallas
riccaric wrote the following post at 11/05/2007 12:10 PM:

Your writing seems to get more and more crude as you make less and less effort to appear smart.

Your mother is calling....why don't you put it on speaker.

Jack

Re: Strictly Politics . . .
by riccaric
Excellent example of "weenie-boy" masculinity there Jack.
I beat you to it, Ric
by JackDallas

Analysis of the Liberal Man

I am convinced that few would disagree that we are living in times of great peril. Danger threatens the nation from without and within. It is a challenging yet demanding time to be an American. At such a crossroads in history, I believe the nation must take an accounting of itself. I have taken my keyboard in hand for that specific purpose; Or more accurately for the purpose of addressing a particular, somewhat enigmatic portion of that national society. I propose to do a study of the “LIBERAL MAN”, who he is, what he is, and what contribution and value he brings to the table, in support of our American way of life.

Despite my extensive education, my prolific vocabulary, and my deep, almost surreal understanding of human behavior, both in action and Reaction, I must reluctantly admit that I am perplexed by this particular individual. It is not a cause on which I dwell, however one that is of some interest to me.

Disregarding the politician, those at the national level who, whether by peer pressure or the hope, or risk of loss, of economic reward, tend to engage in “pack” mentality and take actions contradictory to what must surely be known to be right, I speak only of the “street” Liberal, the common everyday Liberal man who walks, or skulks, if you prefer, among us.

The Liberal man is not as intelligent as are his women, the latter, although perhaps not always as institutionally educated, appear to be in possession of much greater, how shall I put this…”common sense” and understanding; Of a better natural sensitivity, the Liberal woman seems “genuine”, to me, whereas the Liberal man, pretentious, packaged & programmed, and predisposed, it seems, to accept direction without much questioning and with little self-examination.

The Liberal man rarely conducts himself in a manner which instills confidence in either his supporters or his detractors. He appears not to “think” through issues but rather “rails” and “whines” that he is not being treated fairly. Should an opponent gain an advantage, then the opponent “has” to be either lying or cheating. An opponent is either “totally devoid of intelligence”, or the opponent is capable of nefarious trickery requiring the creation of a virtual matrix of the mind. Oh, and when bested by an opponent, The Liberal man always charges racism or bigotry.

Faced with undeniable truth, the Liberal man obfuscates, offers “yeah buts”, denies, lies, or shifts his position and claims an opinion that he “held all along.” There seems to me to be nothing beneath or below the individual of which I speak, in the pursuit of his agenda, or more likely in the acceptance of an agenda that has been handed to him, figuratively speaking, from his “puppeteers”.

The Liberal man represents an apparent reversal of the evolutionary chain of events that created man’s existence. He appears to have been created from a woman rather than through the natural “spare rib” scenario, the woman being the better of the species in this instance. I am of a mind that a Liberal man feels no embarrassment or humiliation when he goes into the bathroom in the middle of the night, puts his foot in the toilet, and urinates down his leg in order to keep from waking his wife.

The Liberal man is a coward. He is a sniveling coward with no honor. He will speak in great platitudes about “helping the downtrodden”. He will express great concern for the “dispossessed” and the “disenfranchised”. His heart goes out to those who seek to murder their children. He is stricken with a cause to come to the aid of those who wish to live in immorality. He “valiantly” protects the rights of any who would curse God, molest children, burn our flag, support our enemies, or trample on our constitution; But the freeing of 50 million people in Iraq & Afghanistan, the cessation of forced imprisonment of children, the closing of rape, torture, and murder rooms, and the bringing to justice of those who raped, tortured and murdered, is, to the Liberal man, merely a “PLOT TO STEAL OIL”.

What is the true value of the Liberal man? What does he do, and what does he offer to society? He teaches, that is to say, he passes on to others the inherent sickness with which he has been afflicted. Not unlike an HIV carrier infects unsuspecting recipients of his/her attention. The Liberal man struggles in the workplace, usually remaining at a level far below what is expected of him. He complains, he agitates, he blames others for his failings. He joins unions in order to protect his mediocrity. He languishes in minutiae, all the while circling the drain of obscurity. He is an underachiever. Thankfully, he is abrasive in his demeanor or else one might tend to pity, rather than revile him so.

Indeed the Liberal man is an enigma, the mystery being how he is able to refer to himself as a man at all. Having more feminine characteristics than masculine, in my opinion, he seems hard pressed to find his direction in life. He seems always to be trying to “find himself”, explore his inner child, get in touch with his feminine side, or make an appointment to attend that “sensitivity seminar”.

The Liberal man is not a real man. He has the body parts, undoubtedly, in most instances, although some argument might be made that he has not received the full ration of testosterone, but he does not “act” like a man. He hides behind his women. He hides behind his indolent, ineffective aspirations of substantive contribution to any forum to which he gravitates. He is the personification of the word, LOSER.

The Liberal man cannot be trusted. In some future time and event, should this country ever find itself invaded, and the citizenry be forced to defend it in the streets, one fact is clear. It is this: If the Liberal man could not be counted on to remain non-combative, that is to remain in the rear with the women and children, then it would, for expediency, be necessary to shoot him first before engaging the enemy; For the Liberal man is not a “real” American. He has, for whatever his own reasons may be, chosen to support those who would do us harm. He has turned his coat inside out. He has gone over to the other side. He is, for all intents and purposes, a greater enemy to the American people than those who would hijack our airplanes and fly them into our buildings, for he destroys from within, like a disease.

The Liberal man must be treated with disdain, with derision and with revulsion, but never with respect nor as an equal, for he is not. He is to be pitied, avoided, watched, challenged and exposed. He is an inferior entity with little redeeming value.

Jack Dallas

2/12/2005

Re: Beat Me to What?
by riccaric
Jack, that's really weak stuff. The main thing that comes out of that post is your unearned sense of self-importance. Because you don't give a single example, no one would know that you've ever had any contact with liberals except hearing about them from Rush Limbaugh or reading Ann Coulter columns. Because you discuss women and black people through the same kinds of reality-challenged stereotypes, your opinion ends up as just bigotry. No surprise there though.
Re: Beat Me to What?
by JackDallas

Nah, this is some good stuff. It's real and accurate in assessing many Liberal men, yourself included.

There is some hyperbole in my post, of course. I don't believe that every single Liberal man falls into this category, mainly just clowns like you.

Jack

Re: The Politics of Cod
by julieboomer
Rudy's shooting blanks.
Re: The Politics of Cod
by riccaric

I think so, but Republican voters seem to think it's the real stuff.

Page 1 of 2 (16 items)   1 2 Next >
View as RSS news feed in XML