home

Sexy Politicans

Viewing politicians through the lens of their physical attraction is not limited to women.

John Edwards got it far worse than Sarah Palin.

In November 2000, People magazine named John Edwards as its choice for the "sexiest politician alive." A sampling of news and blog post titles:

  • 51 Thoughts on the Apparent Sexiness of John Edwards
  • John Edwards, Sexy Beast?
  • JOHN EDWARDS IS TOTALLY HOT! (Orlando Weekly)

Would his $400 haircut have made as many waves if he wasn't so attractive? Conservatives ragged him over his looks. A blogger at Michelle Malkin's site wrote, "Edwards, who essentially rose to prominence because of his pretty face and his bouncy hair, has now come full-circle on his Iraq position."

How about President Obama's shirtless picture that topped the news for days? ABC ran with "President Beefcake? D.C. magazine to feature shirtless Obama on cover". Other story leads: "Who would have guessed that President-elect Obama is ripped?" and from the NY Post, "Just call him "Ab"-bama. Buff-bodied President-elect Barack Obama put his chiseled frame on full display..."

Tina Brown today, on the Newsweek cover: [More..]

No one cried sexism when New York magazine took a photo of fallen Gov. Eliot Spitzer and added the word “brain” with an arrow to his crotch. And circa 1994 we were all happy to ogle Bill Clinton in his running shorts and never called out the media’s ethical judgment.

Sympathy for Sarah Palin because of the Newsweek photo? She willingly posed for all those photos in Runner's World. (Here's the set) I have none.

Update: I just remembered the John Edwards "Hair/Makeup" video, and his campaign's terrific video response.

< The Return Of Lincoln 1860 | Wednesday Afternoon Open Thread >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Fun fact (5.00 / 2) (#1)
    by Spamlet on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:05:09 PM EST
    According to David Plouffe, the source of the John Edwards haircut story was the Obama campaign.

    The GOP did it first during Kerry/Edwards ... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:43:46 PM EST
    ... referring to Edwards throughout as "The Breck Girl" (cf the shampoo bottle.)

    Obama sleazily exploited this while loftily talking about a new tone and bipartisanship, knowing the Repugs would be blamed.

    (He was just as scummy when he presented as a personal attribute his bi-partisan appeal by labeling (Sen) Clinton as "divisive" because she was a favorite target of the media and GOP.)  

    Parent

    According to Runner's World (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by kmblue on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:07:46 PM EST
    the photo was used illegally.  I would think that would bother you.  That fact is in the link you provided.

    Newsweek has been asked to justify its photo choices.  Their explanation is lame.  I can't stand Sarah Palin, but I agree with BTD their treatment of her is sexist--just as much media treatment of Hillary Clinton has been sexist.

    Your mileage may vary.

    Doesn't bother me (none / 0) (#6)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:10:07 PM EST
    It was provided to Newsweek by the photographer's stock agency, according to Runner's World. It ran all over the world last year.

    Parent
    which makes its use here (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:25:24 PM EST
    inexplicable. Unless . . . yep, Newsweek wanted to focus on Palin's physical appearance.

    No, not sexist at all Jeralyn. Puhleeeeaze.

    Parent

    Interesting. (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:10:41 PM EST
    I've been following the Plain Dealer coverage of all things Anthony Sowell.

    The images of Sowell are either his initial arrest photo (not flattering in the least) or court photos showing him in prison togs.  

    The images of the women whose bodies were found at the house Sowell lived at were all ones of them smiling and looking vibrant.

    Is there a bias?  Probably.  Does it affect how these individuals are perceived?  Without a doubt.

    Humans are very visually oriented.  The photos that go with an article color our perceptions before we've read one word.

    Parent

    Yep (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:14:19 PM EST
    It's only a legal blog (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:03:08 PM EST
    after all.  Interesting that, as best I can recall (which may be a flawed recollection), it has been a while since a post on an intellectual property case -- a cause dear to my heart, but I'm not a lawyer.  I'm only an author who has been repeatedly plagiarized (including by a practicing lawyer!).

    Parent
    I do not write about IP (none / 0) (#43)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:05:25 PM EST
    cuz that what I do a lot of.

    I'm no longer writing about anything that touches upon my professional life.

    Parent

    That explains it, and that is reasonable. (none / 0) (#71)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:31:29 PM EST
    I was aware that was an area of your expertise.  I also can understand that it is reasonable and actually advisable to not discuss that area here.

    Btw, one of the egregious plagiarizings of my work, by the lawyer, was on a bar website.  But as I encounter again, the reply was . . . so what.

    Parent

    I would love to write about it (none / 0) (#82)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:38:09 PM EST
    But what others tried to when I my blogged about legal issues that touched my professional practice has led me to stay far away.

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 2) (#4)
    by AlkalineDave on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:09:19 PM EST
    Like Sarah Palin or not, I believe she's gotten it far worse than John Edwards.  Between photoshopped pics, real pics, comments, and even pronos being filmed with a fake Sarah Palin star, Ms. Palin has been picked apart over the sexy angle to a degree unknown by Mr. Edwards.

    PS (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by kmblue on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:11:11 PM EST
    It ain't right to do it to men either
    (and it's far more rare, because a woman's looks are considered among her few essential assets.  I'll be dead before that changes.)

    I think it is more rare, in some circles. (none / 0) (#16)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:27:17 PM EST
    Monday I was googling around about the "call heard 'round the world" (Belicheck's 4 & 2 play on Sunday) and read a great analysis of the play at some website or other, and who's next article was about some "butt (photo) shots" of a certain football player.

    Surprised, I looked at the name of the website and it started with "Out."

    So, I guess in some circles it's OK to do it to men...

    Parent

    Football player (none / 0) (#19)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:31:56 PM EST
    v. politician?

    And of course half the magazine industry is dedicated to objectifying either men or women, depending on what you read (Advocate, Cosmo, Men's Journal, Maxim).

    Parent

    ...which is fine (5.00 / 1) (#22)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:37:06 PM EST
    I know what to expect when I pick up Cosmo or Maxim or the Advocate.  There's nothing wrong with appreciating people's looks.  In Newsweek on the other hand?

    Parent
    Yeah, I was thinking more of the (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:48:01 PM EST
    objectification of women and men in general, as was (I think) the comment I was responding to, not comparatively between different occupations. Fair point about the magazines.

    fwiw, as someone who's subscribed to Runner's World for over a decade now, their cover art has become much more, I don't know, cheesey body image-y, over the past few years, in contrast to real runner-y the way it used to be...

