Erica Jong offers a somewhat confused, rambling and contradictory endorsement of Hillary Clinton in today's Washington Post.  I can't help but go over it bit by bit, to sort out whatever rational explanation for supporting the New York Senator Jong thought she was providing.

Nothing she did was ever enough to stop her detractors.  Supporting a politician husband by being a successful lawyer, raising a terrific daughter, saving her marriage when the love of her life publicly humiliated her — these are things that would be considered enormously admirable in most politicians and public figures.  But because she's a white woman, she's been pilloried for them.

Actually, the first two things, while admirable, are accomplishments women across this country achieve on a regular basis, with no fanfare, no awards, and certainly no election as head of state.  As to the third, I don't recall a media pile-on of Wendy Vitter or Lee Hart after their prominent "politician husbands" were exposed as flagrant philanderers by the national media.  In fact, I remember a good deal of sympathy. 

I also recall a certain First Lady's approval ratings climbing after her husband was caught canoodling with a 23 year-old intern.  Those ratings had a major impact on her decision to run for an open Senate seat in New York State, a place she had never actually lived.

By the way, despite the media's Clinton fixation, there actually are many other prominent "white woman" politicians in this country.  On the executive side, we have Governors Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius, and Jennifer Granholm; on the legislative, Senators Claire McCaskill, Barbara Boxer, and Amy Klobuchar, to name just a handful.  We haven't seen them torn to shreds by the national media for the crime of campaigning while white and female.  While I do believe that some of the most vitriolic and tendentious criticism of Hillary Clinton is rooted in misogyny, it is intellectually dishonest to paint all criticism of her with that brush. 

More from Jong:

Nor are poisonous women pundits any more kind.  Maureen Dowd regularly gives her a drubbing.  And "progressives" from Susan Brownmiller to Oprah Winfrey sport Obama buttons.

I've got no problem with anyone slamming Maureen Dowd: her regularly hypocritical and, yes, sexist hit jobs on Hillary and other women often leave me speechless and numb.  I recall a particularly nauseating column she tossed up in January 2004, where she lectured Judy Dean on how to be a less independent, less professional, more visibly dutiful wife to her husband Howard , then-presidential candidate.  All this from Dowd's comfortable perch as a single, independent, professional woman.

But what's up with the "quotation" marks around the label "progressive" for Susan Brownmiller and Oprah Winfrey?  Susan Brownmiller is one of the leading feminist writers of her generation.  Oprah Winfrey may not be a card-carrying member of the vast left wing conspiracy, but her immense charity works and enthusiastic endorsement of a highly liberal senator like Barack Obama clearly put her in our camp.  Oh, but wait, it's that last part that's the problem, of course.  She's endorsed Barack Obama.  And obviously, any woman who has endorsed anyone other than Hillary cannot be a progressive.

Jong then somehow gropes her way into open sexism:

If she seemed uncomfortable in her skin, if she kept changing her hair, her image, her style, her way of speaking, how could we blame her?  She was trying to be self-protective.  Who wouldn't be if constantly attacked by a beastly press?

Little by little, she loosened up.  She learned how to dress and speak and smile and relax on the podium.  I've watched this whole process with immense admiration (italics mine).

Did you hear that too?  That's the crackling sound of a feminist legacy going up in flames.

Next, Jong reverts to assuming that, once again, Obama supporters are only that because we blame Hillary Clinton for having a bad marriage.

She cannot have enjoyed her husband's playing around.  She certainly never condoned it.  But he was clever enough for her, he supported her dreams, and they both loved their smart and beautiful daughter.

 Besides, what does anyone know about anyone else's marriage?

To repeat: no one—on the left, at least—is criticizing Hillary Clinton's marriage for its internal issues.  The criticism is that—as the Clintons have implicitly advertised—this marriage offers an unelected co-presidency.  We get Bill with Hill.  Hill reports to the people, but Bill only reports to Hill.  We've already had this situation.  And I don't think any American progressives will be sorry to see Dick Cheney head back to Wyoming.

She then wanders into the "electability" argument.  Bad move.

If she could win over the rednecks in upstate New York, she can win over any American.

Thank you, Erica Jong.  If nominated, I am convinced I just heard the opening line of Hillary Clinton's pitch to the South.  Being from one of these kooky "redneck" states myself, I can assure you one thing: our tobacco-spittin' hillbillies will eat...it...up.

Since she is a woman, she has to show she's ready to be commander in chief.  Hence her "triangulation" on Iraq and her signing the absurd Lieberman-Kyl resolution, which calls on our government to use "military instruments" to "combat, contain and [stop]" Iran's meddling in Iraq.

This is an endorsement of Hillary Clinton?

Obama is also a token — of our incomplete progress toward an interracial society.  I have nothing against him except his inexperience.  Many black voters agree.  They understand tokenism and condescension.

 Right.  That explains why they abandoned him in South Carolina.

Oh, there's more, but you get the idea.  I have read, and heard, many strong and persuasive feminist arguments for electing Hillary Clinton.  This is not one of them.