Captain Ed notes a NYT article (in the Style section) that ponders whether Americans are ready for a trophy wife as First Lady, with respect to Fred!
Ed’s pissed off at the implication that he married her only for her looks, and she married him only for power and prestige. I, on the other hand, am amused at the wording of the article, which is entitled “Will Her Face Determine His Fortune?” then goes on to consider the photos circulating on the nets of her in “form-fitting gowns.” Personally, I’m glad they’re form-fitting. If they were more restrictive, it might be easier to picture her serving canapes on her form at White House functions. And it’s my feeling, too, that her face is attractive enough, but not exactly trophy material. I think, in other words, that what we have is women expressing anxiety over the possibility of a big-breasted First Lady. Could it be that some of them console themselves for their more modest assets by implying that bust dimensions are apt to be inversely proportional to intelligence (unless the bust is enhanced to represent Hillary’s powerful matronly concern for the people of the US)?
Political analysts said there is very little evidence to suggest that candidates’ spouses affect their electoral outcomes. But one political scientist, Karen O’Connor, the director of the Women & Politics Institute at American University, said Mr. Thompson may lose with one key group whose support he needs: Republican women.
“I think women have an innate ‘ick’ reaction when they see a wife so much younger and vital than her husband,†Professor O’Connor said.
Not that anyone might have been innately en-icked by pictures of some of the critters with whom Clinton was involved.
I’m not saying that’s definitively the case, but I imagine the comments section will provide evidence, one way or the other.
Heh, what the moronic press won’t stoop to for poo to fling. Mrs. Thompson is a good looking woman. Hillary has a figure resembling two fried eggs for tits on a panzer chasis, and a face that could scare Medusa.
MMMMMMM fried eggs….
“a face that could scare Medusa”
Well, yes, but that’s true of all basilisks, it’s not an individual trait; (vide Pelosi, Nancy et al.
Can I politely decline Hilary’s powerful matronly advances? Speaking of forms, are there any I can fill out in order to leave The Program? Or is my participation involuntary?
Just want to get started early, provided I’m not actually in the wrong country or anything.
This speak directly to my main source of discomfort with Monicagate. You’re the Leader of the Free World and you get caught bagging Monica Lewinsky? Now, Monica wasn’t hideous, but in a nation where Heather Locklear lives, you make a fool of yourself with Monica Lewinsky?
JFK’s legacy, my ass.
Just what we need, a herd of dopey cows from academia commenting on the very hot Mrs. Thompson. Clue for said cows who haven’t had a bull in twenty years.
Men like hot women. We admire men who can get hot women. Women like powerful men who can get and keep hot women. It’s basic Darwin.
Clue two for the dopey cows–shave your legs and pits, lose a hundred pounds, and STFU.
And it’s my feeling, too, that her face is attractive enough, but not exactly trophy material. I think, in other words, that what we have is women expressing anxiety over the possibility of a big-breasted First Lady.
Dan, women are sneaky creatures capable of changing their entire look thanks to something they call a ‘make over’. Meanwhile men, stalwart chaps we, have the same haircuts as we had twenty years ago – for those of us who still have hair.
Once Fred’s wife has her presidential campaign ‘make over’, your opinion of her looks will change.
Professor O’Connor is a twit. As a former republican (now independent) woman voter, that Mrs. Thompson is pretty and has a nice rack doesn’t matter one itty titty bit. As long as my spouse ain’t looking to long or touching said rack, WGAF. Professor O must have mammery issues. I have have more of an issue with a woman running for President who didn’t have the dignity or class to leave her pillandering husband. The same pillandering husband who made a first class laughing stock out of her. If she thinks staying with him makes her an object of respect, as in “she is keeping the family together”, she is one crazy bitch. I would have admired her more if she would have left his nasty chubby chasing ass after the LAST scandal broke. Now that would have been respect worthy.
On the other hand, Hillary was touted as being part of a ‘two for one’ ticket – Al Gore being the presumptive third wheel.
Fred’s large breasted wife might have a role as his unofficial Foreign Policy Advisor – just think of the geopolitical ramifications of a US policy towards Iraq and its factions which ‘Lifts and Separates’
–
Makeover, huh? Well, how much breast reduction would she have to get to join Mensa?
