Pictures: We're going to play a game from Sesame Street: Which one does not belong with the other ones? I tried, in vain, to find a casual picture of Hill and Bill that wasn't staged. Every single picture was a press conference or a photo shoot, or, the staged beach shot. The only relaxed and happy pictures I could find were of their hippy years. Cute, but hardly current. So the beach shot it was. Otherwise, the pictures of Ms. Rodham-Clinton were all business. High collars and shoulder pads and uncomfortable looking poses with her in long dresses. She would be taken seriously. Serious women don't show cleavage. Serious women don't have cleavage.
The 2008 election will be historic. A black or woman or divorcé might be president. That means a black or man or second or third wife might be First Lady. The possibilities for salacious journalism are boundless. The New York Times is leading the charge.
Let's contrast the New York Time's coverage, shall we? Here's the style section's take on Fred Thompson's wife:
Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?
And here's the take on Hillary Clinton's husband...I mean Hillary Clinton:
Whether she likes the idea or not, Hillary Clinton is the country's latest fashion icon. She is neither dowdy nor clothes-crazy. Like thousands of successful working women, she wears tailored sportswear that sees her through eventful days. She keeps up with fashion without latching onto the extreme designs of fashion leaders. So she is not very likely to be seen in a Calvin Klein see-through georgette, but is highly likely to be seen in a Donna Karan long black skirt.One doubts there will be stories about Bill Clinton's sartorial flights of fancy. It's difficult enough to get a story about his flights of fancy--and those are relevant to the office of First Lady/First Husband. Hillary Clinton should have kicked Bill to the curb a long time ago. That would preclude a presidential run, though. Hillary is not presidential material without Bill.
There will be no articles about Bill's blouse. There will be no articles about Bill. There will be articles about Michelle Obama's plunging neckline, right? I know, she looks great, but so do the Republican wives. Is the Time's avoiding Michelle Obama because they're racist? Maybe Michelle would be a riské First Lady since she's willing to don a plunging neckline. I can't even write that sentence with a straight face. How can a writer at the Time's write about Thompson's wife with a straight face?
So we have Michelle Obama ignored and Hillary Clinton's husband ignored and then there is Hillary. You notice how Hillary is praised as a "fashion icon" of the "successful working women" sort? I find this story sexist, too, but taken at face value, it's still fawningly false. Who thinks Hillary Clinton is a fashion icon? She's a handsome woman. She is neither beautiful nor ugly. She has gotten more image-conscious and done better with her wardrobe choices, but "icon"? Please.
What lies underneath this animus toward beautiful Republican wives? What is it with the Democrats obsession about sexy Republicans and sex in general? Freud would have a field day with leftist fixations. At the moment, Fred Thompson's wife's bosom seems to have the left all atwitter. Usually, the left is obsessing over homosexual Republicans. It's always something about sex and Republicans, though. What it is is a big case of transference.
I think that Leftists are entirely uncomfortable with their own sexuality.
I know, it's counter-intuitive. They're supposed to be the open-minded, free-love folks. But the Left has a major Madonna-Whore complex. You can be a cheatin' scallywag or preening Queen renting rooms to prostitutes or you can be a long-suffering wife, but you most certainly cannot be a married heterosexual male or female who really digs sex--with his or her spouse. There's a name for those people: sell outs.
After years of women's studies propaganda and the old saw about Dead White Guys, the only safe way to be a hip, in woman is to be single and slutty, or single and career-oriented, or Married In Name Only (M.I.N.O--I just made this up, oops! Googled it). The MINOs don't share names, don't share bank accounts and ignore gender differences and they rarely, if ever, have sex. It's rape. Life, sex, womyn and everything that matters in the world is deadly serious.
The good Leftists fit the miserable description--otherwise they betray feminism. Sex is dirty. The female shape is to be covered. Burqas are beautiful. The feminists are the real Madonnas. Giggling like pre-pubescent boys about boobies and trying to pass it off as news, they are the church ladies cluck-clucking about sex and sexiness. Or they're the Whores. But they can't be both.
It is axiomatic that happy heterosexual married couples are soul-chrushingly boring or more likely, don't really exist. And then there are the breeders. At least those who've bought the progressive perspective hope to be the truth. They hope committed married conservative couples don't have exciting sex lives. They better be dull and buttoned up, platonic and angry. If the Republican wives are sexy and smart, feminine and strong, quiet and intellectual, engaging and educated, it defies narratives.
Unfortunately, the Republican women seem like an interesting and beautiful and accomplished lot. Looking at the pictures, reveals an energy and spark. Democrats just can't stop writing about these women.
Expect more breathless reporting about Republican wives. Expect more exposés about breasts. The Left just can't get enough of living vicariously through the Right's sexiness.