Must be a slow news day when the democrats are getting hot and bothered because their candidate was referred to as “pretty”. But before we go any further here is the full quote from the daily review.
Freed said he gets asked how he will be able win the election, since there are 1 million more registered Democrats than Republicans in Pennsylvania and since he is up against a Democratic candidate, Kathleen Kane, who is “pretty and has a lot of money.”
The answer is that “we’ll have a better message,” he said, adding that he thinks his campaign will have enough money to get that message out to the public and will have a better grassroots campaign organization.
A little different than how it was reported by “trying to be balanced” PoliticsPA.
Pennsylvania Democrats and a women’s rights group are criticizing Republican Attorney General hopeful Dave Freed for his remark that his opponent, Kathleen Kane, is “pretty and has a lot of money”.
Not that using the looks of a candidate are anything new in politics. Rahm Emanual in a Washington Post article had this to say about attractive Democratic candidates.
The crop of eye-pleasing pols has party operatives calculating the politics of beauty. “There’s a fine line, and you can’t cross it,” said Rep. Rahm Emanuel, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. Voters don’t like men who look like pretty boys or women who resemble bimbos. “If you’re too good-looking, people won’t take you seriously,” Emanuel said.
But is referring to a candidate as “pretty” worse than the comments made by Pennsylvania’s illustrious senator Arlen Specter about VP Candidate Sarah Palin? Well lets see…
“We were sitting virtually knee to knee in the cramped bus,” he writes. ”She radiated sensuality. Her skirt rode above her knees — not exactly short, but close.”
Where was the outcry? Where were the “war on women” comments? *crickets chirping*
Freed was commenting about questions he got asked and the D’s are just trying to score a few cheap political points.
No related posts.