Yesterday's New York Times profiles Mrs. McCain, taking the same tack that it does on Mrs. Edwards, here's a woman who is strong and intelligent and has opinions, but who has limits, who doesn't overstep her bounds like you-know-who did. Here's an example from the article:
"Even while outspoken on Iraq and South Carolina, Mrs. McCain limits her formal role in the campaign largely to retail politics, and has usually resisted taking policy positions, criticizing other candidates publicly or making comments about the current occupant of the White House.
“I’ve never been involved in day-to-day issues,” said Mrs. McCain, who is active in several charities. “It’s just not me. I don’t feel it’s my job, and I just don’t like it.” Her closest thing to a political contribution to her husband’s campaign Web site is a recipe for guacamole."
A recipe for guacamole--how supremely unthreatening to the egos of men and overstretched women everywhere. (Remember Hillary saying something about how she's not the type of woman to bake cupcakes?)
Saturday, June 30, 2007
Another Positive Piece on Mrs. Edwards
Today the New York Times has another positive portrayal of Elizabeth Edwards, in less than two weeks, portraying her as strong, but not threatening or emasulating.
Thursday, June 28, 2007
Elizabeth Edwards vs Coulter: 'Mother' Imagery at Play
Did you see the video of Elizabeth Edwards calling into the Chris Matthews show on Tuesday to politely ask the smarmy Ann Coulter to stop her personal attacks on her husband and the other Democratic candidates? It's a pivotal confrontation which brings to a crux different notions of womanhood--of what it means to be a strong woman today, and brings into play references of motherhood that are at issue in this political climate. (See this article with its picture of Pelosi surrounded by children at her swearing-in.)
Coulter first started to deny that she ever made personal attacks on Edwards. Then Mrs. Edwards mentioned her saying three years ago that Edwards had a bumper sticker on the back of his car, "Ask me about my dead son." An audience member yelled, "Why isn't Edwards himself making this phone call," and Ann repeated his thought. The key moment: Elizabeth said, "I'm making this call as a mother. I'm the mother of the boy who died. Those young children behind you are the age of my children."
I think her reference to being a mother is symbolic, and purposeful. It plays to the difference between these two women, the single, vixen-like Ann Coulter, who continually, in this clip, ran her fingers through her flat blonde hair, as if she couldn't stop touching it, and wore big black sunglasses, and the maternal Elizabeth, who is now suffering from breast cancer, who is mother to three children, and whose son died.
Women, mothers, in particular, are a key block of voters that both sides are trying to court, to win to their side (as if we all think alike). Surely Elizabeth made the call because she is trying to "highlight the maternal" side of her husband, to highlight the human side of John Edwards as opposed to the unfeeling, nonmaternal, cold Republicans as represented here by Coulter.
A side note, one can't help but wonder what the annoying girl-tween right behind Coulter, who is so fawning, so eager to laugh with ridicule at Elizabeth Edwards along with Coulter, is thinking.
Coulter first started to deny that she ever made personal attacks on Edwards. Then Mrs. Edwards mentioned her saying three years ago that Edwards had a bumper sticker on the back of his car, "Ask me about my dead son." An audience member yelled, "Why isn't Edwards himself making this phone call," and Ann repeated his thought. The key moment: Elizabeth said, "I'm making this call as a mother. I'm the mother of the boy who died. Those young children behind you are the age of my children."
I think her reference to being a mother is symbolic, and purposeful. It plays to the difference between these two women, the single, vixen-like Ann Coulter, who continually, in this clip, ran her fingers through her flat blonde hair, as if she couldn't stop touching it, and wore big black sunglasses, and the maternal Elizabeth, who is now suffering from breast cancer, who is mother to three children, and whose son died.
Women, mothers, in particular, are a key block of voters that both sides are trying to court, to win to their side (as if we all think alike). Surely Elizabeth made the call because she is trying to "highlight the maternal" side of her husband, to highlight the human side of John Edwards as opposed to the unfeeling, nonmaternal, cold Republicans as represented here by Coulter.
