Boobs Help Raise Campaign Cash
"Ad hoc, ad loc, and quid pro quo.
So little time! So much to know!"
-- Jeremy Hillary Boob, Ph.D.
[From the movie Yellow Submarine]
Although this article has an admittedly... um... titillating (OK, I just couldn't resist) headline, it is not, in fact, about Hillary Clinton's breasts. It's not even primarily about news articles about said cleavage, either. It's really about what happens afterwards -- how Democratic candidates are using such attacks to raise buckets and buckets of campaign cash. This tactic has been masterfully used in the past by Republicans, but it seems Democrats have learned the trick as well this year. Good for them!
First, a definition, to make it clear which boobs I am addressing here:
boob
noun
1. an ignorant or foolish person
[Interestingly, in all of the dictionaries I consulted, that was the first definition given -- the salacious slang for a female body part was second.]
The most recent example of campaign jiujitsu, of course, comes from the Clinton campaign. In case you missed it, the Washington Post ran a story on July 20th written by their Pulitzer prizewinning fashion writer, Robin Givhan (They give Pulitzers for fashion writing? Who knew?). The title of the story was "Hillary Clinton's Tentative Dip Into New Neckline Territory." I refuse to quote such nonsense here, so you'll have to go read it for yourself, if the title isn't explanation enough.
The article was subject to much ridicule from other corners of the media, with the most amusing coming from Ellen Goodman of the Boston Globe :
Givhan's 750-word plunge into the shirt of the presidential candidate had women throwing up their hands (among other things) all over the blogosphere. Cleavage! Omigod! As one blogger responded, the senator has breasts. Two of them. Details at 11.
Only in Washington would a fashion reporter get tips watching C-Span2. But the Post piece managed to make a media mountain out of a half-inch valley.
Hillary Clinton's campaign -- to their credit -- did not take this lying down, but instead used it as a fundraising tool. They promptly sent out an email which read (in part):
Can you believe that The Washington Post wrote a 746-word article on Hillary's cleavage? . . . I've seen some off-topic press coverage -- but talking about body parts? That is grossly inappropriate.
Frankly, focusing on women's bodies instead of their ideas is insulting. It's insulting to every woman who has ever tried to be taken seriously in a business meeting. It's insulting to our daughters -- and our sons -- who are constantly pressured by the media to grow up too fast.
This isn't the first time in this campaign that a Democratic candidate has turned something outrageous in the media to their advantage. Earlier this year, when Ann Coulter (as is her wont) viciously, personally, and repeatedly attacked John Edwards, not only did his wife call in to a live television show and tell Coulter politely to stop, but their campaign also raised boatloads of what they called "Coulter Cash." [Maureen Downey has a run-down of this whole sordid affair, if you need reminding.]
Ann was apparently not amused. She wrote on her website: "I'm a little tired of losers trying to raise campaign cash or TV ratings off of my coattails."
But that should be exactly the point. Democrats need to prove to the boobs in the media that what they say matters in a very real and tangible way. Teach the boobs the price of their words. Republicans have been very successfully using this tactic for years now ("If Nancy Pelosi becomes Speaker of the House, the EARTH'S AXIS will tilt out of control and the planet will SPIN INTO THE SUN!! Vote Republican!!). It's about time Democrats learned the trick.
Whenever the inevitable slings and arrows of outrageous commentary appear during the campaign, Democrats should use it to fire up their supporters -- and raise lots of campaign cash by doing so.
"Quid pro quo" indeed, Mr. Boob.
-- Chris Weigant
Personally, I felt the attention to Hillary's cleavage disgusting..
Much as I find seeing pictures of old fat guys (of which I am one, thank you very much) in speedos to be equally disgusting...
I agree... The attention to Hillary's cleavage is really reaching..
But, to give equal time, I also find many of the attacks by Democrats against the Right to be equally reaching..
When it comes to making mountains out of molehills, I challenge ANYONE to make the claim that the Democrats are better than the GOP in this regard... Or ANY regard, for that matter...
"Your concept of Good and Evil confuses us. You use the same methods to achieve the same goals."
-Yarnek, Star Trek SAVAGE CURTAIN
It seems that, regardless of political affiliation, nothing is "below the belt" or "off limits"..
I defy anyone to show otherwise...
Michale.....
Michale -
While what you say may indeed be true to some extent or another, my main point is we need equality in the results of such attacks. Republicans have always been much better in this regard, so it's interesting this year to see the Democrats pull off the same trick.
-CW
Also, it's not often I get a chance to quote the "Nowhere Man," which I must say I particularly enjoyed doing.
-CW
Yer giving away yer age there, CW..
That was even before MY time!! :D hehehehehehe
I agree with you to a certain extent.. But, consider what you are saying...
You are saying, in effect, that the GOP has always gotten good results (for them) in their dirty tricks and nasty ways.....
You seem to be saying that it's good to finally see the Democrats using the same dirty tricks and nasty ways to get the same good results...
Is THAT the kind of message that John Q Public really wants to hear???
Is, "VOTE FOR DEMOCRATS!! WE CAN BE SUCCESSFUL IN BEING NASTY, JUST LIKE THE GOP!!!" the new campaign slogan of the Democratic Party???
It seems that, rather than going for the moral high ground, the Democratic Pary is trying to excel at taking control of the moral LOW ground...
I just can't help but picture Sha Na Na singing, "HOW LOW CAN YOU GO???"
How low can we go???
Michale.....
Hi Chris,
I don't think that being positive and pro-active is been nasty & low. It is a good thing to be able to turn a negative report into an advantage. Perhaps it will make those behind such ideas think twice before they try again...not that I am holding my breath.
-Good post...Stan
It's about time that democrats learned that the lower the Republicans go, the greater potential benefit.
I caught that Anne Coulter piece, and I couldn't believe how she seemed to feel she was above civil discourse.
I've seen others quote various movies and whatnot, well you can quote ME on this:
The moment a person decides they are superior is the exact moment that they become inferior.
CDub
@CDub
>The moment a person decides they are
>superior is the exact moment that they become
>inferior.
I like that.. :D Especially because it crosses the political divide and can be accurately applied equally to anyone, GOP or DEM who feels that they are better than others.
Michale.....
Michale -
I must violently disagree with you.
Yellow Submarine is ageless.
Everyone should go see it today!
Actually, with the current "blue = Democrats" meme, you'd particularly enjoy watching the Blue Meanies getting defeated...
"It's no longer a Blue world, Max."
-Chief Blue Meanie
-CW
@CW
Touche' :D
Michale.....
OK... somebody... make me stop...
"I never admitted it before,
but my cousin is the BLUEbird of Happiness."
-Chief Blue Meanie
Heh heh.
-CW
Chief BLUE Meanie: Pepperland is a tickle of joy on the blue belly of the universe. It must be scratched. Right, Max?
Max: Yes, Your Blueness.
Chief BLUE Meanie: WHAT? We Meanies only take "no" for an answer! Is that understood, Max?
Max: No, Your Blueness!
Chief BLUE Meanie: That's better.
WOW.. Talk about aprobos... :D
Michale.....