    Parent

    The most consistently (none / 0) (#35)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:55:55 PM EST
    bizarre covers aren't the tabloids, but the muscle mags.  Maybe it is because the women in those photos seem to be chosen and posed primarily to enhance the men.  It's just as strange as the air brushed cleavage on each Cosmo cover.  

    Parent
    yeah (none / 0) (#38)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:59:46 PM EST
    I used to read Outside and Men's Journal because I like hiking and adventure stories, etc.  But I don't read MJ anymore because it's increasingly about beefcake and bikinis.  I'm not a dude, so there is that, but it used not to be so lame.

    Parent
    it's mostly just the covers that seem to have changed.


    Parent
    Thank you Jeralyn (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by lilburro on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:19:57 PM EST
    for documenting your POV.  That's something to argue with, instead of "she deserves it!" or other reflexive responses.

    John Edwards being attractive was part of his narrative, for sure.  Obama, not really.  Sex appeal was not part of the week to week narrative of who they were.  With Sarah Palin and Hillary Clinton, this was the case.  That's why shakesville's sexism watch for Sarah Palin goes up to 28 chapters and Hillary's goes into the 100s.

    And it's not like Newsweek ever did a cover of Obama's abs with other shots about his personality and future related to his chest or butt.

    Y'know (5.00 / 2) (#139)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:02:02 PM EST
    I personally hope my daughter will never want to participate in one of those icky beauty pageant things, but if she does, I hardly think that makes her fair game for catcalls for the rest of her life.

    Of course she is gorgeous but that's not the point here!

    Parent

    forget the pictures (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:02:07 PM EST
    forget the pagent stuff- to me it all comes down to winking at the debates- I still have yet to see an explanation for that which doesn't involve her flirting with the audience.

    Parent
    Maybe she does use it (5.00 / 2) (#168)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:16:22 PM EST
    to her advantage. Maybe she doesn't mind being reduced to a set of gams by Newsweek if it gets her another week's worth of publicity. Maybe I don't feel sorry for her personally at all.

    Still doesn't mean it is not sexist and wrong.

    Parent

    are you serious (none / 0) (#44)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:05:56 PM EST
    do you remember the fainting in the aisles?

    Parent
    Are YOU serious? (5.00 / 1) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    He's talking (none / 0) (#97)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:45:42 PM EST
    The Beatles in 1963.

    Parent
    so (2.00 / 1) (#159)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:12:13 PM EST
    you are saying you do not remember the women fainting at the Obama rallies.

    interesting selective memory.


    Parent

    I don't remember that (none / 0) (#186)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:31:25 PM EST
    But maybe my memory is faulty.

    Parent
    TV coverage showed people (none / 0) (#191)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:35:17 PM EST
    purportedly fainting.  When it happened at a couple different Obama rallies, some questioned whether it was staged.   Who knows.

    Parent
    It happened at Clinton rallies also (5.00 / 1) (#196)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:42:31 PM EST
    there was a problem with the politicians being more than a tad late and large crowds in hot stuffy rooms . . . .

    Parent
    I remember it clearly (5.00 / 2) (#197)
    by CST on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:43:46 PM EST
    As it was often discussed here as a way of demeaning Obama supporters.

    Look at all those idiots girls fainting at Obama rallies.  Must be they are swooning over his hottness and can't see what a terrible candidate he is.  Could have nothing to do with the number of people and temp. at the rallies - since those were inflated anyway to make him look "cool".

    Parent

    Ridiculous (5.00 / 7) (#11)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:23:13 PM EST
    If we did not live in a world where women are objectified and denigrated, where men are not - then an argument about Edwards vs. Palin might be interesting.

    But the world where this analysis might have a place is not the one we live in. The disconnect from the world we live in on this issue is striking.


    Agree (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by Athena on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:45:53 PM EST
    This is like arguing whether pregnancy benefits should be available to women and men.  The reality only applies to one gender.

    I don't recall Obama or Edwards with a body pasted across Newsweek accompanied by the snide "how do you solve a problem like.."

    The treatment of Palin over the last year reveals the left's utter fascination and fear of her.  However, the derision and ridicule only deepen the support she gets in other places.

    There's just no place for Palin-sexism or Hillary-sexism, etc.  IMHO, all women are harmed when their gender is an invitation for contempt.

    Parent

    I think the difference is (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:23:18 PM EST
    that "sexy" Obama is a positive, just one more attribute in an apparently long (for some) list.

    "Sexy" Palin OTOH is a negative. It makes her an unintelligent tart, wh0re, etc who is using her looks to get ahead.

    She a "problem" (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:34:18 PM EST
    and apparently that point needed to be addressed by showing her in running togs. The article begs not to be taken seriously by placing it with that picture.

    Parent
    Perhaps a correction to your comment is; (none / 0) (#58)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:17:19 PM EST
    The article, with cover, begs to have Sarah Palin not taken seriously.  Her politics and experience are sufficient enough to question and judge.  Why can't the facts speak for themselves?

    Parent
    On second thought, (none / 0) (#62)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:19:19 PM EST
    I think I just rephrased your comment.  Same page, different book?  LOL

    Parent
    maybe cwalt (none / 0) (#98)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:45:46 PM EST
    said exactly what she meant.

    Parent
    Agreed. (none / 0) (#125)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:56:48 PM EST
    No attmept by me to "rephrase by gender".  Just an attempt to acknolwedge my misreading of original comment.

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#153)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:08:55 PM EST
    for people like me, I looked at the commentary being provided as well as the picture and automatically dismissed it as slanted(If their intent was for me to dismiss her or consider her a problem then they failed). If that was the intent of Newsweek then they succeeded. Personally, I think they would have been far more successful in getting independants to actually read their argument by presenting it in a serious manner. But hey whatever floats Newsweek's boat.

    Parent
    Agreed. (5.00 / 1) (#182)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:30:07 PM EST
    Once again, It appears I misread your comment.  Mea Culpa.  (These new, frickin' bifocals!  ;) )  
    And your latest comment, which is more elogquent than my comment, basically indicates we're on the same page.

    Parent
    BTW, (none / 0) (#185)
    by ChiTownDenny on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:31:01 PM EST
    It's the same page BTD seems to be on as well.  Go figure....  :)

    Parent
    :) Google search of Top Ten (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:44:33 PM EST
    Sexiest Politicians brings up some 84,000 hits and I didn't see any that included Obama or Palin or Edwards in the few I opened from the first page.

     

    Parent

    Agree (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by CST on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:08:39 PM EST
    I have a much bigger problem with the use of the photo to demean than the photo itself.

    To be perfectly frank, I was kind of expecting to be defending the use of the photo myself, since I don't see anything scandalous about it, and kind of saw it as just a photo.  It wasn't until I started reading some of the other comments that it hit me what the problem was.  I didn't realize that wearing shorts and looking cute was such a big deal.