Terezzzzzzza Heinz Kerry gave me the willies, but that was because she’s batshit, not because of her looks.
Dan, you ignorant slut: I have 38DDs, and a near-genius IQ. Bite me. Also, bite Fred Thompson’s wife.
Close only counts in horseshoes, I’m afraid.
Reread the post and comments, ushie. I’m not going to resort to irony flags. I have nothing but respect for the large-brained and breasted. Well, maybe a little more than just respect.
I thought all the women online had big tits and a near-genius IQ. What gives?
I’m just joking you, Dan. And I’ve totally forgiven you for the image of Rosie O’Donnell that is seared–seared! into my brain.
BTW, given my opinion, stated widely, of people with bona fide genius IQs, my previous comment could be taken as a compliment…
My handgrenade disagrees.
Duh. Why didn’t I realize that on the internet I could have big breasts and a near-genius IQ? That settles it. I look almost exactly like Fred Thompson’s wife. With better posture. ;-)
No seriously. I get no “ick” from Fred and his wife. And I’m not jealous of her figure. And she’s my age.
I got a lot of “ick” from Clinton but I think that was because I kept hearing about how handsome and charming he was. Normally I don’t care if a man is handsome or not. I don’t imagine sex with every male I see so it doesn’t really matter what they look like. But if I get “ick” it’s from a man-slut. Doesn’t matter how sexy he is. I got “ick” reactions from Fabio. (He’s reformed some in my mind because he seems to have a genuine sense of humor about himself.) Men-sluts are icky.
Man-slut? Just say, “John Edwards,” Synova.
Clinton also has herpes, which is kind of icky cause that means that there are times when his penis has oozing sores on it.
If Jeri Thompson can put up with it, this could be gold for the Thompson campaign. Are GOP wives so much more catty than their lefty betters that they will enjoy watching this woman be harrassed for no better reason than her looks?
And of course, we can always challenge Hillary to put together a collection of HER husbands former relationships and see what they have to say about the Clintons…
Many possibilities with Fred Thompson:
Maybe Thompson’s a lesbian. Certainly, if you applied the sexual language generally used in relation to women, Fred Thompson would be a “slut” given his sexual promiscuity as a lobbyist. Given that his wife Jeri kind of looks like a slut (isn’t that the equation–trophy wife=slut), that would make it their marriage a lesbian relation. Talk about social progress. Would Fred be a “bull dyke?”
But, maybe Fred’s just a gay man. In fact, using Ann Coulter’s criteria for saying that guys are homosexual if they have a lot of promiscuous sex, you’d have to say that Fred is definitely gay. That makes you wonder if his marriage to Jerri is a sham marriage like Mitch McConnell’s marriage to Elaine Chao is supposed to be (Dems in Kentucky have assumed that McConnell was gay for a long time).
But I see that Fred and his blushing bride have had a couple future lobbyists. It’s nice to know some things stay in the family.
It’s nice to see that Fr
I don’t remember hearing this sort of theory during Clinton’s impeachment. But I think you have a point.
Jeff, haven’t we had enough nutty perfessers to last us a lifetime?
Thing is, Ric isn’t one of the nutty ones. He’s the norm.
As Pablo mentioned JFK, I note that Jackie was 22 years younger than he was. But 24 years is “icky,” so long as the candidate is Republican and the writer works for the NYT. As for the “wife so much younger and vital than her husband,” Professor O’Connor may have to reconsider the “vital” part once all of his hot ex-girlfriends come to his defense (which is not what happened with ol’ Bubba).
Jackie Kennedy never had a career or accomplished anything in her own right, so that’s not a very good analogy.
She was rather an admired editor later in life, happyfeet.
Oh. I’m so proud of her.
Sorry. Baby boomer icons bring out dark happyfeet.
A good looking blonde that’s not afraid to wear a pony-tail on the campaign trail, with young kids besides, what’s not to like about her as First Lady?
I think one of collective America’s favorite photos is “John John” crawling out through the desk in the oval office, it’d be nice to see a 3-4 year old trekking on down to the kitchen to con the head chef out of a dish of ice cream :-)
What. Ever. John John is dead. Like his mother. Let them rest.
Sorry.
Happyfeet, I meant no disrespect whatsoever. Our memories continue, both good and bad — there’s nothing wrong with remembering and referring to the good without casting a black cloud of the bad all the time.
