I am old enough to remember seeing the MTV meet-and-greet between college students and another presidential candidate coincidentally named Clinton. The question then was "Boxers or briefs?" I was thoroughly disgusted.

Since then I have mellowed out a bit, but TV has gotten unbelievably worse. So I'm still just as disgusted when I catch snippets like this. I haven't had a TV for more than 15 years, and that MTV moment was one of the turning points. I don't know if the diamonds-or-pearls question is sexist, but it's stupid, and it was stupid of CNN to let someone ask it. Just like it was for MTV all those many, many years ago.

That question is so dumb it's almost as bad as "Human rights or national security?"

The student who asked the question should be ashamed of herself. There was her big moment, when she had a chance to ask the potential president of the United States a question and THAT is what came out of her mouth... pathetic.

Her suffragette grandmothers must have been turning in their graves.

It's small-minded sexism, pure and simple.

What your post misses, though, is that the Clinton campaign is deliberately propagating the sexism as well. Clinton (her surrogates) complained of being "ganged up on by the men." You can see the sexism in the statement if you replace it with "ganged up on by the other candidates." Loses its punch, no?

I don't hear of Obama (or his surrogates) or Richardson (or his surrogates) complaining about whitey keeping them down, and that's a smart move. It would make them look weak.

Everyone did something I have seen done (heard done) ONLY to women (and sometimes to minority people) in doctor's and dentist's offices and elsewhere -- first name familiarity -- everyone on the stage was SENATOR Sock-Puppet or GOVERNOR Smiling-Man but Senator Clinton was "Hillary."

First name familiarity is a modest way of diminishing someone: "Betty, wait for me in the car" or such like -- GW Bush does it a step farther, gives each person a nickname to further diminish them,

If the position title is an honorific, then she is Senator Clinton. If it's not, then it's Joe and Dennis and John and Chris, et al.

Wolf Blitzer was NOT sexist, however -- he called everyone by his or her honorific and treated everyone equally with total disrespect and lack of attention to or understanding of their answers, interrupting everyone, male or female alike, usually just as the person was making the point.

But he wasn't sexist about it.

Your point about doctors' offices is true, of course.

But note that Clinton's campaign goes out of its way to promote her as Hillary. The signs say "Hillary '08." The website says "Hillary for President." No last name.

This may be to differentiate her from Bill Clinton, the way the current George Bush used "W", but the the effect is diminutive.

I suspect she's made the calculations on that.

You know, we want to get to know these candidates as people. We have seen Hillary answer serious policy questions over and over and over...we know that side of her. A question like diamonds v pearls surprised Hillary and let us see her in a different aspect. Isn't that what interviewers try for? to evoke a side of the person not usually in evidence?

About the gender card? why wouldn't it be in play? It IS in play. It needs to be in play. Potentially electing a woman as President for the first time is a big deal, and no one really knows how the country is assessing the idea and reacting to it. We need to watch and observe and see how both the men and the woman handle the issue, so we can discern who these folks really are.

As far as the first name usage, one of her main problems is the perception that she is cold. Using her first name makes her seem more like one of us, someone we can relate to.

I am shaking my head at the journalistic need to make every word, every phrase, into something of profound significance.

Sometimes it is, sometimes it is not. Could we have a little discernment in looking at all this?

The girl was embarrassed to ask that question. Unfortunately it was the question that CNN forced her to ask. She submitted 5 questions and was prepared to ask about the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste proposal, but CNN needed to finish with a "light-hearted" question. And apparently that topic had already been discussed. So there you go.

Anyway, leave it to CNN to think that was an appropriate way to end a debate.

CNN's defense is that it was the girl's own question. But it was the one throw-away question she submitted.

Click link for more...

We're not!

I despair!

I wanted to shake her (the student) until her little rabbity teeth wobbled! But I wanted to STRANGLE the unctuous, imprecise, meaning-masticating interviewer, too.

With women like that in the national spotlight, utterly wasting such precious access to the national ear, who needs enemies...

Thank you, Joan, for highlighting the heartbreaking regressiveness of that closing question. Thank you, Joan! I havent seen you mull over the power of such symbols much.

Not. Amused.

Heaving a brainy, bosomy sigh (upon which slowly sagging bosom neither pearls nor diamonds perch, because we don't NEED expensive rocks mined from earth or sea by third-world laborers to signal our value...oh when will people thiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiink)...

And before you yell at me, Brightstar, it grieves me EQUALLY to see men in the suit-and-strangling-tie uniform...

At the risk of seeming strident, the phrase "playing the card" means claiming to be VICTIMIZED solely on the basis of being a .

Yes, electing our first female president is a big deal. It's very frustrating that Senator Clinton, who doesn't need to play the victim, is doing so. Strategically.

"Diamonds or pearls?" is sexist, yes, because you would never ask that of one of the male candidates. (You might ask, "Viagra or Porn?" or maybe "Heather Locklear is naked and waiting in the bedroom, but Sybil Danning is oiled and ready in the den. Which do you choose? You have 5 seconds - GO!")

Reducing a woman to questions about fashion is just insultingly lame.

Think of these debates as group job interviews. Can you imagine interviewing a woman for a corporate presidency job and asking her "diamonds or pearls"?

True, the student herself is partly to blame. I suppose that's worth keeping in mind. At least she didn't ask, "What detergent do you prefer for getting out difficult stains?"