    Parent

    you are right (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:47:37 PM EST
    it is not scandalous. it is sexist.  Big difference.

    Parent
    yep (5.00 / 4) (#111)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:52:16 PM EST
    I had no problem at all with the photo in its original context in Runners World. Nothing wrong with it - typical back scratching deal: celebrity tie-in with the magazine's theme. Designer running wear rarely seen on the streets. It's not overtly sexy or even immodest  - most runners I see wear a lot less than that.  Whole thing was kind of corny, but that's a matter of taste.

    Taking it out of context says: Our cover subject wrote a book about running for the 2nd highest office in the land. Here she is in shorts.

    Parent

    Exactly. (5.00 / 2) (#179)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:28:57 PM EST
    Taking it out of context says: Our cover subject wrote a book about running for the 2nd highest office in the land. Here she is in shorts.

    This is it in a nutshell. Nicely stated.

    Parent

    If the demeaning of John Edwards (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:24:21 PM EST
    by the Obama campaign fed a cultural demeaning of men, contributing to their continued devaluing in the workplace, for example, with lower pay for men . . . I don't see it.  On the other hand. . . .

    True ... (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by Robot Porter on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:31:34 PM EST
    but the "pretty" statements about Edwards are an attempt to bring his manhood into question.

    This is one of our society's embedded versions of homophobia.

    Parent

    Yes, and those statements were most often (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:36:56 PM EST
    made by Republicans as part of their standard  attacks on "weak" "unmanly"  Dems.  If the Obama campaign went along with it, I am really disappointed but not surprised. Did not even think I still had the capacity for disappointment

    Parent
    Ben Smith at Politico (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by jes on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:59:12 PM EST
    has revealed that it was the Obama campaign that leaked the oppo research on the $400 haircut.

    So the campaign did more than just went along with it.

    Parent

    Lovely (5.00 / 2) (#61)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:19:08 PM EST
    Way to play right into Republican narratives. Rove could not have done it better.

    Parent
    Whatever Worked (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by Athena on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:48:24 PM EST
    True - the Obama campaign was even more excited to be running against 2 women (Edwards and Clinton).

    Parent
    Yes, wasn't Edwards referred to (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:47:23 PM EST
    as the "Breck Girl"?

    Parent
    I googled the reference (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by kmblue on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:00:48 PM EST
    it's attributed to a "senior Bush official".
    Of course, it's derogatory.

    Let's consider how Janet Reno was derided for her looks, and whether any of our fine fat white jowly bald male lawmakers have to deal with such problems--ever.

    Parent

    I called himthat in 2003 (none / 0) (#84)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:39:17 PM EST
    when I was in the Clark cult.

    Parent
    So glad Dems have caught up with Michelle Malkin's (5.00 / 5) (#15)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:25:29 PM EST
    bloggers in the race to the bottom. I was afraid they never would.

    Everyone is viewed through the lens of their attractiveness. It is a bug, not a feature. 'Serious' news magazines are supposed to be better than People.  Of course Time and  Newsweek left that standard behind a long time ago, but still I thought they at least wanted to maintain the facade.

    Speaking of David Plouffe, I'm sure he is on a book tour too. I wonder what pictures they will use of him. Maybe he was on the college swim team and Tina Brown will be happy to ogle his yearbook photos.

    Wouldn't matter if they did (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:47:00 PM EST
    because David Plouffe's sexuality doesn't terrify people the way Palin's apparently does.

    Parent
    did you know (5.00 / 12) (#110)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:51:34 PM EST
    that when male politicians wink they mean "we are in on a joke together" and when Palin winks it means "don't you want to f*ck me?"

    Parent
    LOL. Best comment! (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:52:50 PM EST
    ah, someone else braved the Atrios comments today? (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:55:54 PM EST
    meaning that is where I learned the latter (none / 0) (#127)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:57:30 PM EST
    half of your juxtaposition, not that you got your whole comment there!

    Parent
    Yes, those women using their feminine wiles (5.00 / 7) (#173)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:22:27 PM EST
    on defenseless men, rendering them incapable of giving equal treatment in the workplace to women who don't have what it takes or know how to use it. Yes, the women are the problem. Always.

    Parent
    So, a pol isn't a pol and does what (none / 0) (#163)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:13:04 PM EST
    pols do when the pol is an attractive female?

    Parent
    LOL.... I've got to say the thought (5.00 / 2) (#121)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:55:38 PM EST
    of a picture of David Plouffe in a little speedo does terrify me... :-)!

    Parent
    Perfect comment (none / 0) (#136)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:00:46 PM EST
    because the only other person's sexuality as frightening as Palin's is Bill Clinton's. And I was mocking  Brown's idiotic comment about how 'everyone' was  happy to ogle Bill Clinton in his running shorts.  Another link from CDS to PDS. Very interesting! I never thought of it that way.

    Parent
    Your antipathy for Palin is palpable, (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    but what's more disturbing to me is that you are willing to justify and approve of anything that paints her in a negative light.

    As for Tina Brown, or anyone else who's happily justifying the Newsweek cover, why would we want to accord any positive meaning to equal opportunity sexism?  Why would we want to let sexism put down more roots, anywhere, for anyone?

    The situational ethics - the "but they do it to men, too" justification - is just perpetuating the sexism we've been fighting forever, and it's hard to believe that the trade-off - hoping Palin takes a hit for this cover - is really worth it.

     

    Yet, the "Sexiest Man Alive" cover on (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:48:13 PM EST
    People every year is considered quite the compliment.

    They just announced Johnny Depp for this year :)


    Parent

    jeesh.... (5.00 / 3) (#117)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:53:47 PM EST
    because men are not hurt by the idea that they are sexy.  For women they must be either Madonna or whore. They can not be both.

    Parent
    Apparently there are multiple ways to (none / 0) (#199)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:46:14 PM EST
    interpret, and you chose a way I hadn't even thought of.

    jeesh, is right!

    Parent

    Well I have to admit that Edwards and Obama (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by MO Blue on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:26:40 PM EST
    never appeared as even a blip on my sexy man meter. Johnny Depp OTOH does seriously get my meter beeping full blast.

    Parent
    Newsweek =/= People (5.00 / 1) (#193)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:36:14 PM EST
    When Newsweek starts running "Sexiest Politician Alive" issues, then perhaps this photo would merit inclusion. As long as they're supposedly a serious news magazine, however...

    Parent
    Did you Google to see (none / 0) (#200)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:47:24 PM EST
    which magazines do that? There are plenty.

    Parent
    I'm sure there are. (5.00 / 1) (#206)
    by huzzlewhat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:52:53 PM EST
    I would imagine they're entertainment magazines, though?

