What is Rush Limbaugh smoking and where can I score some?
I’m not sure if cognitive dissonance is the right term, but there are some things I hear constantly that are completely at odds with what I see with my own eyes, and I wonder what freaky circus-mirror world some people live in. For example, the whole “rough economy/people aren’t shopping” refrain when in fact, there are approximately 14 million people at my local mall right this second, and another 80 million at Fry’s. But an even more annoying untruth was epitomized by Rush Limbaugh yesterday when he about Hillary looking old and the ramifications of that:
Americans are addicted to physical perfection, thanks to Hollywood and thanks to television. We know it because we see it. We see everybody and their uncle in gyms. We see people starving themselves. We see people taking every miracle fad drug there is to lose weight. We see guys trying to get six-pack abs. We have women starving themselves trying to get into size zero and size one clothes…
Uhhhh….what the fuck? We see what? I don’t think Rush Limbaugh has been to any Wal-Marts, NASCAR games, malls, restaurants, or generally outside in a while if he thinks Americans are obsessed with being thin or are starving themselves. I’m just sayin’. The evidence screams the opposite.
The people producing television and movies may be obsessed with physical perfection but it is patently NOT trickling down to the masses and manifesting itself in the average person’s physique. Even if you never leave the house and therefore don’t know this, I don’t understand why anyone would even say it because what is it, every DAY now?, that we’re told an ever-higher percentage of us is obese. You know? It just bugs me. Americans are quite plainly not obsessed with getting skinny.
Anyway. This whole Hillary-looking-old thing is such bullshit. I loathe Hillary Clinton but goddamn. So what if her face is wrinkly? Does it really call for a huge photo on Drudge? Like I’ve said before, men wonder why women have emotional hangups about their looks and that makes me LAUGH. They wonder why we pump Botox in our faces, why we fear getting older, all of it. NO SHIT. How many women wouldn’t be horrified if a 4-inch closeup of their face in bright sunlight was featured on Drudge for a day?
And the irony just kills me. Every time someone runs an article about how we’re all obsessed with looks, and illustrates it with a picture of someone who doesn’t look great, I want to eat my own head. If I’d seen that picture of Hillary in a context that didn’t have ANYTHING to do with her wrinkles, I would not have even noticed them. She is a 60-year-old woman. I expect her to look exactly as she does look, and there’s not a goddamn thing wrong with it. SHE LOOKS JUST FINE. Except that she’s a woman so everyone’s gonna pile on. Fuck that and fuck them.
You wonder why women generally stay out of politics? This is one reason. In the last few days, almost all the crap I’ve seen about Hillary has been about her wrinkles and her “cackle”. Is anyone making fun of the male candidates’ laughs, for shit’s sake? Oh, she’s a witch! She’s hideous! Oh my GOD. SHUT UP.
I think the time is better spent talking about her socialist tendencies, her dishonest character, and her general poor viability as a candidate because of her politics. Just a thought. I can’t even believe I’ve been provoked into defending Hillary freakin’ Clinton but I feel I must. She’s running for President. That’s a pretty big damn deal. As a woman, I want other women to not be afraid to do the same thing in the future.
I was bitching about this to a friend once and she said it’s no different than my constant comments about how fat Michael Moore is. She may have had a certain point, but here’s MY point: Michael Moore isn’t competing to be the leader of the free world. If he was, I promise you I would not be talking about his corpulence or about how much he would enjoy being immersed in a vat of sweet’n’sour sauce topped with Cool Whip and fried onions. He’s an entertainer, not a senator or a presidential candidate. So cram it. This is different and we all know it.
When I was a teenager and reading a lot about sexism and racism, about complaints that there weren’t enough women or blacks in high positions, I always thought that the reason wasn’t so much current sexism and racism but rather the sexism and racism of the recent past. Blacks and women weren’t going to college or getting into professional careers in any meaningful numbers until the 1980s, and it seemed obvious to me that it was just going to take time, because in order to be a CEO or the president, you have to have established a resume for a few decades. I figured by the early 2000’s, we’d see a lot more of it, and we do. But now that we finally have a woman old enough and educated enough (though in my opinion, not politically acceptable but that’s not the point), people are ragging her for her wrinkles. Fantastic!
That’s what the focus on her cackle is all about - she’s never laughed or barely smiled in years. Yet now she trots out this completely phony, self-serving cackle that is so ridiculously assinine. It’s yet another perfect illustration of how dishonest and disingenuous she really is.
But I do agree with everything else - who cares if she has wrinkles or isn’t a size 2. I’m not interested in how my President looks when compared to the Hollyweird types - I’m concerned about the issues. And that’s why she scares the shit out of me.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 11:20 amMy husband and I have always laughed at “W” for his laugh which manages to be both sinister and moronic at the same time, and he’s a man.
