Tuesday, December 18, 2007 - Posts
-
sponsorship
As Melinda said, for everyone who chuckles at the photo of Hillary looking haggard, there’s at least one other person whose vote will be tipped in her direction if they sense she’s being picked on for being a middle-aged woman who looks like a middle-aged woman.
I thought of this when I saw another photo—the Huckabee family Christmas card from back when he was governor of Arkansas. You know this photo is going to be passed around by Huckabee haters with a disingenuous “What a lovely family!” type of remark. Or it’ll be an vehicle for undisguised smirks and jokes. It’s not just the plus-sized lads, it’s the matching outfits, and the weird elbow patches.
But for every laugh, there’ll be someone who sees the photo and recognizes their own family or the happy clan they wish they were. And there’ll be lots of people who hear those smirks and giggles and remember how much they hate the snobby bicoastal elites who live on coffee and breath mints and have such contempt for family life.
In other words, can we all skip the photo fun? It’s not only slimy, it wins friends for your enemies.
-
sponsorship
I’m not sure if the bedraggled Hillary will win women’s sympathy. But it blows my minds that college students who can no longer get low-cost contraception at school aren’t getting much sympathy from Slate readers. College health centers have long gotten discount pills from drug companies, which the companies are apparently happy to provide. Restoring those discounts involves a tiny technical fix that costs taxpayers nothing. And yet, check out these comments from the Fray. From Lloyd 667:
“I am all in favor of cheap birth control. In fact, I favor universal health coverage that includes prescription drugs of all kinds. But why should college students be especially favored here?”
And from burgettk, a “female, recent college graduate”:
“…I can't think of a single female who couldn't find an RA or female friend to drive them to a Planned Parenthood, where birth control can be had for free or inexpensively. Even after price hikes, I was still able to get mine for $20/month, and I was classified as a 'higher-income' patient.
“The consequences of not being a responsible sexually active person are just too great. If my choice comes to having a new pair of shoes or not having a baby before I'm 100% ready to do so, I'll go barefoot every time.”
But wait a minute. Supporting this fix does not imply that college women aren’t resourceful or that none of them could find other options if they needed to. But why make it harder for them than it needs to be? Drug companies are willing to give the discounts. Students clearly benefit. You and I pay nothing. Unless you’re basically hostile to family planning, where’s the downside?
-
sponsorship
Just remember: Some women who do not love Hillary Clinton will nonetheless rally to her side if she's roughed up, looks like she's been roughed up -- or even, as John suggests, just looks like she had Ho Hos for breakfast and hasn't slept since Thursday. They are just one over-the-top, anti-Hillary email away from deciding to support her after all - which is why, at this point, the whole Clinton-hating industry might as well be on her campaign's payroll; knock yourselves out, guys.
-
sponsorship
John (our intrepid political correspondent, who is who knows where in New Hampshire) read our exchange about the Drudge photo and has this to add:
Hillary needs to look like shit right now because her message is that she's out there working like a dog for votes and for the American people (see this piece) and because she wants sympathy from women in Iowa (who she's courting with lots of humanizing outreach lately). The picture will bring her both because a) they'll think she's working hard and b) they'll feel like she's a human woman who can look bad if caught at the wrong angle. Drudge is doing her a favor.
Maybe Drudge is still in her camp after all.
-
sponsorship
Terrible photos are just irresistable, aren't they? This one of
Hillary reminds me of the scary one of Mark Warner that ran on the
front of the New York Times Magazine back when he looked like a
viable presidential candidate. Remember it? His teeth looked like
chicklets, and the general effect was Scary Used Car Salesman. If I
recall, the color turned out to have been doctored.
The Warner photo shows that both men and women are vulnerable.
Hillary's haggard look evokes the noun that must be the root of that
adjective, a gendered term if ever there was one. But if someone posts
a photo of John McCain looking old, worn, and sick, won't that conjure
a parallel image of male weakness? In both cases, unlike the Warner
photo, I don't think these pictures can do much damage. The candidates
are too often on camera for one picture to do real harm. So, Rachael
maybe you're right that the sympathy element matters more. I imagine a
lot of women would share your reaction. No one wants to look at a
picture of herself like that!
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?