You’re right. Still, nostalgia is mostly just an exercise in marketing the past to the susceptible demographics of today. Someone holds the copyright to that John John photo, no?
Well yes, okay, I get what you’re saying Happyfeet, but I’m me and that was my thought on the subject (not a Thompson campaign push, one that you’ll never see as it’s not appropriate officially).
It is though, a thought that I think many people that are long past being susceptible to manipulation by the powers that be, may share — none of them are likely at the Live Earth concert today though…
Well, yes, but that’s true of all basilisks, it’s not an individual trait; (vide Pelosi, Nancy et al.)
Basiliks? –I was sure you were going to mention Janet Reno… :o)
Very witty.
O’Connor is a sad little moron. No wonder she got into PoliSci.
And if Thompson were a Dem, the 20-odd year difference would be evidence of what a stud he was.
“You’re the Leader of the Free World and you get caught bagging Monica Lewinsky?”
I think that is really why the continent hates us, the idea of Monica as a femme fatale was just too much to bear.
Oh, and professor? Sometimes a penis is just a penis.
Now, to be fair, considering her milieu, it’s not stupid of Professor O’Connor to believe that women have an innate ick reaction when they see an attractive woman with a conservative. It’s just kind of narrow-minded.
Mark – mostly I was kidding. See #30. I’m not sure I agree about the appropriate thing though. I think if someone were to link this it would be ok.
Can’t argue with that link HappyFeet :-) Oh, and my apologies if my radar was on the fritz regarding your previous posts.
Synova, and this is something that has bothered me for long time, I love.
I have big breasts, and in grad school I noted that having them meant I was stupid. No, my profs who acted on my thesis and diss. didn’t do it because intellectually I was fine; it was because I had big boobs and wore makeup. Even though 2 of them were female–well, somehow I had excited the lesbian in them.
I am pretty sure Fred Thompson’s wife knows what I know–if you have big breasts, you must surely be a fool.
Now, if I had written. “I have big blue eyes, and blonde hair,” would you have said, “Only on the internet…”
(I dressed as a “normal” English grad student for Halloween one year. I whited out my face, pulled vaseline through my hair, bound my breasts, and wore torn jeans. No one would talk to me, including the young lady who was crying on the steps of the house, because the married fellow inside, another grad student (wait, they both were) wouldn’t leave his wife for her. But luckily he would have sex wtih her. Pallid hopeless sex…
No apologies. You also reminded me I have a copy of Life magazine that I snagged when my grandma died that’s from 1961 when Kennedy won and it has Jackie and her husband on the cover. I need to get that on eBay. Nostalgia works for me when I can cash in on it. I’m kind of hypocritical sometimes.
“pallid hopeless sex” … I love that phrase
I like that quip, not as much as you (and I) like “pallid hopeless sex,” but I like it just the same :-)
ushie, quite seriously, all the women with big breasts that I know wish that insurance covered reductions. I’ll admit to wishing that I could manage a B cup without being over-all fat, but I believe everyone who has ever told me that they were uncomfortable or just wished that men would look at their faces once in a while. And I’ve been told those things from the time my girlfriends and I sprouted breasts in junior high.
So I was joking.
And though I may not know what you and Fred Thompson’s wife know first hand, I am pretty good at putting myself in another person’s shoes and I tend to believe what I’m told.
For what it’s worth, I *am* blond and blue eyed.
Oh, and I’m with happyfeet and Mark. “Pallid hopeless sex” is a wondrously evocative phrase.
Speaking of dopey academics, I remember an entire article in a women’s magazine a few years back, where academics had theorized what a woman would “have” to look like to be President. Their conclusion was that she would have to be quite matronly, with size 14 hips but boobs no larger than a B cup. Apparently, Americans wouldn’t “accept” a woman with big boobs or slim hips as having what it takes to lead the country. I think it’s more that academics can’t handle the idea of a woman being sexy and smart.
The professor from Kentucky really is a mental midget, no? Calling people gay or weenies seems to be the only arrow in his quiver, a one trick pony of tolerance and diversity.
Synova, I just got a bit het up. And I agree with your friends…I can’t play golf worth a damn…
Karl,
12 years, not 22. JFK 1917, Jackie 1929.