Politico's Wilner: Masculinity a "trait that is absent from the top of the Democratic field"
In an October 16 Politico article, Elizabeth Wilner wrote that masculinity is "a trait that is absent from the top of the Democratic [presidential campaign] field where, despite Barack Obama's fondness for pickup basketball, none of the candidates is really known for being a guy." Asserting that 2004 Democratic presidential nominee John Kerry does project masculinity -- albeit "an effete, wet-suited masculinity compared to [President] Bush's frat-boy, towel-snapping version" -- she wrote: "It seems unlikely that between 2004 and 2008, the need for Democrats to show some trappings of strength will just disappear."
Wilner's comments echo the numerous instances Media Matters for America has documented in which media figures have characterized former Sen. John Edwards (D-NC) and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) as feminine or weak or reinforced the characterization of the Democratic and Republican parties as the "Mommy" and "Daddy" parties, respectively.
From the October 16 article in the Politico:
Kerry's road back from the ashes of 2004 has been studded with self-inflicted setbacks. Ultimately, it won't be as triumphant as Gore's.
But nor will it take as long -- and there are growing signs that the events of the post-2004 period have granted Kerry at least the right to say, "I told you so."
For four years after winning the race but losing the presidency, Gore could do nothing right. He ignored his loyalists, got bloated and sweaty, embraced the unruly anti-war left and threw his support behind their 2004 presidential candidate, who then imploded spectacularly.
[...]
Which is the flip side of the swift-boat coin: The tactic may have damaged Kerry's own chances in 2004, but his support could help inoculate other Democratic candidates against similar efforts to impugn their patriotism in 2008.
He also brings brass to the table -- not only his own Vietnam service but also a small army of veteran supporters built during his presidential campaign and his efforts to support veterans who ran for office in 2006.
And Kerry projects something else the Democratic nominee may need, whoever he or she may be: masculinity. Of course, it is an effete, wet-suited masculinity compared to Bush's frat-boy, towel-snapping version. But it's a trait that is absent from the top of the Democratic field where, despite Barack Obama's fondness for pickup basketball, none of the candidates is really known for being a guy.
Kerry's assets are not inconsiderable given that the current president plans to hand off the Iraq war to his successor and the top Republican candidates seem to be lifting the weak-on-terror charge from the Bush campaign playbook. It seems unlikely that between 2004 and 2008, the need for Democrats to show some trappings of strength will just disappear.
But it's a trait that is absent from the top of the Democratic field where, despite Barack Obama's fondness for pickup basketball, none of the candidates is really known for being a guy.
The last l looked Senator Clinton was a female. This is as sexist a remark as I have seen in awhile. Disgusting.
That's a good point - looks like someone is pretending Hillary doesn't even exist - or doesn't consider her a potential candidate?
when I just read the headline above, the first thing that came to mind was " Sen Larry Craig, R-ID "
Translation: Republicans are Gay.
They're a bunch of racists, too.
Wait....I thought they were homophobes??
...make that racist homophobes??
I find it most disgusting coming from a woman.
Oh come now...Hillary is quite masculine ;-)
I can't believe that people get paid to produce columns with such worthless drivel.
Sadly, I think this reflects how superficial our society has become.
I sadly agree. When I watch television, with the ever-growing parade of brainless "reality shows", I long for the days of more intelligent pop culture. I think I'll go buy a Three Stooges DVD...
I figure I might as well add to the silliness. What better time to watch a repeat performance of John Edwards singing "I Am Woman"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VE-8csu7-bk
All in fun folks ;-)
Jeter,
You hit the nail on the head. It is ridiculous. Masculine/feminine/man/woman/gay/straight - whatever......as long as they are honest, competent, tough, straightforward, strong and lead with integrity - the rest is just blogosphere clutter.
Yeah, that's why Mitch McConnell, the leader of Senate Republicans, referred reporters to the Free Republic, a notoriously nutty far right blog, to get the facts on the Frost family.
He referred them because they're "just blogosphere clutter."
Republicans have been working hand-in-hand with talk radio for over a decade now and have added far right blogs to their arsenal of lies and distortions.
Yes. Blogs should not be underestimated. Michelle Malkin is as influential as Rush Limbaugh, in my opinion, in that she has myraid numbers of like minded fans who will say what she wants them to say and do what she wants them to do.