    Does Newsweek do it?  How about The Economist?

    Does Newsweek see itself more like People than The Economist?

    Parent

    Johnny Depp again?!? That hideous bridge troll?!?! (5.00 / 1) (#213)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 03:11:06 PM EST
    Way to wreck my afternoon tea with Mama Mia! The Home Game. Hot stuff! How hot? That was their B-lineup. Here's the A-Game.

    But these are athletes who live by keeping their bodies in primo number 1 shape, and have their achievements mathemetically documented and archived to ten decimal points, which gives them a kind of freedom to do this and not be disparaged.

    Except Paolo Maldini, who would shun such base materialism because of his overriding soulfulness as evidenced by those haunting, unfathomably deep limpid pools the rest of the idiot world calls eyes.

    Parent

    Wow. (5.00 / 6) (#25)
    by dk on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:40:44 PM EST
    To be honest, I don't really get if Jeralyn is trying to make any other point other than that she has no pity for Sarah Palin (which, by the way, I have no problem with).  What's interesting to me is that the examples she points out with regard to Edwards and Obama actually prove the sexism that is taking place.  

    By and large, the depictions of Edwards and Obama as being sexy actually bolstered their public image.  In other words, the cultural message, and the message of the media, is that being sexy is a political PLUS, if you're a man.  It was a good thing.  Now, the haircut kerfluffle is different, because that wasn't about being sexy.  That's about a man caring too much about his looks, which, of course, is code in our homophobic culture for being gay.  And as we all know in this culture, the one thing worse than being a woman is being gay.

    This, of course, is the double standard.  Of course we talk about the sexiness of male and female politicians.  But when it's male politicians, it's a good thing.  When it's female politicians, the message is that it somehow detracts from her "seriousness."  I have to say, this double standard seems so obvious to me that I'm still to this day surprised when otherwise intelligent people don't see it as well.  

    "No pity"?!!!!! Try antipathy. (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:19:06 PM EST
    Well, I don't know (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by dk on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    Jeralyn personally, so I don't feel able to know whether she's motivated by lack of pity, antipathy, or whatever.  In her post she states an unwillingness to have sympathy for her, whatever that means.

    My point, though, was that in her attempts to deny any sexism as a method of bolstering her lack of pity/antipathy/lack of sympathy, she unwittingly pointed out the very sexism that many people see in this whole situation

    Parent

    Me neither, as to knowing J personally. (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:32:46 PM EST
    BUt, she has many posts on the subject of Ms. Palin and none are in any way supportive.

    Parent
    It's a sword that cuts both ways (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by ChrisO on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:42:48 PM EST
    I'd have more sympathy for Palin if she didn't get so much mileage out of her looks. The Republicans played up her supposed hotness. If she had said the same things she was saying, but looked like Janet Napolitano, do you think she would have been treated as an intellectual heavyweight? Her lack of intellectual curiosity would have been glaring no matter what.

    While appearance is certainly no way to judge a politician, I think it's been shown that attractive people enjoy a lot more advantages from their looks than unattractive people. I have a lot more sympathy for the female politicians who are criticized for their unattractiveness.


    really? (5.00 / 1) (#126)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:57:15 PM EST
    She gets mileage out of her looks?  I have never seen her try to play up her looks or take advantage.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#150)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:08:05 PM EST
    and the captain is never, never sick at sea.  Well, hardly ever.

    Parent
    You're right (5.00 / 4) (#201)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    Clearly she should be required to don a burkha so that way we can be absolutely certain that she isn't "exploiting" her looks.

    Geez.

    (tongue firmly in cheek)

    Parent

    Indeed (1.00 / 1) (#209)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:57:22 PM EST
    there are polar extremes to this debate.  You are snarking about one.  I was mocking the other one.

    You do not have to think there is anything inappropriate about the way Palin conducts herself to find the comment I responded to utterly ridiculous.

    Parent

    The initial buzz around Palin (none / 0) (#202)
    by ChrisO on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:47:50 PM EST
    was largely based on her being a woman, and being an attractive, successful woman. How many people were interviewed at the Republican convention who mentioned her looks in a really positive way? Just because she wasn't overtly playing up her looks, doesn't mean the Republicans weren't pushing that story.

    Parent
    Okay I get it (5.00 / 2) (#204)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:50:07 PM EST
    Now she isn't just responsible for HER actions but the actions of everyone at the convention. She used mind control to "exploit" her looks.

    These arguments just get worse and worse.

    Parent

    Dennis Kucinich would have done (none / 0) (#36)
    by KeysDan on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:59:05 PM EST
    better, in my view, if he looked better.  His ideas seemed to get subordinated to his "non-presidential" appearance.

    Parent
    Given that the polls all show that Palin has a (5.00 / 1) (#32)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    very wide gender gap on favorability, with men much less unfavorable, I'd say the "sexy" label has not hurt her electoral chances.

    Which thankfully are quite low.  Also.


    Not important (none / 0) (#42)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:04:14 PM EST
    But the gender split on Palin favorability is consistent with general Dem/GOP gender gaps.

    Parent
    FYI, from the PPP poll, gender gap #s on (none / 0) (#54)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:13:34 PM EST
    favorability (men F/U - women F/U):

    Obama -6  (i.e. W are 6% relatively more fav than M)

    Huckabee -10
    Pawlenty +3
    Romney +7
    PALIN +15

    Parent

    Sure (none / 0) (#56)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:16:31 PM EST
    I said CONSISTENT.

    In any event, the portrayal of Palin certainly contributes to that imo.

    But her political positions are very extreme as well. Even for Republicans.

    Parent

    Good to know (5.00 / 3) (#169)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:17:21 PM EST
    increasing funding to Headstart and low income health care, rooting out corruption within your own party, vetoing bills that actually support your viewpoint out of concern for their constitutionality, giving your constituents a portion of the profits from the natural resources oil companies are obtaining off your state are now extreme.

    (rolling my eyes because evidently actions aren't as important as rhethoric)

    Parent

    if only (5.00 / 2) (#172)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:21:19 PM EST
    she had run on those positions instead of serving up red-meat conservatism straight from the Ronald Reagan playbook.

    Parent
    As opposed to the guy who (5.00 / 2) (#207)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:54:28 PM EST
    ran as friend to feminists and then encouraged a poison pill into health care reform. Pols are pols. I don't trust a word any of them say, that's why actions are important to me too.

