26 July 2007
Degrading on the curve
"The fault, dear Brutus, is not in the stars,
Are we done making fun of Hillary's rack yet? Please. There are plenty of reasons to object to Senator Clinton and her Presidential aspirations, but possession of standard female hardware should not be one of them. I mean, it's not like she's wandering around the Capitol wrapped in a Canadian goose pretending to be Björk's insane big sister.
We wouldn't treat a guy this way. Well, maybe John Edwards, and even he doesn't always deserve it. Of course, this may be due to the fact that for most of our history we've entrusted our government to guys in suits, and indistinguishable suits at that. (There was a brief period in the late 1960s when we saw an occasional dashiki, but otherwise, it's been one long Botany 500 parade.) And contrary to what we'd prefer to think, we pay a lot of attention to appearance:
Many analysts suggest that the decisive battle in the  campaign was waged during the televised presidential debates. Kennedy arrived for the debates well-tanned and well-rested from Florida, while Nixon was recovering from a knee injury he suffered in a tiresome whistle-stop campaign. The Democrat was extremely telegenic and comfortable before the camera. The Republican was nervous, sweated profusely under the hot lights, and could not seem to find a makeup artist that could hide his five o'clock shadow. Radio listeners of the first debate narrowly awarded Nixon a victory, while the larger television audience believed Kennedy won by a wide margin.
And since that day, there's been a tendency to overanalyze a candidate's wardrobe, from Hillary's neckline to John McCain's totally-gay sweaters. (No, I'm not above this sort of thing either, in case you were wondering.) About the only saving grace in any of this is that low video resolution insures that nobody looks good on YouTube.Posted at 4:29 PM to Political Science Fiction