You know, dittoheads. Zombies.
Sounds like Gene Wilder in "Blazing Saddles". "you know, morons".
Is this MASCULINITY?
George W. Bush has now REDEFINED VICTORY IN IRAQ as something that is completely out of our control, and cannot be won by our armies.
“The Iraq situation cannot be won by military means alone. There has to be political reconciliation to go with it.” Bush said today, Oct 17, 2007.
Of course, Bush sees some “progress” on this front. Bush claims, “And what's happened is, in Iraq, is there's been a lot of political reconciliation at the grassroots level. In other words, people that hadn't been talking to each other are now talking to each other.”
So, Bush has identified the KEY to victory in Iraq: Enemies talking directly to each other, hostilities set aside in favor of diplomacy, compromise, and political “reconciliation”.
Let’s assume Bush is correct, and this kind of “dialogue” is absolutely necessary to setting up the conditions that will allow our soldiers to come home. Let’s even assume that Bush considers getting our soldiers out of the middle of a civil war would be a GOOD thing, that stopping the ever greater body count of our military would be a goal well worth pursuing. Assuming these things, what is, and what HAS BEEN, Bush’s LEADERSHIP on this “talking to your enemies” thing, the thing that will rescue us from the quagmire of Iraq? How has Bush “LED BY EXAMPLE” on this vital diplomacy?
“The Bush Administration thinks that dialogue equates with weakness, that we've called these regimes 'evil'--Iran and North Korea--and therefore we won't talk to them,” reports Richard Armitage, Deputy Secretary of State during Bush’s first term.
Dean of the University of Florida International Center, Dennis Jett, adds, “The president is trapped by his own rhetoric when he goes around painting people as evil … and that it isn't productive to talk to them." In fact, Bush avoids diplomacy by placing “preconditions” on talks that call for complete capitulation, making the talks only “about negotiating the details of your capitulation.” Such preconditions are of course rejected by Syria, North Korea, Iran and Cuba, to name a few of the nations Bush has refused to have open talks with.
Is it any surprise that the very formula for disentangling us from WAR in Iraq is a formula that Bush has himself rejected as a matter of POLICY? Is it helpful that Bush has defined diplomacy as both unproductive and WEAK, considering his current WAR plan depends entirely on such talks taking place? Any would-be “LEADER” who follows Bush’s lead would REFUSE to talk, and thus eliminate the ONLY path to a solution in Iraq, or anywhere else in the world.
This is George W. Bush’s LEADERSHIP, writ large. “Don’t do as I DO, Do as I SAY.”
Credibility, leadership and consistency: Non-existent for this Administration.
Ah, but DIPLOMACY is WEAKNESS (read: Feminine). Real Men prefer Real Blood, shed by somebody else, while scorning the only solution possible.
Well played. sir.
Maybe masculinity to cons is attacking a 2 year old girl for receiving SCHIP funds?
I especially love the part where the parents reveal their political affiliation. Neither one a Dem. Conservatives should have done a better job vetting the victim before they tried to play it off as another liberal deadbeat!
Well said, TEX!
Jeter, you may be right. I think Hillary has more balls than Thompson and Guliani combined! And she looks much better in a pants suit than Rudy looks in a dress!
Looks to me that all masculinity gets you is endless war and good-0le boy cronyism.
"Looks to me that all masculinity gets you is endless war and good-0le boy cronyism."
Maybe, but Bush looked so dreamy in that flight suit.
....and this is a story because???????????
I have even seen several Dem supporters here talking about the lack of "Brass ones" the Dem's show in public
Oh yeah....well....Republicans have COOTIES!
So is she saying that the country and the world are better off if we have an inarticulate, unenlightened, intellectually uncurious, C-grade frathouse lout running the show instead of someone who is opposite of that? Oh, and someone who is highly insecure - demonstrated by isolating himself from the GENERAL public and surrounding himself with Daddy's advisors - and easily rattled by 'tough' questions too instead of someone who is coolly confident in himself?
And she thinks a person of that calibre is 'masculine'? Sounds more like a boor to me...
Here's our boy Dubya...bein' all manly...
[link to z.about.com]
You can also find pictures of Bush playing rugby, which is a bit tougher than being a band nerd playing a saxophone.