A side note, one can't help but wonder what the annoying girl-tween right behind Coulter, who is so fawning, so eager to laugh with ridicule at Elizabeth Edwards along with Coulter, is thinking.
Monday, June 25, 2007
New Trojan Ad in which men are literally pigs
What do you think of the new Trojan commercial, set in a bar, in which a pig tries to pick up women, and then only turns into an attractive 20-something man after retrieving a condom from the condom machine? CBS and Fox have decided not to air the ad, apparently finding the suggestion that condoms are used to prevent pregnancy, not just disease, offensive, though several other networks did. Revealing the hypocrisy of cable TV, Fox's statement said, ". . .contraceptive advertising must stress health-related uses rather than the prevention of pregnancy."
Some find the ad offensive because it literally makes men out to be pigs, but I think the ad is humorous, and that its humor is aimed at women--wink, wink, we know men are pigs, but a non-piggy thing for a man to do is to use a condom.
According to the New York Times, the Trojan company is trying to broaden its appeal to women buyers:
"Trojan and its competitors are adding the accessories across their entire product lines. The perennial challenge for condoms is the perception that they are unpleasant to use, so having an erotic add-on could increase sales as well as lower the incidence of disease and unintended pregnancies." Too bad Fox and CBS couldn't see the humor, and why is it OK for them to air Viagra and Cialias ads? Is male pleasure something its OK to advertise for on their networks? Is that the message here?
Some find the ad offensive because it literally makes men out to be pigs, but I think the ad is humorous, and that its humor is aimed at women--wink, wink, we know men are pigs, but a non-piggy thing for a man to do is to use a condom.
According to the New York Times, the Trojan company is trying to broaden its appeal to women buyers:
"Trojan and its competitors are adding the accessories across their entire product lines. The perennial challenge for condoms is the perception that they are unpleasant to use, so having an erotic add-on could increase sales as well as lower the incidence of disease and unintended pregnancies." Too bad Fox and CBS couldn't see the humor, and why is it OK for them to air Viagra and Cialias ads? Is male pleasure something its OK to advertise for on their networks? Is that the message here?
Wednesday, June 20, 2007
Dowd spins Hillary video negatively....
Of course Maureen Dowd comes up today with a negative spin on Hillary's Soprano's parody.
Though I think Hillary seems very relaxed in the video, and to be enjoying herself, Dowd writes:
". . .as a rather wooden Hillary is about to announce her song choice to a loose and funny Bill, the screen suddenly goes dark." (And, well, how relaxed to we want our politicians to be on camera?)
The implication behind Dowd's words? Sure, Bill is charismatic and appealing but Hillary is no Bill. Dowd is undercutting Hillary's attempt to ride on Bill's charm.
And Dowd finds Hillary's ambition and power-seeking to be a negative thing, which isn't surprising because women are each other's harshest critics. Dowd writes, "And like Tony, Hillary is so power-hungry that she can justify any thuggish means to get the prize."
Though I think Hillary seems very relaxed in the video, and to be enjoying herself, Dowd writes:
". . .as a rather wooden Hillary is about to announce her song choice to a loose and funny Bill, the screen suddenly goes dark." (And, well, how relaxed to we want our politicians to be on camera?)
The implication behind Dowd's words? Sure, Bill is charismatic and appealing but Hillary is no Bill. Dowd is undercutting Hillary's attempt to ride on Bill's charm.
And Dowd finds Hillary's ambition and power-seeking to be a negative thing, which isn't surprising because women are each other's harshest critics. Dowd writes, "And like Tony, Hillary is so power-hungry that she can justify any thuggish means to get the prize."
Biased question hypothetically asked of Hillary by NYTimes
A short piece in today's New York Times on Hillary's Soprano spoof video ends with these words:
"But it raises the question: Does she have to depend on her supporting actor, Mr. Clinton, to be successful?"
