<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Image Over Substance</title>
	<atom:link href="http://candorville.com/2007/03/26/image-over-substance/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://candorville.com/2007/03/26/image-over-substance/</link>
	<description>Challenging the Law of Gravitas since 1993</description>
	<pubDate>Fri, 09 Jan 2009 21:01:11 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.3</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Paul</title>
		<link>http://candorville.com/2007/03/26/image-over-substance/#comment-1106</link>
		<dc:creator>Paul</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:06:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.siteground224.com/~candorvi/2007/03/26/image-over-substance/#comment-1106</guid>
		<description>Oh, for Pete's sake - when did this become another Democrat/Republican conservative/liberal differentiating issue?  What amazes me is it's being portrayed as a differentiating issue, as if conservatives are giddy and liberals are dejected because they would never, ever think this is a "bad" thing.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Both sides play the "image" issue and think it's good if it leads to a win.  Look at all the carefully scripted speeches and sound bites, the avoidance of any interviews that may require a followup question to a sound bite, the "I'm a woman, I'll even bake cookies" Hillary's doing.  It's all about the tricky business of softening her image while at the same time making it seem she's tough on foreign issues, really likes and gets along with the military (hmmm, I wonder if on the next trip to the White House she'll let the military assigned there wear uniforms?) but is also a nurtuing, motherly type.  It's a tough job for the image-makers, but they're doing their best.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;Image, image, image.  Yes, I agree - both sides play it.  Yes, I disagree - it's not just conservative operatives who see nothing wrong with it - as long as their candidate wins.&lt;br/&gt;&lt;br/&gt;One last point - many conservatives are attracted to Obama, regardless of his voting record.  He made some good points in his book.  Maybe voters are just flat-out sick of the last decade of politicization and think someone who speaks his mind and speaks of national (not political) interest is worth a try?  Same reason all this harping on divorce, family values, etc by a conservative wedge of Republicans and the suddenly-moral wedge of ultraliberal Democrats is not working with the voters who are tired of the partisanship.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Oh, for Pete&#8217;s sake - when did this become another Democrat/Republican conservative/liberal differentiating issue?  What amazes me is it&#8217;s being portrayed as a differentiating issue, as if conservatives are giddy and liberals are dejected because they would never, ever think this is a &#8220;bad&#8221; thing.</p>
<p>Both sides play the &#8220;image&#8221; issue and think it&#8217;s good if it leads to a win.  Look at all the carefully scripted speeches and sound bites, the avoidance of any interviews that may require a followup question to a sound bite, the &#8220;I&#8217;m a woman, I&#8217;ll even bake cookies&#8221; Hillary&#8217;s doing.  It&#8217;s all about the tricky business of softening her image while at the same time making it seem she&#8217;s tough on foreign issues, really likes and gets along with the military (hmmm, I wonder if on the next trip to the White House she&#8217;ll let the military assigned there wear uniforms?) but is also a nurtuing, motherly type.  It&#8217;s a tough job for the image-makers, but they&#8217;re doing their best.</p>
<p>Image, image, image.  Yes, I agree - both sides play it.  Yes, I disagree - it&#8217;s not just conservative operatives who see nothing wrong with it - as long as their candidate wins.</p>
<p>One last point - many conservatives are attracted to Obama, regardless of his voting record.  He made some good points in his book.  Maybe voters are just flat-out sick of the last decade of politicization and think someone who speaks his mind and speaks of national (not political) interest is worth a try?  Same reason all this harping on divorce, family values, etc by a conservative wedge of Republicans and the suddenly-moral wedge of ultraliberal Democrats is not working with the voters who are tired of the partisanship.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Anonymous</title>
		<link>http://candorville.com/2007/03/26/image-over-substance/#comment-1103</link>
		<dc:creator>Anonymous</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 27 Mar 2007 14:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.siteground224.com/~candorvi/2007/03/26/image-over-substance/#comment-1103</guid>
		<description>Sad thing is, it'd probably work.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Sad thing is, it&#8217;d probably work.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
