Tactics and Substance in the 2004 Elections GoogleNews: Howard Dean

May 28, 2004

by J

Continued DLC Nonsense

Al From, Joe Lieberman, and the DLC continue to piss their pants about Howard Dean. And they continue to lie, lie, lie. Mighty interesting how one segment of the party loves to completely disrespect a guy who raised half a mil for their nominee in one day. Marisacat ponders:
I think the hard working DEMOCRATIC doctor and governor from Vermont was, and still is, too virile, too potent, too active in his message for the old white, did I say white, aging boys. I am sure that Gore's speech of yesterday was too, just tooooo virile for them. Roused the rabble soul of the party. Good forbid. I can see From purse his very small lips.
Howard Dean:
younghoward.jpg
Too damn studly for the DLC.

Posted by J at May 28, 2004 06:04 AM
Comments

Maybe that should be his columnist photo...

Posted by: V at May 28, 2004 08:05 AM

I adore you. *chuckle*

Posted by: Janis at May 28, 2004 04:49 PM

Who? Me or V? Better be me! ;-) XOXOXO

Posted by: J at May 28, 2004 05:46 PM

I never get tired of seeing that pic.

Posted by: Dori at May 28, 2004 06:13 PM

Hehehe. Me neither, Dori. :) (With all heartfelt apologies to Judy Dean for coveting her man...)

Posted by: J at May 28, 2004 06:16 PM

DROOL.

Heh. Sorry Kev. :)

Posted by: carla at May 28, 2004 09:06 PM

Well... I can honestly say that the pic doesn't do anything for me. But hey... different strokes and all that. You girls, rightly or wrongly, have a rep for voting your gonads.

::: ducks quickly :::

:-)

Posted by: Kevin at May 29, 2004 02:28 PM

In all fairness, though... how many chances do we hetero men get to vote our gonads? (Geraldine Ferraro? Maybe Hillary Clinton? LOL) If we had the opportunity to do so... would we? And if we did, what would our women think of it? It's an interesting question, IMO.

Posted by: Kevin at May 29, 2004 02:41 PM

Hey, watch it. I was a Dean fan long before I even knew what he looked like -- just based on speeches of his that I was reading. And the first few pictures that I saw were shrug-worthy. It's really in person that the guy comes across most dynamically.

Not to mention that given various societal constraints and hinderances, setting up an equivalence between men and women with respect to this kind of thing is unsupportable. The environments are emphatically not the same.


Posted by: J at May 29, 2004 02:52 PM

If you'll permit me to give a hetero man's perspective here... shrug-worthiness or not simply never entered my mind when I first saw a picture of Dean. Nor the second time or the third time.

Gonadal factors would of course be a two-sided coin. Lacking a physically attractive woman for whom to vote, hetero male gonadal factors could still be inferred by voting against an unattractive woman candidate based on phsyical repulsiveness. N'est pas? I'm not aware of that ever being enough of a factor to enter into the public consciousness... unlike the Soccer Mom vote.

I just find it an interesting commentary on the differences between the genders which crosses over into the political realm. Hetero men have long had the public reputation for the "wandering eye" in general. Yet, it is openly speculated whether certain candidates (Dan Quayle springs to mind) can woo the Soccer Mom vote with their virile good looks. I mean, did anyone really think that Al Gore's "wooden" dance style (demonstrated at their inaugural ball) would be the least bit relevant to male voters? Clearly it was perceived as some sort of "less than" quality of his, however minor. Yet, was Tipper's superior grace as a dancer ever even commented upon?

Posted by: Kevin at May 29, 2004 03:53 PM

I don't see a man NOT voting for a woman because she's unattractive. Being on the other side of that, I'm much more used to being assumed to be an incompetent airheaded fucktoy because of what I look like. My stint in graduate physics would have been a LOT easier had I weight about sixty pounds more than I do, chopped off my hair, and had terminal acne.

The less "feminine" you look (the more conscious men are of their dicks when they look at you in other words), the smarter they think YOU are.

Posted by: Janis at May 30, 2004 04:55 AM

Oops, that should have been "the less conscious men are of their dicks ... " Mea culpa ...

Posted by: Janis at May 30, 2004 04:56 AM

"In all fairness, though... how many chances do we hetero men get to vote our gonads?"

I have to say that I must deplore this sentiment. Women who have chosen to serve in the public arena must be taken seriously. And when I look at Jennifer Granholm, or Stephanie Herseth, or Mary Landrieu, I want to take them. Seriously.

Posted by: Tom at May 30, 2004 05:16 AM

Janis said: "The less "feminine" you look (the less conscious men are of their dicks when they look at you in other words), the smarter they think YOU are."

To which I would reply: I think you've been hanging out with the wrong men. :-) To quote one of my favorite lines from Buffy the Vampire Slayer: "Smart chicks are SO hot!" Just the idea of a beautiful physicist makes my head spin. To me, the most attractive thing about my wife (who appears earlier in this thread, for those who don't know) is her brain.

Seriously, I know that I'm in the minority of men who are attracted by smart women. It's one of the sad failings of my gender.

Posted by: Tom at May 30, 2004 01:23 PM

Janis - that's a two-way street. We see the common stereotype of a "boytoy" on TV and in the movies all the time. He's good looking and dumb. My youngest daughter and I saw Shrek 2 last night and Prince Charming conformed perfectly to that stereotype. Geeky looking guys are perceived to be smart. I can't recall ever seeing a good looking guy portrayed as a scientist. Typically that role is played by geeky guys wearing glasses that are taped together and wearing pocket protectors - preferably with acne. N'est pas?

Tom - who said that women who choose to serve in the public arena aren't taken seriously? I certainly didn't say it. In fact I would argue that they are taken seriously. Which kinda goes to my point. How is Dan Quayle perceived? Isn't he still written off as a dumb, but good looking guy who got on the ticket with Bush 41 solely because of his good looks? That's certainly the perception that I get.

As for the three politicians whose pictures you linked... Yes, all three are reasonably attractive women. For my part, not only do I not want to "take them", but the idea of taking them never would have crossed my mind if you hadn't put it in those terms. And having crossed my mind, I can honestly say that I still do not want to take them. Their admittedly attractive physical qualities didn't elicit the slightest stir from my gonads.

Posted by: Kevin at May 30, 2004 01:35 PM

Oy. I posted that, then said to Dori, "Watch this. I bet someone doesn't get that I'm joking."

Posted by: Tom at May 30, 2004 03:13 PM

Recommended Reading:

The Politics of Truth: Inside the Lies that Led to War and Betrayed My Wife's CIA Identity: A Diplomat's Memoir
The Politics of Truth... A Diplomat's Memoir


Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush
Worse Than Watergate: The Secret Presidency of George W. Bush


Against All Enemies by Richard Clarke
Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror


LIES by Al Franken
Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right


The Great Unraveling
The Great Unraveling


The Great Big Book of Tomorrow
The Great Big Book of Tomorrow


Clinton Wars
The Clinton Wars


Blinded by the Right
Blinded by the Right: The Conscience of an Ex-Conservative


Waging Modern War: Bosnia, Kosovo, and the Future of Combat

Subject to Debate: Sense and Dissents on Women, Politics, and Culture

Living History

The Hunting of the President: The Ten-Year Campaign to Destroy Bill and Hillary Clinton

John Adams

Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation

Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace

In Association with Amazon.com