Yup, a cheerleader for the rugby team. Pretty manly, that!
Bush is a cowardly wimp. Afraid of horsed, couldnt make the baseball team so became a cheerleader, terrified of going to Vietnam, flew to a bomb shelter in Nebraska to hide under the bed on 9/11 wimp. You want manliness in your party its there but nowhere near President Gumps vicinity
Rugby, huh? Sounds like some kinda down south, out on the ranch, cowboy swaggerin', rodeo sport.
What's that? Oh, you say it was actually back home in Connetticut then. Was that BEFORE he was a cheerleader at Andover?
I'll bet Laura spanks his a$$ every time the Secret Service leaves the room.
"You can also find pictures of Bush playing rugby, which is a bit tougher than being a band nerd playing a saxophone."
You can find pictues of dead soldiers in Vietnam, which is a bit tougher than being a draft-skirting Guardsman-via-influence in Texas.
Not sure who this Wilner floozy is, but all I know is that The Politico is to American politics as cancer is to the human body.
Does anyone think that Hillary isn't pandering to women because of her sex?
If so, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn I'd like to sell ya.
(from today's BaltimoreSun.com "The Swamp"...
Later in the day at a New York luncheon Clinton said some people had asked in 2000 whether New York was ready to elect a woman senator. “I propose we give them the same answer we did in New York, and that this time next year we prove that America is indeed ready for a woman president.”
In fact, according to a Boston Globe story, Clinton's staff is counting on women to push her over the top both in the primary elections and in the general election.
What does any of that have to do with the subject of the thread or the actual piece itself?
Wow. That's so not relevant to the topic. Nice job.
yes, she is pandering to women. But the Republican candidates pander to BOTH men and women and are thus twicer as bad.
No, I'm sorry, that's incorrect.
The correct answer was, "Who gives a $**T?"
You're right, AA, she IS pandering to women! How DARE she! After all, women make up only a little over half the country's population. Does she have no shame? Doesn't she realize that women could take over this country and force everyone to have abortions?
We should elect a Republican as President, so they can show women that their place is in the kitchen and at home with the kids. Then, mercifully, they can take away women's voting rights once and for all, and this country will be freed from the feminist-homosexual-atheist-liberal agenda.
</sarcasm>
Oh, heavens to betsie! She's trying to reel in the female vote! And the minority vote! She's even trying to appeal to centrists! Ahhhhhh! How dare she! Ahhhhh!
Don't worry, AA. Y'all still have the KKK, the neo nazi and the reich wing extremists locked in for ya.
And there it is.
This Republican fetish for all things masculine is the stuff of self-loathing, repressed homosexuality. Hey, they may be three times married, porn addicted, adulterterating alcoholics. But by GOD they ain't no damn girly-man!
Roundhouse,
While I think this particular column by Elizabeth Wilner is silly, she is not a Conservative/Republican columnist. Actually her stuff is pretty non-partisan.
So please knock Wilner solely for this crap. She is representing her own views, not those of ALL Republican/Conservatives.
All any columnist ever does is present their own views. That's how columns are different than editorials. The editorial represents the view of the institution i.e. NY Times or Washington Post the columnist doesn't.
However, this column does illustrate how far right propaganda starts out on talk radio and the blogs and by the time it reaches the mainstream media the propaganda is treated as fact.
Wilner writes, "And Kerry projects something else the Democratic nominee may need, whoever he or she may be: masculinity. Of course, it is an effete, wet-suited masculinity compared to Bush's frat-boy, towel-snapping version. "
John Kerry was the only person on a major party presidential ticket in 2004 to have seen combat and killed people in defense of this country. In fact he was unofficially credited with 20 kills by the Navy.
[link to www.thesmokinggun.com]
Still, Wilner buys into the far right propaganda that Kerry projects some kind of effete masculinity.
Wilner should know better. After all she once she was once Political Director for NBC News.
Her column shows how insidious far right propaganda is, how it's often treated as fact and why it should never go unanswered.
Blame, blame, blame everything on the "far right". Perhaps when the "far left" stops whining about every one of their image problems and the perceptions of them being the fault of somebody else, and start to take an honest look at why those perceptions exist - you and your "far left" friends will finally overcome it.....instead of bellyaching about it and blaming someone else.