It’s true that it’s absurd to focus on how old any of the candidates look. It’s not like any of them is so old that it’s a legitimage issue. If she was 99 it would be worth mentioning.
Posted by Beth on December 18th, 2007 at 11:39 amRush wasn’t talking about American’s obsession with personal perfection in themselves but rather, how they expect if of others. Public figures, celebrities, etc. It was an indictment of American culture rather than a direct attack on Hillary and a comment upon how difficult it will be for a woman to assume the office of President because of that obsession.
That’s not to say that he doesn’t take her to task on other issues - her cackle among them. But Kris, in New England is right about that being a reflection of her disingenuous-ness.
Posted by Suzanne on December 18th, 2007 at 11:47 amDamn Rachel,
You had to go and mention the Hildebeast, now her god-damned visage is staring out at me from your sidebar.
Everytime I see Hillary I feel as if “all happiness has gone from the world”.
Posted by Tolbert on December 18th, 2007 at 12:00 pmI find myself in about the same position as you, Rachel. I absolutely loathe hitlery and everything that she stands for with every fiber of my being — but I have to constantly defend the way she looks to people who should be more concerned with what she’s going to do to them rather than how she looks doing it. She IS 60 - and a certain amount of wrinkles come with that age (as I am finding). I don’t recall anyone ragging on Margaret Thatcher or Golda Meir about their looks. [of course, they were honest women who didn’t want to enslave the American people in the name of “communitarianism”.
Posted by Bill on December 18th, 2007 at 12:02 pmCankles….cackles….what-ev-uh!! Just get her the hell out of Washington!
Posted by Birdman on December 18th, 2007 at 12:06 pmI hate to disagree with you Rachel, but yeah, we do see that. Or at least I do.
I’m a teacher, after all. I see young girls killing themselves in order to hit that perfect weight every day. I once saw a mother in a parent-teacher conference drop her purse and five (FIVE!) different bottles of “diet” pills spilled out of it.
Does that mean everyone is like this? Of course not. But to say it isn’t happening at all just isn’t true.
If they laughed like Hillary, I think we would make fun of them.
Just sayin…
Really? How?
Why is it okay to make fun of an “entertainer’s” physical appearance, but not a politician? Why, when that “entertainer” sets himself up as a primary voice of the liberal establishment, is his physical appearance fair play, but Hillary Clinton’s is off-limits?
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 12:08 pmFor the record, I’d rather we stop making fun of EVERYONE’S appearance.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 12:09 pmI’m torn - I don’t want her kept out of office for superficial reasons, when there are so many substantive issues that she should be answering to.
Then again, if an accusation that she dances the hula in a non-traditional style keeps her out, I would be happy with the result while being dubious about the means.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 12:10 pmSorry Rachel, she doesn’t look 60, she looks more like at least 70. My grandma’s face looked like that when she was 73.
But I agree with you about the sexism and everyone making a big deal about it, but many have pointed out how GWB has aged since Jan, 2001.
And the fact is she does look much older. Much older than 60. Has the woman smoked all her life?
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 12:13 pmAnd I agree with Rush about this being an indictment of American society. I dare say there’s no fucking way Abraham Lincoln would have been elected in this day and age, in today’s America.
Look how many women voted for Bill because of his looks and charm. Wasn’t there a poll about how many women had sexual dreams about him?
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 12:19 pmAre you suggesting the appearance of male presidential candidates has no bearing on their success? BS. It’s as big a deal, and has been since the Kennedy Nixon debate.
Remember Algore’s “package”? Silky Pony’s pretty hair? (Kerry edged him out because “big” apparently trumps “pretty”.) And I’ve heard far too many women say they want to vote for candidate X because he’s more attractive than candidate Y. You think Dole’s sex appeal had anything to do with his big loss to “Poutin’ Billy Boy”?
One of the criticisms I’ve heard of Ron Paul is that he will never make it because he looks like a bald-top geek, and Romney is the one who “looks presidential”. Hmm hmm…
Should it be so? No. Is it so? Let’s get real.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 12:21 pmAnd just to show how looks don’t matter to me when it comes the POTUS, I’d vote for Al Bundy in heartbeat!
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 12:38 pmI still think the photo was hideous. And her laugh is like nails on a chalkboard. It’s phony just like she is. I cannot stand her - not because she looks old or laughs like a hyena but because she’s a socialist power and money grabber.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 12:50 pm*laughing*
nice switch from the super serious.
very good.
