“Used to be”? It still happens. I remember a story on the radio about Hillary Clinton during the 2008 campaign, and one of the things that stuck in my head was the comment about her “looking resplendent in her powder-blue pantsuit.” I don’t believe I ever heard anyone mention how great the suit was that Obama or Edwards was wearing at any time during the campaign.
It’s less common now for a woman’s clothing to be talked about. That’s why I said it used to be very common. I know it still happens.
Hell, I don’t even need a pic, his last name makes me shiver in discomfort. That’s a venereal disease name if I ever heard one.
Same here. A GOP senator has a lot more reason to use a liberal background/history to oppose confirmation than he does opposing her because of her orientation. If the conservative base yells too loudly to vote no because she’s a lesbian, there’s some serious backlash.
I came in ready to smack down the OP for being so stupid as to miss their obvious importance.
On inspecting the title, it does not, in fact, contain the word ‘books.’
Moving thread from IMHO to Great Debates.
Great Debates? … OK if you say so.
I agree that people are commenting on Kagan’s looks because they’re just looking for something to rip on her about. As others have said, she’s an ordinary looking woman. She has a very nice smile. A high round neckline is not flattering to her. She looks better with a v-neck or slightly lower round neckline. And I’m really not sure what else there is to say about her looks.
Did people make a big deal about Madeleine Albright’s looks? I don’t remember.
p.s. If Kagan wants to make herself look better, she should stand next to Ruth Bader Ginsburg. Yeah, I said it.
I have no problem with her looks but I do admit when I first saw a photo of her I thought it was a Mike Myers character.
I vaguely remember somebody called her a fat little tomato after she wore some bright red dress, but that’s it.
The very first time I saw her my immediate reaction was:
- They’re going to call her a lesbian.
- I hope she is, and she’s out, and it backfires.
If this does become an actual issue, it’ll be interesting to see how politicians react, based on their constituents’ prejudices or lack thereof . . . especially since this is an election year.
You bet they did. But nobody has suffered more in this area than Hillary.
I have to admit that when I first saw her picture, I thought to myself that that is one fugly woman. In this morning’s Times, she looks like Charlie Weis in drag, minus the weight.
If I recall correctly, the smear about Kagan’s sexuality came, not from the right, but from a liberal columnist, congratulating the administration on nominating a gay person to the Court. The administration took great offense, calling it a “smear”, and provoking some discussion about whether it should be considered as such, whether true or false.
Undoubtedly, there will be some on the right who will object to Kagan because of this, and more because of her judicial philosophy (to the extent it can be discerned from her record), but she should be confirmed fairly readily. The Republican minority in the Senate will talk it up a bit, but probably not go to the wall, as she is probably about as good a nominee (from their perspective) as they can expect from Obama.
In fact, there has been quite a bit of discussion from the left about whether Obama should have taken advantage of his large Congressional majority and nominated someone quite a bit to the left of Kagan, leaving her nomination in reserve should a vacancy come up after the next Congress (which is almost certain to be less favorable to such a nominee) is elected.
How is it a smear?
Well, that’s the question. Is it a smear to call someone gay if they aren’t? How about if they are?
Frankly, speaking as a guy who tends to the conservative side politically, I couldn’t care less which way, if any, Kagan swings.
None of that now. You used the term. Why?
Women often are judged on their looks. That’s pretty much it
You beat me to it.
She’s Fat Bastard’s sister - Fatima Bastard. :eek:
The novelist Dorothy L. Sayers had an amusing take on this media phenomenon with the gender roles reversed: