Edited to ad: I have no problem with what Rich is saying. I like Obama and agree with much of Rich's arguement. It's 'the word' I object to.
Let me say this up front. I know very well that Rich's use of the name "Billary" in today's NYTimes op-ed refers to "the joint Clinton candidacy", as he explains himself in the opening paragraph but- there is the unfortunate truth that the origins of the word lie in the foul and irrational hatred for the Clintons fostered by the extreme right wing. And that part of this hatred is raw sexism aimed at Hillary.
The very first time I heard this word, it came from a co-worker whom I knew for a fact was a Limbaugh, Hannity listening dittohead, and it was uttered with the most derision and scorn imaginable. A tone of contempt harbored by small minded, chauvinistic men towards women who dare take their rightful place alongside them in the world.
It was 2000, when Hillary was first running for Senate that my co-worker used it. To my ears, at that moment this term was conveying one thing only: Hillary's perceived masculinity.
- It had nothing to do with Bill, other than that she was at the time first lady in his White House.
- It was not meant to convey the fact that this was some secret stealth campaign by Bill to extend his reign of power.
No, it was first and foremost a swipe at Hillary being a woman, and that she might as well be a man. The sexism was obvious to me, as I could see how much my friend enjoyed using the fun new little word he had been given to play with.
So Frank, I am very sorry to see this. I know the term is cute, and you couldn't resist, using it (in the title no less), but it is a hateful, childish epithet worthy of Limbaugh and Hannity perhaps, but in no way do I expect to see it in the pages of the NYTimes. I can only imagine the high-fiving going on by right wingnuts this morning, and one of them is no doubt your new colleague Mr. Kristol.
So stay out of the rightwing drawer next time. You picked up quite a double edged knife today.