A new episode of “Joan of Arcadia”!
Some people get way too personal with their blogs, according to “My So-Called Blog” in the NY Times Magazine this weekend. Teenagers blogging treat their blogs like diaries, airing out everything (their angst, their secret crushes, etc. – as if anyone cares? Or, maybe that’s the point – they get some “privacy”). So, they know their thoughts get out into the public, but still essentially believe that their thoughts are “private.” Is that appropriate? Are the 21st century’s teenagers assuming too much about their privacy when they blog, because they somehow can draw the line between the virtual world and the real world? Good for them, but is it good for the rest of us? I guess that’s the blog culture for you, but this is what makes me glad that Triscribe isn’t really like that.
Some people also take the candidates’ wardrobe way too seriously. Apparently, the media has been noticing that Wesley Clark has taken to wearing sweaters instead of his suits. Tonight, even the Lehrer Newshour commentators (Mark Shields and David Brooks) referred to Clark’s sweater as his “Mr. Rogers” look. Brooks’ take on it is that Clark’s going to get the “King Friday” endorsement. I’m, like, “huh?” I know it was PBS and all, but it was a bit much on the wit on Brooks’ part. Personally, I think Clark looked better in his suits, since he would look sharper and more presidential. Or, really, why don’t we just stick with looking at the candidates’ policies and positions rather than their clothes?
Plus, today’s NY Times also has this analysis that Clark is trying to portray himself in a “softer” way with his sweaters, to win over women voters. As a woman, I find that borderline offensive – are we women perceived as so lacking in thinking capability such that we need commercials to explain to us that the General supports women? Is it just because women are allegedly “put off by the military persona” – that arena dominated by men? (an aside: umm, well, you know, women serve(d) in Clark’s army; surely I’m not the only woman who knows that!).
Nonetheless, according the Times’ article, apparently the voters in New Hampshire need a commercial with an African-American female major (retired) who served under Clark to tell them that Clark supports women _and_ minorities – the double bind thing that particularly affects women of color: shameless pandering, I daresay! I’m not sure if the media (or the Clark/Democratic campaign) really thinks or portrays the public is that unsophisticated, or if the public really is that dim about Clark, women, and voting generally. However, maybe this should be an opportunity to educate the public that has a disconnection from what the military is: women and minorities are very much a part of today’s military – something that isn’t just a white male bastion – which Clark probably already knew. Food for thought, I guess.