<p>
</p>
<p>That’s OK. I’m sure the Republicans will fund a run for Ralph Nadar again, just like in 2000.</p>
<p>epiphany: Let’s see. You have over 2,000 posts here on CC. You should know by now that this is a tough crowd-- what they lack in sense of humor (seemingly a lot), they more than make up for in “data,” “statistical tables,” and “SAT score comparisons.”</p>
<p>For what’s it’s worth, I was having fun. Perhaps we should start our own thread??</p>
<p>Epiphany started THIS thread.</p>
<p>I would argue that it is his/her ? (not casting any more gender identity guesses) decision.</p>
<p>As such, Epiphany gets to rule on the tone of this thread. </p>
<p>P.S. Humor is good. I hate statistics.</p>
<p>I am glad that the issue of fashion commentary has been raised. In last week’s Washington Post the same writer who 3+ years ago commented on the clothing choices for the Edwards children wrote about Hillary’s neckline and cleavage- and the political significance thereof. I just felt sad when I read it. </p>
<p>Here is what I have concluded about the ‘media’ in America. There are too many people in the media, and not enough to really write/report about. Hence, non-events like Hillary’s hair, college photos of Miss New Jersey, Paris Hilton details all become ‘news.’ </p>
<p>We, the presumably thinking public, encourage and validate the notion that this is ‘news’ when we buy the schlock magazines and continue these sort of discussions. </p>
<p>The woman at the Wpost has evidently won a Pulitzer Prize for her writing- though presumably not for her most recent ‘expose.’ </p>
<p>I would like to think we can expect better of ourselves. I watched the debate with 3 generations of my family. Some of the younger generation are working on national campaigns, my sibling is a politician on the state level. When Edwards commented on what Hillary was wearing he demeaned her as a candidate and as a person. It was not a random comment, I suspect. The youngest among the viewers, age 9, said “Who cares about her clothes, isn’t she a senator?”</p>
<p>^ The clothing comment was a JOKE by John Edwards. A joke.
The problem with some people is that they have no sense of humor.
The joke went above the head of the nine year old. I wouldn’t give the kid too much credit. :D</p>
<p>The first time it is a joke.
The second time, maybe.
This time…and henceforth I consider non-substantive comments to be personal- and inappropriate. Everyone knows Hillary is a woman. It is tough to be a woman in the public eye and to try to be true to yourself, semi-fashionable, appropriate, etc…etc. My sister knows and she just shook her head. </p>
<p>We found plenty of things to laugh at, thank you. The comment on intelligence is highly unnecessary.</p>
<p>anitaw: Don’t think for one minute that how the candidates talk, their demeanor, and their choice of clothing doesn’t have an impact on voters. This may be a sad commentary, but it’s oh so true. And I will guarantee you that every candidate up there, worth his or her salt, has hired personal consultants or “handler(s)” to worry about this stuff. This isn’t something new. </p>
<p>Also, I think a real problem with the debate the other night was the minimal amount of time given for answers. How could Edwards (or anyone) make a meaningful comment about what he/she did or didn’t like about the candidate standing next to him or her, given the 30 seconds or so they were allowed to answer? </p>
<p>Also, has it ever occurred to you that his answer might have been tongue-in-cheek, knowing that this is the kind of nonsense on which the media reports? He’s certainly closely familiar with that. </p>
<p>I think he could have come up with something more appropriate, too, but given the time frame for the answer, it was next to impossible to answer with something indepth and meaningful. My 2 cents.</p>
<p>sokkermom: Oops, you’re right. Epiphany did start this thread. Haha.</p>
<p>I agree with Jack: this thread is refreshing. I think it would be nice if we could all just express ourselves any which way we want about the candidates, including our opinions of their fashion sense or lack thereof, without getting jumped on. I seem to remember the dads expressing their views freely of Thompson’s wife’s fashion choices. 
I also seem to remember huge debate over Gore’s fashion handler in 2,000 (forget her name) who advised him to wear browns and olives etc. to appear less stiff. I would love to see more people jump in with their views on the candidates, whether weighty or not. </p>
<p>Best dressed at this debate was Anderson Cooper. :)</p>
<p>For the record, I think Bush always looks great and his suits are well-tailored. I think Laura is lovely and consistently dresses appropriately; she outclasses Hillary by a mile.</p>
<p>So straight men can’t have fashion sense? 
