‘08 SPOUSES: Republican Sex vs. Democratic Substance
06 August 2007 11:19 am by Taylor Marsh
 |
Hair was one thing. Cleavage another. But now we’ve got a new level of, what
to call it? Depravity? Vacuousness? Or is it simply a naked way of trying to
get at Hillary Clinton, considering that her spouse is, well, William Jefferson
Clinton? Perhaps it’s to contrast the seriousness of HRC and spouse with the
vacuous notion that whoever joins the president in the White House should be
in charge of the social calendar, instead of moving the first couple’s priorities
on to a more serious stage. After all, even when you think of Obama or Edwards,
it’s not like their spouses are going to be offering tea time cookie clutches.
Catching up on stories that surfaced during my long-term travel day yesterday,
one story takes the cake. But take this question in the LA Times story
from yesterday: Just how sexy is the first lady supposed to be? How
would that be referred to Bill Clinton? I shudder to think.
But when you contrast this article about sexy first ladies with Hillary Clinton’s
presidential candidacy, what you get is the very old fashioned stereotype of
women’s roles in politics and the world at large. Coming from the leading California
paper it’s all the more startling.
In this long, hot campaign season, intimations of sexuality are sprouting
like wildflowers along the road to the White House. Not that the commingling
of sex and politics is anything new, but for what seems to be the first time
in memory, voters are being confronted with questions that don’t usually break
the surface: Just how sexy is a first lady allowed to be? And what constitutes
an appropriate display of affection between candidates and their spouses?In
‘08 race, a little leg may go a long way
Sex, they say, sells. Aspiring presidential couples are bringing that notion
to the fore (spontaneously or not). Do you approve? Vote here.
Where does that leave Clinton? Better yet, what are they implying by ignoring
her?
“The candidate’s wife is a strategic asset. How are you going to deploy
that asset?”
Okay, I’ll bite.
The candidate’s husband is a strategic asset too, dare I remind the California
Times. How is Clinton going to deploy her asset? For that matter, what about
Elizabeth Edwards? She’s not sitting on anyone’s lap, and she’s not only a strategic
asset, but a campaign dynamo. Then there’s Michelle Obama who is nobody’s slouch.
But what are the Republican wives offering? Canoodling. Fashion tips? No. Republican
wives aren’t advocates for policy, they’re proof of, ahem, wood.
With a nominating field full of older men and younger wives, experts say
that a youthful, even sexy wife offers a none-too-subtle message about the
vitality of the candidate.
Nice try. As someone who has interviewed more people on marriage and sex than
anyone in the blogosphere, this is so ignorant as to be mind boggling. What
it illustrates is the candidate’s need to show vitality, not necessarily
that he has it.
Hello, boys, Republican reality check time.
“If I were Rudy Giuliani and I were in my third marriage and my third
wife was the woman I was committing adultery with when I was cheating on my
second wife, I would probably avoid public displays of affection,” said
Land, president of the Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission, the public
policy entity of the Southern Baptist Convention. “Most evangelicals
have had their families touched by divorce, but what matters is the number
and the circumstances.”
But getting back to the Democrats, the Times article finally addresses them
at the end. Unfortunately, all Robin Abcarian, the author of the article, can
come up with is Clinton’s cleavage and the Obama girl. As for Edwards, he’s
not mentioned at all. Elizabeth Edwards is just too much for the Times to handle. Michelle Obama being displaced by Obama spice, while Bill Clinton… **crickets**.
However, Mitt’s marriage is the personification of the wholesome anti-sex, anti-substance tradition of all Republican relationships, not to mention presidential candidacies. Good to know.
The Republicans show up traditionally closeted in the spouse, sex, “family
values” category, if in contrasting pictures. The man as old viral guy with hot wife vs. long time married man with family and “values”; either way you’ve got a throwback campaign.
As for the Democrats, Ms. Abcarian doesn’t mention Bill once or the fact that
Clinton’s candidacy is juxtaposed against the Republican white male only traditionalism, however you define it. You’ve got wives in their old-fashioned 1950’s role of mother figure and matron, in
the case of Mrs. Romney; or sexual gold digging predator, as in Rudy’s case; or in the stereotypical
first lady to be category represented by Cindy McCain. All of these pictures saying something wholly different (and creepy) about the
Republicans, none of it of the 21st century variety. Thompson is the only one coming close to a modern relationship, with his “trophy” wife, who also happens to be a GOP player. Rudy and Fred are the GOP’s idea of “modern,” I guess, though in different categories, to be sure.
Sex may sell, but that’s a message coming from the wingnuts and their throwback
candidates from the wanna be Reagan era. Because in ‘08, Democrats, whether
you’re talking about our candidates or their spouses, are selling substance.
For us wonkery, especially for spouses, is very in. Oh, and that’s regardless of gender.
