Two Reuters articles today. Two different standards in the headings for the potential first ladies.

[bigtree]

Reuters editors want readers to adopt the view that Cindy McCain 'fits' the role of first lady but Michelle Obama's image is contrived in these two articles today . . .


Michelle Obama softens image for U.S. first lady role

http://www.reuters.com/article/vcCandidateFeed7/idUSTRE4A00VJ20081101


Cindy McCain fits the role of first lady

http://www.reuters.com/article/politicsNews/idUSTRE4A00VB20081101


The contrast between these two headings is the result of a deep ignorance which I find utterly inexcusable. It's hard to believe that it wasn't a deliberate juxtaposition. In the Obama article there is ample evidence that Michelle Obama is more than equipped to assume the role of First Lady.

I don't know how they reason that she's just now assuming the role of mother and advocate and that it's some kind of cynical role, rather than the personality and character she's always possessed and portrayed. This is just a despicable manipulation by Reuters' editors. Typical.

[jpertello]

1. Interesting because Cindy

has no idea what she'd do as FL besides model clothing. She is an empty $300,000 dress.

Have you ever heard her utter a word about a pet project?

[bigtree]

3. from the Reuters article

"McCain is a former rodeo queen and cheerleader who holds a master's degree in special education from the University of Southern California."

[Skinner]

2. I agree, despicable.

But not surprising.

[rebel with a cause]

4. Racism can be covert or overt,

and sometimes it is both. This is one of those times.

[dkf]

5. Now that is an example of the media being sexist.

The strong woman has to soften her image in order to be first lady while the passive one is a "fit". Ugh.

[NRaleighLiberal]

6. I think many are most comfortable with a Stepford wife in the role.

Cindy looks positively scary (and quite drugged) in the campaign clips of McGramps I've managed to watch.