Is it fair game to comment on the wives of GOP candidates?

[undeterred]

I think its poor form.

As a woman I don't like posts on the appearances of women. By the time a person runs for president they and their wives are usually in their fifties or sixties, so we are talking about people who are putting some effort into looking good in the public eye. People are doing the best they can to look good. Since this is a Democratic discussion board I think we should be focusing on the positions of the candidates, and not on the clothing, hair, or bodies of their spouses, male or female.

An occasional comment is ok, but anything more than that strikes me as bringing us down to the level of a gossip messageboard or a place that just doesn't take women seriously.

[monmouth]

1. The way these cretins have maligned Michelle Obama, you have to ask? Poor form or not,

none of them could touch her hem. They're in the game so they're fair game.

[undeterred]

3. I don't feel like I have to sink to their level.

Michelle Obama doesn't.

[tammywammy]

5. +1 n/t

[emilyg]

38. +2

[Joe Bacon]

61. +3

They should be ashamed of what they've done to the First Lady!

[Chemisse]

92. That's my feeling too.

Just because Republicans are pigs, it doesn't mean WE have to roll in the mud.

[Luminous Animal]

19. I guess you missed all the DU posts mocking Laura Bush's looks.

[TorchTheWitch]

35. And it was sexist horseshit then, too

And contributed to DU finally instating a rule that commenting negatively on a person's appearance was bigotry - because it is.

Thanks to the new "no rules" DU we're back to having all the bigoted shit many of us faught so damn hard against here and FINALLY were recognized as being correct that it IS bigotry and IS unacceptable.

Oh yeah, I remember all the cutting up of peoples' appearance, using "fat" or "old" as a slur, etc., which is why I spent little time here and rarely ever posted.

Women are once again fair game on DU, and if it keeps up I'm out.

[seabeyond]

78. that they are. a newbie poster gets to call all women whores one way or another and continue to

to tell us our role we are to play. you know, the crap of cook in kitchen, lady at table, whore in the bedroom and he gets a big thumbs up, from THREE jurors. yea. i am so disgusted.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/100296340

[seabeyond]

29. so, you choose to be a hypocrite? nt

[Telly Savalas]

91. Great strategy

1. Act like a cretin
2. Steer the discussion away from important issues

That sounds like an excellent way to advance the cause

[elleng]

2. I agree, I think its poor form,

but technically its 'fair game.'

Yes, we can tend to sound like a bunch of gossips, definitely not useful.

[Luminous Animal]

20. Oookay. So liberals mocked Laura Bush now conservatives mock Michelle

and it is a cage match.

[Chemisse]

94. I never mocked Laura Bush.

I think she is a sweet person married to an utter fool.

If she spouted a bunch of Repub trash talk, basically putting herself into the fray, I would have criticized her for her positions.

[Kurmudgeon]

4. What works for the right doesn't work for Dems. Don't sink to their level.

[Luminous Animal]

23. Dems already have. On DU, Laura Bush was mocked for her wardrobe choices

regularly.

[undeterred]

25. Yes, and looking back, it seems rather juvenile.

But I think we were so frustrated with him we took it out on her.

The fact that a couple of outfits looked like they were made from the draperies had absolutely nothing to do with the very serious crimes her husband's administration was committing.

[seabeyond]

30. and many of us had the same damn conversation during that time, too. nt

[Luminous Animal]

32. Yep.

[Texasgal]

34. Yup.

the drapes dress comes to mind.

[lillypaddle]

6. Spoil Sport! nt

[cyberswede]

7. Repubs have enough flaws

without us having to resort to making fun of people for their appearance.

What did Eleanor Roosevelt say?

"Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

I admit I tend toward the small- or average-minded more often than I should, but I'm trying.

[undeterred]

9. Well, I don't claim to be a great mind, but I know there are a few great minds among us!

[cthulu2016]

21. And Eleanor Roosevelt had a lot of nasty stuff said about her looks

by people who didn't like her politics.

It isn't pretty -- no pun intended.

[WorseBeforeBetter]

27. "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

That's the quote I was looking for.

