tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14913496.post596457354368862894..comments2023-12-31T13:11:40.044-05:00Comments on Newscat: NewsCathttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05049304894327723728noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14913496.post-940649843033356782007-10-20T18:21:00.000-05:002007-10-20T18:21:00.000-05:00I thought the comment was a nice way to not really...I thought the comment was a nice way to not really criticize her. I thought it was a cute comment, no biggie.Anniehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13530336214451155261noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14913496.post-41983081779394366202007-07-26T09:45:00.000-05:002007-07-26T09:45:00.000-05:00Agreed. I notice the difference between men and w...Agreed. I notice the difference between men and women all the time.<BR/><BR/>I only brought it up because I felt that the situation did not call for what he did. If Edwards is going to go the "aw-chucks, I'm a younger, better-coifed Matlock" route, then he should be called on it. He could, and perhaps should, have made a criticism of a policy issue she advocates. Bottom-line, though, it was a stupid question.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14913496.post-75314937314251839352007-07-26T09:29:00.000-05:002007-07-26T09:29:00.000-05:00I used to like Milbank when he was covering the 20...I used to like Milbank when he was covering the 2000 election. I think he thought of himself as smaller then. But now 7 years, a couple of books, and time spent on TV and I think he's grown in his own estimation. In short, I like his reporting a lot less.<BR/><BR/>I meant to "compare and constrast" to another article deeper inside the paper that pretty much covered the same ground. <A HREF="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/07/25/AR2007072501104.html" REL="nofollow">House Panel Backs Citing Bush Aides for Contempt</A> by Dan Eggen and Paul Kane pretty much covers the exact same story and proceedings as Milbank's, but minus the "colorful" commentary.<BR/><BR/>Milbank is a columnist and on some level he's supposed to provide more "entertaining" news stories than the rest of the section. But it's helpful to show what the other reporters, from the same paper, wrote about the scene.<BR/><BR/>As for Edwards and Hillary's coat. I actually don't think that was the same thing as what Milbank was doing. I know however of some women bloggers that disagree. But in my mind it's about place and context. It's not sexist to point out the obvious..."your jacket is pink." It's sexist when covering a scene to describe only what the women are wearing as if the men's outfits are unremarkable. (maybe they are..but by default wouldn't that also make the women's unremarkable).<BR/><BR/>Edwards was groping for something cute and clever to say that he "didn't" like about Hillary that wasn't actually a bad thing. He wasn't trying to deliberately put down Hillary for being a woman (other than what the questioner asked him to do).<BR/><BR/>And I don't think it was sexist to recognize, as my roommate and I did, that Hillary did stand out because she *could* where color and the men on the stage couldn't. There was a sense of "one of these things is not like the other."<BR/><BR/>It's not sexist to recognize someone is a woman. Place, context and even tone and body language contribute to how a remark on one's appearance and/or clothing is perceived. I'd like to add that I used to know an intern that thought ANYTIME a person commented about the physical appearance of another person they were "taking a risk" at offending them because "how I look is none of their damned business."NewsCathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05049304894327723728noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14913496.post-58060711272226194882007-07-26T07:13:00.000-05:002007-07-26T07:13:00.000-05:00I agree with you 100%. And I don't think it is a ...I agree with you 100%. And I don't think it is a small thing, either. And what was up with Edwards mentioning Hill's coat at the debate? This is not unlike the idiots at Olbermann's show commenting that Sen. Vitter's wife looked like a prostitute. <BR/><BR/>Plus, Milbank is a self-promoting ass who thinks HE is part of the story.<BR/><BR/>Jim in ClevelandAnonymousnoreply@blogger.com