fessional women who were formerlyrnamong the First Lady’s greatest admirers,rnBrock makes a particular point ofrnstating his belief that Hillary Clinton isrnno phony. “Hillary has been nothing ifrnnot up-front about what she stands for,rnbut the mainstream press has been unreliablernin reporting on her real views andrnalso in explaining the extent to whichrnHillary is the ideological engine drivingrnthe co-candidacy.”rnUnfortunately, Brock’s own book contradictsrnthis claim. For instance, HillaryrnRodham was not up-front when she misrepresentedrnto Congress what the LegalrnServices Corporation was really up to,rnwhat it wanted all that money for; norrnhad she, along with her colleagues onrnJohn Dear’s Watergate Committee,rnbeen up-front in the Committee’s representationsrnto the House Judiciary Committeernof which it was an adjunct.rnGranted, she was absolutely candidrnmeeting in camera on a variety of leftwingrnappointive committees—but notrnalways outside those committees, andrnhardly at all in electoral politics, wherernshe has often kept mum and submergedrnherself from view in preference to speakingrnher mind. It is fair to say, then, thatrnwhereas Bill Clinton is always a phony,rnHillary Clinton is a phony only when shernthinks she has to be—which is a greatrndeal of the time. The closer she has approachedrnto power, moreover, the lessrnforthright and more open to seductionrnhas she become.rnHillary Clinton, in Brock’s view, is “arnrevolutionary—though a type of revolutionaryrnthat is not easily recognized byrnmost Americans. She is a ‘soft’ revolutionaryrn—or ‘establishment’ radical—ofrnthe kind that thrives today in the socialrndemocracies of Western Europe andrnScandinavia.” Bill Clinton, for Brock, isrnthe pathetic product of an alcoholicrnhome, a compulsive liar and philandererrnwho wants to be admired by every manrnin the world and loved by every woman:rnan operator with no ideas, political orrnotherwise, and no legislative agenda otherrnthan that of his wife and what BrucernLindsay once called her little friends.rnThe President’s way is the Arkansas way:rnpower as a means of acquiring boodle,rninfluence, free sex, and cheap drugs.rnThe co-President’s way is the Alinskyrnway: power in order to abuse the law forrnthe purpose of tearing society down, as ifrnit were a quaint historical neighborhood,rnand replacing it with a high-rise projectrnwhose inhabitants are closely regulatedrnby an absentee management. Betweenrnthe two styles of government, it seems tornme, the Arkansas one is infinitely preferable;rnyet, as things stand, we can look forwardrnto a combination of the two, anotherrnfour-year partnership between HarryrnThomasson and Doris Meissner. Thernquestion is not whether, as conservativerncritics have recently argued, the Americanrnlegal structure has been tortured intornillegitimacy by ideological politiciansrnand judges, but whether the governmentrnitself, staffed by an anti-Americanrnpersonnel, is today the deadly enemy ofrnthe American people and their interests.rnLIBERAL ARTSrnOF COURSE IT’S WORTH $20,000 A YEAR!rnWomen’s Studies Fall Lecture SeriesrnUniversity of Illinois, Champaignrn’Tractically Women: Brazilian Transgendered Prostitutesrnand Their Relevance for Understandings of Sex andrnGender in Latin America”rnby Don Kulick, Gender Studies, Stockholm Universityrn”The Evolution of Masculinity Studies”rnby joe Pleck, Human Development and Family Studies,rnUniversity of IllinoisrnReadings:rnLeo Bersani, “Is the Rectum a Grave?”rn”The Butch Grunt Syndrome: Do Lesbians Talk LikernMen?”rnbv Anna Livia BraunrnGraduate Student ConferencernColumbia Universityrn”Black and White and Hanging Without a Rope:rnAppropriate (d) Genters and Margins”rnby Signithia Fordham, University of Marylandrn”A Cat in the Dark: ‘The Color of Water’ and Significancesrnof the Reverse Racial Pass”rnby Phillip Brian Harper, New York Universityrn”The White to be Angry and ‘Passing’: Vaginal CreamrnDavis’s Terrorist Drag”rnby Jose Munoz, New York UniversityrnFEBRUARY 1997/25rnrnrn