Letters to the Editor
-
Lowest common denominator
It doesn't matter what you think. It matters what the public in general thinks, especially when you're trying to win the most number of votes.
So with that in mind - no matter what actions you take or what you do - think about the lowest common denominator. All it takes is a few hundred people to not like this or that about what you're doing, and that alone could cost you the election.
Just do whatever the most number of people would accept, in order to get the maximum number of votes.
After you win you can do whatever you want.
-
the fallout
I had not seen the Washington Post piece until reading the blog today, however, on friday riding the subway on my way to work I happened to see in either the NY Post or the Daily News (they look similar and I didn't catch the tagline) in the hands of the person sitting next to me an article explicitly about Hilary's breasts on what looked like the 2nd page with the quote "Tempest in a B Cup." I am a man, and I was suprisingly infuriated. Normally I just right off whatever those newspapers say as typical scandal journalism, but that sort of demeaning distraction from politics is absurd and incredibly disrespectful. I imaged the anger Hilary would feel, after dealing with such sophmoric attitudes, I imagine, throughout her career to have such nonsense come up at this point in the mass media. Whether the Post writer meant a serious analysis of feminity in politics or not, there is no way she was unaware of how this country's less thoughtful media would pick up her story. It says to all the childish people who are dying to bring up this issue to discredit Hillary as a woman, look the paragon that the is the Washington Post brought it up, you can too. Its inexcusable, and its demeaning to every person in this country. Our level of discourse is already bad enough without someone drawing our gaze downward from eye level.
-
It's all fair game
People are writing about Fred Thompson's age and his "trophy wife". About John Edwards' estate/humble home. About Barack Obama's skin color.
Toughen up, feministas. Welcome to the world of equality.
-
Another inane post from Traister designed to generate ad revenue from tabloid controversy
Wonder how many idiots are going to feel the need to comment on clinton's tits and clothes. This should be a great thread for generating page views from Salon's readership or non-consumers.
Supposedly, having one's fashion commented upon is "insulting to all women." Right.
Is it an "insult to all men" when someone points out chimpy's baggy suits, big ears and beady eyes? AHow about his "over compensating" cowboy boots? Or JFK's hair and clothes? Or Reagan's hair and clothes? And so on.
Obviously, to anyone but the whiniest victim, personal fashion expression is going to be critiqued in some part of the media, and the people who are heavily influenced by such things, like BS readers, aren't too bright to begin with nor are their votes likely in play to begin with.
What was far more "insulting to all women" imo was Clinton's announcement from the sofa while snuggling cushions because her handlers told her to appear more feminine. Her best speeches have always been tough, because that's the real her. And this pathetic pandering to the victim feminists to say Clinton is a victim too... please.
That is more of the whiny victim crap that passes for 3rd wave feminism these days and is part of why so few women now self-identify as feminists.
-
Party lines
I appreciate the reasoned, neutral stance in the article, because it seems to me that a lot of attention is not as gender-based as it might seem. Much attention has been focused on Sen. Obama's lack of typical masculinity, Sen. Clinton's lack of typical femininity and apparent bid for it with aforementioned cleavage, and John Edwards' haircuts. Coincidentally, or perhaps not so, these happen to be the three main democratic candidates. Less attention seems to be paid to Republican candidates, though Gov. Romney is occasionally an exception to this, though not in the degree of 746-word articles. More than anything, it might be a matter of the partisan focus of some media outlets, as opposed to gender biases. As Ms. Traister writes, part of it is simply the result of where the "bumps and curves" are located.
That said, the degree to which the one fashion choice of Sen. Clinton has been examined is no less ridiculous. Whether or not Givhan's article is sexually biased is secondary to the fact that it is simply irresponsible and unnewsworthy. This is what she and her editors should be reprimanded for.
-
Astonishing!
It's almost as if there were discussions of one candidate's choice to often appear in a suit without a tie, or another candidate's hair cuts.
-
Hey Jim
They aren't talking about Fred Thompson's dick, are they? (Well, I guess in a way they are, what with all those mostly male pundits fluttering over FT's virility.)
Any time you start talking about any candidate's body parts -- especially the eroticized ones -- you're getting inappropriate, in my book.
And that includes all the hullabaloo over GWB's flight suit bulge. (Which, of course, began as admiring comments from all the right wing pundits who'd probably fantasized about fellatiating our fearless leader.)
Oh my god, did I just defend Traister?!?
-
Got nothin?
The media need to help the Republicans look good somehow, and the last thing the Republican party wants to be talking about right now are substantive issues. Hence the focus on red herrings like a dress, or a haircut.
At least Ms.Clinton hasn't yet been depicted bare-chested and suckling other politicians as Ms.Merkel of Germany was recently. I don't know if we should feel good about it, but lets not forget it could be alot worse!
-
Let's Be Fair
Why not just get it all on the table? Next debate we can all get a close look at Hillary's rack. Followed of course by a close examination, measurement,and weighing of all of the prospective presidential penis'(peni?).
-
"I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her neckline."
"I wasn't writing about her breasts. I was writing about her nipples."
"I wasn't writing about his penis. I was writing about his package."
"I wasn't writing about his hair. I was writing about his hairstyle."
"I wasn't writing about his race. I was writing about how dark his skin is."