True, this video has a cameo role for her husband, Bill, and he recently appeared in another Internet video explaining to people what they might not know about the woman he has known well for 35 years, how she has always worked for children's rights, traveled around the world bearing diplomacy as first lady, etc. etc., just as Hillary had explained to voters what they might not know about Bill when he ran for President (including that he grew up in a house with an outhouse). So, sure, Hillary is using Bill and his personal magnetism to speak out to voters. But the other candidates are also relying on the appeal of their spouses, in their cases, their wives, to speak out publicly to drum up support: particularly Obama and Edwards. Why isn't this question so pointedly asked of them?
"But it raises the question: Does she have to depend on her supporting actor, Mr. Clinton, to be successful?"
True, this video has a cameo role for her husband, Bill, and he recently appeared in another Internet video explaining to people what they might not know about the woman he has known well for 35 years, how she has always worked for children's rights, traveled around the world bearing diplomacy as first lady, etc. etc., just as Hillary had explained to voters what they might not know about Bill when he ran for President (including that he grew up in a house with an outhouse). So, sure, Hillary is using Bill and his personal magnetism to speak out to voters. But the other candidates are also relying on the appeal of their spouses, in their cases, their wives, to speak out publicly to drum up support: particularly Obama and Edwards. Why isn't this question so pointedly asked of them?
Tuesday, June 19, 2007
Clinton Moving Away from 'Highlighting the Maternal'?
Perhaps Hillary's spoof of the Soprano's finale represents a conscious attempt to move away from what the New York Times called in a January 29 article, her "highlighting of the maternal."
Remember the image of Nancy Pelosi in January at her swearing-in at the speaker's gavel, surrounded by the smiling children and grandchildren? This sparked a conversation about whether her conscious decision to create a maternal image at her swearing-in was a positive or negative one for women. Many women found this maternal tableau empowering, the idea that Pelosi could be both a maternal figure and a powerful, political leader at the same time.
The New York Times in that same article makes the parallel to Hillary's Internet video in which she announces that she will run for President while sitting on a chintz sofa and says that she wants to have "a dialogue about your ideas and mine. Because the conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don’t you think?” Apparently, having a conversation, an actual two-way dialogue is a "feminine" thing, as opposed to the one-way speech of Bush.
From the Times piece: "Several analysts said this softer approach also allowed Ms. Pelosi and Mrs. Clinton to offer a clear contrast with the leadership style of President Bush , which Democrats have asserted was a “my way or the highway” approach to governing."
Is the tongue-in-cheek aligning of Hillary with Tony Soprano a suggestion that Hillary can be both maternal and tough? (The satirical video does mention Chelsea, busy parallel-parking outside a la Meadow). Or is it a conscious move away from a maternal image?
Remember the image of Nancy Pelosi in January at her swearing-in at the speaker's gavel, surrounded by the smiling children and grandchildren? This sparked a conversation about whether her conscious decision to create a maternal image at her swearing-in was a positive or negative one for women. Many women found this maternal tableau empowering, the idea that Pelosi could be both a maternal figure and a powerful, political leader at the same time.
The New York Times in that same article makes the parallel to Hillary's Internet video in which she announces that she will run for President while sitting on a chintz sofa and says that she wants to have "a dialogue about your ideas and mine. Because the conversation in Washington has been just a little one-sided lately, don’t you think?” Apparently, having a conversation, an actual two-way dialogue is a "feminine" thing, as opposed to the one-way speech of Bush.
From the Times piece: "Several analysts said this softer approach also allowed Ms. Pelosi and Mrs. Clinton to offer a clear contrast with the leadership style of President Bush , which Democrats have asserted was a “my way or the highway” approach to governing."
Is the tongue-in-cheek aligning of Hillary with Tony Soprano a suggestion that Hillary can be both maternal and tough? (The satirical video does mention Chelsea, busy parallel-parking outside a la Meadow). Or is it a conscious move away from a maternal image?
Hillary's YouTube Video Spoofs Soprano Finale
Just released today, Hillary's campaign spoofs the Soprano's finale in a funny, creative video which announces the song pick for her campaign.
