Blue Mass Group

Reality-based commentary on politics.

Alex Beam: Coakley is HOTT!

By

You think I’m kidding.  You don’t think that someone employed by a respectable news organization would publish this.  Alas, it has come to this.

Martha Coakley is a very good-looking woman, and by far the handsomest candidate among the four Democrats running for Ted Kennedy’s seat.

Call it the babe factor.

Oh my God.  I love the next line:

I know what you are thinking, and you are right.

You’re an idiot?

She does not photograph particularly well.

Drat — I was so sure!

It goes on, believe it or not.

In person, however, she’s a knockout. If you don’t think women over 50 can be attractive, well, you’ve got a lot of living left ahead! “Foxy,” one political blogger called her. “People say I am better looking in real life than I am on television,” Coakley commented. Most definitely.

Oh, MOST definitely!  You KNOW what I’m talking about!

And then there’s this:

[Image consultant Ginger] Burr and I both think that Coakley, who says she doesn’t get professional fashion advice, looks great in pants suits; Hillary Clinton without the baggage, you might say.

“Baggage” is a family-friendly euphemism for “ass,” in case you missed it.

Anyway, this is perhaps not the high point of the campaign.

Please share widely!
fb-share-icon
Tweet
0

Comments

      • Eleven years of catholic school can do that to you, and before anyone gets indignant I have a basis for making the claim, I went to twelve years of catholic school.    

      • The editors routinely praise eb3, despite his misogynistic and homophobic posts. I don’t see how what Beam or Neil said is any worse than this:

        <

        p>

        So the Toddman got engaged to a hot Asian chick with a wedding that only a celebrity chef deserves. All the big shots were in NYC so they could share in their close friend Toddlicious’joyous day. But oh my. The Toddmeister called the whole thing off just hours before the trip down the aisle. The bride already had her hair and make-up done for crissakes.

        <

        p>Stomping out cro-magnonism should start at home, nest-ce-pas?

        • it was tasteless and perhaps rude but only because it hit the target in an inner circle near the bullseye.  By the way. it was meant to be funny and provactive but not exactly like EB3 or Alex Beam.  Didn’t the original subject set the tone??

  6. So not hot.

    <

    p>And yes, new low for the Globe, even lower than Margery Egan’s column yesterday about fizing the state’s “girl problem.” Oy.

  7. You know, like the one Newsweek had of Palin?

    <

    p>Perhaps with the Atty. General dressed in a dishevelled Catholic girls’ school uniform?  With teeny-tiny round heels?

    <

    p>Women in politics are treated badly and unfairly in general; In Massachusetts they are treated like trash.

    • I absolutely agree that “women in politics are treated badly and unfairly in general.” But I don’t exactly buy that Massachusetts is worse, considering we’re about to elect a women to Senate (who has already been elected AG), we have a female Senate president, voted in the Democratic primary for a woman for president, and a decent (though admittedly far too small) number of female state reps–and, although this is anecdotal, at the local level.

      <

      p>None of this is to dismiss sexism as a huge issue, especially within the political realm, but claiming they are “treated like trash” in Massachusetts is clearly untrue.

    • I realize being a GOP blogger is a tough road in there parts, but I’ve always wondered why you hide your gender.

      <

      p>There’s no question woman are treated as second class citizens, even (especially?) on this blog.  It’s probably of no concern to you that gays aren’t treated any better.  

      • Given PP’s complaint about sexism, I think asking about the impact of a female blogger posting as a man is a legitimate question.  Specifically: does she find people take her more seriously under the male persona? And does it help or hurt the cause of women politicians in Mass. to have one hiding her gender?

        <

        p>We have similar discussions in the gay community. I’m curious how they play out in other spaces.  

    • I’d love to see a moratorium on Scott Brown/Cosmo jokes. You pay your way through college any decent way you can. I’d argue that this doesn’t hurt anyone, it’s not exploitative–I don’t see how it reflects badly on his character. Yes, it’s mildly funny. Not very.

      • After watching the Republican Party do its damndest to undo as much social progress as possible over the last 30 years, I will not apologize for ridiculing any of them any chance I get. This thread is a fine opportunity to mock Brown’s history, and I would do it again, even if you’re not amused.  

  9. middle-aged (or is he older?) male problem? As a middle-aged male, I hope not.

    <

    p>I haven’t admitted it until now, but I’ve been finding the signature files of some posters very, very, um, well, attractive. I’ve resisted writing a post on it, you know, about sexy sig files.

    <

    p>Do you think the Globe Editors would accept an unsolicited submission? Thanks to Beam, we know they accept unsolicited admissions.

  11. I fear that I’ve insulted the Neanderthals.

    <

    p>I long ago stopped reading Alex Beam because of garbage like this. In my view, this is precisely the kind of column that should be ignored.

  12. I mean, good looking male candidates have been getting the edge for all these years and getting away with it.  Sure, in policy circles it’s described as an intangible “charisma” factor that generally translated into the “hunk” factor.  But when a generally attractive woman runs and people take notice, it’s lowbrow and sexist.  Hey, deal with reality.  It’s fairly obvious that much of Sarah  Palin’s appeal is her attractiveness.  Does that “opinion” make me a shallow sexist?  

    <

    p>I understand why it’s not PC to talk about the physical attractiveness of a woman candidate and why it’s ok to do the same with a man.  But to those who say none of this should really matter–well ya,but it does and now go back to the library and study up on all those policy issues.  

    • With male candidates, they are in fact called attractive instead of sexy.  Athletic instead of hot.  Well groomed instead of babe-a-licious.

      <

      p>And so on.

      <

      p>Overall attractiveness in male candidates is described as such.  In women, it is hypersexualized, usually with trashy/wanton overtones.

      <

      p>And it’s usually far more lowbrow as well, which is why it’s called that.

      • how he suggested that Capuano call Coakley an ignorant bleep in the post debate. What a classy guy.

Archives