    Parent
    how do you feel about these (5.00 / 1) (#183)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:30:48 PM EST
    "actions"

    Time and again, Palin uses her large family for political purposes, and then complains that they're "off limits" when she decides they're under attack. We've seen it with the use of her son Trig-Palin put him on national TV at the 2008 Republican National Convention, and has occasionally accused liberals of wanting to kill him. We've seen it with Bristol Palin, whose pregnancy became a national story, and with Track Palin, whose military service Palin has referred to again and again. But it seems like Piper Palin's star turn for Alaska Right to Life was the first political deployment of a Palin family member.


    Parent
    Yeah (5.00 / 3) (#210)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:57:58 PM EST
    I mean how dare she be enraged that they took a picture of her kid and pasted the picture of a politician on it because after all she "used" the kid to point out that she understands the needs of families with special needs kids. It's totally the same. And OMG she should have totally allowed David Letterman to use that joke without a peep because it's all her fault that she took her daughter with her on a trip. I totally get it(rolling my eyes).

    Parent
    At some point, a vice presidental candidate (none / 0) (#63)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:19:22 PM EST
    who repeatedly winks at the camera during a debate deserves to be treated as, well, a candidate who uses winks as a debating point.

    Parent
    You speaking about Edwards? (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:29:28 PM EST
    As I recall, he's a winker . . . .

    Parent
    His winking wasn't for debating, it was for... (none / 0) (#73)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:32:42 PM EST
    oh, you know.

    Parent
    Nominated as most profound comment (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:33:38 PM EST
    so far today by anyone!

    Parent
    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#80)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:36:05 PM EST
    And if the Newsweek cover had used a photo of "the wink," I feel confident no one would be objecting.

    That's not what happened.

    Parent

    yes of course (5.00 / 1) (#135)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:00:25 PM EST
    because when a male politician winks he is saying you and he are on the same page, but when Palin winks it means she's using her looks to seduce you.  Right?

    Parent
    Also (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:17:38 PM EST
    I really do not understand your numbers.

    What do you mean Romney (+7).

    Parent

    In that poll, Romney's net favorables (none / 0) (#64)
    by steviez314 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:21:11 PM EST
    was +4 with men, and -3 with women (so a +7 men gender gap)

    Parent
    Ah (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:35:02 PM EST
    My wife (none / 0) (#72)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:31:47 PM EST
    was absolutely spluttering at the notion that the Newsweek photo could be considered sexist.  "She posed for it!  She shouldn't have posed if she didn't want people to use it!!"  Not a Palin lover, my better half.

    Of course my wife is a Dem but I have never seen her get this worked up over, say, Lisa Murkowski.

    Parent

    PDS (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:34:24 PM EST
    Sorry. But if your wife can explain how a Runner's World cover photo from 2008 is used in a Newsweek November 2009 cover, then please go ahead.

    Parent
    You can have that debate with her (5.00 / 0) (#87)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    I am into choosing my battles more carefully.  The great thing about America is that everyone gets to have an opinion.

    I personally think I share your view on this, but I find as a consequence of the "perceived whine" comment I really could not care much less.  If it were Lisa Murkowski I would care.

    Parent

    I wish people (none / 0) (#95)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:44:53 PM EST
    would make that argument.

    Palin the hypocrite is the tonic if you must criticize Palin on this.

    But PDS blinds them from that slam dunk retort.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#116)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:53:27 PM EST
    you don't like me talking about people playing the card.  But having said that, I can't help but be amused with the way she fell in love with playing it!  Republicans are actually funny that way.

    Parent
    Republicans are hypocrites (none / 0) (#131)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:58:48 PM EST
    Stop the presses. Actually I wrote one of those today on Jefferson Sessions and the Constitution's prohibitions on judicial filibusters.

    Course, Sessions is not the most fascinating person in America so there are 2 comments in that post.

    Parent

    Jeff Sessions (none / 0) (#144)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:04:49 PM EST
    once had an awkward filibuster, just to see what it felt like.

    Parent
    what? (none / 0) (#143)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:04:05 PM EST
    what card did she play?
    The cover and the story were both sexist.  Calling it so is not playing a card.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#147)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:06:15 PM EST
    and that thing she perceived Hillary to be whining about was sexist too.

    Parent
    I figure Ms. Palin is a frequent topic (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:43:07 PM EST
    of discussion at your house.  Why else would your daughter trick-or-treat as Ms. Palin?

    Parent
    Haha (none / 0) (#108)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:50:40 PM EST
    she totally did not!  I might have made a joke along those lines though.

    Of course we talk plenty about Sarah Palin because she is, if you hadn't noticed, the only interesting person in America.

    Parent

    Got it. At dinner last night, (none / 0) (#130)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    four female lawyers, not young, all Dem.  First lengthy topic of conversation:  mammograms.  Second:  Sarah Palin.  I sd. I don't care about the second.  My friends seemed surprised. I think they watch too much TV.  They know I am a Talk Left groupie.

    Parent
    Wouldn't that be (none / 0) (#211)
    by CoralGables on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:59:25 PM EST
    the most interesting woman in the world.

    And she doesn't always drink beer, but when she does...she drinks Moosehead.


    Parent

    your wife (3.50 / 2) (#138)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:01:46 PM EST
    needs to put down her kool aid flavored glasses and take a class in sexism.

    Parent
    you married well (none / 0) (#77)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:33:58 PM EST
    Now there is a comment (5.00 / 1) (#89)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:42:09 PM EST
    that no one can dispute!

    Parent
    Would the pic have been sexist (none / 0) (#90)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:42:31 PM EST
    if the accompanying disrespecting text were instead supportive?

    Parent
    Disrespecting?! (none / 0) (#109)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:51:22 PM EST
    I love Julie Andrews!

    Parent
    It's a song (none / 0) (#156)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:11:01 PM EST
    from The Sound of Music...

    Parent
    Ah, yes, thank you... (none / 0) (#164)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    Yep we're visual creatures. (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by Radix on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:54:21 PM EST
    Given the fact we're predators and we hunt by sight, it comes as no surprise that we're stimulated visually. The notion that women do it to is also not surprising. However, let us not pretend there is some equality in the power structure amongst men and women.

    heres the thing (5.00 / 1) (#34)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:55:50 PM EST
    is it done to men, yes it is. but it is mostly done to women.  SO, any woman with enough brains to have decent hand eye coordination who hope to be taken seriously by the political world (in particular)would never ever pose for those photos.

    Jeralyn is right.  she posed for the photos.  and anyone could have told her they would be used and reused and abused.

    is that right?  perhaps not but its the world we live  in.  and as I said, Palin loves her some whining about all the political correctness in DC and the country.  and then she wants it that very political correctness to be applied to her.

    it is completely ridiculous.  the outrage is ridiculous.  and you know what.  I think she is just smart enough to know everything I just said is true and she knew it would be a wonderful opportunity to play the poor victim when someone does exactly what she wanted them to do and use the photos.