DU has been trending away from ideas for a while now -- it often feels more like justjared.com than a board for serious discussion. But, like undeterred says above, there are some great minds and when someone offers a thought-provoking post, it can be a thing of beauty.

Ah, well, I'm off to celebrate ... Happy New Year, DUers!

[teach1st]

8. It's not something that interests me

The candidates themselves are interesting enough and have the kind of ugly that is not skin deep. Let's stick to talking about them rather than their spouses.

[noamnety]

10. sexism, racism, homophobia are not progressive values.

I don't know why people are so adamant about defending them here, or so proud of themselves for lining women up like livestock at the county fair and pinning ribbons to the ones with the nicest shanks.

Bigotry is ugly. It was ugly when Sensenbrenner was commenting on the first lady's ass. The people engaging in it here are just as ugly, I don't know why they'd voluntarily put themselves on that level.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. +1

[seabeyond]

31. hypocrites. plain and simple. i agree. nt

[Cameron27]

51. +1

[Iggo]

11. I suppose it's fair.

But it ain't right and I won't join in.

[limpyhobbler]

12. I know you're right but

Does the type of wife(or husband) they go for reveal something interesting about their personalities?

Is everything ok with Mrs Gingrich? Is possible her ultra-plastic look reveals a slight mental disorder, or maybe that she is very insecure in her appearance? If so, what does that tell us about Newt? He likes to surround himself with emotionally weaker people? He likes to be obeyed? He has a bit of a domineering or bullying personality. Sometimes I get the impression she is being held against her will. Somebody should check her for bruises and signs of abuse.

But unless there is something really weird going on,

Yeah you're right, we should be more adult and civil.

[undeterred]

14. I think we have a tendency to project too much onto the spouse.

We projected a lot of bad stuff onto Laura Bush. She's probably the only thing that kept the little emperor from totally destroying the world for 8 years. Not that she doesn't do a lot of fake smiling, but she's probably a really kind, strong person underneath all that. I don't know if she gives a hoot about politics.

Its hard for me to understand what anyone finds attractive about some of these men... but political men attract a certain kind of woman.

[Islandlife]

15. Unless willingly being used as political fodder, NO

[SomethingFishy]

16. Yes it is. If you are not just talking about how they dress.

Although I have to admit I did make a comment about Rick Perry's wife wearing a dress that looked like a paper hospital gown. You really have to wonder what she thought when she looked in the mirror.


However if the wife is involved in politics... Open season. Remember the PMRC? Instigated by the wives of certain Senators? Millions and millions spent in investigations and hearings, so they could put a fucking "mature" sticker on an album. Of course that's not what they wanted, they wanted to censor anything they didn't like but that's what all that money got them. A sticker.


It's not a yes or no situation. Same with the kids. Romney's kid shot his mouth off, oops, now he's fair game.

[cthulu2016]

17. It is disgusting.

[Luminous Animal]

18. There was much mocking of Laura Bush's looks and clothes on DU and I thought that was

poor form, as well.

[undeterred]

22. I must say I like the new "trash thread" feature.

So whenever there is a post trashing the appearance of a woman or women for whatever shallow reason, I can just trash it. Used it twice this evening already.

[gateley]

24. As with any subject, some will think it's okay, others won't.

I think threads like yours are just looking for validation of the OP's viewpoint, and maybe just a little eensy bit holier than thou. This is regardless of the topic, regardless of the OP's pro or con stance, IMO. Of course, that's a big reason why we post on a message board anyway, I guess.

I think anybody is fair game, and the person most hurt is the one being petty and small (which, in all honestly, is usually me).

[jberryhill]

26. But Callista Gingrich's hair is central to my religion

[Shankapotomus]

65. I don't care what anybody says

that there is funny. Lol!

[seabeyond]

28. it is bullshit. it is sexist. it is crude and tacky. it is... an hypocrite

at its worse

[elehhhhna]

45. It is tacky. I am a hypocrite. And Marcis Bachmann is gayer than

a pink parasol.

Closeted people who puclicly claim to make the gay go away from others are open to ridicule, imo.

