The Rutherford Lawson Blog

This appears to be an interesting week for coincidences. Two interesting ones come immediately to mind.

First, in the I’m Really Not Gay, Make Me Your Veep department, Florida Governor Charlie Crist has announced he is engaged … to a woman (remember, this is Florida, not California). A confirmed bachelor for the past 29 years, Crist has been the subject of at least some speculation as to his sexual preferences. Now, I’m not saying Charlie is really gay (not that there’s anything wrong with that) but isn’t the timing just a little too perfect? Certainly makes him a more “acceptable” choice for VP (particularly from a GOP point of view).

Second, in the I Just Happened To Be In The Neighborhood department, John McCain makes a trip to Colombia and many in the media scratch their heads. Why in the world would he go to Colombia when he’s got millions of American voters to win over in less than four months? Ahhh but while he is there a truckload of hostages are rescued from Colombian radicals and he is given the scoop on it before anyone else, thereby confirming his status as a world leader. Hollywood screen writer John Ridley remarked on Thursday’s “Morning Joe” that the timing seemed awfully odd. I have to agree with him. McCain’s got folks in his campaign with Colombian connections. It is not farfetched at all to surmise that John was given a wink-wink nudge-nudge that if he showed up in Colombia this week, there might be something in it for him. If there is any truth to it, it takes media manipulation to a whole new level.

Of course, the other thing that these coincidences highlight is that we have been lied to by our government so many times that we don’t take any news at face value anymore. Sometimes an engagement is just an engagement and a trip to Colombia is just a trip to Colombia.

Or is it?

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

Yesterday, former President William Jefferson Clinton made the following reference to his wife’s recent Bosnia tall tale:

“There was a lot of fulminating because Hillary, one time late at night when she was exhausted, misstated and immediately apologized for it - what happened to her in Bosnia in 1995. … And some of [her critics], when they’re 60, they’ll forget something when they’re tired at 11:00 at night, too.”

I won’t go into the many factual errors in Bill’s statement as that’s been covered elsewhere. I won’t even address why in the world Bill would exhume this story when it had all but faded from the spotlight.

I do however find two incredibly ironic aspects to Bill’s statement. If part of Hillary’s problem was that she made these comments at 11pm after a long hard day (which by the way isn’t true), then how can we possibly trust Hillary to take that 3am call at the White House when all global hell is breaking loose? If her brain does not function at 11pm, just think what shape she is in at 3 in the morning.

If Hillary were to win the nomination, her opponent would be John McCain, one of whose potential weaknesses is his advanced age. However, according to Bill, John is not alone on the age issue. Apparently, Hillary’s being 60 years old also leads to her inventing combat situations in which she did not participate.

Looks like Bill’s latest campaign stump speech for Hillary goes like this: “Hillary Clinton is ready to be Commander-in-Chief so long as you don’t expect her 60 year old doddering mind to function properly 11pm or later.”

With poison pills like Bill Clinton and Mark Penn, Hillary hardly needs an opponent in order to lose the nomination. She’s losing it all by herself.

Respectfully,
Rutherford

WordPress.com Political Blogger Alliance

In last night’s CNN debate, the final question went to Senator Hillary Clinton and she was asked, “diamonds or pearls?” This took me back 13 years to when her husband, then President Bill Clinton, was asked on MTV “boxers or briefs?”

It’s interesting to contrast the two questions and what they say about gender politics. Although entirely inappropriate, the boxers or briefs question fit right in with Bill’s President-as-sex-symbol image. This image has precedent in John F. Kennedy, one of Clinton’s heroes. Rather than diminishing his stature, it actually added to his aura. His reply “mostly briefs” was followed by something along the lines of “I can’t believe she asked that.” This last comment made it clear that the question was beneath his dignity. So he single handedly answered the question (adding to his macho image) and flagged it as inappropriate (reminding us that he is due a certain amount of respect).

Unfortunately, I don’t think Hillary’s boxers or briefs moment went quite as well. She answered the question with a chuckle, making no attempt to suggest that the question was inappropriately trivializing her candidacy. That was mistake number one. But even if her answer had addressed the essential foolishness of the question, the damage had already been done just by the asking. We don’t want a glamour puss in the White House. We don’t want someone among whose top priorities is “what will I wear today?” The fact that the questioner was a woman was even more disturbing. In a Presidential race, women of all people, should know that fashion is not a topic of importance and that questions about it only serve to stereotype female candidates.

Whether we like it or not, in this society, macho equals power. If a male candidate is a sex symbol, it only adds to his allure. The same cannot be said for women. For a woman to convince the American public that she is ready to be Commander-in-Chief, she has to avoid any suggestion that she is preoccupied with femininity. It may not be fair but I believe that is current American sentiment.

On a side note, it is interesting that her answer only confirmed Obama’s and Edwards’ accusations that she flip flops and is indecisive. Her answer to “diamonds or pearls” was “both.”

Respectfully,
Rutherford