EMAIL
PRINT
3 COMMENTS
Share and save this post:
Got a tip for a post?:
Email us | Anonymous form
Also in PEEK
Jose Padilla: Imprisoned Nearly Four Years Without a Lawyer, Convicted on Terrorism Charges
Lindsay Beyerstein
Basic Food Prices Skyrocket; Bush, Righties Say Economic Pessimism Tied to Iraq
Joshua Holland
Texans to Bush: Get Off Our Lawn!
Marisa Treviño
This post, written by Taylor Marsh, originally appeared on Taylor Marsh.com
Hair was one thing. Cleavage another. But now we've got a new level of, what to call it? Depravity? Vacuousness? Or is it simply a naked way of trying to get at Hillary Clinton, considering that her spouse is, well, William Jefferson Clinton? Perhaps it's to contrast the seriousness of HRC and spouse with the vacuous notion that whoever joins the president in the White House should be in charge of the social calendar, instead of moving the first couple's priorities on to a more serious stage. After all, even when you think of Obama or Edwards, it's not like their spouses are going to be offering tea time cookie clutches.
Catching up on stories that surfaced during my long-term travel day yesterday, one story takes the cake. But take this question in the LA Times story from yesterday: Just how sexy is the first lady supposed to be? How would that be referred to Bill Clinton? I shudder to think.
But when you contrast this article about sexy first ladies with Hillary Clinton's presidential candidacy, what you get is the very old fashioned stereotype of women's roles in politics and the world at large. Coming from the leading California paper it's all the more startling.
In this long, hot campaign season, intimations of sexuality are sprouting like wildflowers along the road to the White House. Not that the commingling of sex and politics is anything new, but for what seems to be the first time in memory, voters are being confronted with questions that don't usually break the surface: Just how sexy is a first lady allowed to be? And what constitutes an appropriate display of affection between candidates and their spouses?
In '08 race, a little leg may go a long way
Sex, they say, sells. Aspiring presidential couples are bringing that notion to the fore (spontaneously or not). Do you approve? Vote here.
Where does that leave Clinton? Better yet, what are they implying by ignoring her?
"The candidate's wife is a strategic asset. How are you going to deploy that asset?"
Okay, I'll bite.
The candidate's husband is a strategic asset too, dare I remind the California Times. How is Clinton going to deploy her asset? For that matter, what about Elizabeth Edwards? She's not sitting on anyone's lap, and she's not only a strategic asset, but a campaign dynamo. Then there's Michelle Obama who is nobody's slouch.
But what are the Republican wives offering? Canoodling. Fashion tips? No. Republican wives aren't advocates for policy, they're proof of, ahem, wood.
With a nominating field full of older men and younger wives, experts say that a youthful, even sexy wife offers a none-too-subtle message about the vitality of the candidate.
Nice try. As someone who has interviewed more people on marriage and sex than anyone in the blogosphere, this is so ignorant as to be mind boggling. What it illustrates is the candidate's need to show vitality, not necessarily that he has it.
Hello, boys, Republican reality check time.
"If I were Rudy Giuliani and I were in my third marriage and my third wife was the woman I was committing adultery with when I was cheating on my second wife, I would probably avoid public displays of affection," said Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public policy entity of the Southern Baptist Convention. "Most evangelicals have had their families touched by divorce, but what matters is the number and the circumstances."
But getting back to the Democrats, the Times article finally addresses them at the end. Unfortunately, all Robin Abcarian, the author of the article, can come up with is Clinton's cleavage and the Obama girl. As for Edwards, he's not mentioned at all. Elizabeth Edwards is just too much for the Times to handle. Michelle Obama being displaced by Obama spice, while Bill Clinton... **crickets**.
However, Mitt's marriage is the personification of the wholesome anti-sex, anti-substance tradition of all Republican relationships, not to mention presidential candidacies. Good to know.
The Republicans show up traditionally closeted in the spouse, sex, "family values" category, if in contrasting pictures. The man as old viral guy with hot wife vs. long time married man with family and "values"; either way you've got a throwback campaign.
As for the Democrats, Ms. Abcarian doesn't mention Bill once or the fact that Clinton's candidacy is juxtaposed against the Republican white male only traditionalism, however you define it. You've got wives in their old-fashioned 1950's role of mother figure and matron, in the case of Mrs. Romney; or sexual gold digging predator, as in Rudy's case; or in the stereotypical first lady to be category represented by Cindy McCain. All of these pictures saying something wholly different (and creepy) about the Republicans, none of it of the 21st century variety. Thompson is the only one coming close to a modern relationship, with his "trophy" wife, who also happens to be a GOP player. Rudy and Fred are the GOP's idea of "modern," I guess, though in different categories, to be sure.
Sex may sell, but that's a message coming from the wingnuts and their throwback candidates from the wanna be Reagan era. Because in '08, Democrats, whether you're talking about our candidates or their spouses, are selling substance. For us wonkery, especially for spouses, is very in. Oh, and that's regardless of gender.
No comments:
Post a Comment