[seabeyond]

46. i just can not do that with people. nt

[Nye Bevan]

33. YES and if Michelle Obama doesn't stay in shape,

or wears an outfit I don't like, Barack will TOTALLY lose my vote.

[provis99]

36. I take it then, that you never comment about people you don't know.

If you do, then you are a hypocrite.

[treestar]

37. Yes, they are adults, and they did choose to marry morons

I don't comment on the clothes, because I don't know much about fashion, but people who are into fashion are going to comment on any public figure in that regard - one can always pass on becoming a public figure or tell one's husband not to run.

I don't really have any reason to notice or have a problem with any of them. Though there is something weird about Callista. I think it's that, not a form of sexism. Like Marcus Bachmann, he's male and there's something off about him. Hypocrisy, something like that.

[Curmudgeoness]

79. Yes, they did have the poor judgment on spouses,

marrying morons. But I am disgusted when we sink to the level that they do with Michelle Obama. I think it turns people off and I say let their side be the ones who look bad.

[treestar]

85. Is it the same level?

The things said about Mrs. Obama are sometimes vile and sometimes untrue.

Callista's buy eyed stare is a true thing anyone can see. It may not be sexism to wonder about the Stepford wife look - and wonder if she's a strange person.

I saw an ad where she and Newt are doing their Christmas wishes - in it she was talking, and she comes off even stranger.

It may not be quite the same level.

[Curmudgeoness]

88. It is the same level. I look at it this way...

They say that Michelle Obama's ass is too big...and they could argue that it is true. I don't think it is, but what standard is being used?

I am disgusted that any spouse or any looks are at issue. We should stick to the idiocy coming out of the candidate's mouth.

Let me ask...if one of the spouses was a dwarf, or had been disfigured in an accident, would you be ok with crude remarks about it? Is there anything that is out-of-bounds?

[treestar]

93. Of course not

But elective plastic surgery is a different thing from the asses we were born with!

[Curmudgeoness]

96. You have no idea

what women have to do to keep their husbands, especially in that arena. It isn't that I don't think too much plastic surgery isn't frightful, but I know that society is very judgmental on women. And it just isn't right.

[undeterred]

98. + a brazillion

[S_B_Jackson]

39. Not really, no.

I hated the slurs targeting Amy Carter, I resented like hell the attacks on both Hillary and Chelsea, and I am abhorred by the constant cuts directed at Michelle Obama. They should be off-limits...just as similar attacks directed at Rethuglican's spouses/children should cease and desist.

There's plenty of needful, issue-driven attacks that can be directed at Republican's policy objectives and goals. We should direct our attention there, and win the hearts of the independent electorate - which make no mistake we need to do - on the content of a positive, coherent platform for how the Democratic party's platform positions are right for the country.

Leave the Pubbies to wallow in the septic waste pool......

[Angry Dragon]

40. ..............

[The empressof all]

41. It demonstrates a lack of character and sensitivity

Some people just don't understand that not everyone appreciates this kind of posting behavior. I think it's unnecessarily hurtful and unkind....especially when addressing medical conditions.

People who have to resort to this kind of "humor" obviously don't care what people think of them so they don 't care about how their words could hurt others.

[renate]

42. maybe it depends on *what* is being discussed about their appearance

A woman who, say, looks her age, or might not be babealicious or whatever, shouldn't be criticized, but if something about her appearance genuinely says something about her personality, that might be different. (For example, I couldn't help but be a little leery of a potential First Lady who wore nothing but Gucci and Dolce & Gabbana, or who was obviously botoxed or overly focused on her outer appearance, etc.)

It's somewhat similar to the way that I couldn't care less about a candidate's personal life unless it reveals him to be a hypocrite (e.g., Bill Clinton vs. Newt Gingrich) or a candidate's weight unless he's proselytized about self-restraint (Chris Christie vs. Mike Huckabee, who are both currently pretty large but only one of whom has ever spoken disparagingly of people who are overweight). Personal digs are uncalled for unless they indicate something about the person behind the persona.

[OKNancy]

43. it's embarrassing

It makes us look bad. It makes us look like hypocrites.
I don't care what the other side does because I like to feel I'm better than they are.

