Au on McCain’s Shortness and Bad Clothes

Alan Au casts a critical eye at what John McCain is saying with his too-large jackets and old-man sweaters: Is 5’7″ John McCain Dressing For Defeat?

In a world dominated by visual images, McCain has the fortunate opportunity to have what every shorter actor wants on camera… a female costar that can make him look taller. McCain can look at least 5’9″ standing next to his lovely wife, if dressed in the right wardrobe. However, all too often it just looks like he’s trying to ride her coattails into the White House.

I highlight this only because of the nostalgic way it made me feel about the fashion coverage I offered during the Winona Ryder shoplifting trial. Well, okay. I also wanted to engage in some negative, low-road snark. We can’t let the McCain campaign have all the fun in that area, can we?

21 Responses to “Au on McCain’s Shortness and Bad Clothes”

  1. NorthernLite Says:

    I wouldn’t mind getting in on some negative, low-road snark.

    This is regarding the candidate forum from this past weekend.

    The host said explicitly at the beginning of the forum that McCain was in the “cone of silence” when in fact he did not know where he was (he wasn’t in the building when it started). For all we know he was somewhere listening to the questions being posed to Obama. What we do know for sure is that McCain wasn’t in the “cone of silence”.

    That is a lie in a church.

    Was shorty cheating?

  2. Steve Says:

    This kind of coverage strikes fear into the hearts of poorly dressed men everywhere (of which I am the worst).

    McCain shares my natural inclination for baggy clothes, but unlike me, shouldn’t McCain have a fashion adviser? Heck, couldn’t his wife buy his clothes for him?

  3. spicecakes69 Says:

    Now that it is OUT there that McComplain looks like an 80 year old little kid … there is plenty of room to hide the prompters in his ears for the debates …


  4. NorthernLite Says:

    My VP picks:

    I think Obama is going to surpirse the heck out of everyone and Hillary Clinton will be his running mate.

    I think McCain is going to choose Mitt Romney.

  5. shcb Says:

    I think you are right about Romney. A hint to look for if Clinton is his choice… if his arm is in a sling, the only way he will pick her is if she twists his arm to the point of ligament damage. my guess is Kathleen Sebelius

  6. knarlyknight Says:

    I’ll place my bet that shcb is right about this (Romney / Sebelius), even though I have actual real money riding on Hillary as VP over at HClinton for VP was a bet placed a long time ago that I’ve not been willing to cash in on to cut my losses, preferring to wait out the long odds just in case the dark horse comes through.

  7. NorthernLite Says:

    You guys really think Obama would diss Clinton’s supporters lke that by offering the job to woman other than her?

    I think he’s f*cked if he does that.

  8. shcb Says:

    I don’t think Obama wants to touch Hillary with a ten foot pole, (literally or figuratively) the one thing you want in a VP is someone that will not undercut you, not question your decisions, at least publicly. Hillary might do that for a year or two but she still has two terms as the first woman president coming to her. Can you imagine looking over your shoulder the entire 3rd year of your first term wondering if your VP was going to challenge you in the next election? And answering the press’ questions… “The First Black Man, Woman Race” sprawled across the front page of the NYTimes. And then we have her co-vice-president-who-never-has-to-worry-about-getting-relected-but–can-impress-the-chicks-with-a-ride-on-air-force-two husband Bill. Nuf said about him. You can count on one hand after a nasty industrial accident the number of Hillary voters he will lose by not nominating her.

    Side note to Enky (or was it NL) word 2007 catches my loose/lose mistake :-)

  9. knarlyknight Says:

    So it is Bidden, not Sebelius. Damn you shcb! just kidding

  10. shcb Says:

    Hey it’s the first time I’ve been wrong since the mid 80’s :-)

  11. shcb Says:

    you were going to lose you $5.00 in either case

  12. NorthernLite Says:

    Oops, I was worng, pretty good choice I think though.

    Yeah shcb, Word is grate, you don’t even kneed to no how two spell.


  13. shcb Says:

    with this 2007 you hardly have to get the words in the right order. that sentence you just wrote, you had more red green and blue lines than you can shake a stick at, the fun thing is to keep hitting that ignore button, it’s kind of like thumbing your nose at a second grade teacher with her girdle sinched a bit to tight.

  14. enkidu Says:

    hmmmm, I was hoping for Seibelius or even HRC(+billybob)
    Chuck Hagel would have been my second choice (put him in the cabinet mb?)

    Biden does fill the white haired ol white guy gap, but doesn’t deliver a state that wasn’t already going for Obama. I like Biden’s plain spoken nature. How many houses does he have?

    now McBush’s runningmate… maybe he should have Dick Cheney look into it, make a rec or something. I hope it is Mittens! Between the two of them they haven’t held a single position on anything, since, well, ever.

    Sydney n Willard vs Barry n Joe.

  15. enkidu Says:

    So… it is Palin and McCain
    so much for the inexperience argument

    maybe they thought there really were millions of pissed off pumas, or cougars or whatever, that would have voted for Hillary, but are now going to vote for a virulently anti-choice ticket. Ummm, you guys already had the anti-choice vote locked up, this gets you… ?

  16. NorthernLite Says:

    Can you say “backfire”?

    This now brings to the forefront the issue of McCain’s age and health problems and like you said, it pretty much turns the whole experience issue up on its head.

