Thursday, May 22, 2008

Cindy McCain vamps in Vogue

Don't blame me, it's Cnn's headline.

I saw this video today at work and threw up a little in my mouth.

In the video, the anchor narrates: *emphasis mine*

Ooh la la! Cindy McCain in Vogue magazine looks spectacular lounging at her seaside condo sans John McCain. Feet bare, wearing size zero jeans, she projects an image quite unlike the Cindy McCain we see on the campaign trail.
The video talks about her "usual campaign image" of clapping and smiling next to her husband and then juxtaposes the image with Glenn Close in the Stepford Wives.

But Gloria Roemer, a republican consultant, chuckles and says, "Well you know there's that old saying, "Don’t hate me because I’m beautiful" and that may apply here because she is very attractive. She can't help it."

The anchor agreed Mrs. McCain wasn’t perfect and proceed to point out that Cindy McCain suffered a stroke years ago, donates time and money to charities and is also wealthy and won't release her tax records.

According to CNN, not releasing your tax records makes you too unlike the "little people." Naturally the solution to getting in touch with that demographic is to schedule a fancy photo shoot with Vogue wearing jeans -- because "jeans are as all American as apple pie."


I don't know where to start.

Who wrote this tripe? Why do I need to know Cindy McCain's size of jeans? What does this say about her character or her marriage or her husband's campaign? WHO CARES?

This is the exact same sexist crap they pull on Hillary! Right down to the Glenn Close comparison I might add. Sure 'Stepford Wives ' is a nicer image than 'Fatal Attraction Glenn Close' but it's still comparing a high profile woman to ... basically a crazy person.

How can you run a story this stupid and then have a "Who us? The media....Sexist?! Never!!" attitude?

Why is Hillary painted as a bitch and why do her pantsuits matter so much? Why is Cindy McCain "vamping" and not just posing? Why does her pant size matter? Why are we analyzing a potential first lady's attractiveness and whether or not we "hate her" for being "too beautiful."

Why are we discussing her beauty at all and making it sound all catty and gross?

In the year 2008 when have our first serious female presidentail canidate (and she's still seriously in this race), why are we STILL making this a beauty pageant contest where we simultaneously hold up candidates wives for ridicule and worship.

Cindy McCain is a wealthy snobby bitch... but oh look how pretty and thin.... and ooh she wears jeans... but pity the poor thing, she had a stroke.

No. No. NO!

It's sick. And it's all part of the same patriarchal BS that's been circling Clinton (of course she's been hit much harder because she's more of a clear threat -- actually RUNNING for the job and all).

But the line that took my breath away was when CNN quoted a Washington Post article about Michelle Obama's Vogue picture where she's wearing a black dress and pearl earrings. “It's as if she's saying, 'I’m not some scary other, I am Camelot with a tan.'”

Seriously? Camelot with a tan? Yeah and Hillary is just Bill with a vagina.

God sexism pisses me off. Even if I don't like the McCain family at all, this video was disturbing as hell.


Bianca Reagan said...

Lots of angry all up in there. What a pile of crazy.

Anonymous said...

Dang girl. Snap.