-Chuck
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 1:18 pmSpeaking of smoking some killer stuff, how come nobody’s noticed the obvious hilarity in all of this?
Limbaugh and Drudge making fun of ANYBODY’s looks?
Are you freakin’ KIDDING me? (Pots and kettles in spades!)
Talk about your poster children for the Plastic Surgeons’ Benevolent and Protective Society.
Last time it was “who do you want to have a beer with?” (That wonky Al Gore, or alcoholic Bush, who can’t drink beer). This time it’s what? Who do you want to model your lingerie?
If so, Drudge and Limbaugh are in a contest that makes Gene Simmons’ reality show look like the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition (Simmons sans makeup is so repellent that he even makes Rush and Matt look vaguely primate.)
Good lord.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 1:30 pmHart, you really should read what Limbaugh wrote before commenting further. He isn’t making fun of Hillary’s looks. He’s noticing that others are doing so, and he finds that disturbing. If anything, Limbaugh is defending Hillary on this point.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 1:42 pmWhat’s wrong with Drudge’s looks, Hart?
I think he is pretty nice looking myself.
And at least Limbaugh bathes and shaves and looks neat….can you say that about Michael Moore-on?
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 1:47 pmThanks for that, now I am never sleeping again… (as if my nightmares aren’t horrid enough.)
Oh wait… desert cat just trumped it with that bit about Gore’s “package.” I feel so terribly dirty now.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 1:51 pmSuzanne hit Rush’s point dead on. The double standard comes from within. It’s a sad fact that nobody who looks like me will ever be president in the age of TV (bald, stocky and rather unassuming in appearance–not ugly, just unmemorable). John Quincy Adams would not have been elected because of his short stature and bald head. Abraham Lincoln, as mentioned previously would have been too goofy looking, and I have read that his public speaking voice was rather shrill and had a rural midwestern accent.
Richard Nixon’s first debate (1960?) with John Kennedy worked much better on radio than on TV; people who heard but did not see the debate thought Nixon had won hands down, whereas people who watched it on TV sided heavily with Kennedy.
And the Hildebeest’s looks have nothing to do with the fact that I’d vote for a bowl of jello pudding rather than her.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 1:57 pm“The people producing television and movies may be obsessed with physical perfection but it is patently NOT trickling down to the masses and manifesting itself in the average person’s physique.”
It depends on where you look, Rachel. No, you probably don’t see many people in the mall who appear to be starving themselves. But ask a teenage girl how many of her high-school friends are obsessed with being thin, and she’ll tell you a different story.
And it’s not just high school. I’ve been volunteering at a community theatre for a few years, and I know a lot of actors. The actresses I know are mostly rail-thin, and those who aren’t are trying to get there. I can think of one actress in particular (a woman in her thirties) who was quite beautiful and shapely when I first met her five years ago. Today she is so gaunt that I find it painful to look at her. I suppose she believes that being fashion-model thin will help her acting career, and perhaps she is right. But I don’t have to like it.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 1:58 pmGot to agree with most of the comments here. It’s not that you are dead wrong, Rachel, but that you missed the real point. Ugly is everywhere. But the obsession is with perfect celebrities. Go back and read your rant about the Britney Spears drunken stage performance at the awards show and remind yourself what you wrote then.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 2:12 pmThis is a little off-topic, but your evocative comments on Michael Moore’s stinking corpulence made me think of . How did Suckabee manage to raise a kid who does such a thing?
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 2:13 pmI wondered about that, ever since it showed up on Drudge. OK, so she’s 60. Big deal.
Leave us not forget what can be done in Photoshop. It can make Plain Jane look like Gina Lollobrigida (I’m 60, too), and it can make Vanessa Redgrave look like the Wicked Witch.
My thought is, why hasn’t anybody said anything similar about McCain (71), Thompson (65), etc.
Could it be because they’re male, and age doesn’t matter to us?
One of my favorite Reagan quotes (during a debate): “I won’t exploit my opponent’s youth and inexperience”.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 2:14 pmPeople do talk about her cackle. People do talk about her looks. Rush was just making an attempt to explain why. You mention that people are not obsessed with looks and that the proof is at walmart. Just because there are some uglies out there it doesnt mean that those same uglies don’t detest their own appearance. I am not saying that I agree that what he said is the way it should be, and he wasnt saying that either. People ALSO talk about her ridiculous ideas.
You said, “They wonder why we pump Botox in our faces, why we fear getting older, all of it. NO SHIT.” By saying that, you acknowledge that Rush was right. He was just commenting on the general attitude of the American public and not condoning it, by any means.
Posted by Rich J on December 18th, 2007 at 2:33 pmI agree that there are real, substantive things about Hitlery which should immediately disqualify her from running for any political office whatsoever.
