Originally Posted By HyperTyper This morning, I regretted delaying my departure for work to watch Ms. Sawyer interview 16 female U.S. Senators. I don't know them all, but I like Sen. Hutchison from Texas, so I was interested to see how the conversation would go. Talk about a letdown. Sawyer kept billing her interview as 'historic.' I expected something amazing. What wisdom would these seasoned women share? What great advice from a fresh, female perspective would they offer? Well, Diane Sawyer didn't help. Her questions were the kind of polite questions you ask at a wedding receiving line. She fawned over how much they had achieved, and how far they had come. She asked about Barack Obama (Hillary Clinton did NOT want to discuss him). Asked for the differences women senators have with the men, the ladies said they sought more "consensus" and that they were lessed focused "on power." Oh, and they talked about how wonderful it was to see Nancy Pelosi take the reins of the House with her young brood in the photo ops. Were there any insights on the tough problems of the day? On Iraq? Immigration? Education? Poverty? Nope. Any discussion on the rancor between parties, and how they deal with it? Nada. And there was certainly NO mention of Sen. Boxer's attack on the nation's first black female Secretary of State on the same week as Dr. King's holiday. So much for solidarity among the sisters. I'd be curious, if anyone else saw this fluffy puff piece, to hear what you thought of it. It was nice ... but way TOO nice. But not at all nice towards men. There were some gentle but clear digs at the male segment of government ... statements that would have shocked and offended these ladies had they been directed towards the other gender. I'm all for women in government. This was an opportunity for these women to show statesmanship, intelligence and strong thinking. It was a total letdown. There was nothing historic, memorable or even newsworthy about what any of them had to say. It was like attending a baby shower, and nothing more. Most blame rests with Diane Sawyer. I was looking for something that would be a tribute to the achievements of women in leadership and government. This sure wasn't it. It was a self-congratulatory love-fest ... and a mild man-bashing. (And for the record, I don't think half those women, Sen. Clinton in particular, are half as nice as private as they portray themselves in public. And Sen. Clinton doesn't even try that hard in public!)
Originally Posted By HyperTyper I should amend my last statement. I didn't know most of the women by name, so many of them could very well be the nicest and classiest of women in private. But Sen. Clinton and Barbara Boxer are NOT ladies, in the strictest sense of the word anyway.
Originally Posted By friendofdd I think Sen. Clinton works very hard to appear nice and classy and stateswoman like. What you see is, apparently, the best she can do. I didn't see the program, but softball questions are the norm for the morning news/entertainment shows. I'm not sure if our culture is ready to see women politicians handled the same as men politicians in interview programs.
Originally Posted By DlandJB In the "Nice" department, next to Senator Barbara Mikulski, Hilary Clinton is Kelly Rippa. Even her staff would say so. But both women are extremely capable senators and certainly intelligent. I'm sorry it is a puff piece, but if you saw an interview of male Senators, would "nice" also be a criteria? Maybe so, but probably intelligent and capable would be the top areas of concern. I'm really speaking in general, and not trying to pick on the OP, but it seems that it is something that women in positions of authority have to fight all the time.
Originally Posted By onlyme I'm not female OR a politican, but in male-dominated politics, I'm sure some women feel that they need to come out of the gate as strong/harsh/direct as possible. They may see 'soft-spoken', and 'refined' as useful only for housewives.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy <I'm not female OR a politican> Whoa, me neither! Small world. ;-)
Originally Posted By onlyme ^^^always quick with the one-liners, eh. I should clarify that, first off, there is absolutely nothing wrong with a person, female or not, being strong, direct, or harsh, especially if you are a politican who happens to be female. Second, there is absolutley nothing wrong with being either soft-spoken or refined. In fact, all of the above attributes can be combined together to make a very complete person. Lastly, there is absolutly nothing wrong with being a housewife. I certainly did not mean to assume that.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> NO mention of Sen. Boxer's attack on the nation's first black female Secretary of State << "Attack"? The latest GOP talking point. And it's not flying. But it's completely in keeping for the GOP to try to whip scandal out of nothing. >> But Sen. Clinton and Barbara Boxer are NOT ladies, in the strictest sense of the word anyway. << You like your 'ladies' to be demure and deferential, perhaps?
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy I didn't get that from you, I knew what you meant. Some feminists trying to make it in areas more traditionally masculine (note, "some") do feel that they have to exaggerate qualities stereotypically thought of as masculine to succeed in male-driven territories such as politics or business---strong, direct, harsh. They feel they have to magnify those to be taken seriously and not be brushed off. Of course, sometimes it can make them look like complete...well...you know whats. lol
Originally Posted By ecdc >>And there was certainly NO mention of Sen. Boxer's attack on the nation's first black female Secretary of State on the same week as Dr. King's holiday. So much for solidarity among the sisters.<< Maybe that's because the only people who think it was an "attack" are the 30% or so still hanging desperately on to supporting the administration. If posts like this are what Republicans have, then I guess the consensus is that "desperate times call for desperate measures." Democrats have plenty of faults, but until the administration gets out of Iraq (or comes up with a miracle fix), then just about anything Democrats do will pale in comparison.
Originally Posted By JohnS1 What America really wants to know is what these powerful, important senators feel about wearing pink to official state dinners.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy Well if there were a Senator Iola Boylen from Raytown, she'd be right pleased. <a href="http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e3/200px-21338IolaB.jpg" target="_blank">http://content.answers.com/mai n/content/wp/en/thumb/e/e3/200px-21338IolaB.jpg</a> ;-)
Originally Posted By gadzuux <a href="http://www.glennbeck.com/picoftheday/03-01-04-pod.jpg" target="_blank">http://www.glennbeck.com/picof theday/03-01-04-pod.jpg</a> Pink - it's the new black!
Originally Posted By DAR To expect Diane Sawyer to give anything but softball questions to the mostly Democratic female senators is to expect Sean Hannity to do the same to anyone in the Republican party.
Originally Posted By TALL Disney Guy My mom went to the same church as Diane Sawyer in childhood. For what it's worth. Which prob'ly ain't much.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 <That's a long way to go for just another partisan attack.> ROTFLMAO! Just one sentence and you nailed it.
Originally Posted By Ursula I also watched the "event" this morning. I don't know what I expected, but I seemed to miss a core, or a center, of WHY they needed to do this. I am a fan of Diane Sawyer and I do enjoy most of her morning show offerings. Maybe I expected something solid, or something of substance. I've seen her ask the things that I would ask, so I was a bit disappointed she didn't delve very deep. My first thought after the interview was: would they ever have a group of male senators together and ask what it was like to be a male senator? And that is why I think we have a long way to go to be equal. Best thing I came away with: the quote that Orville Wright never had a pilot's certificate.
Originally Posted By DAR <<That's a long way to go for just another partisan attack.>>> <<ROTFLMAO! Just one sentence and you nailed it.>> And there's never been partisian attacks from the other side in this section, please.
