Barack and very pretty Kamala

[piston]

Even though other attorney-generals may not like it, I agree with the president that CA's attorney-general is the prettiest. Am I sexist?:

[jbuck919]

Oh come, on! We've only had one other female Attorney General, and this is what she looked like.



It does seem true that Obama is not afraid to be a little less than PC when it comes to the ladies, and I'm surprised he has not been called out on it before. When he introduced Sonia Sotomayor as his nominee, he addressed her as "Sonia." He would never have done that with a male judge. In fact, he probably would not have used direct address in his speech at all if the nominee had been a man.

However, I daresay that when it is coming from him, the ladies in question do not mind.

[piston]

No, John. There are currently several other women serving as state attorney general, including in Maine. Here is Florida's: I bet she ain't too happy with Barack's comment!

[jbuck919]

Oh my, look at what has happened:


The New York Times

April 5, 2013
Obama Apologizes for Praising Female Official’s Looks
By MICHAEL D. SHEAR

WASHINGTON — President Obama late Thursday night called Kamala Harris, the California attorney general, and apologized to her for saying that she is the “best-looking attorney general in the country.”

Mr. Obama made the comment on Thursday morning at a fund-raiser outside San Francisco. He praised Ms. Harris as being “brilliant,” adding, “she is dedicated and she is tough” before commenting on her looks. “She also happens to be by far the best-looking attorney general in the country,” the president told the wealthy donors, who responded with surprise and applause.

There was a quick reaction on social media sites, with some people accusing Mr. Obama of being sexist and others defending his comment as harmless.

But the president’s aides apparently knew the potential for political damage. Soon after Air Force One returned Mr. Obama from his West Coast fund-raising trip, he called Ms. Harris and apologized, according to Jay Carney, the White House press secretary.

“You know, they are old friends and good friends,” Mr. Carney said, “and he did not want in any way to diminish the attorney general’s professional accomplishments and her capabilities.”

Mr. Carney repeatedly remarked on Ms. Harris’s abilities, calling her “a remarkably effective leader as attorney general” and “an excellent attorney general” who has “done great work.” The president, Mr. Carney said, “fully recognizes the challenge women continue to face in the workplace and that they should not be judged based on appearance.”

If Ms. Harris was offended, she did not say. But others did on her behalf. Robin Abcarian wrote on the Web site of The Los Angeles Times that the comment was “more wolfish than sexist,” and “may be a little problem he needs to work on.”

Joan Walsh wrote on Salon that “my stomach turned over” when she heard about the comment. “Those of us who’ve fought to make sure that women are seen as more than ornamental — and that includes the president — should know better than to rely on flattering the looks of someone as formidable as Harris,” she said.

Ms. Harris, 48, was elected to the statewide office in 2010 after serving two terms as district attorney of San Francisco. She is the first woman to hold the post and the first with African-American and South Asian heritage. Her name has come up as a possible candidate for governor or even for the United States Supreme Court if another seat is vacated during Mr. Obama’s second term. She has been an ally of the president’s, speaking at the Democratic National Convention that renominated him last year.

[living_stradivarius]

Why apologize?

[jbuck919]

Why apologize?

One does perhaps have to imagine the shoe on the other foot. Suppose that Sotomayor had accepted her nomination with an appreciation for being nominated by one of the most attractive men ever to hold the presidency (which in some people's eyes Obama in fact is).

[piston]

"Why apologize" (except to Michelle)? Totally agree! Let women call a man attractive and men do the same, whatever the public reaction. Obama has good taste. A beautiful woman is a beautiful woman. End of story.

[piston]

Which simply means that if we ever have a female president, she can make that kind of comment too about the other sex.

Nothing to be slapped on the knuckles for.

[Teresa B]

No, John. There are currently several other women serving as state attorney general, including in Maine. Here is Florida's: I bet she ain't too happy with Barack's comment!

That would be because Pam Bondi ain't happy with anything relating to Barack Obama. She is very anti-Obama, and was prominent in our state's unsuccessful effort to overturn Obamacare.