The things she would do to America if elected are far, far scarier to me than, oh, say, her wrinkles (this is the first time I’ve read of people dissing on her for those), and her big hips and thighs (which are what I mostly see and hear people making fun of).
But to reiterate: It’s not her wrinkles or the fact that she’s built bottom-heavy which scare me… it’s her socialistic plans for America.
Posted by Pam Maltzman on December 18th, 2007 at 2:46 pmIf so much effort hadn’t been put in trying to put forth the image of a younger-looking, smoother-skinned Hillary, that picture wouldn’t have drawn the attention it did. I agree that in the grand scheme of things, this is no more important than a picture of Mitt Romney with mussed-up hair, or Guiliani from his bad comb-over days, etc.
It matters more than it should, and it’s not likely to change.
Posted by Rickbert on December 18th, 2007 at 3:06 pmNot that it’s any defense, but Rush does live in Florida. What he describes is 100% normal in Miami where everybody is pretty (regardless of how much it costs).
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 3:35 pmWasn’t going to vote for her anyway, but if her political gig won’t pan out (here’s hoping it won’t) we will need to replace Helen Thomas someday. Somebody has be ‘the place where boners go to die’. I’m just saying.
Posted by Carl H on December 18th, 2007 at 3:35 pmRickbert hits the nail on this one. I was fascinated by the wrinkly picture because every other one shows Hillary Clinton Botoxed, facelifted, bleached and groomed to an inch of her life.
She is not looking her age in this picture — she is showing the ravages of all the things she’s done to make her look younger. She would do better to clean off the heavy make up, abandon the Botox treatments, and let her face be what it is.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pmHeh, yeah. : )
In an interview years later, Walter Mondale said it was at that moment he knew he had lost the election.
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 4:21 pmRachel:
I agree with you in principle.
For Drudge, it’s all about sensationalism and what gets those site visits.
But considering the misery that Hillary (aka Satan’s spawn) has caused people that she didn’t like or were hurdles to her power-trip, anything that results in her discomfiture is okay in my book.
Just out of spite.
Chet
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 4:45 pmYes, she’s a liar.
Yes, she’s amoral and power-hungry.
Yes, she’s a socialist; a statist; an elitist.
These are all rational reasons to oppose her election.
However, there is something in her voice - especially when she’s engaged in her pathetic attempts at oratory - that just sets me off at the Y-chromosome level, down in my bones.
A second Clinton presidency would be the political and economic equivalent of “Sit up straight! Wash your hands! Wipe your feet! Eat your vegetables! Stop that before someone gets hurt! You’re not listening! What did you just say to me? Go to your room!”
Or, for then classic Star Trek fans among you: “Haaar-court! Harcourt Fenton Mudd! Where have you been? What have you been up to? Nothing good, I’m sure – well, let me tell you, you lazy, good-for-nothing–”
Posted by rocinante on December 18th, 2007 at 4:55 pmI think some persons are going after Hillary’s “looks” because she’s asked for it.
She’s always presented herself as so perfect.
“I have no failings or frailties.”
“I am the smartest woman that ever was.”
And as if she were owed homage (and the Presidency).
“I have vast experience.”
“I have a plan for socialized medicine, and you people will DO what I say!”
Now that she’s put herself in the light—so to speak—we can see that she has always been a pathetic sham.
She’s not so smart.
“Uh uh uh…”
She’s not so tough.
“Not fair to ask me hard questions!”
And she’s just like everyone else—wrinkly, saggy, and with receding gums.
By “everyone else,” I mean persons who are wrinkly, saggy, and have receding gums.
Posted by lance de boyle on December 18th, 2007 at 5:18 pmThe reaction to the photo is stronger because Hillary’s plea for votes is not strongly grounded in a political philosophy - as Ronald Reagan’s plea for votes was, and as Margaret Thatcher’s plea for votes was.
Hillary’s plea is: vote for me because it would be really nice to return to the glory days of the 1990s. Well, returning to those days would be nicer if Hillary wasn’t so old and wrinkly.
OTOH, if Hillary’s plea were based on implementing a much needed government policy shift to the left, then her age and her wrinkles would be irrelevant. If we really needed her policies: who cares what she looks like? The entire nation would ridicule anyone who ridiculed her looks. The nation would say: who cares about her looks? We need her policies!
I don’t think the Hillary wrinkles thing is very much about sexism, nor ageism. I think it about Hillary’s lack of political gravitas. Hillary is sort of like the famous self-description from the “Seinfeld sitcom”: “She’s about nothing.”
