Every now and then, even the leftist news organizations allow some nuggets of truth to slip through. I'm certain the producers at CNN are not thrilled with this, but Campbell Brown had something to say about all the attention that Sarah Palin's wardrobe was getting.
The transcript from Wednesday's Election Center:
| CAMPBELL BROWN: ...[F]irst, as we do every night, we’re cutting through the bull -- a lot of sniping and a lot of stories today about Sarah Palin’s clothes. Politico.com reports that the Republican National Committee spent more than $150,000 on clothes, hair, and makeup for Palin on the campaign trail. Now, these are not your tax dollars. This is money given by Republican donors to the RNC. But the report questions whether it's legal to use campaign cash for quote,’personal use.’ My issue: there is an incredible double standard here, and we're ignoring a very simple reality. Women are judged based on their appearance far, far more than men. This is a statement of fact. There has been plenty of talk and plenty written about Sarah Palin’s jackets, her hair, her looks. Sound familiar? There was plenty of talk and plenty written about Hillary Clinton’s looks, hair, pantsuits. Compare that to the attention given to Barack Obama’s $1,500 suits or John McCain’s $520 Ferragamo shoes. There is no comparison. Women get scrutinized based on appearance far more than men, and look, I speak from experience here. When I wear a bad outfit on the air, I get viewer e-mail complaining about it, a lot of e-mail, seriously. When Wolf Blitzer wears a not-so-great tie, how much e-mail do you think he gets? My point is, for women, unfortunately, appearance is part of the job. If Wolf or Anderson shows up on the air without makeup, do you think you would even notice? I show up on the air without makeup, trust me, you’ll notice. This doesn't just apply to TV. All women in the public eye deal with this issue, and it’s for this reason that I think the RNC should help Palin pay for hair, clothes, and makeup. It is part of the job. Now, you may think that’s an awful lot of money to spend on clothes, hair, and makeup, or you may complain, as some have, it’s hypocritical to sell yourself as a small-town hockey mom when you’re wearing designer clothes. That's fine. Just don't ignore the fact that there is a double standard here and personally, I think, in this campaign, with so much at stake, this is a peripheral issue. I myself have raised plenty of questions about Sarah Palin, much to the annoyance of the McCain campaign. But those questions have been about her qualifications and experience, never her appearance. Let’s keep the focus on what really matters here. |
This is absolutely true. I have never seen a man running for public office put under the scrutiny that Sarah Palin has been put under simply because she is a woman.
CNN’s Campbell Brown Rips ‘Double Standard’ on Palin Clothing Issue
Matthew Balan
NewsBusters.org
October 23, 2008
And how about the New York Times? They can't even bring themselves to name the voter-fraud group ACORN in the headline of a story about voter fraud.
From Ed Laskey at the American Thinker:
| So now the Times has to own up to the fact that its dismissive attitude towards criticism of ACORN was wrong. Why does The Times refer to a "Group"; by now, its readers are surely familiar with the "group's" name: ACORN. Will the Times own up to the fact that it was also wrong regarding the extent of the ties between Barack Obama and ACORN, which it also dismissed as so much piffle? The fact that the campaign funneled over $800,000 dollars to a corrupt group that has engaged in massive voter fraud, that illegally used get out the vote efforts for partisan purposes, that Barack Obama had ACORN as a client, that Barack Obama trained ACORN (though his campaign peddled the deceptive line that he was not ever a "hired" as a trainer. True-he thought so highly of the group he trained them for free). |
Lasky also notes that nearly one in three registrations by ACORN were outright frauds and asks why anyone would not worry about it.
You can access the complete column on-line here:
New York Times Can't Bring Itself To Name ACORN In Its Headline On Voter Fraud Story
Ed Lasky
American Thinker
October 24, 2008
No comments:
Post a Comment