Teresa

[piston]

Let me go one step further: I think that Palin is a good looking woman but that her mind looks to me like a skunk road kill. It isn't sexist to admire beauty. But it is sexist to lust for beauty without any consideration for a person's intellectual attributes.

[Ricordanza]

Let me go one step further: I think that Palin is a good looking woman but that her mind looks to me like a skunk road kill. It isn't sexist to admire beauty. But it is sexist to lust for beauty without any consideration for a person's intellectual attributes.

Perfectly stated! I agree.

By the way, along with admiring her intellectual attributes, I'd also nominate Pennsylvania's Kathleen Kane as an example of a good-looking Attorney General.

[lennygoran]

Nothing to be slapped on the knuckles for.

Have to disagree--it's a good thing an aide recognized the potential danger for him politically and I'm glad he apologized--not the first time he made a silly comment that could have gotten him in trouble.

Regards, Len

[John F]

On the other hand, he'll never again have to win an election (so they say), so he literally has nothing to lose. And speaking of elections, Kamala Harris's looks can have done her no harm in winning election as California's attorney general. Yes, it's an elective post out there.

Except in the governor's mansion, which by the way the governor doesn't live in, women have the political muscle in California, with two senators and the Democratic leader in the House. If Jerry Brown doesn't run for reelection, Kamala Harris may have a go - if she isn't first appointed to the Supreme Court. Yes, there's already talk of that, and with Ruth Bader Ginsberg in dodgy health and possibly wanting to step aside while a Democrat is in the White House, it could happen soon.

[jbuck919]

On the other hand, he'll never again have to win an election (so they say), so he literally has nothing to lose. And speaking of elections, Kamala Harris's looks can have done her no harm in winning election as California's attorney general. Yes, it's an elective post out there.

Except in the governor's mansion, which by the way the governor doesn't live in, women have the political muscle in California, with two senators and the Democratic leader in the House. If Jerry Brown doesn't run for reelection, Kamala Harris may have a go - if she isn't first appointed to the Supreme Court. Yes, there's already talk of that, and with Ruth Bader Ginsberg in dodgy health and possibly wanting to step aside while a Democrat is in the White House, it could happen soon.

Would be a great move. I doubt that the Republicans will risk doing another Susan Rice on Harris.

[lennygoran]

On the other hand, he'll never again have to win an election (so they say), so he literally has nothing to lose.

Could hurt him when he's nominated for Chief Justice of the Supreme Court a/la William Howard Taft.
Regards, Len

[John F]

Naah, he'd only have to be confirmed by the Senate, and somehow I don't think Senators Feinstein and Boxer will vote against him because he complimented Kamala Harris on her looks. Maybe because he hasn't complimented them on theirs...

[piston]

What did Californians vote for when they elected Arnold Scharwarzenegger if not image. looks, external projection, macho man? Perhaps they should have all been slapped on the knuckles for being so sexist?!!!

[piston]

I hope you understand what I am saying. If men can play their masculine images to the fullest, even when they ain't the brightest light in the park, why do we expect women in the political sphere to look like Mother Theresa?!!

[John F]

What did Californians vote for when they elected Arnold Scharwarzenegger if not image. looks, external projection, macho man? Perhaps they should have all been slapped on the knuckles for being so sexist?!!!

Californians vote for show business celebrities, regardless of the muscles: Ronald Reagan, George Murphy (the song and dance man in the movies), Schwarzenegger, Sonny Bono, Clint Eastwood. New Yorkers vote for political celebrities, regardless of where they're actually from: Robert Kennedy, Hilary Clinton. Name recognition counts for more than it should.

[piston]

Forgive me but Californians do not vote for any show business celeb! They vote for certain images associated with certain celebs.

[piston]

A good socio. study there: why, exactly, did Californians elect Reagan as Governor?....

[John F]

Forgive me but Californians do not vote for any show business celeb! They vote for certain images associated with certain celebs.