    Also, from what I’ve bee reading, many supporters of HRC seem insulted that McCain would think that just by picking some random woman they would automatically vote for him.

    On a positive note, it’s nice to see an election with different ages, genders and race’s.

    You guys should be especially proud of your country today. I would be.

  17. enkidu Says:

    an observation

    Last week we got a special edition of TIME magazine. “The Democrats” On the cover was a pic of Obama’s face, very close up. I read most of the political stuff.

    This week we get another special edition “The Republicans” McCain’s face on the cover. I picked it up and something didn’t feel quite right. So I went and got the Dems issue. There was a difference: in weight.

    The D issue was 76 pages long and had an additional 34 pages of ads.
    The R issue was 68 pages and has 23 pages of ads.

    The free market thinks placing an ad in the D issue makes good business sense (nearly 50% more ads in the D issue). I didn’t total every word in each issue on the two men, i just found it interesting that the market is speaking pretty loudly here: Obama to win.


  18. knarlyknight Says:

    Enk, that’s a nice little piece of evidence. Private sector placing their bets. Or maybe it has to do with an editor or publishers decision, or ad copy prices, or other stuff. Ad up about 50 data points like that and you’ll have something of a case for the skeptics.

    I find this funny, in a sad way because it is oh so true. or what?

  19. shcb Says:

    I hate to burst your bubble guys, but Time is a liberal magazine, their audience is liberal, so the people advertising in the magazine are going to advertise more for the Democratic convention. Do the same test with National Review and see what happens. There was a traveling exhibition called the “Presidential Experience” it has a mockup of the oval office, a fuselage of an old Air Force One, first lady dresses, that sort of thing. It is now traveling north where it will be set up for the Republican convention. Denver Republicans were all upset because most of the vendors selling trinkets were selling Democrat stuff. Conspiracies were being hatched on talk radio and in the paper. But guess what the vendors will be selling next week, you guessed it, Republican crap.

    The one thing picking Palin (I just had to add that word to my spell check :-) did was take Obama’s speech off the news and talk shows. It didn’t even have a shelf life of one day. To bad, everyone seemed to think it was a good speech, even my wife was sounding like a liberal after she listened to it. The next morning she was lamenting at how bad things were. I of course told her that the economic numbers certainly don’t reflect that. She then went on the say that we personally aren’t doing all that well. I had to remind her that in the last 14 months we have had 2 weddings, put a kid in college, completely remodeled the kitchen including new granite counters and appliances and bought a new car. I think I got her back from the dark side.

    This will be interesting to see how this choice works out, it certainly was a gutsy move. Jack Kemp thinks it is nothing short of brilliant. Not just because she is a woman but because she is such a conservative woman. Here fight against corruption in her own party will bring back McCain’s “maverick” persona as well. It wouldn’t be wise for Democrats to bring up her inexperience verses Obama’s longer that this week. You can’t bring up her inexperience without using his name in the same sentence. That only reinforces his weakness. The Republicans will take that free publicity all day long.

  20. enkidu Says:

    TIME is a lbrul mag? mainstream? yeah
    National Review? mainstream? no

    Palin… McCain is the oldest pres nominee ever and he picks this lightweight?
    sure she’s a rabid conservative, but you had that vote anyway. Maybe Ralph Reid put his widdle footy down.

    McCain’s campaign has been all about sleazy ‘inexperience’ and ‘celebrity’ attack ads… I don’t think Obama has to punch very hard to knock that strawman down (heck, let Biden do it). People (like arch conservative Pat Buchanan) are still talking – glowingly – about Obama’s speech. It is a post-partisan world. The Rs lost this round. Bush has been a disaster (just wait until the truth comes out, it’ll knock your socks and shoes off). Go into the wilderness and come back as fiscal conservatives and I might be interested in voting for Rs again.

    So the Rs pick a inexperienced beauty queen (true!) from a tiny state (pop not sq milage) who actually reinforces the D theme of choice (she chose to have her 5th child in her 40s, a poor choice to conceive so late in life, but it is her choice – no one is going to force her to have an abortion, tho Rs would force their choice on everyone on this subject… sigh)

    You may get the cougar vote, but it won’t shift many pumas into the R camp. This pick says volumes about McBush’s judgement (or lack thereof)

    I just emailed my very conservative elder brother in Ohio his thoughts and it aint good for the Rs from his perspective. Plus she comes with her own corruption problems. She had her x-bro in law fired as a state trooper? the report is supposed to be delivered just before the election, a ten spot says that will be delayed if it isn’t good for her, or released with massive fanfare if it is ambiguous “they went on a witch-hunt after this poor sweet lady, my friends!” [sobs] [righteous anger, expletives and steam venting follows]).

    And yes, please bring up her corruption fighting creds! Fighting R corruption. Same old same old.

  21. shcb Says:

    As tight as the last few campaigns have been, she doesn’t have to give us much in the way of votes to help quite a bit. Her being a westerner, pro drilling (sort of), pro second amendment, cute but not so pretty women are jealous, all those things will help much more than her anti abortion stance. She may deliver a few soccer moms, but probably not enough to sway any state. Remember she has to deliver states not votes, for her nomination to have an impact. She may be the turning point for states like Colorado, states that traditionally been in the R corner but have become more competitive in recent years. Sure she’s not going to help win Utah, we already have it. But, she won’t win New York or Illinois either, Obama already has those states.

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.