Questioning queer fear of Hillary

By |2018-01-16T11:57:52-05:00October 11th, 2007|Opinions|

By Mark Segal

Mark My Words

There’s nothing I dislike more than a queer who hates women, and that is exactly what the flamboyant Andrew Sullivan seems to be. A senior editor at The Atlantic (and former editor of The New Republic), Sullivan, an openly gay libertarian conservative, has become a high-profile speaker on GLBT and political issues: He often turns up on talk shows, especially when they need a screamer to fill out their panel.
Recently, he’s been having a hissy fit regarding Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton on his blog, The Daily Dish. In part, here’s what blogged on Sept. 25:
“The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush’s invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush’s ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy. They are not that dissimilar after all: both come from royal families, who have divvied up the White House for the past couple of decades. They may oppose one another; but they respect each other as equals in the neo-monarchy that is the current presidency. And so elite conservatives are falling over themselves to embrace a new Queen Hillary, with an empire reaching across Mesopotamia, a recently deposed court just waiting to return to the salons of DC, a consort happy to be co-president for another four years, and a back-channel to the other royal family. She’ll even have more powers than Clinton I, because Cheney has given her back various royal prerogatives: arrests without charges, torture, wire-tapping, and spy-ware on your Expedia account. Only the coronation awaits. Vivat! Vivat! Vivat Regina! Unless, of course, the coronation is happening just a little too soon.”
Every single point in his diatribe can be said about every other Democratic candidate for president or is totally without foundation. Let’s look at this screamer’s points.
1. That she will legitimize Bush’s Iraq war.
Like all Democrats, she’s stated that she’ll start a pull-out, and like all Democrats, she’s stated she’ll do it in a manner that secures our troops at the same time. While each of the candidates may differ slightly, the basic only difference is that Hillary is a woman.
2. Bush wants Hillary to win.
In a new book, he actually predicts her defeat.
3. That she respects the president … and Cheney.
The week before, she referred to Cheney as Darth Vader.
4. When addressing her, it’s Queen Hillary.
Does he title any male candidate “king?”
5. Conservatives are embracing Hillary.
Andrew, what have you been smoking?
6. Her husband might give her advice.
What a horrible thought — a spouse with experience giving advice, oh my! He finishes his ramblings with the proof that he’s a chauvinist: She’ll have more power than Clinton I (aka Bill). Right there, Andrew, in one little place, you make yourself clear. You’re angered and afraid of a woman with power.
This is not the 1950s, where “women knew their place.” Can you please get up to speed on the times and get over it?

About the Author:

Between The Lines has been publishing LGBTQ-related content in Southeast Michigan since the early '90s. This year marks the publication's 27th anniversary.