Posted by on December 18th, 2007 at 5:22 pmLooks do matter, remember what happened to the Atty Gen’l in fla? She was raked across the coals pretty good. As was Paula Jones. I beleive she ended up getting a nose job because of all the catty, yes catty, comments thrown her way. Then there’s Linda Tripp. Who actually went on tv and, inna nutshell, mentioned she didnt know just HOW bad she looked and said she’s sorry for it. Then rushed off for a make over.
For the men, the same thing happens. Not as bad, granted, but anyone running for office does have a shelf life. Hitlery won’t run again if she looses. Just like Bob Dole didn’t. Why? Too old. How many people pointed out that Kerry and Lurch from the Adams Family look like brothers? Think about this, there’s Christopher Reeve, actor, he screws up. Is in a wheelchair for life, and the love just flows his way. But how much is Stephen Hawking getting? Now ask yourself who would you rather talk to? I remember reading one time - “A rich ugly man is a rich man, but a handsome poor man is a poor man.” Face it Rachel, people suck. How many studies are there that say “good looking” people have it better in court? Or, really, just about any thing in life. People worry too much about looks and wallet size. Then wonder why kids are all jacked up and doing stupid things to themselves.
Posted by Ed on December 18th, 2007 at 6:38 pmPeople suck. All we can do is try to work around it.
I saw an old teacher of mine the other day. She is 82 and her face is less wrinkled than Hillary’s. As someone mentioned - it is not how Hillary looked in that picture, but the contrast between that face and the one she was wearing as recently as a week ago. I know Iowa winters are tough, but even Keith Richards thinks she aged rapidly.
As for Rush - he makes a valid point, but who cares. He has frequently made good points, but in the end he loses me due to his drug use.
Posted by Hu Ugonna Caw on December 18th, 2007 at 9:32 pmRachel,
Posted by Sluggo on December 18th, 2007 at 11:26 pmWhile I disagree with you about the Hildabeast, I’ve come to the conclusion that I’m in love with you. I must be, everytime I read your blog I get this fluttery feeling in my gut, my eyes water and I spit whatever I’m drinking all over my monitor (I’ll bill you for that later, after we are married).
Disturbingly yours,
Sluggo
I have to agree with Rush when he said:
Think of it as being on a 2-year (or longer) job interview. We’d all try to put our best foot forward. If I knew reporters were going to be sticking cameras in my face everyday for two years, I’d probably be tempted to hit the gym a bit more often, watch what I ate, get weekly facials and have a hair and make-up person on staff.
I wish looks weren’t an issue. They shouldn’t be, but I think it’s human nature to notice them. Although it must be really awful to see bad photos of oneself and read the criticism, I believe anyone — male or female — who thinks they’re tough enough to be President of the United States should be able to shrug off digs about their appearance and stay focussed on their plan.
In the Hillary photo, it looks as though the light is coming downwards, slightly behind her and from her right. The light is particularly unflattering and could make a 20 year old look 40. She did appear to be a bit weary, but it doesn’t seem fair to judge how old she looks on the basis of this individual photo.
Okay, lots of teeth gnashing here for having defended Mrs. Clinton (as Limbaugh calls her). Going to have to go take a soda bicarb.
Posted by gd on December 19th, 2007 at 12:27 amSo, here’s a thought experiment for ya’ll: Suppose Condoleza Rice were running for president. Would people be making fun of her looks?
I suppose they might, and there might be an element of racism in it, but it seems to me that the talk about her looks just wouldn’t be important. Her run for the presidency would be based on her espousal of a set of principles — principles she would be forthright about — and real, solid, legitimate experience. I don’t think comments about her looks would carry much weight.
Hillary, on the other hand, is running because she wants power for herself, and she can’t afford to be open about her prinicples, because most people would not vote for her if they really understood what she wanted to do. So she dodges, she obfuscates, and she blusters. Her campaign is about appearances rather than substance. So, when setbacks in the campaign cause her physical appearance to crumble, that’s fair game. That’s what I think.
Posted by Lucy on December 19th, 2007 at 1:55 amCondoleezza rocks. I’d support her for Prez in a heartbeat. And not just because she sometimes wears some bitchen boots.
Posted by on December 19th, 2007 at 8:11 amWould I vote for Condi?
No. Why?
At one time I thought she had her act together, but her antics of the last year, her embracing of Hamas and her growing antipathy toward Israel has caused me to reasess her suitability as a possible presidential contender.
Condi should go back to academia where she can do no harm.
Posted by Tolbert on December 19th, 2007 at 9:11 amDon, what part of “no signs of foul play” do you find hard to understand?
Posted by on December 20th, 2007 at 9:35 pm