Is there a real difference here? I don't see that George Murphy had any image other than Hollywood movie star, and Sonny Bono? I ask you. Have any show biz celebrities run for public office in California and not been elected?

[lennygoran]

Have any show biz celebrities run for public office in California and not been elected?

Christopher Allan Mitchum (born October 16, 1943), is an American actor and politician. He was born in Los Angeles, California, the second son of film star Robert Mitchum and his wife Dorothy. He is also the younger brother of actor James Mitchum. He ran for Congress in 2012, but lost, though he intends to run again.


Ralph Waite (Democrat) (unsuccessful nominee for U.S. House of Representatives)

Withdrawal from race--didn't run in Ca. though.
Fred Thompson was a Republican Party primary candidate to represent his party in the 2008 United States presidential election. ...On January 22, 2008, after finishing third in South Carolina — a primary which he publicly said he needed to win — Thompson announced his withdrawal from the race. In a statement released by his campaign, Thompson said, "Today, I have withdrawn my candidacy for president of the United States. I hope that my country and my party have benefited from our having made this effort." He did not immediately endorse any of the remaining candidates,[39] but in February 2008 endorsed John McCain.[40]

Regards, Len

[slofstra]

I wondered if this would come up on the Corner Pub, after we had a very similar debate concerning the appointment of a nubile young violinist, who received world-wide notice more for her looks than her violin playing. Although she is apparently a very good violinist, most appointments at her level of importance do not receive anywhere the same media notice that this occasioned. Still, in our day and age, a wonderful cheesecake photo will attract far more notice than an issue of substance. And if it is just a cheesecake photo of a movie starlet, then who really cares. But when classical music, or even worse, affairs of State, are deprecated to mainly issues of looks and other frippery, then that's a bit sad in my view.
I am somewhat tapped into a radical feminist rhetoric through some of the younger women that my kids know. I understand the sensibility, although I don't necessarily buy into the response, which tends along lines like these:

And somewhat in line with the poster that the young woman is holding, the entire problem is not sexuality itself, but the objectification of women in the service of sex. There is no problem with acknowledging sexual attractiveness where it exists. The problem is that male dominated rhetoric privileges sexual attraction over professional competence. And we keep demonstrating the truth of that. We really don't care that much about how competent a woman is in her job; we care much more that she is sexually attractive. If that is to be untrue, then we have to clearly demonstrate it, by what we say or do. And we don't.
Context is everything. When a woman receives recognition because of her abilities it's simply bad form, in this day and age, to bring her looks into it. Young women immediately pall at it, and we older men sound like dinosaurs when seen through the eyes of young women like those pictured above. In professional life today we just shouldn't really talk about people's looks at all; in personal or private life, or even the entertainment world, it's an entirely different question. Serious professional life requires the sublimation of sexual attraction in order to focus on solving problems and also on human achievement and accomplishment.
It's a big mistake to brush off these objections as prudishness. In fact, the present day rhetoric around sexual matters and these issues would make a sailor blush, so that's certainly not it. The objection has everything to do with the subjection of women in history, and the vestiges of attitudes in culture and language that enforced that subjection. For many women, Obama's comments tap into those attitudes. Sure, the reaction is often over the top, that's political correctness, but I think there is substance to the objection. I wouldn't be dismissive of it.

[John F]

Have any show biz celebrities run for public office in California and not been elected?

Christopher Allan Mitchum...

Ralph Waite...

These are celebrities?! Never heard of 'em. I've heard of Christopher Mitchum's father, though. Now he was a celebrity.

It seems he has made loads of movies but is most appreciated abroad; Wikipedia says he has won both The Golden Horse Award (Chinese Academy Award, 1981–1982), and The Golden Reel, Best Actor (1988, Indonesia). But maybe there are some Christopher Mitchum fans here who will say he is indeed a celebrity and not just a movie actor.

Ralph Waite was in "The Waltons" and has been in a lot of movies; I don't know if that really qualifies him as a celebrity - movie buffs would have to tell me. But after failing in a challenge to a Republican incumbent, he was then twice defeated by Sonny Bono's widow, riding on the coat-tails of her late husband's celebrity; when a celebrity runs against a celebrity, the loser is bound to be a celebrity.

