US Supreme Court ladies are allowed some flair.
For a middle-aged academic/politician? I definitely don’t think Kagan’s pretty or slender, but looking at various pictures of her, I simply can’t see what’s considered so remarkably hideous about her.
New Jersey’s Chris Christie may have been called fat, and he is, but that’s not the same as calling him “butt-ugly” or “so far to the left of the attractiveness bell curve that this is something statistically noteworthy”. Unattractive men in public life simply don’t get judged on their looks anywhere near as viciously or persistently as unattractive women do.
Yea, she seems pretty average for a fifty something year-old woman. A little heavy, but at least in the US, so is the average 50 something year-old woman.
She also seems to have lost weight, the pics of her at the Presser announcing her SCOTUS nomination have her looking less chubby then those of her during her nomination hearings for Solictor General (which I assume were a year or so ago).
Absolutely. The worst things that your linked video says about Chris Christie are that an attack ad by an opponent described him as “throwing his weight around”, and that he’s frequently described as fat. And if you google “Chris Christie fat”, you get the same sort of thing: articles and blogs discussing whether it’s okay for Christie’s opponent to slyly insinuate that he’s fat, and whether his being fat will affect his candidacy.
Google “Elena Kagan ugly”, though, and you get thousands of messageboard posts directly calling her “ugly”, “hideously ugly”, “butt ugly”, “extraordinarily ugly”, “ugly as hell”, “ugly motherfucker”, “ugly man”, “fat ugly dyke”, and dozens more.
The level of offensive personal insult in these two cases is simply not comparable. You have yet to come up with any evidence indicating that the public discourse about Chris Christie’s looks was even remotely as hostile and vicious as the discourse about Kagan’s looks is.
The headline writers at MSNBC are trying to be clever. (top right)
Random posts on the Internet don’t really mean much and I have yet to see any discussion about Kagan’s looks in the MSM. And obviously her looks haven’t stopped her from having a very successful career. In any case men in public life are also judged by their looks. What are the chances of a short, fat, bald man being a serious contender for President?
True dat! It’s about as likely as a black man becoming President.
Is this what Dopers call a “woosh”?
Ok. She’s hot for a GILF, but how are her cake baking credentials and doesn’t she have some grandchildren and a husband to look after?
She should have been living in the UK then. At least she could have worn a nice looking wig. Perhaps she can suggest this fine tradition is introduced in the colonies.
Well I don’t know. Are you trying to say being short, fat and bald wouldn’t be a serious disadvantage if you were running for President?
If you look at US Presidents in the last 50 years, i.e. the TV age, I think it’s pretty clear that looks have played a role. Presidents tend to be taller than average. Not one of the Presidents has been fat or bald either. Even a beard appears to be a serious disadvantage.
The appointment to the Supreme Court should be based on qualifications, period. Unfortunately, being elected POTUS seems to be based on a number of other qualifications including looks. Ross Perot didn’t have looks or a soothing speaking voice, so no matter what you thought of his vision for the country, he didn’t have a chance. Appearance and oratory skills are neccessary for anyone in a prominent position.
So what if Kagan is gay or looks like Kevin James, the opposition needs to focus on her qualifications if they wish to successfully shoot her down. Pot shots about her looks and orientation are easy and play to the base mentality of the public. Fortunately (or not) the public basically has no say in the selections for the Supreme Court.
later, Tom.
(Of course, I’ve never seen Kevin James or Kagan at a party together…)
And what is her recipe for chocolate-chip cookies?
No one objected to her looks when she co-starred with Matthew Broderick on Broadway.
Oh snap!
Wasn’t Dwight D bald?? Well he was slightly before the television age. I don’t seem to remember anybody pointing out how ugly Sam Alito was during his nomination… dude looks like dracula…
As for Condi…wasn’t the First Lady going to hook her up with a guy?? We use to laugh that Laura was trying to match up Condi to keep her away from W.
As for Gov Christie… it does make me chuckle when i see a fat conservative… what about YOUR personal choices eh??
Houston, Texas, managed to elect a lesbian mayor last November; she’s in the 2010 Time 100.
But I agree that women in politics get more attention for their looks than men do. Some will interpret her as seeming “lesbian.” Hasn’t anybody complained that she looks sort of “Jewish”? Or are they trying to hide their anti-Semitism? There have been warnings about a new Oppressed Majority:
Practically speaking, her looks won’t really matter unless the Supreme Court’s building needs upkeep & the justices decide to raise funds with a swimsuit calendar.
Tbh, if she is gay then it is relevant as there are many issues (gay marriage, religious freedom of expression etc) on which her lesbianism (is that a word?) would imply that she take a certain stand.
Since she hasn’t been a judge before, and therefore has no written judgements, these kinds of factors are how people are going to work out what questions they will ask her during her hearings.
I remember all the strenuous question to previous nominees as to how their straightness would affect their decision making. It’s just fair to reciprocate.
Bork cut quite a figure in his Senate hearings.