    You know what though? (5.00 / 1) (#65)
    by CST on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:24:28 PM EST
    With regards to this:

    "any woman with enough brains to have decent hand eye coordination who hope to be taken seriously by the political world (in particular)would never ever pose for those photos"

    Sometimes, the mere existence of those "rules" makes one want to break them.  If only because it's infuriating.  We should just sit back and be what people expect us to be?

    And I still don't really see what the big deal about the photo is, or why it's scandalous, or something that would prevent one from being "taken seriously".

    Parent

    anyone can break (none / 0) (#75)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:33:08 PM EST
    the rules.  in politics sometimes it works and sometimes it doesnt.  unlike others I do not think Palin is stupid.  quite far from it.  she did it because she knew it would be used and then she could play the poor victim of sexism.

    I will ask you,  can you imagine Hillary in that pose and that getup?

    you can not.  because Hillary is a smart serious woman.


    Parent

    Hold up. (5.00 / 3) (#83)
    by dk on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:38:37 PM EST
    In your first paragraph you state that you don't think that Palin is stupid.  Yet at the end you opine that Hillary would never wear "that getup" because she is a smart serious woman.

    So, if you think Palin is smart, and she wears the getup, why wouldn't the smart Hillary Clinton wear it?  

    This comment, like many of your comments on Palin that I've seen, show a striking two-sidedness.  She is both smart and stupid, vapid and all-knowing, etc.  It's fascinating, albeit completely irrational.

    Parent

    let me see if (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:41:37 PM EST
    if I can type more slowly so you can understand.

    she did it because she wanted to play the poor victim card.

    Parent

    That's incredible (5.00 / 4) (#92)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:43:38 PM EST
    Palin posed for Runner's World to play the victim card?

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    ok fine (none / 0) (#104)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:48:16 PM EST
    she adroitly capitalized on the opportunity to play the poor victim.

    like that better?


    Parent

    Um (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:56:44 PM EST
    I never like stupidity.

    Parent
    So, how would you feel if (none / 0) (#129)
    by dk on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:57:48 PM EST
    Palin were downplaying this whole thing?  Would you then think she was a victim of sexism in this case?

    Parent
    for a slightly longer answer (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:05:20 PM EST
    she has been the object of vicious sexism.  not is this case IMO but like the California beauty queen who has learned to use the word "inappropriate" she has learned she can benefit from the word "sexism"

    Parent
    So, is Carrie (none / 0) (#154)
    by dk on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:09:14 PM EST
    what's her name smart or stupid (or that somewhere in between category you defined).  If she's stupid, she's not to be compared with Palin, right?  Because Palin's not stupid, right?  Or is she not smart?  

    Parent
    no (none / 0) (#132)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:59:51 PM EST
    So, you think she did that shoot (5.00 / 6) (#96)
    by dk on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:45:09 PM EST
    for Runners World, sometime in the past, with the ability to predict at the time that at some point in the future, Newsweek would take the photo and put it on its own cover, all with the idea that she could then use that accuse the media of being sexist?

    So, she's smart/stupid, vapid/calculating, and has the ability to predict the future?  Wow, that's even better.

    Parent

    That is completely nutso. (5.00 / 4) (#106)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:49:04 PM EST
    Kind of like getting a rider for abortion (5.00 / 2) (#115)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:53:18 PM EST
    coverage w/o knowing you are going to become pregnant.

    Parent
    to put it another way (none / 0) (#101)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:46:26 PM EST
    there is a very large difference between being "not stupid" and being "smart"

    Parent
    Well said (none / 0) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:52:34 PM EST
    don't use Hillary (5.00 / 2) (#212)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 03:01:52 PM EST
    to defend your position.  If she was going to speak out on this she would explain to you why the use of the picture was sexist.

    In addition, I have not seen Palin play poor victim.  If there is one thing she is not it is a victim.  She simply stated a fact.  If you bothered to ask any of us women who are NOT suffering from PDS, we would tell you that they constant idiotic sexism in daily life is just wearing on our nerves.  That's not drama dude, it just is.

    Parent

    I can't (none / 0) (#100)
    by CST on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:46:11 PM EST
    but not because "Hillary is a smart serious woman" - which she is, but to me is kind of irrelevant to the point.

    I can't because she has already been pretty abused by the press for everything related to her appearance, and she would probably want to avoid it.  Also - she doesn't look like Sarah Palin.  Which is fine, most of us don't.  That doesn't mean we should hate on Sarah for looking good.

    And that doesn't mean I think it's a good thing.

    Parent

    I disagree (5.00 / 1) (#113)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:52:38 PM EST
    obviously.
    you cant because that was a stupid beveled beauty queen pose.  it was not the pose anyone, male or female, would have allowed into the public domain if they ever wanted to be seen as anything but a beauty queen.

    like it makes any difference if the photo was taken in 2008 or 2009.  it is the kind of thing that becomes an iconic photograph.  and not for the reasons the subject might want.

    I am starting to LIKE newsweek for using it.
    perhaps I will reevaluate my opinion of that mag.

    Parent

    Well (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:57:31 PM EST
    there is a view that either you go through life wearing a potato sack or else your looks are fair game, but I prefer a more nuanced take.

    Let me put it this way.  I have an attractive co-worker who is wearing a nice outfit today.  I'm pretty sure she knows she looks good in this outfit, and I'm pretty sure she made a conscious choice to wear this outfit as opposed to a less flattering outfit.  I really doubt she is indifferent to how she looks, in other words.  But I still don't think I should tell her she's a hot mama!

    Parent

    Not a good idea if you want to keep (none / 0) (#160)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:12:17 PM EST
    your job and more importantly your wife!

     

    But I still don't think I should tell her she's a hot mama!



    Parent
    Is she a mama? (none / 0) (#167)
    by sarcastic unnamed one on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:14:14 PM EST
    Not allowed to ask! (none / 0) (#170)
    by Steve M on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:19:41 PM EST
    but I always understood that to be a figure of speech anyway.

    Parent
    Let's see. . . . (5.00 / 5) (#66)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:26:27 PM EST
    Essentially, women cannot pose for photos of they want to be taken seriously? Photos that have to do with their lifestyle and a sport many women AND men are passionate about? Something that happens to be healthy ta boot? And if they do, they're fair game for abuse of said photos?


    Parent
    yup (5.00 / 5) (#162)
    by TeresaInPa on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:12:53 PM EST
    and women who don't want to be raped shouldn't go out at night or wear short skirts.
    That fact that she posed in work out clothes for runners world mag has nothing to do with Newsweek's choice to portray her as a bimbo unfit for politics.  Nor does it have anything to do with their "cute" play on words with the song from Sound of Music".
    Sexism is wrong even when the object of attack is a republican and the PDS on the left embarrasses the hell out of me as a democrat.  It is as if Free republic plunked it's self down in my party.

    Parent
    And oddly enough (5.00 / 5) (#181)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:29:18 PM EST
    it's even wrong if the victim doesn't protest it, mind that its happening, or turns it to her advantage.

    Parent
    And arguing that Edwards got it worse (5.00 / 7) (#49)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:08:29 PM EST
    then Palin is dishonest in the extreme. How many porn movies did they make about John Edwards?

    Amplify this quibble career- or campaign-wide (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:30:33 PM EST
    Shirtless Obama was on a beach-vacation and this wasn't used for his (Time?) magazine covers. Head shot only. The 'hotness' factor was a kind of "and if you didn't think his political talents were formidable dot dot dot" addendum that didn't negate the rest.

    John Edwards hair¢ut -- any Democratic male's hair¢ut maintenance -- is a hard-wiring fixation in the GOP limbic mentality, as eminating from the Grand Imperial Lizard.

    They pull this crap on every Dem male candidate to imply -- no, baldly (pi) show that he's effete. The teevee media join the fun, even though every day, each one easily gets a three-figure fluff job to get camera ready. Wolf Blitzer, twice as much, because of the beard.

    This from a party where precision-shellacked hair, apparently lowered onto each numbskull by industrial crane, is an entry-level requirement when joining the party.

    And what's Edwards supposed to do anyway? Turn up to events wearing a black hood? Spend all his media time talking about hair¢uts?

    Right left or center, any time any stripe wants to smack around "the enemy", chances are they'll slap some boobies on the menace and have at 'em.

    Remember that week-long CDS shriekfest the media went into becase campaigning (Sen) Clinton "showed cleavage"? It was a f*cking inch -- a fraction of what you might see on a news reader on a conservative network in Arab / Muslim states. Sheesh-and-a-half!!

    That's not even sexuality or sensuality, but a process whereby the subject gets no say in the  application of sex for some sort of weird, Puritanical-American punishment: person and effigy as one, then boom goes the dynamite!

    Imagine how smooth and efficiently the witch-burnings would have gone had the witches really been made of BBQ-starter, like the Inquisitors and New World Witch-Sniffers claimed!

    And as for this ... oh dang I promised myself I wasn't going to go there ...

    You left out the media fuss when Bill Clinton, (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:38:01 PM EST
    while Pres., got a haircut on the plane on the tarmac at LAX, which backed up air traffic.

    Parent
    Of course... (5.00 / 1) (#137)
    by Tony on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:01:41 PM EST
    it did not actually back up any air traffic.

    Parent
    Indeed, except (none / 0) (#123)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:56:04 PM EST
    it turned out eventually that it did no such thing.

    Parent
    Oops. (5.00 / 1) (#141)
    by Tony on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:02:38 PM EST
    Got distracted while I was writing my reply and see you beat me to it.  My apologies.

    Parent
    The paint is dry already! (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by andgarden on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:39:32 PM EST


    It ain't rocket science. (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:50:12 PM EST
    It's just not that hard.

    It's wrong to use insulting gender stereotypes against women even if you can't stand their politics (and, lord knows, I can't stand her politics).

    Just as it is wrong to use racial stereotypes against minorities when you can't stand their politics (e.g., using racial epithets or images towards Condi or Clarence or Obama).


    Nor is it hard to see in all this (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    discussion why the U.S. now ranks 70th in the world in terms of women in political posts.

    Women in politics are not the problem.  Voters are.  

    Parent

    then (none / 0) (#118)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:54:09 PM EST
    why did she pose for the photo shoot?
    who is exactly to blame here?

    Parent
    Because RW wanted to feature her (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:08:12 PM EST
    as their runner of the month profile and I'm guessing she didn't see anything wrong with being featured in a magazine about an activity she lives by. Because there wasn't anything wrong with it. If cooking was her thing, she should be able to pose for a cooking magazine without being ridiculed and having the photo taken out of context in such a sexist display.

    Parent
    It's been explained to you at least 10 times (5.00 / 2) (#158)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:11:31 PM EST
    by other. I can't help it if you don't get it.

    It's not about her; it's about people who use sexist stereotypes against others.

    So, no matter how many times you ask about her posing for a running magazine, it won't matter.

    Parent

    that is so (5.00 / 1) (#166)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:13:34 PM EST
    ridiculous

    Parent
    My prediction is that the Captain will (4.40 / 5) (#184)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:30:55 PM EST
    continue to feign being obtuse, because he's in button-pushing mode now, and just enjoying people's reactions to his over-the-top comments.

    Parent
    yeah (5.00 / 0) (#195)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:40:51 PM EST
    your best comment of the day has been this one:

     

    Your antipathy for Palin is palpable, (5.00 / 8) (#23)
    by Anne on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:37:21 PM EST
    but what's more disturbing to me is that you are willing to justify and approve of anything that paints her in a negative light.

    I wonder if you are even aware you are describing your own reaction to Obama.


    Parent

    Winking at the debates (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Socraticsilence on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:05:30 PM EST
    that was it for me- after that point I have a really hard time taking Palin's complaints all that seriously-- It'd be like Obama doing a soft shoe and/or talking jive and complaining about racism the next day.

    Yeh, that sort of bamboozling (5.00 / 4) (#165)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:13:14 PM EST
    drives me crazy, too.  Better to hoodwink than to wink?

    Parent
    You thought that was a sexy wink? (5.00 / 3) (#187)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:32:43 PM EST
    That kind of mis-reading of cues must make for some awkward social situations.

    Parent
    I never understood the outrage about the wink. (5.00 / 2) (#192)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:36:04 PM EST
    To me, it was just another in a long list of awkward mannerisms and language that she displayed. I never saw the slightest thing sexual about it. It reminded me of GWB and his hokey, awkward mannerisms and talk. Go figure.

    Maybe it's different if you're a guy or something.

    Parent

    Me too (5.00 / 3) (#205)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:51:05 PM EST
    Just trying to connect with the audience in an astoundingly awkward way. I remember my jaw dropping, but I did not feel like she was making a pass at me.

    Parent
    Funny (4.00 / 3) (#161)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:12:33 PM EST
    Because I definitely saw Obama lapsing into some jive when the audience was right.

    Parent
    AME preacher, when deemed approp. (5.00 / 3) (#171)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:21:00 PM EST
    or necessary.  Night and day.