You're a real virtuoso searching out information like this, Lenny. Good going!

[jbuck919]

California and Minnesota--what are we to make of that combo?

[piston]

Arianna Huffington says "Lighten up, America" and quotes G.K. Chesterton:

"If there is one thing worse that the modern weakening of major morals, it is the modern strengthening of minor morals."

The day we can no longer express anything about someone's good looks in politics will be a day of victory only for those who seek conformity to their own moral standards.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/04/0 ... f=politics

[piston]

And here is a statement from Kamala Harris about Obama, back in 2009:

Harris, it turns out, once commented on Obama's appearance. The San Jose Mercury News found a 2009 YouTube video in which she says: "He looks and he sounds like a million bucks."

Is there any doubt, Henry, that there was a good measure of 1968 Trudeaumania in Obama's own rise to political power?

And what was Trudeaumania if not as much or more about looks than about substance for numerous female Canadian voters?

[John F]

It's generally believed that John F. Kennedy's and Richard Nixon's looks, in the first televised presidential debate, helped tip the balance toward Kennedy. There was more to it than that, of course, but it was not insignificant.

[lennygoran]

California and Minnesota--what are we to make of that combo?

Now you got me thinking about Jesse "The Body" Ventura.! Regards, Len

[RebLem]

On the other hand, he'll never again have to win an election (so they say), so he literally has nothing to lose. And speaking of elections, Kamala Harris's looks can have done her no harm in winning election as California's attorney general. Yes, it's an elective post out there.

Except in the governor's mansion, which by the way the governor doesn't live in, women have the political muscle in California, with two senators and the Democratic leader in the House. If Jerry Brown doesn't run for reelection, Kamala Harris may have a go - if she isn't first appointed to the Supreme Court. Yes, there's already talk of that, and with Ruth Bader Ginsberg in dodgy health and possibly wanting to step aside while a Democrat is in the White House, it could happen soon.

Kamala Harris has taken too many positions on hot-button issues to avoid a GOPer filibuster against any nomination to the SCOTUS. The only way you can get a liberal chosen for such a job is if it is that of a sitting US Senator who the filibusterers will have to face every working day if they succeed. That's one reason I think Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) would make a good nominee. Another is that she is a Congregationalist, and could therefore help to redress what I consider the unhealthy lack of relgious balance on the current SCOTUS.

[lennygoran]

could therefore help to redress what I consider the unhealthy lack of relgious balance on the current SCOTUS.

Could you elaborate on this--I wasn't aware of any such lack? Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

could therefore help to redress what I consider the unhealthy lack of relgious balance on the current SCOTUS.

Could you elaborate on this--I wasn't aware of any such lack? Regards, Len

Six of the current justices are Catholic, while three are Jewish. However, the Catholics range from Scalia, who would probably entertain a case to uphold a law restricting access to contraception (he is proud of the fact that his family never practiced it), to the divorced Sotomayor, who would surely never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Rob, we are being speculative here, of course, but my point about Harris was that the Republicans would think twice about filibustering a black woman when they nixed another black woman's nomination with the threat of a filibuster. They might go out and kick a few, um, fire hydrants at the thought of acquiescing to Harris, but if the alternative is to have to defend against charges of race-sexsim, they might just publicly grin and bear it, especially since she would be replacing another liberal. Now if Clarence Thomas dies of a heart attack or some such thing, it will be another story.

Incidentally, Kamala Harris is reportedly a Baptist, which covers a wide range of possibilities from mainline Protestantism to evangelical fundamentalism.

[lennygoran]

could therefore help to redress what I consider the unhealthy lack of relgious balance on the current SCOTUS.

