Letters to the Editor
-
The irony is killing me
Wading through the letters, I notice an amusing juxtaposition.
On the one hand are numerous letters arguing against the notion of sexism in the photo rampage. "Pshaw!" they say dismissively. "That's not sexism! She's just being closely examined as would any other frontrunner."
Against that backdrop is the multitude of letters screaming aghast about how unfair it was to conclude the piece with a single sentence referencing John Edwards' good looks.
Wow. It's getting so you need goggles in here.
http://danaruns.typepad.com/danarunstheworld/
-
Does Our Youth Obessed Culture Want To Stare At An Aging Woman? Sure. It Beats Listening to a Drug-Addicted Fat Ass Blowhard.
was that a trick question, or something.
-
Well, we talked
about Edwards' hair, how old and tired Thompson looks, the 'Rudy stare', and a few other 'sexist' things..why should Senator Clinton be given a pass?
If we are going to talk about the other candidates, then Hillary has to be fair game too.
-
@Gwool again
Wondering if someone of a very advanced age--of either gender--will be able to carry out their duties or even live out their term is a valid concern. Wondering if a woman who is well under retirement age is dewy and pretty enough to be president is another thing entirely.
-
Who's Concern Trolling!?
Oh please, I think you're the one concern trolling here, Rebecca. If people are truly inspired by Clinton, there is no way one bad photo will stop them from voting for her. I've also seen her look far younger than her years due to excellent lighting, great hairstylist, makeup artist, and designer clothing; perks I'm sure most of us would like to benefit from now and then. I guess I like to hold out hope that most of us look at a picture like this, say, "wow, bad photo" and quickly forget about it.
I also find it suspicious that you seem to go out of your way to repeat negative comments about Obama and bash Edwards in such an unkind and unreasonable way. You have committed the same offense you're claiming Hillary is a victim of--just approaching it from the other side of the same coin. Apparently you think Edwards can't lead because he's attractive. We're gonna have a real conundrum if we can elect neither someone who is not good-looking enough nor someone who is too good-looking.
-
She looks great!
Personally I love the picuture of Hillary. Makes her look more 'presidential' if there is such a thing. More human, to be exact. Hope this bites those idiots in the ass. Making a deal about her aging look. How amazingly shallow. Limbaugh. The voice of the Republican party. I'd be ashamed.
-
Not buying it
Ending with a cheap shot at John Edwards was pretty telling. Don't forget that he got endless haranguing in the press for getting a fancy haircut. Your belief that he's unacceptable because of how he looks and the focus of your article suggest to me that the problem's yours, not mine. And the fact that Hillary's leading the race suggests that the majority of people in this country aren't as hung up about this as you suggest.
That Rush Limbaugh will find an excuse to say Hillary isn't electable doesn't prove anything. That embarrassing photos of tired candidates get taken doesn't prove anything. That you found a few conservative bloggers/commentators who are willing to take her to task over ANYTHING - the triter the better - doesn't prove anything. She's still leading this race, which proves a large number of Americans take her quite seriously.
The "cackle" isn't notable because it's female. Like most people, I've heard many women laugh, sometimes even forced laughs. Clinton''s forced laugh is terrifying. The way her eyes glint and she pulls her lips back, heaving out bursts of laugh-like noise... It's very transparent pandering, not unlike GWB's chuckle. I've also heard her laugh genuinely, which is quite charming. Perhaps therein lies the problem, not in her femininity.
All of that said, if she wins the nomination I'll vote for her. I think she'd be a good president. I just don't think she's the best choice by a long shot.
-
@ LaurieNY
You Wrote: "Wondering if someone of a very advanced age--of either gender--will be able to carry out their duties or even live out their term is a valid concern. Wondering if a woman who is well under retirement age is dewy and pretty enough to be president is another thing entirely."
With all due respect, you are being selective with the information I offered.
Concerns about Adams' height had nothing to do with ability to carry out the duties. Concerns about Jimmy Carter being afraid of a rabbit running a road race in black socks and sneakers had nothing to to with ability to carry out the duties. Concerns about Jerry Ford being a klutz for having a trick knee that buckled on him coming down the stairs of Air Force One had nothing to do with ability to carry out the duties.
All of those are physical in nature just as cheap shots about Hillary being a hag or whatever it have been.
If we had never held our MALE candidates up for physical ridicule and were only doing this to Hillary, then it would be valid. The POINT is we have been ridiculing physical characteristics of presidents since Adams.
I am not saying it is necessarily right. I am saying the shots at Hillary are not unique to her gender. We've ripped male physical attributes and this is a rip on her physical attributes.
-
The McCarthy of Our Time
In 50 years, I think school children will learn about Rush Limbaugh with the same horror and revulsion that we learned about McCarthy. Aside from murderers and other violent criminals, I truly think he is one of the worst human beings America has created, certainly in my lifetime. Why we don't see him -- as a nation -- that way already is a sad mystery.
GO HILLARY, GO!
-
Gwool, honey...
If you read what I think was my first post (I've lost track) I pointed out somewhat similar attacks that were perpetrated upon John Kerry. Who was, last time I checked, male (although he didn't grow balls big enough for my tastes until after the election).
There's two issues at play here: 1) Women's looks and age are taken into account much more often then those of men when deciding whether or not they can do a job, and 2) Conservatives have a tendency to launch childish, schoolyard-bully-level attacks on Democratic candidates.
You keep bringing up how male physical attributes are also criticized, but you're comparing apples and oranges. Has anyone ever said "he's too short to be president" or "his hair is too grey to be president" or "he's not handsome enough to be president" or "he's too chubby to be president"? NO. Male candidates are not judged that way. And what, we wouldn't be watching a MALE president "aging before our very eyes"? The male candidates all drink from the fountain of youth?
That's what happened here, and what we're talking about... conservative commentators expressed the concern that Americans would not want to watch a woman aging on a daily basis, right before our very eyes. No such concern was raised over either a male or a conservative candidate. Period.
Wondering if Ronald Reagan's advanced age would hinder his presidential abilities was justified. Wondering if Hillary Clinton's unsightly wrinkles would hinder hers is not. It really IS that simple.