    Parent
    Hypocrisy doesn't (5.00 / 2) (#174)
    by AlkalineDave on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:22:41 PM EST
    excuse another person's actions.  I'm kind of surprised at all these "she winked at the debates! she can't complain responses!"  If she were gracing the covers of Playboy on a quarterly basis I could understand it a little more, but a wink at a debate is a bit of a jump imo.

    "I think she's got it." Isn't blog (5.00 / 1) (#180)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:29:09 PM EST
    revenue from advertising based on traffic?  What better topic than Sarah Palin.  

    You are a baaaaad woman.... :-)! (5.00 / 1) (#194)
    by vml68 on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:40:27 PM EST
    n/t

    Parent
    Bill Belicheck (5.00 / 1) (#198)
    by CST on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:45:08 PM EST
    Did pretty well the other day.

    Oh scandals...

    Parent

    Polanski? (none / 0) (#203)
    by Dr Molly on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:48:02 PM EST
    $400 haircuts (none / 0) (#2)
    by Dadler on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:07:22 PM EST
    I could never quite square that number with the actual hair supposedly being cut. It's not like he had 24 carrot gold highlights some sort of rare anemone sperm conditioner. Still very odd to me that this number could be real.

    Meh (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by cawaltz on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:11:25 PM EST
    as a woman I find that number completely within the realm of reasoning if he had the stylist travel to where he was and if he was getting his hair colored as I suspect. I had my hair colored at a salon and it ran me $125 without the tip. The cut was another $50 including the tip(I had it done at a separate salon). I did all my own travelling and was a walk in in both cases.

    Parent
    Maybe he had 400 HAIRS cut ... (5.00 / 1) (#189)
    by Ellie on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:34:16 PM EST
    ... and it got lost in the bobbleheaded swoon over another hair¢ut story. They do seem to love that stuff.

    Parent
    Wow. Tina, tell us how you really feel. (none / 0) (#5)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:09:57 PM EST
    P.S.  A friend who is always outraged about Ms. Palin pointed out that when her hair is pulled back and she is wearing glasses friend strongly resembles Ms. Palin. Does that explain the hate?  Who knows.

    I think the $400 would have made waves (none / 0) (#9)
    by nycstray on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:12:00 PM EST
    It reads more to hypocrisy. That's just your basic red meat.

    Do we audit all campaigning (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by Fabian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:12:33 PM EST
    politicians the same way?  Does the bill for every politician's wardrobe, make up and hair end up as headlines?

    Parent
    And, that was the campaign's most (none / 0) (#31)
    by Inspector Gadget on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:52:25 PM EST
    useful technique. Take the flaws of your candidate, then catapult them at the opponents until they stick.


    Parent
    Per TL sidebar, Karl Rove's (none / 0) (#17)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:31:11 PM EST
    memoir will come out in March.  Stay tuned.

    Hard to know whether to classify it as (5.00 / 2) (#24)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 12:39:56 PM EST
    fiction or non-fiction. I guess political memoir is probably a genre of its own for that reason.

    Parent
    My reference wasn't to content. What (5.00 / 2) (#70)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:31:11 PM EST
    photo of Rove will appear on cover of Newsweek/Time/et al.?

    Parent
    I know, but I could not bear to (none / 0) (#176)
    by ruffian on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:26:16 PM EST
    think about it!

    Parent
    How many here read Newsweek? (none / 0) (#40)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:03:02 PM EST
    If so, why do you read it?  Do you consider Newsweek to be a news or editorial source you do not obtain elsewhere?

    as I said in the other thread (none / 0) (#47)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:07:29 PM EST
    I hate newsweek.  I am not defending newsweek.
    I am defending their right to use that photo.


    Parent
    Reading about the Newsweek cover (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by oculus on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:12:07 PM EST
    to me is like reading about the latest statements by cable news people or Ezra, or whomever.  Spectator sport.

    Parent
    I agree (none / 0) (#57)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:16:58 PM EST
    but when you are called sexist and, well, other things its difficult to not respond.


    Parent
    Who said they (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by gyrfalcon on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:54:13 PM EST
    didn't have a right?  I didn't read that here.  Must have been on some other blog.

    Of course they have a right to use it.  And I have a right to call them disgusting stone sexist pigs with almost as serious PDS as you demonstrate.

    Parent

    I don't, but I did while growing up (none / 0) (#45)
    by kmblue on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:06:18 PM EST
    my parents subscribed.

    I believe they used the shot to sell magazines.
    Sales are down.
    That said, they're still pigs.

    Paying 400 for a haircut is silly, whether (none / 0) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 01:06:28 PM EST
    you are a man or a woman.

    John Edwards was and is a terrible putz for many, many different reasons.

    Be careful what you ask for (none / 0) (#134)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:00:08 PM EST
    The treatment of Palin over the last year reveals the left's utter fascination and fear of her.  However, the derision and ridicule only deepen the support she gets in other places.

    This is so true.  Tell ya what I worry about.  She bones up the issues, tweaks her stance on a few items.....we's in trouble - when we shouldn't be.

    Fact is good-looking people do get ahead in our society.  Good-looking people who know what they are talking about even more so.  Smarts are easier to come by than looks.

    Back when it was World Series time, how many people were talking about love of the underdog on this very site?

    finally we agree on something (none / 0) (#149)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:07:55 PM EST
    this is what I have been preaching for months.
    this person is a threat.  anyone who doesnt think she could win the republican nomination IMO has not met the current republican party.

    the election is a different story. but we are in a strange dangerous and unpredictable world.
     

    Parent

    You're right we do agree (5.00 / 2) (#188)
    by vicndabx on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:32:50 PM EST
    we are in a strange dangerous and unpredictable world

    She is a threat.  However, your message get's lost when you say stuff like

    can you imagine Hillary in that pose and that getup?

    you can not.  because Hillary is a smart serious woman

    Pose & getup, smart serious woman.  To many, the pose & getup have nothing to do w/whether someone is smart & serious.  It sounds as though you expect smart & serious women to always look a certain way as opposed to having the right to look the way they want to look - and still be taken seriously.  Of course, our norms come into play.  There's a reason Mary Carey didn't go far in politics.  It is this distinction however, that IMO you are missing.

    Parent

    whatever (none / 0) (#190)
    by Capt Howdy on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:34:17 PM EST
    I stand by the comment

    Parent
    Nah, to be homophobic (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 02:02:39 PM EST
    it ought to be "Breck Gay.":-)

    It shows that once again -- and including in the Obama campaign, with its way of disparaging Edwards -- the worst insult is to be . . . a girl.

    They are working hard to make the (none / 0) (#214)
    by SOS on Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 04:16:28 PM EST
    slavish adoration of Lady Sarah and hankering for her love the main attraction apparently.