Letters to the Editor
Gwool
Published Letters: 366 Editor's Choice: 40
-
@ Smith
[Read the article: Campaigning while female]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]Smith Wrote:
"Unless you can point out the last time a man running for president was criticized specifically for having facial wrinkles and someone actually asked if we wanted to watch a man age as president, you are wrong. Traister is not playing the gender card but pointing out the obvious, and if the Clinton campaign should respond in any way they too would be pointing out the obvious, that Limbaugh's statement was blatantly sexist."
We have had numerous articles as to how a president has aged in office. Furthermore, the cutting barb for men has to do with their physical stamina. As such, mocking Jerry Ford as a klutz for falling down stairs and skulling golf watchers with an errant T-Shot are the male equivalent of mocking a woman's physical appearance. Bob Dole looking enfeebled falling over a false railing at a campaign stop serves the same purpose. Pictures of Bush looking chimp like mock his intelligence.
It is standard practice for media outlets seeking to slam a public figure to use unflattering pictures, be it a yawn, a droopy lidded pose on a podium listening to testimony they are known to be hostile towards, or whatever else.
Imus mentioned this morning a recent poll by Rassmussen calibrating negative votes. Rather than ask who they would vote FOR, the poll asked who they intended to vote AGAINST. Hillary came in first at 40% and Rudy was second at 20%.
High negatives are tough to overcome. It's a two step objection. First you need to convert the negative to a neutral and THEN flip them to a positive. It's a rather ominous indicator.
The continuous whine about sexism does nothing whatever to influence that 40%. It only galvanizes opponents. You attack an opponent's motivations for not supporting someone with insinuations of discriminatory practices such as racism, bigotry, homophobia, sexism, or (drum roll) baby killing, and you compel them to dig in their heels.
A Guliani/Clinton race will be a mud bath. There will be little in the way of hope and optimism and everything in terms of negative definitions hoping to depress voter turnout to increase the chances the defined base can carry the day.
We've had 16 years of this crap, and the nation is correctly tired of it.
If the nation revered its male political leaders such that this lampooning of Mrs. Clinton broke with traditions, then there would be just cause for playing the gender card. The simple fact of the matter is that political pot shots have been around since the days Jefferson's people smeared Adams as a Monarchist and cartoons took shots at his height. Last time I checked, height was a physical attribute, just as athletic klutziness is and just as double chins and jowls are.
Reagan neutralized age questions by saying he would not take advantage of his opponents youth and inexperience. That was a far better approach than having fawning sycophants in the media carry the water by whining about your persecution for being old, short, klutzy, or female.
-
@LaurieNY
[Read the article: Campaigning while female]
[Read more letters about this article: Here]You wrote: "Yes, absolutely, we have seen plenty of articles and photos detailing how presidents have aged in office. However, I've never once heard it suggested that we, as a country, might want to think twice about electing a certain candidate because do we REALLY want to watch them age (translated: become "unattractive") on a daily basis, before our very eyes? The logic that was employed reiterated the old saw that men become distinguished with age, while women just become ugly. And that just won't do."
That's way too narrow. We have judged male presidents on their physical prowess, mocking Jerry Ford as a klutz or having pictures of Jimmy Carter shying away from a killer rabbit as he ran a road race in black socks.
Reagan's age was very much an issue in his 1980 and 1984 elections. Bush Sr, at the time a vigorous 56 or so, made indirect reference to Reagan's vitality by making a point to take very public jogs on the campaign trail.
So it's appearance versus prowess. How is it somehow any more or less unfair than the vapid comparisons and lampooning of males.
We lampoon our politicians in this country. Folks who do it wrap themselves up in the fabric of the first ammendment and say it is our god given right to do so.
She wants the office. With the office, unfortunately, comes the brickbats. Her treatment is nor more or less lampooning than it has been for MALES.
So it's her physcial appearance rather than her physical prowess. Big deal.
Later on you stated:
"More stupid, puerile stereotypes employed by these morons. Hillary Clinton is lambasted for not looking younger, like a real woman should. John Kerry is lambasted for supposedly doing something to look younger, because a real man doesn't do that.
They're like schoolyard bullies, with this crap."
Who is this "they?" Are you trying to reference the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy that always picks on the innocent Clintons?
This is bipartisan nonsense. I doubt very much the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy was shooting at Ford for being a klutz, or at Quayle for being a dunce or at Bush II for being a chimp. As I said in an earlier post Jefferson smeared the bejeezus out of Adams in the 1800 election, making pointed references to his height -- a physical attribute just as ridiculous as Hillary having an unflattering angle shot of her face after a long day on the trail.
Are they half joking criticisms of her with a little mean spiritedness behind them? Absolutely. Are the focus areas different because she's female? Yes.
Are they unique to Hillary or more excessive on her than other public officials from days gone by? Not in the slightest.