What no-one has yet mentioned is that Hillary takes Tony's role here. She's one seated at the table first, who selects the song and orders the food (here, the carrot sticks instead of the unhealthy onion rings). This gender-switching is interesting, and telling--Hillary is not afraid to take the powerful male position, as we know. And here her desire to strong, to be a leader, is not threatening, but funny. Indeed, maybe the fact that she is taking over the male role is part of the humor here.
The parody of the Sopranos is smooth and well-done; Hillary and Bill both seem very relaxed and to be enjoying themselves, maybe too much. They are both so relaxed as they deliver these lines, indeed they seem to be as professional as the best of Hollywood actors--no stiff delivery here. But that's what we the American people want in a president--someone telegenic. Neil Postman's warning that everything will become entertainment in the television age has been actualized, only now the medium has become YouTube videos rather than TV.
It's amazing that the candidates (and their fans, ie the Obama Girl video) are publishing their latest "messages" to the public on this new digital stage of YouTube. But really these messages are not a political discussion, just manufactured images. We've come a long way from the fireside chat, maybe too far. Who knows what is real anymore, and what is simulacrum. Though this is definitely well-crafted, witty simulacrum.
What no-one has yet mentioned is that Hillary takes Tony's role here. She's one seated at the table first, who selects the song and orders the food (here, the carrot sticks instead of the unhealthy onion rings). This gender-switching is interesting, and telling--Hillary is not afraid to take the powerful male position, as we know. And here her desire to strong, to be a leader, is not threatening, but funny. Indeed, maybe the fact that she is taking over the male role is part of the humor here.
The parody of the Sopranos is smooth and well-done; Hillary and Bill both seem very relaxed and to be enjoying themselves, maybe too much. They are both so relaxed as they deliver these lines, indeed they seem to be as professional as the best of Hollywood actors--no stiff delivery here. But that's what we the American people want in a president--someone telegenic. Neil Postman's warning that everything will become entertainment in the television age has been actualized, only now the medium has become YouTube videos rather than TV.
It's amazing that the candidates (and their fans, ie the Obama Girl video) are publishing their latest "messages" to the public on this new digital stage of YouTube. But really these messages are not a political discussion, just manufactured images. We've come a long way from the fireside chat, maybe too far. Who knows what is real anymore, and what is simulacrum. Though this is definitely well-crafted, witty simulacrum.
Monday, June 18, 2007
Michelle Obama in a January Newsweek Article
I just found this January 29, 2007 Newsweek piece profiling Michelle Obama, another smart, powerful candidate's wife who has been portrayed positively. Though this article ends with these words: "In the past, Michelle has occasionally played tough enforcer with Barack in interviews but, as Nancy Reagan and Hillary Clinton can attest, voters prefer First Ladies who use a soft touch." So these women are media-savvy and obviously are constructing the image they want to project; they are playing the role of "spouse" or "help-mate" as women who are very invested and interested in their husband's political career (unlike Howard Dean's wife, whose disinterest in his political future seemed to doom the likelihood of his becoming the Democratic candidate) but who are not going to do a "Hillary" and try to get their own vision of national health care enacted if their husband becomes President.
It's interesting that Elizabeth Edwards retired from being an attorney in 1996 to administer the Wade Edwards Foundation, and now acts as a close political adviser to her husband--perhaps this is less threatening to women than Hillary Clinton, who was a working mother throughout Chelsea's childhood years, and whose ambition seems to disturb other women (and men). Judith Warner makes this point about Hillary in her blog in the New York Times this week.
It's interesting that Elizabeth Edwards retired from being an attorney in 1996 to administer the Wade Edwards Foundation, and now acts as a close political adviser to her husband--perhaps this is less threatening to women than Hillary Clinton, who was a working mother throughout Chelsea's childhood years, and whose ambition seems to disturb other women (and men). Judith Warner makes this point about Hillary in her blog in the New York Times this week.