Letters to the Editor
-
Cluckfest
Oh for God's sake. I hope she wears a friggin' headband next time. Oh, and make that during a visit to Iraq. Would that give our Moronic Media something to hang its floppy hat on?
I have to go read Glenn Greenwald now to clear my palate.
-
Gore's Pants Not an Issue, Either
As I recall, there was a big to-do about the bulge in Gore's pants on the cover of Time a few years back.
Regardless, neither Gore's package, nor Clinton's cleavage, nor the way either of them dresses, nor the way Edwards combs his hair, nor the "hotness" of Thompson's wife should be considered an issue or a news item in a serious election.
-
Researching and explaining issues is hard work.
It's much easier just to comment on clothing and recite the latest poll numbers. It's tough to generate 24hrs worth of news coverage.
-
Equality? No.
Parson Jim writes: "Welcome to the world of equality."
Yes ladies, welcome. Now after this story all your worries are over. You can forget about everything from discrimination to rape. The Washington Post article has magically made it all disappear. How, you say? Magic.
Listen, I agree that the candidates during this election are under the microscope now more than ever. However, when candidates are attacked, the most damaging are gender-based: Edwards is criticized for his expensive haircut and apparent vanity, smeared as "feminine" because being female is the ultimate offense; Fred Thompson is not so much being attacked as is his wife; and, of course, everyone is fleeing from appearing weak, which translates into "girly" or "pussy," and desperate to prove themselves as "The Man." When you couple that with the fact that most sexuality is defined as a male dominating a female and that females are still slurred for daring to be even sexually attractive, you begin to realize that by highlighting Clinton's sexuality it can't help but put her in that submissive frame of reference. And it is not so much to do with attractivess as with gender. When Valerie Plame testified a few months ago, hardly any members of the press took her seriously and instead used her looks to dismiss her. If you replace gender with Jewishness, for example, you begin to see the bigotry a lot easier.
-
Healthy Sceptic
<<<* Study hard and earn a degree in a hard science or other important field.>>>>
What? This doesn't end sexism. Let alone being lean and fit protect a woman. Are you saying that a runner who has a degree in Chemistry, and knows how to kick box will never be judged on her sexuality? Especially if she's "hot"? Will her breasts suddenly no longer be an issue?
And anyway, while I'm not a Hillary fan, her degree is "serious", even if not in the hard sciences. Nobody accuses Cheney or Gonzales of not being taken seriously because of their lack of hard science education or that they are not "fit" enough.
Besides, Clinton's neckline was not in the slightest bit inappropriate. Had she been wearing Jeri Thompson's dress (the one that provokes the most attention) I can see that it might have raised an eyebrow or two, and even maybe a few immature twitters, but look at the outfit in question, my grandma would have approved of that outfit for church.
-
What???
<<<* Study hard and earn a degree in a hard science or other important field.>>>>
What? This doesn't end sexism. Let alone being lean and fit protect a woman. Are you saying that a runner who has a degree in Chemistry, and knows how to kick box will never be judged on her sexuality? Especially if she's "hot"? Will her breasts suddenly no longer be an issue?
And anyway, while I'm not a Hillary fan, her degree is "serious", even if not in the hard sciences. Nobody accuses Cheney or Gonzales of not being taken seriously because of their lack of hard science education or that they are not "fit" enough.
Besides, Clinton's neckline was not in the slightest bit inappropriate. Had she been wearing Jeri Thompson's dress (the one that provokes the most attention) I can see that it might have raised an eyebrow or two, and even maybe a few immature twitters, but look at the outfit in question, my grandma would have approved of that outfit for church.
-
Sorry about double post..
I tried to fix the misspelling in the title and thought I succeeded.
Oops.
-
Hey knucklehead, they can't both be right
I know you want to take both sides in every argument, but it just doesn't work here.
Either the Post is right and it's OK to talk about the attire of the Democratic front-runner, or Lewis is right and its out of bounds. But by saying that "I like both dogs in this fight" you simply cop out and take no position.
Here's why I think that Givhan is right and Lewis is wrong: using the standard Lewis is proposing, you are an inviting target for scorn simply because you referred to both Ann Lewis and Robin Givhan as "dogs." Think this is silly? So do I. This is why I think Lewis is all puffed up over nothing and, to paraphrase Joan Walsh, you should have the balls to call her on her idiocy.
If Joan Walsh can go into friviolous details about the three wives of Rudy Guiliani and we can all talk about all manor of irrelevent details relating to male candidates, then we certainly can do the same about a front-runner who happens to be female. If women really want to be taken seriously as presidential candidates, I think it's time for feminists to grow up and acknowledge that they are playing in the big leagues. So stop complaining when you take one high and tight every once in a while....
-
What about what she was doing?
I like Rebecca Traister's take on the article, but I do have to wonder about why nobody mentioned the context. Ms. Clinton was dressed to do an all nighter in the Senate chamber. I suspect not all the men were in suits either. I wouldn't have been.
-
Clinton could actually come out of this with some advantage with Independent voters
One can almost hear the soundbite now from Hillary when asked the obligatory pointless question from one of our "serious" beltway reporters wanting to know how this whole "Cleavagegate" has affected her campaign strategy. She could score big points with scores of voters with a simple off-the-cuff retort that could never be challenged. All she has to say is..."I can't control who writes what, but I sure look better wearing it than Guliani does when he's wearing it."
Hillary doesn't need to dress or look more "feminine". But it wouldn't hurt her to every now and then show the voters that not every single detail in her campaign has to be scripted and rehearsed by a team of media advisors. A witty comeback like that would suggest to folks out there that while she's serious about what she's trying to achieve, that she doesn't take everything written about her too seriously. I wasn't a huge fan of her husband, but I do think he had that way of communicating back in '92 where people felt like they were hearing what he thought at that very moment rather than the typical rehearsed talking points most candidates now rely on.
I think many voters, although not myself, still whether right or wrong want on some level to FEEL like the candidate is talking to them personally. To do that I think Clinton has to "let more of herself out". And no, by that I don't mean show more cleavage.