I especially enjoyed this from Jack: “…she needs to ensure that the cameras don’t come around from behind. Not a good look for her.” ROTFLM ***O. ;)</p>
<p>The question was trite and irrelevant- of course snappy answers are likely to bring in media attention, everyone knows it. The Washington Post reporter was not making a snap comment…neither are many of the others who write about this as a ‘political issue’. I am just sharing my reaction to having a perfectly solid female candidate (she may or may not be your choice, she is solid) who is treated differently on such a superficial level. Does anyone remember what color tie the male candidates wore??</p>
<p>marite, I think the convesation and comments have descended to PR level because the hard questions in the debate were answered with so much equivocation and political bubble speak.</p>
<p>Anyway, after getting blown away by Ronnie Reagan’s election, I pay attention to PR issues. That’s the way the American public crumbles apparently.</p>
<p>Can you tell me when the candidates will pull the troops out?</p>
<p>“That’s OK. I’m sure the Republicans will fund a run for Ralph Nadar again, just like in 2000.”</p>
<p>Sure hope so. Don’t think it had much effect, but if it prevented the poster boy for global warming and global pollution and illegal immigration from becoming President, something must be said for it. (I suspect he would have nuked Afghanistan, but that’s another issue.)</p>
<p>If not, we get a Prez who is afraid she’d become an easy propaganda tool of Kim Jong Il. Hope she wears the right jacket.</p>
<p>“Can you tell me when the candidates will pull the troops out?”</p>
<p>I think there are only three candidates committed to pulling all the troops out EVER: Richardson (the most “experienced” diplomat), Gravel, and Kucinich. The pink-coated one thinks we have long-term national interests there and doesn’t believe we’d ever leave - the only question is how many would be left in, and where. The rest seem kind of muddled.</p>
<p>As posted before, here’s what Edwards says on his website about pulling out the [combat] troops:</p>
<p>
<a href=“johnedwards.com”>johnedwards.com;
<p>Mini:</p>
<p>Slight correction. Richardson says he’d keep a couple hundred Marines to guard the Embassy.</p>
<p>Obviously, a very serious well-thought out proposal!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I love that.</p>
<p>that’s o.k., sokkermom. I have no problem with anyone meandering around & changing the direction of any thread I start. I think I’m actually more self-conscious about myself doing that on someone <em>else’s</em> thread. </p>
<p>My original contribution was to ask for replies, & I assumed that would be on substance. I offered one of my own, which i.m.o., <em>is</em> substance: how, & whether, she “markets” her own gender. And if she does, then frankly, everything’s fair game. Interesteddad claimed that he had information that her (or her advisors’) strategy is quite calculated, down to the tag line of the video ad. O.k: You’re “using” your gender. Then expect people to comment on your gender, & that decision of yours may have unintended consequence, both good and bad.</p>
<p>I wish she would not market her gender. I still maintain that it’s duplicative. No one, whether on the fence or firmly in her camp, needs reminders about which gender she is. I think it sidetracks the issues. If she wants to concentrate on women’s <em>issues</em> in the campaign, that is different than ‘concentrating on being a woman.’ Again with the double standard: I would be appalled if any of the guys on the stage marketed themselves as male, produced macho tag lines or whatever. I don’t understand why women in politics feel compelled to stoop to that level.</p>
<p>And just an aside on this. I don’t remember seeing a lot of press about Margaret Thatcher or other female politicans from other countries marketing themselves as females. </p>
<p>The fact that there seems to be an impulse in the States, to do this, I think speaks to our political process in general, and the willingness of candidates to descend to those expectations – a concept which I referred to at the end of one of my recent posts. I said I <em>regretted</em> it; I didn’t say I applaud it.</p>
<p>Point #2: I asked a serious question, regarding diplomacy. Since I’ve begun writing this post, only mini has addressed it. If those of you who are so supposedly upset by the adlibbing I or anyone was doing while waiting for a substantive reply, then why haven’t you contributed something intellectual yourself, to this discussion? (That question or any other question?) Have you nothing to say?</p>
<p>I can’t contribute on that score, epiphany, since my main problem with HRH (other than her fashion sense, haha) is that I don’t believe one bleepin’ thing she says.</p>
<p>No, I actually did say that straight men <em>can</em> and <em>do</em> have fashion sense.</p>
<p>“Have you nothing to say?”</p>
<p>I didn’t watch the debates. I’d hoped to learn something from reading this thread. I thought I’d wandered into the Style section of a newspaper. </p>
<p>Margaret Thatcher was once described as “the only real man in her cabinet.”
No one ever commented on the fashion sense or lack thereof of Indira Gandhi.
I thought that S</p>
<p>again, we were marking time (some of us), while waiting for replies. </p>
<p>Right. You merely confirmed what I thought. Neither Margaret Thatcher nor Indira Ghandi marketed themselves as female. THEREFORE, no one commented on their “style.” </p>
<p>I don’t want to comment on Hilary’s style. I want her to stop reminding me that <em>she’s</em> more interested in non-essentials (female!) than substance (diplomacy = one area Margaret Thatcher appeared far more interested in than HRC, so far).</p>