Apples to oranges, PP92. First of all, he pointed out a truth, there are people that hate him just as there are people that hated Bush. He didn't ask him if he was a flake or imply it. I think he did both with Bachmann.

 

I thought a lot of people think Bachman is a flake and Wallace addressed that. Everyone's perception is different. She had a golden opportunity to explain why she isn't a flake and why that perception is wrong.

I thought a lot of people think Bachman is a flake and Wallace addressed that. Everyone's perception is different. She had a golden opportunity to explain why she isn't a flake and why that perception is wrong.

I agree, she did have that opportunity, I maintain that he wouldn't have worded it anywhere near the same fashion had it been a male candidate. Just my opinion.

I will agree that Clinton and Rice might be treated differently by Wallace, I think some of that is because of the Tea Party. However, I remember a lot of stupid things Hillary said while running for president so he should put her in the same camp with Bachmann if that's his reason. Rice, on the other hand, is one smart woman and I really wish she'd run for president.

 

I can definitely see the Tea Party being a reason for the brutally honest interviews. I also recall Hilary losing the nomination by saying make some ill advised statements about Obama. Seems like she was in control before making a mistake or two and then Bill ran his mouth and things began to get away from them if I am not mistaken. Hilary does seem to get more respect than most women in politics though.

 

 

Rice is intriguing. I'd be interested in seeing if she could sway me to vote Republican. Doubtful....but I'd give her a chance.

I agree, she did have that opportunity, I maintain that he wouldn't have worded it anywhere near the same fashion had it been a male candidate. Just my opinion.

 

 

I hear you. Makes me wonder. I could see him asking that of Trump. I don't know if he would ask that of Gingrich though. I think Gingrich would be worthy of a brutally honest interview and I don't know that he would ask Gingrich a question like that. I would hope that he would but I see your point.

I hear you. Makes me wonder. I could see him asking that of Trump. I don't know if he would ask that of Gingrich though. I think Gingrich would be worthy of a brutally honest interview and I don't know that he would ask Gingrich a question like that. I would hope that he would but I see your point.

I guess I just don't see him overshadowing the answer with the question the way he did with Bachmann. Even with Trump, but as you said, I suppose it's a matter of perception.

Bachman has a history of making outlandish statements, not mere gaffes or misstatements, on a variety of political and social subjects. Those remarks deserve scrutiny, especially since she has declared herself a presidential candidate.

 

Wallace was entirely justified in asking the question.

I think Trump is a good comparison to Bachmann on the outlandish meter and a flake question could easily be asked of him. When you make numerous flaky statements like Bachmann, you have to expect to be asked if you are a flake. And if you don't see those statements as flaky, maybe you are proving the point.

Recently, it doesn't seem as if female candidates are preparing themselves as well as their male counterparts. That's the issue. If you think about it, Bachmann and Palin have both (in my opinion) relied on their looks and outward appearance of "scrappiness" to get to where they are. However, I wills say that Bachmann still has a leg up on Palin, in that I feel she's not a flake, per se, but simply not as prepared as she should be. In my opinion, Hilary was taken more seriously from the beginning because she's not as attractive, but also because she knows politics much more, inside and out, and that's the benefit of her own experience, and her experience with Bill. But, had she been more attractive, the media may have been harsher toward her. As it is, I think that an attractive, intelligent, savvy, prepared woman would probably be a very serious threat. What's happening is we're getting some, but not all, of society's "ideal", and they each get hammered in their own way, for their deficiencies toward the ideal.

Recently, it doesn't seem as if female candidates are preparing themselves as well as their male counterparts. That's the issue. If you think about it, Bachmann and Palin have both (in my opinion) relied on their looks and outward appearance of "scrappiness" to get to where they are. However, I wills say that Bachmann still has a leg up on Palin, in that I feel she's not a flake, per se, but simply not as prepared as she should be. In my opinion, Hilary was taken more seriously from the beginning because she's not as attractive, but also because she knows politics much more, inside and out, and that's the benefit of her own experience, and her experience with Bill. But, had she been more attractive, the media may have been harsher toward her. As it is, I think that an attractive, intelligent, savvy, prepared woman would probably be a very serious threat. What's happening is we're getting some, but not all, of society's "ideal", and they each get hammered in their own way, for their deficiencies toward the ideal.

 

I believe the harshness of the media toward Bachmann and Palin is a direct result of their own ineptitude. Hilary has never been as inept and/or outlandish as those two and that is why the media has not been as harsh.

 

This is probably a subject for another thread, but I think women in general have some advantages in politics in that many women want to vote for women. I believe that is part of the reason why McCain selected Palin. He thought she would bring conservative votes and that she may pick up moderate women voters. So I agree that an "attractive, intelligent, savvy, prepared woman" would be a very serious threat.

I believe the harshness of the media toward Bachmann and Palin is a direct result of their own ineptitude. Hilary has never been as inept and/or outlandish as those two and that is why the media has not been as harsh.

Amen to that ...

 

This is probably a subject for another thread, but I think women in general have some advantages in politics in that many women want to vote for women. I believe that is part of the reason why McCain selected Palin. He thought she would bring conservative votes and that she may pick up moderate women voters. So I agree that an "attractive, intelligent, savvy, prepared woman" would be a very serious threat.

If Bachmann and Palin weren't so attractive, they would have been dismissed as political players long ago.

I'm not sure what you all are seeing....I can think of a lot of words to describe Bachmann, but attractive is nowhere close to being on the list.

 

I stand by my assertion that women are treated completely different and with far less respect than their male counterparts when it comes to politics and the media.

I'm not sure what you all are seeing....I can think of a lot of words to describe Bachmann, but attractive is nowhere close to being on the list.

 

I stand by my assertion that women are treated completely different and with far less respect than their male counterparts when it comes to politics and the media.

 

Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Condeleeza Rice, Madeline Albright, Diane Feinstein, Elizabeth Dole, Christine Whitman, Sandra Day O'Connor and all the female SC Justices, Nancy Kassebaum, Jeane Kilpatrick, Kay Hutchison ... need I go on? I am sure there are many more well respected and thought of female politicians not listed here. The problem with Palin and Bachmann is not the media coming after them. It is the media reporting what they say and do and whose fault is that?

Hilary Clinton, Nancy Pelosi, Condeleeza Rice, Madeline Albright, Diane Feinstein, Elizabeth Dole, Christine Whitman, Sandra Day O'Connor and all the female SC Justices, Nancy Kassebaum, Jeane Kilpatrick, Kay Hutchison ... need I go on? I am sure there are many more well respected and thought of female politicians not listed here. The problem with Palin and Bachmann is not the media coming after them. It is the media reporting what they say and do and whose fault is that?

 

I quit reading your list after Pelosi. Putting her name and well respected in the same sentence is laughable. :lol:

I quit reading your list after Pelosi. Putting her name and well respected in the same sentence is laughable. :lol:

 

So why wasn't Pelosi attacked by the media? Surely not her looks. If you read the whole list you will see it is both Republicans and Democrats, if that is what irritated you. The fact just what I said - Palin and Bachmann bring these issues upon themselves. It isn't the media. The media just wants headlines and to sell ads and those two help a lot with both.

Pelosi says more stupid things every 15 minutes than Bachmann has in her entire life. Pelosi is a disgrace to her party.