One day into the news cycle on Jeanine Pirro’s challenge to Hillary Clinton‘s Senate seat, and already some predictably sexist language:
“Hard-charging prosecutor Jeanine Pirro announced plans yesterday to run against U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton and wasted no time baring her claws – accusing the former First Lady of using New York to pave her return to the White House.” –New York Daily News
“Woman Prosecutor to Challenge Clinton for NY Senate” –Reuters (emphasis mine)
“In People, Pirro said her mother had taught her the importance of looking good in politics. “A woman needs to be put together more than a man,” she said. “If she isn’t, she looks like she’s not up for the job. There’s a different standard. Those are the rules, and I have to live by them.” –Reuters
(Maybe instead of an election we could just have a slap-fest. Hot 97 could officiate.)
The New York Times has the right response in an editorial today:
And another caveat: it would be nice if everyone could agree right now not to characterize the race as a “catfight.” This is not the first time two strong women have competed for a top political job or even a United States Senate seat. Washington State and Louisiana come to mind as states that broke that ice long ago. In a place as theoretically advanced as New York, having two female candidates should be very stale news.
I have to say that, even though it should be commonplace by now, it’s still great to see a race in which both candidates are pro-choice women. NARAL gave each a 100 percent rating on choice in her previous campaign. But after Clinton’s “common ground” and Pirro’s recent flip-flop, pro-choicers are going to have to hold their feet to the fire.
Media call “catfight,” I call bullshit
By Ann | Published: August 10, 2005
permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.. Bookmark the