Replies

by Mia T, 10.6.05

$595 pantsuit and sweater, Margaret O'Leary, San Francisco.
Edward Klein
The Truth about Hillary:
What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President

"What Klein doesn't understand is that Hillary's success today depends not on an ability to be aggressively masculine, but on the exact opposite. That black pantsuit is the power woman's burqa -- a disguise for screening out, not extinguishing, distracting gender"

Tina Brown pontificating on the nuances of haute couture
jla

unny. My Margaret-O'Leary ensemble doesn't seem to "screen out" my gender....

Tina Brown is onto something with her 'burqa' reference, but as is the leftie wont, she has it exactly backwards.

While Brown is correct to suggest that the swath cut by missus clinton isn't "aggressively masculine," she is wrong to imply that underneath the self-imposed burqa, missus clinton is female. Genderwise, missus clinton is exactly what you see: submissively male.

Brown's reason for the pantsuits is, thus, wrong. Missus clinton's gender has nothing to do with this particular clinton coverup. (NB: Tina Brown's 'theory of the hillary pantsuit' is also easily disproved by two clinton counterexamples: missus clinton's burqa-length dresses and her reflexive use of the victim pose.)

The reason pantsuits are a must for missus clinton is that she must screen out her lower (as opposed to 'lowest') extremities. (That she is also screening out her submissive affect remains viable, however.)

Do you recall ever seeing hillary clinton during, say, the last ten years, wearing a skirt or dress whose hemline fell below the knee and above the ankle (as best as those bounds--and, hence, that area of leg--can be distinguished from the whole)?

Early in the clinton 'presidency,' a photo of a shin-length-beskirted clinton made the rounds. Even the Times ran with it, as I recall.

A clinton poll wasn't needed to determine that with her legs and low center of gravity, hillary-in-a-shin-length-skirt-as-a-political-construct would be rejected by virtually every male voter extant.

Never again, therefore, did this purported feminist wear anything shorter than a burqa....

It isn't that they can't see the solution. It is that they can't see the problem.

G. K. Chesterton

... While America appears not to be ready for a female president under any circumstances, the post-9/11 realities pose special problems for a female presidential candidate. Add to these the problems unique to missus clinton. The reviews make the mistake of focusing on the problems of the generic female presidential candidate running during ordinary times.

These are not ordinary times. America is waging the global War on Terror; the uncharted territory of asymmetric netherworlds is the battlefield; the enemy is brutal, subhuman; the threat of global conflagration is real.

Defeating the enemy isn't sufficient. For America to prevail, she must also defeat a retrograde, misogynous, troglodyte mindset. To successfully prosecute the War on Terror, it is essential that the collective patriarchal islamic culture perceives America as politically and militarily strong. Condi Rice excepted, this requirement presents an insurmountable hurdle for any female presidential candidate, and especially missus clinton, historically antimilitary, forever the pitiful victim, and, according to Dick Morris, "the biggest dove in the clinton administration."

It is ironic that had the clintons not failed utterly to fight terrorism... not failed to take bin Laden from Sudan... not failed repeatedly to decapitate a nascent, still stoppable al Qaeda... the generic female president as a construct would still be viable... missus clinton's obstacles would be limited largely to standard-issue clintonisms: corruption, abuse, malpractice, malfeasance, megalomania, rape and treason... and, in spite of Juanita Broaddrick, or perhaps because of her, Rod Lurie would be reduced to perversely hawking the "First Gentleman" instead of the "Commander-in-Chief."

Mia T, 10.02.05
HILLARY'S COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF PROBLEM
(see descriptor morphs)

I do not know what "Bump" means and I really dont care to know in the context of this Posting arena. As far as a burqa and her dressing code I could care less of that is as well, although it attracts my attention to the attire as well because in my moral code book any Republican (Royal) First Lady should dress the part of First Lady as should be. Ya know, in any other Country besides ours any woman in a prestigous, honorable, and yet desirable position and to the RIGHT hand of her husband AND NOT in place of or in FRONT OF is considered royalty. She should dress the part and not act or dress a bit down if you will.
To have character, morals and integrity even with clothing speaks of what is in the heart. Lets not get lost on clothing and this womans outward appearance, although she needs a bit, ok a lot of touching up both in the ward robe and attitude department. But her problem is not in her clothing or attitude it goes much deeper. The problem is not the fruit, but the root. Not the outward but the inward.
And Mia, What I have written about Mrs. Clinton is precisely true regarding her to be a lesbian but a closet one but not it being affiliated with her aspirations of being in the White House. One affair or a hundred, she turns her head because she does the same...