[sufrommich]

44. No, it's not. It's typical

sexist "let's judge the male by the woman he keeps" bullshit.

[undeterred]

49. Exactly. Its patriarchy.

[etherealtruth]

47. I think it's fine to comment on ...

Political stances and opinions, comments and faux pas' ... however, the comments based solely on physical attractiveness are ridiculous.

Eleanor Roosevelt was a phenomenal woman ....commenting on her perceived physical attractiveness speaks to the character of the one making the comments and not Eleanor Roosevelt.

[Paladin]

48. Yes, Absolutely. (n/t)

[LiberalFighter]

50. Are they actively campaigning for their spouse?

Are they making statements supporting their spouse?

So it's okay to slam Matt Romney for his comments but not the spouses?

[undeterred]

52. Commenting on statements is a totally different thing than commenting on appearance.

Statements of the candidate, his spouse, and his adult children are always fair game.

So far I haven't heard the spouses making statements. If they do, their statements are fair game.

What I am seeing here at DU is criticism of spouses that is totally based on their appearance.

[seabeyond]

53. the point is, go after what they say, what they endorse, NOT looks. how childish

is that and irrelevant

[getdown]

54. well put.

and they don't care

[Zoeisright]

55. Are you effing kidding me?

We sure as hell can comment on their wives. And husbands. This is still a "relatively" free country. And when repuke stepford wives spout off, we have every right to call them on it.

[dogknob]

56. If Bachmann's husband is fair game...

...so are the other spouses...

...but the whole GOP Prez campaign is a reality show anyway. They want the House and Senate. We're supposed to watch the birdie and engage in discussions like the OP while they quietly gain control of both, step up their campaign of inertia and brinksmanship, and blame all of the resulting chaos on the Obama administration.

[Quartermass]

57. I believe that the candidates family,

be they Republican or Democrat or other, should be off limits.

UNLESS the candidate is harassing another candidate's family.

[madinmaryland]

58. The only time they should be fair game, should be about what they say and have done. Period.

[tpsbmam]

59. Yes, it's fair......

when they insert their views, when they opine about the US or politics, when they make themselves part of the process. THEN it's fair. Otherwise, leave them alone and leave the kids alone. And sure as shit don't go after their appearances! That's just plain sexist and gross -- we're in total agreement there!

[PeaceNikki]

60. I think it's shitty and usually sexist.

[Gormy Cuss]

62. They're fair game based on the politics of their words and deeds

but commenting on them solely based on their looks is crude and often sexist.

[dana_b]

63. I'm with you

As women we are already judged constantly on our looks and I just can't turn around and do that to other women because I don't like their or their husband's politics.

[Shankapotomus]

64. Not so sure you're right

Because i think sometimes the ideas we accept effect how we look.

So, to me, the fact that Calista Gingrich looks like one of Cinderella's evil step-sisters has nothing to do with her actual physical beauty or appearance but more to do with the sense of life she has that makes her choose her style and appearance. If she were a liberal I'm quiet confident she would make better choices regarding her look and would be considerably easier on our eyes. But because she wants to look like a spoiled, rich whatever you want to call her, she pays the price.

Until children are spared the indignities and insults that they are exposed to at school, I don't think adults should be getting any special favors.

[undeterred]

67. Are you talking about children of politicians?

I don't think its EVER fair for the children of elected officials or candidates to be exposed to indignities or insults because of their parents. I don't care who their parents are or what they have done. The fact that people sometimes cross the line doesn't excuse anyone else doing it to someone elses child.

I think that the people we judge harshly can sometimes turn out to be very sympathetic figures. Look at Betty Ford. She was an alcoholic, and before she went into treatment people in the press corps supposedly were aware of it but NOBODY exposed her. She was also a Republican. Today women of both parties look at her as a woman of great strength and courage. She faced her addiction and she also brought breast cancer out into the light where people could discuss it.


"If she were a liberal I'm quiet confident she would make better choices regarding her look and would be considerably easier on our eyes. But because she wants to look like a spoiled, rich whatever you want to call her, she pays the price."

