Comments on: McCollum moves (her part) to the right

By: staticnoise

staticnoise — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 18:08:30 +0000

Not news, not interesting, not worth the time to leave a comme…

By: Shannon

Shannon — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 16:44:42 +0000

Re: double take – to be fair, this article does link to another piece about T-Paw’s mullet. Granted, this type of story is overwhelmingly about female politicians, which I do agree is sexist. It would be nice to see equal attention spent on the appearances of politicians of all genders, or no attention at all.

By: double take

double take — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 05:55:07 +0000

These are the kinds of stories that many were hoping to see less of after Sen. Clinton became a serious contender for U.S. President. It reminds me of “news” stories early in the campaign about Hillary’s cleavage or Hillary’s hair or Hillary’s getitshe’sawomanandnotaman. Reporters need to ask themselves why they consider the appearance of female politicians more important than the appearance of male politicians.

By: Chris Steller

Chris Steller — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 00:33:50 +0000

Posted for a commenter who goes by the name Impeccable Liberal-Credentials: "Not related to hairstyle but failure to support HR 676, a call on SPIF for primary challenge to McCollum. I wrote about it on dailyKos." Also, Lindsay at Female Impersonators has some choice words for this post ... five in particular: Hairstyles are not political news.