Okay, the Dove play aside, I saw this pic on Drudge yesterday and had to comment. It’s gotten some attention in political talk circles, mostly among the Limbaugh crowd and other hate radio ilk. It goes to the issue of just what is it we will accept in terms of image.At first glance, it’s yet another typical Drudge move where he runs an image of a leading Democratic candidate at their inopportune worst, then leads with it. 10 gajillion views later, a bell you can’t unring, a campaign now affected as people view her in an old light.
(In reality, I think all it does eventually is cement opinions on both sides: those who hated her just got more ammo, while her supporters will no doubt sympathize with her because of that bush league move by Drudge. And if she’s as shrewd as is reported, she’ll use this to her advantage.)
In the bigger scheme of things though, the media has to recognize the effect it has. Drudge did. Certainly Rush bringing it up ‘innocently’ and then claiming he was merely raising an issue we all think about knows it affects things. It was a calculated move to seize the moment, play off a bad photo and fire a shot broadside in support of his party–no pun intended. Even though most of that kind of talk radio distances itself from the regular media, they all swim in the same ocean.
Problem is, what candidate doesn’t have an outtake moment in them. Bush’s finger, Reagan’s “bomb Russia” comment. Dukakis and that damn tank. Spacesuit Kerry. Maybe because a woman is in the mix that this becomes a perfect storm: vanity, politics and the media. If so, where does it end?
Do we knock Rudy and his lisp? McCain and Thompson and how they come off more as grandfathers than presidents? Edwards and his perfect form over function? Mitt’s? As real beauty goes, Maragret Thatcher was no Jessica Simpson, but she knew how to run a country. Does that matter though?
Does age matter more here because we’re talking about a woman and we happen to see a few flaws?
Tags: Hillary Clinton
3 comments:
yeah, but she'll look downright juvenile when debating john mccain.
I don't see any postings about the number of wrinkles on the male candidates from either party. I personally don't care how many wrinkles a candidate has. I'm more concerned with what their agenda will be once in office. While I understand that some segment of the American people might vote for who they find the cutest or most personable, I think that's a rather poor way to determine the choice of someone who will have a significant affect on their lives and the lives of millions of others.
I think we're forgetting the most important part ... what do her wrinkles have to do with her ability to be president? Nothing.
Post a Comment