Could you elaborate on this--I wasn't aware of any such lack? Regards, Len

Six of the current justices are Catholic, while three are Jewish. However, the Catholics range from Scalia, who would probably entertain a case to uphold a law restricting access to contraception (he is proud of the fact that his family never practiced it), to the divorced Sotomayor, who would surely never vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Is the first part of your message answering my question--I thank you if it is but still don't understand--where does religion fit in picking a Supreme Court Justice--why the need to put a Congregationalist on the court. What if I were nominated--am I to be considered a Jew or an agnostic--iow I don't understand where religion fits in picking our justices? I'm probably just confused but could you elaborate on this? Regards, Len

[jbuck919]

SALON

May 31, 2009

Are six Catholics too many for the Supreme Court?
Not if one is a divorced Latina. Sotomayor would be a positive influence on the court's five male Catholics.
By Frances Kissling


Are six Catholics too many for the Supreme Court?Archbishop of Washington Donald Wuerl greets Associate Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia after the celebration of the Red Mass at St. Matthews Cathedral in Washington, DC, October 5, 2008. The Red Mass is celebrated at the start of the Supreme Court term.

If Sonia Sotomayor is confirmed as an associate justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, six of the nine justices will be Roman Catholic. Two of the other three justices, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer, are Jewish. John Paul Stevens, at age 89 the oldest and longest-serving justice, would be the only Protestant left on the court. Should that worry us?

No. After all, for most of the court’s 220-year history, all the members were white Protestant males. Only 11 Catholics have served on the court, two African-Americans, two women, and seven Jews. Why not a non-Protestant majority for a while?

If anybody should be worrying about the sixth Catholic on the court, it’s the five who are already there. The Catholic men on the court — Samuel Alito, Anthony Kennedy, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — all seem cut from the same traditional Catholic (and Federalist Society conservative) mold. In the Gonzales v. Carhart decision of 2006, the five men constituted the majority in the 5-4 vote to uphold the federal ban on partial-birth abortions. A year later, they again formed an all-male, all-Catholic majority in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire, ruling that women can be screwed out of equal pay for equal work if they don’t demand equal pay soon enough. (President Barack Obama and the Democratic Congress nullified that decision nine days into the Obama administration with the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act.)

It might be really instructive for these five guys to be forced to hang out with a divorced Latina with no kids — a woman who, as the White House delicately put it, “was raised Catholic and attends church for family celebrations and special events.” Especially because the experience is likely to change Sotomayor as well — and make her an even more formidable counterweight to the male Catholic bloc.

There is nothing more likely to radicalize a “moderate” Catholic woman of even marginal religiosity than daily exposure to Catholic men who think women need to be protected from making money or from making bad and sad abortion choices. Sotomayor, the valedictorian of Cardinal Spellman High School in the Bronx, may feel she’s been transported back in time. She will quickly get her fill of rigid , non-empathic, just-don’t-get-it, one-step-removed-from-Catholic-school, hold-out-your-hands-for-a-few-whacks-of-the-ruler decisions.

Perhaps, over time, Sotomayor can even convince the boys that who they are influences what they decide. It is nearly incomprehensible that deeply religious people can insist that their beliefs are not an integral part of the way they think, feel and act — especially since religious faiths are full of explicit guidance on how to think, feel and act. Yet that’s what they claim.

One of the leaders of the gang, Antonin Scalia, is especially deep in denial. In an address at Villanova Law School in October 2007, he informed us that he thinks identity is irrelevant. “There is no such thing as a ‘Catholic judge,’” said the Catholic judge. “The bottom line is that the Catholic faith seems to me to have little effect on my work as a judge … Just as there is no Catholic way to cook a hamburger, I am hard-pressed to tell you of a single opinion of mine that would have come out differently if I weren’t a Catholic.”

When questioned during the confirmation process, all of these Catholics, one after the other, insisted religion had nothing to do with how they did law. In September 2005, Roberts told the Senate Judiciary Committee, “My faith and religious beliefs do not play a role in judging. When it comes to judging, I look to the law books and always have. I don’t look to the Bible or any other religious source.”

“My obligation as a judge,” Alito reassured the same committee not long thereafter, “is to interpret and apply the Constitution and the laws of the United States and not my personal religious beliefs.”

