Hillary Special « Wisdom of the Capybara

This just showed up in my inbox:

Hillary Special

Along with the message:

Even if you’re a Democrat, ya gotta appreciate this one. If someone told you about this, you might not believe it. AN ACTUAL KFC SIGN IN NEW YORK . .

I am (at least registered as) a Democrat, and I do find that pretty funny. However, as I guessed, Snopes is rather skeptical of its legitimacy.

While the history of the photo displayed above is not known to us, the age of the joke it make is. As far back as 1993 (when Hillary Rodham Clinton became First Lady), the jape has been made at her expense, with versions of it continuing to surface ever since.

We doubt this “disparagement by restaurant sign” is anything more than a visual expression of a long-running joke. While it does remain within the realm of possibility that a random employee at KFC did once quickly put that message on the store’s sign only for as long as it took for a photo to be taken (we still favor the “someone digitally added the text to an existing photograph of a KFC” theory ourselves), such a sign probably wouldn’t have remained up for long.

Snopes goes on to point out that the overtly partisan message would have driven customers away, as would the “fat thighs” comment as KFC changed its name from Kentucky Fried Chicken because of the health craze.

Snopes (and several other commentators I have heard) fairly notes that a jibe like this would never be made about a male candidate for president. Feminists would argue that making fun of her looks (which is completely irrelevant to her candidacy – name the last male candidate appearance was an issue for except maybe John Edwards) is an expression of frustration and marginalization from the patriarchal basis of our culture. I.e., strong woman = threatening, therefore we cut her down by attacking the qualities that used to count for everything precisely because people like Hillary are trying to change that power dynamic.

Is this true? Do we care? Does it matter?

My (somewhat tentative) answers: Yes, not particularly, and yes. While funny, I think jokes like this are very indicative of some of the cultural machinery working behind the scenes in America.

Thoughts?

frankbenji Says:

February 8, 2007 at 8:32 pm

Capy, you weren’t successful in posting the picture (I guess you’re not as tech savvy as I presumed)…Here’s one link to the picture: http://politicalhumor.about.com/library/images/blpic-hillarykfc.htm

Personally, I think the joke may be a little corny…In any case, I find it funny…For the thighs, I’m not sure if that’s not a compliment…

Fat in the sense of ‘full’ thighs, is a plus for the fairer sex, in many parts of the world (e.g. South Asia)…Now, the breast characterization is a tad bit dodgy, but I’m sure one could find a god-forsaken tribe in the Pacific that places a premium on pygmy-esque mammary glands…(paging cultural relativists here!)…

C’mon any presidential candidate is going to be subject to ridicule…Corny or not…Ever since the campaign that pit slave-banger Jefferson against stodgy Adams, I’m sure you can find cartoons/adverts that make fun of a candidate’s physical appearance…

The point is not that this is a good thing…Hardly…

But a certain coarseness is embedded in a democratic culture (as Tocqueville perceptively pointed out long before Hillary had her breast growth stunted – btw they aren’t that small are they?)…Part of running for public office in a democracy requires the test of being subject to intense public scrutiny, for both good and bad…That scrutiny involves partisan ridicule…False charges…Fiendish media on the loose…

It’s a bad mechanism, yes…But an effective one…Why? It requires a certain strength of character to go survive it…Maybe an abstract point, but important nonetheless (I opine)…

Bottomline: Ridicule of physical appearance is certainly not an honor reserved for women candidates only…Sen. Clinton knows it, I hope…She can, should – and will – expect much worse…So, feminists can shove it…Apologies to the dykes among them…

PS: If we want to keep such pictures out of the public discourse, how do we do it without infringing on free speech?

The opposite side may state that we shouldn’t have speech of such low caliber in public discourse in the first place…

Well, we can improve the education system, increase civic awareness…etc, etc…But that requires able leadership…Circular, innit?

We could, of course, just take the power of voting from the vulgar brutes…Only those with superior blogging skills can vote, I say…Then again, what are ’superior blogging skills’?

CapyBoppy Says:

February 9, 2007 at 6:21 am

Benji, various responses:

Pic should be fixed. There is an explanation for this that I won’t bore you with.

I wasn’t trying to moralize in the post. I actually agree with most of what you say (of course everyone takes a lot of shit in politics, yes it fine and just part of the game).

I certainly wasn’t implying that we should take steps to keep pictures like this out of the discourse; I challenge anyone to make that argument.

Ridicule of physical appearance is certainly not an honor reserved for women candidates only

This is where I might diverge from your point of view slightly. My point was rather narrow (and probably not very well expressed): the type of criticism that Hillary is taking is indicative of some of the underlying currents in American culture. Definitely not saying that anything can or should be done about it, just that latent partiarchic sentiments do exist.

Is Hillary hot? Definitely not. Is George Bush, or any other male candidate for that matter? Also definitely not. Yet how ridiculous would it be for someone to comment as much? It doesn’t happen.

So while I agree with your point that everyone gets made fun of, I would argue that different types of people get ridiculed for different reasons, but I don’t take that argument any further.

Leave it to Benji to make me of all people look like a closet feminist, lol…

roisred Says:

February 9, 2007 at 7:48 pm

Capy and Benji: A few thoughts,

I hate to disagree with you, Capy, but I think that people do comment on the media on the appearance of male candidates. When they do so, however, it is as part of a larger issue, not a stand-alone insult. John Edwards, for example, was described as “youthful” during the 2004 campaign and the question was raised whether he had the gravitas needed to be a viable candidate. Similar things were said about John Kennedy. Just this morning, I heard NPR discussing whether Barak Obama*, was too light skinned to be considered “black enough” by black voters. I myself have commented on whether President Bush’s facial expressions turn people off his ideas by being condescending and annoying.**

But I have never heard a comment on the size of a candidate’s penis, or their lack of muscle tone, or abundance of gut. While people might say Dick Cheney looks evil, I have never heard anyone say he is fat. I suppose it could be argued that NO appearance based comments are substantive, but I think that some are less substantive than others. Discussion about a candidate’s appearance in terms of disposition, character and image can give us clues about what kind of leader they will be, or at least what kind of leader they want us to think they will be. It can give us insights into the political image-making process, so that we can fight the system and try to think for ourselves.*** So I think that scrutiny of any candidate’s “image” is within the bounds of less-polite political discourse.

It would be more in line with the way male candidates are treated to have someone might comment on whether Sen. Clinton looked caring/smart/strong enough for the job than to comment purely on her body parts. Comments on demeanor and image candidates have to put up with, and should maybe even take into account, but a comment on the size of her breasts and thighs is someone no one should be expected to take without protest.

*Who is hot. Mock me as you will.
**Yes.
*** Should we so choose.

February 9, 2007 at 9:54 pm

Roisred,

Thanks for your comments; I actually don’t think we disagree, or rather, I agree with you.

February 10, 2007 at 12:52 am

I agree with Roisred that breast comments may be taking it too far…

Haven’t heard anything about male candidate’s penis size, though about abundance of gut, there’s been some discussion (for eg Bill Richardson losing a lot of weight)…Come to think of it perhaps, the fault is with guys…They don’t got no breasts…So how can the press and or whackos make fun of ‘em?

An accurate comparison with the male penis would be uhmmm…Let’s leave it to the imagination, and I haven’t heard any mockery on that…So maybe we are in disagreement still…