Don't you get ever tired of that?
OK, Tommy.
Enlighten us.
Why do the image problems and the perceptions exist?
The media has been portraying those who've served their country as cowards and traitors, yet they lionize cowards and portray them as patriots.
Who is responsible for distorting the reality?
I just think it's unproductive on principle to blame somebody else for your state of affairs when there is plenty of responsibility to shoulder for one's own image problems. There are plenty of ways to counter it and get your messge across....to continually whine about how unfair the world is, is just ridiculous. But the left around here champions it all the time.
If you want to blame, fine. I don't buy it, sorry.
I'm not placing blame.
I was looking for an answer to my question, which you ignored in your response.
You mentioned the perceptions. Kerry was perceived to be effete and not masculine by the media, yet he was the one who went to Vietnam.
Bush and Cheney took "other paths" to become men and the media has portrayed them as heroic tough guys.
The perceptions have been distorted and not by the Democratic candidates, yet you seem to imply that it's the fault of those who've been maligned.
I don't understand.
Maybe I'm just missing your point.
Are you denying the fact the Swift Boat attacks were launched by the far right?
Are you denying they were effective, mainly because Kerry didn't answer them back soon or forcefully enough?
Why don't you try to address the point how far right propaganda is often embraced by mainstream media as "fact."
You can blame Kerry's loss on the Swift Boaters, I don't buy it. He was a lousy candidate with a ditsy wife - he should have beaten Bush easily and he lost. The fault is his and the Democrats for nominating him.
There is no analysis of the 2004 election that doesn't mention how effective the Republicans and their surrogates were at smearing Kerry. Their smears were immediate and relentless.
While Kerry isn't the most scintilating campaigner and is to blame for not reacting to the smears quickly enough, you cannot deny the effectiveness of the negative attacks against him, negative attacks from the far right.
And let's not forget phony Marine Dan Rather's attacks on George W. Bush. At least the SBVT members (all Vietnam veterans who, unlike Kerry, COMPLETED their tours in Vietnam) had the facts on their side.
"Facts" that were proven false, you mean. They made all that up because they hated Kerry for protesting the war when he returned home. Those SBVT's decided smear and slander were more important than dignity and honor. I will never respect the word of those slimeballs.
The fact is Kerry is a decorated veteran credited with 20 "kills" by the Navy.
That hardly qualifies as "effete masculinity."
Wilner's latest column is perpetuating a far right myth.
She should know better.
Kerry left Vietnam in the middle of his SECOND tour you moron. AFTER winning the silver star and the bronze star. Bush did go AWOL, which is why even HE admitted he had to make the time up later. Bush DID get suspended from flying for deriliction of duty by failing to take his MANDATORY physical. If he hadnt been politically connected he would have found himself in Vietnam so fast he wouldnt have had time to reset his watch. BUSH made darn sure that even though he supported the war he checked the box saying he did NOT volunteer to go to Vietnam like Kerry DID. Bush supported OTHER PEOPLE dying in Vietnam but hot HIS pamperred Frat boy butt. Kerry volunteered for the Navy, to go to Vietnam AND for Swift Boat duty. Keep pretending a cowardly terrified to go to Vietnam used connections to get into the Guard to stay OUT of Vietnam punk like Bush is the MAN and a WAR HERO like Kerry is cowardly. We know that is what the hivemind is required to regurgitate on cue but its really stupid.
"SBVT members"
Speaking as a Vietnam infantry vet: the SBVT members are Scum.
Says the poster who comes in every other thread and whines more than any human being I have ever seen. WWAAHHH why is this here, WWAAHHHHHH, why dont you just ignore these people WWAAHHHHH
I'm feelin' that, J2.
It's her opinion. Even if it is shared by other Republicans, I know not all Republicans share her view. That's why I wrote all things masculine instead of all Republicans.
Maybe not a huge difference there, but it still holds true. Republicans claim to be the Party of muscular foreign policy, talk about a muscular economic policy, follow strict father morality and claim all things traditionally associated with masculinity as their brand. And then we have Mark Foley, Larry Craig, that pill poppin' gay reverend (forget his name) in Colorado and so forth. So, while not all Republicans are self-hating latent homosexuals, just about all self-hating latent homosexuals are Republican.
