I listened to a few minutes of Rush Limbaugh yesterday. He was talking about Hilary Clinton. He doesn't like her. That's fine, I don't like her either. But the things he continually maunders on about are just tireseome. Basically, Hilary Clinton has always told folks, apparently, that she was named after Sir Edmund Hillary who climbed Mount Everest. This is a lie, Rush Limbaugh delights in saying, over and over again. Hillary didn't climb Everest until a few years after Hilary Clinton was born.
Yesterday, he revealed that Hilary Clinton now admits that this isn't true, but that her Mom always tod her so, to inspire her to do great things. And Limbaugh scoffs. "That's right, blame it all on Mom." And I'm thinking to myself, why shouldn't this be true. If its true - her mother must have told her about it to begin with. So if its not true, it still makes sense that her mother would have made it up. (Although, if I'd been told I'd been named after someone, I'd have looked up this person's life and found out everything about them that I could, just on general principal, so I'd have found out right away if the dates didn't match.)
But that's a moot point. The point is...big deal. She used to think she was named after Edmund Hillary, or she wanted to think she was named after him, turns out it wasn't true. And on *this* point Limbaugh thinks he should spend presumably valuable air time castigating her? Over and over again. Why doesn't he raise other points - political points - where she's clearly been untruthful, that would be a wee bit more important, rather than his repeating his same old story about her name.
Also, according to Limbaugh, Hilary Clinton has only very recently taken to wearing a cross around her neck. This is a ploy, says Limbaugh, to cater to the Conservative Christian vote. But since she's only recently started wearing a cross you know it's a ploy.
Well, fair enough. I have no opinion on *that* particular subject. Except of course to say that Hilary Clinton isn't the only politician, Democrat or Republican, to alter her appearance or habits to appeal to different segments of the population at different times. Why else did President Bush appear in jeans and workshirt at some photography event when he was trying to mend fences in New Orleans?
No, what annoyed me was that Limbaugh said that Hilary Clinton was wearing this cross "around her ...gorgeous neck."
I put those three periods in there deliberately, because Limbaugh definately paused before he said the word "gorgeous".
And that's the thing. Male politicians don't have to worry about their appearance. I suppose if they're incredibly fat or or wear some kind of stupid facial hair like a soul patch they'll get some kind of remark, but overall if a male politician wears his suit and appears in Congress, any criticism of him (by Limbaugh at least) is of his words, not of his appearance. (Although Limbaugh does seem to think he does a good Clinton impression and likes to maunder on and on and on in that voice on occasion.)
But women politicians are fair game. I don't remember which one Limbaugh was talking about, some Democrat, but Limbaugh referred to her as "chattering" on, when she was giving some sort of talk in the house. That's a dismissive way of referring to a woman...the stereotype that women chatter on and on saying nothing important and won't shut up. Well, that may be true but when Limbaugh goes off on his Clinton impersonations or his long talks about the TV show 24 or other things of no importance, I too think he's just full of sound and fury, signifying nothing. I call it maundering, he calls it chattering, same difference.
Where was I? Oh, yes, Hilary Clinton's neck. I believe that a lot of people don't regard Hilary Clinton as very pretty, and Limbaugh is one of them. And for Limbaugh, to put down a politician who is a female, he never misses the chance to dismiss her as a female, rather than as just a politician with whom he disagrees. Thus he refers to Hilary Clinton's ...gorgeous neck, when what he thinks is obvious to his listeners, and what is obvious, is that he's really thinking "ugly neck under an ugly head."
There was another case, several months ago, when Martha Burks, of NOW, was trying to force the Augusta National Golf Club to open its membership to women. Women can play there, but they can't be members. And on one point I agreed with Limbaugh - there are soo many problems facing women in the United States and more urgently around the world, so that for time and effort to be spent on getting a rich man's club to open up to a bunch of rich women was just stupid.
But, according to Limbaugh, she was doing it because she had a face like a.... he stopped himself in time, but that's what he started to say. She couldn't get a man because she wasn't attractive, and she was taking her revenge on men by doing this. Poor Margaret Burks, she's not attractive (to Limbaugh, anyway) so of course she has no right to speak. Back to the kitchen with you, Margaret Burks!
My own opinion is...there's alot more important things you should be worrying about, Ms Burks. Head into the Muslim enclaves here in the States and start teaching women to take off those stupid veils, start insisting men treat them with respect, and etc. etc.
Oh well, enough of a feminist rant for one day.