Friday, February 25, 2005

Taking Women Seriously

The MSM is just pathetic in its obsession over Condi’s clothes.

Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived at the Wiesbaden Army Airfield on Wednesday dressed all in black. She was wearing a black skirt that hit just above the knee, and it was topped with a black coat that fell to mid-calf. The coat, with its seven gold buttons running down the front and its band collar, called to mind a Marine’s dress uniform or the “save humanity” ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in “The Matrix.”

As Rice walked out to greet the troops, the coat blew open in a rather swashbuckling way to reveal the top of a pair of knee-high boots. The boots had a high, slender heel that is not particularly practical. But it is a popular silhouette because it tends to elongate and flatter the leg. In short, the boots are sexy.

In the few short weeks since Rice became Secretary of State, she went to the Mideast, where the Palestinians and the Israelis quickly announced a cease fire and are working together better than they have in years, and she is going through Europe with Bush, where country after country is acquiescing to the US’ wishes.  Despite these outstanding achievements, the MSM insists on obsessing over her boots. 

Pathetic.

So tell me again, which side of the aisle takes women seriously?

(5) Comments
Posted by Owen at 1502 hrs
Politics + Politics - General

  1. In fact Michelle Malkin notes a certain writer taking it much farther than MSNBC likening Condi to a dominiatrix.

    Michelle notes quite dryly that it is cold and the outfit chosen has the quality of keeping one….(wait for it).........WARM.

    sigh.

    Posted by Marcus Aurelius on February 25, 2005 at 1518 hrs


  2. The article on Rice isn’t a symptom of some mainstream media obsession or, as you suggest at the end of your post, a partisan issue.

    First, Robin Givhan, the author of the article, is a fashion writer. She writes about, well, clothes. If you want political reporting about Rice, turn back to Section A. Personally, I have just about zero interest in fashion reporting, but a lot of people take it just as seriously as, say, sports, which is equally trivial in the grand scheme of things.

    Second, fashion is not solely covered by the mainstream media. There are lots of blogs devoted to the subject.

    Third, fashion is not a partisan issue, as you imply by asking So tell me again, which side of the aisle takes women seriously? Fox News and the Wall Street Journal both report on fashion and the sartorial choices made by politicians

    There’s been a lot written about Bush’s casual style, and the First Lady’s choices of dresses for both inaugural events got a ton of coverage, but I suspect this doesn’t bother you. Why?

    I know this is a right-leaning blog, but vilification of the mainstream media—which is, after all, the source of most of the hard news discussed on blogs—is a little bit worrying.

    Posted by Gordon on February 25, 2005 at 1643 hrs


  3. True, she is a fashion writer, but her outfit is being covered all over the place.  I used that article as an example.

    My point goes to a larger one.  Liberals seem to trivialize women and minorities when they are in positions of power.  This story is an example of that phenomenon.  But perhaps I should break out that thought into an independent post.

    Posted by Owen on February 25, 2005 at 1722 hrs


  4. This was an item on Special Report’s “Political Grapevine.”

    One of the funniest things I’ve ever seen.

    Yet, now I know what the word in French for ‘erotic sensuality’ is.

    Posted by Kevin Binversie on February 25, 2005 at 1920 hrs


  5. I think your argument is valid, whether that is a fashion reporter or not. Rice is the most powerful woman in the world and yet one has the sense that she and her ideas are trivialized by this kind of reporting. When was the last time a male secretary of state was covered by a fashion reporter in this way?

    Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on February 27, 2005 at 0547 hrs


Commenting is not available in this channel entry.