Letters to the Editor
-
Possible analogy
I felt like the female characters in Michael Clayton mirrored this dichotomy - the country bumpkin who is willing to secretly fly to NY to meet a lunatic who chased her through a parking lot naked is a sympathetic character but the intelligent (albeit ruthless) attorney for uNorth is pure evil.
-
Your timelne is wrong
Salon ran the fluff piece on her in December. BBQ was March.
-
Blah blah blah
I am wondering why no one has asked Meghan McCain about what she thought of that despicable "joke" daddy told about Chelsea Clinton.
-
its because Meghan is so awsom
yes Hillary is smart and I will vote for her but comeon. we would all vote for meghan if she was 23 because thats legal for the president
i love Meghan. dont pretend to be so dum sister!!!!! If she was Chelses sister it would be great. I would vote for both of them together
-
Be a reporter: get an interview with Chelsea Clinton
McCain gets attention because she doesn't avoid the press. I think people would be interested in a real interview or more coverage of the more serious Chelsea Clinton.
Despite (or because) of the Clintons strong-arm censorship of the press on behalf of Chelsea, there has been a lot of fawning, if rather distant coverage of her (NY Times, I'm looking at you). I think that plays into a whole serious/bimbo (madonna/whore) dichotomy which probably isn't a balanced portrayal of either woman.
McCain has been covered enough and then some. Go get an interview with Chelsea. Or do a little friendly investigative reporting by interviewing her friends at least. Chelsea has chosen to be a public figure, too, and the media should quit differing to her parents just because Chelsea is their little girl.
-
Feminists continue to rip younger women to shreds
Yes, we know. She's young, she's at least somewhat concerned about how she looks, and she doesn't support Hillary so she's automatically the enemy. This is getting really old. Did it ever strike you that maybe Meghan McCain can be intelligent without the overwhelming need to beat people over the head with that intelligence ala Hillary Clinton.
Sorry ladies everyone can't be Hillary and Chelsea. That's just the way it is. Unfortunately for you that does not mean they're dumb. And some of them are blonde, like Meghan McCain. I would say running a blog attempting to show the real side of campaigning and attempting to support her parent's campaign is a useful job for a 23-year old. Obviously she'll be torn to pieces for this as many of us predicted months ago. However, let Chelsea get out there and do essentially the same thing, campaigning for one of her parents, and she is a saint.
Will it ever end? Now you're down to attacking 23-year old young women who are intelligent and care about their appearance as long as they're not named Chelsea.
-
Wonderful Meghan McCain quote from the article
"I am proud of my curves and have always loved my fuller figure, as should every woman who is not a size "0". I want to be a positive role model for my little sister and all of the other young women who read my blog and help perpetuate a more positive image for women, regardless of their body size. I feel empowered to tell everyone that it's important to maintain a healthy weight that works for them - not everyone is going to be model thin, nor should they expect to be. To every young girl reading this blog, it is inner beauty and happiness that makes a person beautiful, not a number on a scale."
Ummm. . . I'm sorry but isn't this exactly the message feminists and health experts have been trying to get out there for years? I really don't get this. It's like whoever wrote this article for Salon didn't bother to actually read the GQ interview but just wrote this piece based on what they thought it would say.
I'm sorry but Meghan McCain's doing as much, if not more, than any other presidential offspring I've seen out there. Again so she's blonde, wears lipstick and uses the word "like".
No one's calling her a genius "savant", we're just saying to dismiss her as stupid based on her appearance and an article you clearly didn't read is lazy, sloppy journalism.
-
How special
Tsk tsk ... so angry. Maybe daddy has a joke for you too?
-
A Predictably Snide and Gratuitously Insulting Article
Where to begin with your article?...except to say that it was predictably snide and gratuitously insulting.... and you dare to criticize other people's writing?
Who are you to say whether a young woman's hair is "overbleached"? Once again, the girls of Broadsheet sound exactly like 60 year old church-ladies in my hometown. When Chelsea Clinton was choosing to sport a mop of Kate Rusby corkscrew-curls, how did you refer to that so-natural hairdo?
The greatest irony (to which I can safely assume you are completely blind) is that you sneer at Meghan McCain's choice of topics for her blog.....but what exactly is "newsworthy" (your word) about your "blog", in which certain "overbleached" young women are described as "witless starlets", "acting like an idiot" or a "fake-baked blogette" who wwrites "flight, flimsy campaign coverage"????????? I don't particularly regard it as "news" when someone (you, in this case) indulges in generalizing-insults regarding particular young women they don't even know.
As for this "common journalistic practice" which you apparently hold as a standard?.....hmmm....well...no, actually I DON"T remember when Meghan McCain was known ONLY as the somewhat vapid, overbleached narrator of the McCain barbecue video...
Oh, I could go on....suffice it to say that your article was eye-poppingly mean-spirited.
I'm assuming that you consider yourself a feminist?
What have you actually done lately, except sneering?
Sincerely,
David Terry
-
It comes down to anti-intellectualism
I have no opinion on Meghan McCain, other than to say that the last place I want to see her is in the White House.
The idea of the blonde bimbo who is actually very smart goes back in American popular culture to at least the 1950's, as exemplified by Judy Holliday and Marilyn Monroe. It was okay for a woman to be smart, as long as she was also sexy and childlike. But I'm not sure this was only (or mostly) due to sexism, so much as anti-intellectualism. Americans just don't trust overtly smart people.
Very smart men are also suspect, unless they're packaged in a quaint or non-threatening way, such as with Albert Einstein or Stephen Hawking. Otherwise, they're more likely to be seen as unpopular eggheads or villains fit to be killed by rough men of action (preferably played by Bruce Willis). The Al Gore versus George W. Bush race in 2000 was a perfect example of America's distaste for intellectuals and intelligent discourse. Brainiac Al just went on and on with his long sentences and fancy words. Give us dumb George instead, with his dropped g's and aw shucks, I'm not a book-learnin' kinda guy attitude. We've seen how well that worked out.