Roberts and Alito were not simply asked idle philosophical questions about the relationship of their religious beliefs and obligations and their oath of office. Their confirmation hearings were being conducted at a time when Catholic policymakers had been told by church authorities that they had no right as Catholics to make judgments about abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage and euthanasia that varied from church positions. In this context, it would be irresponsible for the senators not to ask Catholics if they believed they needed to comply with those directives. And we all have a right under those circumstances to decide that we don’t want to risk supporting justices or senators or presidents who operate under such religious discipline.

There would be nothing wrong with asking Sonia Sotomayor the same kinds of questions. We already know she’s been willing, in the past, to admit the obvious, that identity informs lawmaking. There’s no doubt that Republican senators will be asking her — quite eagerly — how her background shapes her thinking. Let’s see if she’s more forthcoming than the boys.

Enough, however, is enough. If we believe that diversity is a value on the court, then there can be no more Catholics — male or female, any ethnicity, I don’t care. Six is enough. No more Catholics till somebody else gets a turn. Maybe even a white Protestant male.

Frances Kissling is a visiting scholar at the Center for Bioethics at the University of Pennsylvania. She is the former president of Catholics for a Free Choice.

http://www.salon.com/2009/05/31/supreme_court_9/

[lennygoran]

SALON

May 31, 2009

Are six Catholics too many for the Supreme Court?
Not if one is a divorced Latina. Sotomayor would be a positive influence on the court's five male Catholics.
By Frances Kissling

I enjoyed this article--thanks for posting it! Regards, Len

[slofstra]

And here is a statement from Kamala Harris about Obama, back in 2009:

Harris, it turns out, once commented on Obama's appearance. The San Jose Mercury News found a 2009 YouTube video in which she says: "He looks and he sounds like a million bucks."

Is there any doubt, Henry, that there was a good measure of 1968 Trudeaumania in Obama's own rise to political power?

And what was Trudeaumania if not as much or more about looks than about substance for numerous female Canadian voters?

Fortunately, there was a good deal of substance as well. I do see your point. For example, the success of a classical musician is not based solely on ability. Persona, charisma, charm, body language, looks, all come into the question of success for the solo artist. However, commenting on that question, as Obama did, can be read or perceived in different ways than the speaker intends. To tell you the truth I'm not sure I have any problem with Obama's comments but I've only paid passing attention to the item. However, those kinds of comments when made by a male are often perceived in this manner: I don't care how good an attorney general you are, the fact you would be a good lay is much more important to me. I know that sounds coarse, but right or wrong, that's how comments like that are often perceived. Of course, that is not was intended by the speaker, but that's how it's received by the hearer.
Have you ever watched television programs from the 50s and 60s in recent times? The boyish way women were leered at in some of those shows simply wouldn't happen today. Remember when men would say "ooh la la" or "oo wee" and make two opposing S like motions with their arms to outline a woman's body shape, whenever they saw a particularly attractive woman? Guys don't really do that any more, at least not on TV. I suppose locker room talk has not changed, but what's acceptable in public discourse certainly has. (I remember doing that when I was about 11 or 12 with a chum, with reference to an especially attractive Sunday school teacher. To my horror I found that she was standing directly behind me. But then I was surprised to see her with a giant smile on her face. I guess she was actually flattered.) Anyway, in this day and age you have to be somewhat careful what you say to, and about, women.

[piston]

I seem to recall that Trudeau had a heated exchange with Gloria Steinem early in his political career in which the word "bitch" may have been uttered. And, you know, the world did not stop turning because of that word. The reason, I think, is because both activists, and they were, understood that they were trying to change society for the better, for major moral issues, not minor moral standards.

I guess that's why some people, in characterizing male response to feminism, refer to a contrast between male "wimps" and male "pricks." A male "pr/ck" is not necessarily anti-women's rights; but he is a person who is not willing to be intimidated by any minor moral standard....

A male chauvinist pig or redneck, now, that's a whole different story.