Your remark is subjective and you assume that there is a certain way that "we" all look at her. I don't think her "look" has anything to do with her political party. Rather, "your interpretation of her look" comes from your own political outlook.

[Shankapotomus]

69. I hear you

But, for the record, I wasn't talking about children of politicians. I was talking about all children who are exposed to insults and indignities every day in school while this thread is suggesting a person of priveledge should be off limits?

I'm all in favor of putting the civil back in CIVILization but I think everyone should benefit from that, not just people whose spouses are rich enough to run for public office.

And again, I do think a lot in her appearance we find so unpleasant is related to the ideology she has accepted. Which is in fact an inherently kinder opinion than saying she is just naturally unpleasant looking. I don't think she is or would be if she knew enough to tone down the elitist 1% look. But accepting jewelry with a $500,000 price tag doesn't help her image.

[kiva]

66. Agreed.

For the reasons listed above...but mostly because I despise the attitude that looks have any bearing on character. Some of the kindest and best people I've known aren't conventionally beautiful or handsome; however, I've also met wonderful people who are attractive. Insulting people based on outward features, body shape, age, or other characteristic is just plain nasty.

[99Forever]

68. It kind of creeps me out.

It also reeks of weakness on the real issues. I see it done on other boards against Michelle Obama and can't help but think just how pathetic and petty a person must be to do so.

[working guy]

70. yup it shows a lack of class

Unless they actively get involved not just the standing by their spouse, same goes for their kids.

[lumberjack_jeff]

71. I don't care about fair politics. I care about effective politics.

Criticizing a candidate's spouse based on appearance is ineffective politics.

[City Lights]

72. I think it's shallow, immature and sexist.

Those who engage in such remind me of people I knew from middle school.

[Bluenorthwest]

73. Your title and text are not the same

Make cracks on their looks? Or comment on them in any way? I tell you this, each of those candidates and their spouses (folks sure went after Mr Michele) is an open slanderer of my family and community. Any one of those spouses, if their spouse won, would presume status and position due to that win.
I say look at the worst from Michele and Newt toward gay folks, and I'd not say worse toward their folks. Lots of leeway in that. Lots. Plenty.
I ask you, OP. Does Calista look 'Sanctified' to you? That's the claim, you know. Holy. Sacramental, and in line with the teachings of the NT. Do you agree that her sartorial choices are dogmatically consistent with their anti gay theology? The faith they claim is reason to oppose gay rights teaches exacting rules for women to follow in dress. So if 'the faith' is so dang important, and 'Sanctity' and all, then I'm sorry, the hair and clothing choices of those who claim that faith are in fact political issues.

[undeterred]

74. Do you have a quote from Callista regarding hair and clothing choices based on faith?

I am completely unaware of anything she has said regarding exacting rules of dress based on faith. I am unaware that she makes clothing choices that are based on antigay theology and I don't know what such clothing would look like.

Are the Gingrichs homophobic and antigay? I don't doubt it at all... I am only claiming that we should stick to substantive attacks that have to do with a candidates political positions rather than personal attacks on his family. Newt Gingrich wants to deny rights to all homosexuals and that is the issue, not the way his wife dresses. She is not going to be in office and she is not going to have the power to dress anyone except herself, even in the exceptionally unlikely event that he were to be elected.

[Bluenorthwest]

76. Are the Gingrichs anti gay? Are you kidding me or what?

Look, all of the politicians claim they are 'Christians'. Newt says Catholic, as does Calista. All of them who do this claim to take these teachings from passages in the NT which are right next to other passages that command strict rules for women's sartorial choices, one specific is 'no costly array'. Tiffany's Line of Credit. No costly array. Same 'scripture' they spout against gays says women are not allowed to do that.
When one claims to practice a faith and think others must also honor it, one needs to practice that faith. When they do not do so the hypocrisy is the issue. The fact that the hypocrisy includes clothing and hair and chains of gold does not make that hypocrisy off limits. They are like some guy telling you you must eat kosher while he chomps down on a pulled pork and cheese.
Same goes for all of the 'I oppose them 'cause I'm a Christian' folks who then roll into some Prada and try to look great for the cameras.
They attack the families of others, and they do so using 'Scriptures' which in fact they and their families do not follow at all. See why that is a matter worth pointing out? They are fakes. Deal with it.

