No, of course the Democratic Party in Washington doesn't have a problem with the real or perceived masculinity of its male senators and congressmen.
Absolutely not. What in the world are you talking about?
You're all excited just because Maureen Dowd calls Barack Obama "Obambi," had to listen to him complain to her because she wrote that his ears are big (he's sennnnnnsitive about them, y'know), and told him that she's trying to "toughen him up."
So?
Oh, and you still remember Al Gore bringing in Naomi Wolf in to help him during the early stages of his 2000 presidential campaign because:
..... he is a beta male, a subordinate figure, and must learn to become an alpha male, or leader of the pack, before the public can accept him as President .....
Your point is?
And I'll just bet you're going to try to make hay out of that Sunday New York Times Week in Review feature (requires registration) about the new Democratic Alpha Males:
What? ......
You think the Times is implying that most or all of the Democratic males already serving in Washington AREN'T Alpha Males?
How can you THINK that?
I just knew you'd be all over these items in the Times story. I bolded the key words so I'd be ready for you:
The members of this new faction, which helped the Democrats expand into majority status, stand out not for their ideology or racial background but for their carefully cultivated masculinity.
The return of Democratic manliness was no accident; it was a carefully planned strategy. But now that the Macho Dems are walking the halls of Congress, it remains to be seen whether they will create as many problems for Democrats as they solved. After all, these new Democrats have heterodox political views that could complicate Democratic caucus politics, and their success may raise uncomfortable questions for those Democrats who don’t pass the new macho test.
“Joe Sestak — that guy’s muscular!” says Mr. Lapp. “He’s a vice admiral. I’ve told him to spend a lot of time going on the national talk shows. He can really do a service changing the mold and the way the Democratic Party is viewed.”
The roots of the Macho Dem strategy can be found in the party’s 2004 losses when Democrats decided that their post-9/11 candidates needed to exude strength above all else.
Adds the Democratic strategist James Carville, “The fact that the party has come across as less — I don’t want to say less masculine — but certainly less aggressive than Republicans, is true.”
Just as these female faces are solidifying the perception of the Democrats as the party of women — the gender gap still exists — the Macho Dems are adding a dash of testosterone, which could add some cultural frisson to the party.
See, I just knew that you'd assume that the Times meant that the male Dems who were already holding office in Washington aren't sufficiently (in order of bold text appearance):
- masculine
- manly
- macho
- muscular
- strong
- masculine (again)
- aggressive
- possessing testosterone.
The Times obviously isn't implying any of those things. CAN'T YOU READ?
And finally, I'm sure you didn't miss the Times article's early take on 2008 in the Democratic party, so here it is:
The leading presidential candidates — Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton — may not score that high on the Alpha meter. And in the past, when Democrats believed their candidate was a true hero — well, just remember how the Republican Party was able to portray John Kerry. It could be a warning sign for Democrats: live by the Macho Dem creed, die by it.
What? You don't think Democrats will allow their new Alpha Males to be Alpha Males, at least for long, and that even our favorite paper, the New York Times, can sense that?
That's not a nice thing to say .....
You're really hurting my feelings.
Go away -- Next thing you know, you're going to be calling Democrats the Party of Pansies, and that even our apparatch-, er, friends in the media think so.
I still haven't gotten over Arnold Schwarzenegger calling California's Democratic legislators a bunch of girlie-men a couple of years ago .....
That was really mean .....
You'll have to excuse me ..... I'm feeling a need to ..... oh, you wouldn't understand .....
____________________________
UPDATE: (sniff) I'm back. Now you're telling me that the Times might have taken the article's main graphic off of its home page so quickly (before Noon ET on Sunday) because some of its male subscribers whi-, er, complained about it? Don't be silly -- the guy who's trying to sell the bar he owns that has a million pennies in it is obviously of much more interest to Times readers.
____________________________
Cross-posted at BizzyBlog.com.