The masculinity we need is another draft-evading, pseudo-Cowboy from Connecticut who talks tough, sends other people's kids off to die, and then dresses up in a codpiece and flight-suit to prematurely declare that "major combat operations have ended". That's really worked out well for us.
Well, the obvious response to this is...
[link to www.mathies.com]
AA if your the same AA mentioned at the top as tipster, good on ya.
Your point about pandering seems in line with taking a strength and making it a weakness.
Have you seen John Edwards jog? He runs just like a girl.
It's sad when the most masculine of the Democrat frontrunners is Hillary.
"He also brings brass to the table -- not only his own Vietnam service but also a small army of veteran supporters built during his presidential campaign and his efforts to support veterans who ran for office in 2006."
It's a very, very, very small army.
I've always wondered about Kerry's sexual orientation. It appears to me that he married Teresa Heinz just for her money. It's a marriage of convenience, much like Michael Huffington had for many years.
That's funny stuff.
I understand why you joke. Reality is just too depressing to accept for the die hard Party loyalist. All your macho, macho man heroes act so tough, fight through divorce after divorce, stoke fears of the other and often as not, turn out gay in the end. Meanwhile we stalwart progressives of intellect and sensitivity stand for the rights and dignity of your fallen gay heroes.
But it's the other truth of today's Republican Party (I mean besides the lust that places winning above people) that contributes to a deeper depression. It's the proven lack of trustworthiness that makes them unfit for the responsibilities of public service that has created so many former Republicans.
But the most vile affliction of today's Republican Party, the one that curses our entire national family, is the separation of 'unpatriotic' dissenters from the 'war' patriots. Because in this divide eliminationist rhetoric runs rampant. All this "Democrats want the terrorists to win" talk does is cast the left as execution worthy traitors.
Thnkfully, we get it and we are convincing people that we get it.
Progressives know that Ameerica wins when we avoid debacles. We know national healthcare, environmental stewardship. living wages and a well regulated market is essential to long-term national security.
Go ahead and keep distracting from the big picture, I know you have to focus on minutia. You have to, because otherwise you lose, and we all know how important winning is to macho men.
speaking of marraiges of convenience, how's your toe tapping bathroom stall lover doing today?
Kozakid may not be aware of all of the self-hating gay men in the GOP. He seems to be busy watching Edwards jog.
I've never seen John Edwards jog. Sounds like something you would only see if you were searching youtube or lurking in the bushes around Edwards' house.
I've alwasy wondered about your stupidity as it is astonishing in its scope. Clearly you are a top notch moron. Now you WONDER about Kerrys sexual orientation? Why? Do you find him hot? Is it getting a bit cramped in that closet of yours? Remember dont ask, dont tell.
See, among homophopic troglodytes, calling someone gay is the ULTIMATE insult. (That's why they got so hysterical when Edwards casually mentioned the fact that Cheney had a gay daughter.)
What Kazaam doesn't realize is that we could care less...so his sophomoronic insult is wasted here.
"I've always wondered about Kerry's sexual orientation" ....
As well as your own.
Why are you wondering about Kerry's sexual orientation? What's the matter... you want him or something?
Meathead.
Both sides offer metro-sexual candidates wearing layers of make-up. Where's the misinformation here? Or was it that a Democrat was insulted again?
"Both sides offer metro-sexual candidates wearing layers of make-up. Where's the misinformation here?" - Redking
Redking, for your amusement: http://www.realchange.org/nader.htm
Well, I do not recall ever hearing the terms 'Breck Girl' or 'effete' being used to describe any of the Righty candidates. Perhaps I missed that one...
And while this politico nonsense is going on, Hillary decides to become girly, ootsy, cutesy about being the center of attention from MEN candidates who are running against her. This clumsy, phony line was probably given to her by some 21 year old staffer. Clinton was clutzy enough to use it. It was an embarrassment.
Positively strange how so many Americans, mostly men it seems, are fascinated with the sexuality of their political leaders! In this respect, women were largely left behind. Wilner's remarks suggest that they're finally catching up. Why should the men have the Limbaughs, O'Reilleys, Hannitys, Becks and Imus to represent them while women have only Anne Coulter to express their self-righteous vision? By joining her, Elizabeth Wilner should be congratulated for beginning to narrow the gender disparity.