[undeterred]

77. There are plenty of gay Catholics who wear jeans and sweatshirts to Church.

Deal with it.

[Bluenorthwest]

80. If they are anti equality due to shit 'St Paul' said then they are hypocrites too

Deal with it. Those who claim the NT as reason to oppose equality for gay people who do not follow the sartorial and other rules in the NT that apply to them are stinking hypocrites. That 'scripture' commands women dress as it states. Not 'in church' always. No costly apparel is a specific command. This is the religion they say they follow, and I must as well. Deal with it. Hypocrisy is a disgusting thing in any one, male, female, gay or straight. And anyone who edits out the parts of a Scripture they don't wish to follow while spitting the rest at me is a jerk and a hypocrite. Heretic also, according to the 'faith'.
What 'plenty' do and what that Scripture tells them to do are not the same thing. This is sort of my point. Hypocrisy. If they don't spew it at others, they are just silly. If they do, they are monsters. The end.

[undeterred]

81. I don't know why you take it so seriously.

[Puzzledtraveller]

75. they do enough damage on their own, reference Herman Cain

[Burgman]

82. Looking the way Callista G looks is an effort and a choice.

[undeterred]

99. Looking the way we all look is an effort and a choice.

Every person who runs for president exposes their spouse to a huge amount of scrutiny.

You run for president- and the person you are married to is going to be judged for how they look, what they wear, what they say, how they raise their children, what they do for a living, how they behave on the campaign trail, and anything else that the other campaigns or the press can dig up on them. I'm sure there are a lot of decent people who never run for high office because of what a campaign would expose about their spouse.

So the people who do run have spouses who are willing to undergo the scrutiny and try their best to put up with it. Maybe they get plastic surgery, buy new clothes, lose weight, get a media consultant, do whatever they have to do to look presentable. Its a job. Its not real life, and its probably not all that much fun. So Callista is not your cup of tea. So what.

[Prophet 451]

83. Depends.

I think it depends on if or to what degree the spouse involves themselves in politics. For example, during Bill Clinton's presidency, Hillary Clinton was an unusually active First Lady in politics and so, it was legitimate to comment upon that. In the current field of GOP candidates, the only spouse I'm aware of who has gotten involved has been Marcus Bachman.

That said, there are ways and ways of doing so. Words like "whore" should be reserved for consensual bedroom play, not used in the political arena. Negative comments on the spouse's appearence are usually uncalled for and so on.

[CTyankee]

84. don't care. and I don't have time to care.

this has not been, and never will be, my major concern with regard to the presidency. I like Michelle Obama and thinks she does good works. But it would not bother me if she didn't.

I vote for a president. Not for a first spouse.

[Cleita]

86. Ah c'mon.

We have to have some fun.

[cherokeeprogressive]

87. If calling conservative women the "C" word isn't out of bounds and is defended here at DU...

Why would the wives of GOP candidates be protected in any way from any comment?

Personally, I think you've touched on one of DU's most glaring hypocrisies.

[undeterred]

89. As far as I am concerned the "C" word is out of bounds for all women, including conservative women.

I am 100% against those who defend it here at DU and I think it shows the worst kind of contempt for women.

[cherokeeprogressive]

90. wholeheartedly agree. n/t

[grantcart]

95. I for one will refrain from making derogatory comments about any of their wives, or past wives, or

first wives.

[seabeyond]

97. lol.

clever you

[grantcart]

100. I like to take the high road.

[Capitalocracy]

101. I agree that it's a bit off-topic

But this is a messageboard, and we don't have to limit our analysis of current events and public figures to strictly political terms.

Also, whether it should be or not, if something is an issue, it's an issue. If someone comes here and says, "I wouldn't vote for Gingrich because I'm pretty sure his wife has a steel robotic endoskeleton," then at least they're being honest about what issues are important to them.