johntmay, do you have an objection to this question, and if so what is it? Female candidates DO tend to have their appearance scrutinized more than their male counterparts.
I’ve been following Mitt’s career for years and I’ve never heard him referred to as ‘un-photogenic’… quite the opposite. He takes a good photograph. Even I’ll admit he’s a handsome guy.
I’m going to guess you meant to supplant his delivery and public affect, which is variously described as ‘wooden’ and ‘flat’, into his looks… either because you’re confused about the conversation you find yourself in or you find it convenient to confuse the two…
I might complain about Clinton’s who seems to have captured her in somewhat frightening “Please smile hard for the camera” kind of pose.
… Colbert was doing a segment about the upcoming GOP convention when he had occasion to intro a picture of Paul Ryan as “Speaker of the House and guy who really believes he is smiling…”
’cause you know I think him a fool. but Trump gets called out for being “orange” and shall I Google for a list of articles about his hair? Another fool is discussed this way in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette “Sarah Palin’s mustache,
Why listen to what a woman is saying when you can pick apart her looks?”
It’s everywhere.
Which is fine by me. I think there are a lot of people who dislike the Clinton’s, and dislike center left policies, and they have a right to vote for a non-racist candidate too. I encourage that choice, people shouldn’t have to hold their nose for someone they profoundly disagree with just to avoid voting for a racist.
Unlike many around here, I am still worried this year is a strange election and if having Weld on the ticket draws evenly from both sides in Massachusetts, which polls show it might, then our votes for Hillary matter here and she’s consistently been the only candidate capable of being President. I couldn’t even picture my primary candidaye in the situation room, let alone Johnson or Trump. I have a lot of Republican friends who feel the same way.
It’s not clear to me that Mr. Weld, even if elected, would bother to show up in the situation room. He was not known for his diligence in attending to the necessities of office while Governor, after all.
I think Mr. Weld is fine as a not-Trump/not-Clinton alternative. I think it strains credulity to imagine him in the Oval Office.
And I think this comment about the appearance of Ms. Clinton exemplifies the dysfunction in our society, especially towards Ms. Clinton.
…if there really are still votes being counted in California? I’ve mostly heard this from pro-Sanders sources and it frankly sounds like a wishful thinking conspiracy theory that if true would throw CA to Sanders.
Secretary of State from California, the previous link shows the California Results and is reporting 22,356 of 22,356 precincts (100%), so unless someone goes to court seeking a recount, my understanding that after a period of time, this will change from semi-official to official.
“100.0% ( 22,356 of 22,356 ) precincts partially reporting” (emphasis mine)
While it’s unlikely that Bernie would overtake Hillary in the vote count, he’s narrowed the gap and I think so far 3 counties have flipped in his direction.
The stakes are too high, for you to stay home.
Have you ever seen a picture of this woman where the smile reached her eyes?
Can you name a single male candidate, past or present, who is criticized in this way?
johntmay, do you have an objection to this question, and if so what is it? Female candidates DO tend to have their appearance scrutinized more than their male counterparts.
I might complain about Clinton’s who seems to have captured her in somewhat frightening “Please smile hard for the camera” kind of pose.
She seems to be almost as un-photogenic as Mitt, who has a really different, warm vibe in person.
Oh! THERE is a male candidate who was criticized in that way!
… say what?
I’ve been following Mitt’s career for years and I’ve never heard him referred to as ‘un-photogenic’… quite the opposite. He takes a good photograph. Even I’ll admit he’s a handsome guy.
I’m going to guess you meant to supplant his delivery and public affect, which is variously described as ‘wooden’ and ‘flat’, into his looks… either because you’re confused about the conversation you find yourself in or you find it convenient to confuse the two…
… Colbert was doing a segment about the upcoming GOP convention when he had occasion to intro a picture of Paul Ryan as “Speaker of the House and guy who really believes he is smiling…”
’cause you know I think him a fool. but Trump gets called out for being “orange” and shall I Google for a list of articles about his hair? Another fool is discussed this way in the Pittsburgh Post Gazette “Sarah Palin’s mustache,
Why listen to what a woman is saying when you can pick apart her looks?”
It’s everywhere.
Yup, only they don’t play the martyr card.
Will you be voting for Trump this November? I’d rather discuss the candidates’ merits than their photographs.
Which is fine by me. I think there are a lot of people who dislike the Clinton’s, and dislike center left policies, and they have a right to vote for a non-racist candidate too. I encourage that choice, people shouldn’t have to hold their nose for someone they profoundly disagree with just to avoid voting for a racist.
Unlike many around here, I am still worried this year is a strange election and if having Weld on the ticket draws evenly from both sides in Massachusetts, which polls show it might, then our votes for Hillary matter here and she’s consistently been the only candidate capable of being President. I couldn’t even picture my primary candidaye in the situation room, let alone Johnson or Trump. I have a lot of Republican friends who feel the same way.
It’s not clear to me that Mr. Weld, even if elected, would bother to show up in the situation room. He was not known for his diligence in attending to the necessities of office while Governor, after all.
I think Mr. Weld is fine as a not-Trump/not-Clinton alternative. I think it strains credulity to imagine him in the Oval Office.
And I think this comment about the appearance of Ms. Clinton exemplifies the dysfunction in our society, especially towards Ms. Clinton.
n/t
…if there really are still votes being counted in California? I’ve mostly heard this from pro-Sanders sources and it frankly sounds like a wishful thinking conspiracy theory that if true would throw CA to Sanders.
on this. The headline is
“Yes, California has many ballots to count. No, Sanders won’t win.”
http://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article83788382.html
Secretary of State from California, the previous link shows the California Results and is reporting 22,356 of 22,356 precincts (100%), so unless someone goes to court seeking a recount, my understanding that after a period of time, this will change from semi-official to official.
“100.0% ( 22,356 of 22,356 ) precincts partially reporting” (emphasis mine)
While it’s unlikely that Bernie would overtake Hillary in the vote count, he’s narrowed the gap and I think so far 3 counties have flipped in his direction.