Lady Mags Neg HRC Endorsement, But What About Bill's Biscuits?
MORE Off the Record
In the February issue of Vogue, editor in chief Anna Wintour scolds Democratic presidential contender Hillary Clinton for blowing off a photo shoot because of a “fear of looking too feminine,” or so the former woman was told by campaign brass. The idea that Mrs. Clinton “must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power,” Ms. Wintour wrote, “is frankly dismaying.”
Well, then! With the fashion czarina’s opinion in the public domain, and Super Tuesday around the corner, Off the Record wondered: Would major women’s magazines—which have historically enjoyed quite a cozy relationship with first ladies—take a stand and endorse Mrs. Clinton for president?
Five of the half-dozen surviving “Seven Sisters” publications—Family Circle, Ladies Home Journal, Redbook, Good Housekeeping and Woman’s Day—all said no.
“Just because she’s running this year we wouldn’t change our tack and endorse her because she’s a woman,” said Linda Fears, the editor in chief of Family Circle, which published Mrs. Clinton’s rolled-oats-laced chocolate-chip confection recipe after her 1992 homemaker-offending gaffe about how she “could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas” instead of becoming a hotshot lawyer (it trounced Barbara Bush’s submission). “We wouldn’t endorse along party lines for any reason—it’s not something we do.”
But isn’t this a different election since, finally, there’s a woman with a serious shot?
“I know where you’re coming from and it’s a good headline for you to say ‘All Women’s Magazines Are Endorsing Hillary,’” Ms. Fears said, “but I only can speak for myself and the history of this magazine.”
O.K.! Well, what about Ladies Home Journal (typographical emphasis now on the Home Journal rather than the Ladies)? They have a history of interviewing presidents and covering campaigns.
“Why are you asking only the women’s magazine editors if they are endorsing Senator Clinton because she’s a woman?” wrote LHJ’s edtior, Diane Salvatore, in an e-mail. “Are you asking the men’s magazines the same question? Or are you asking the men’s magazine editors if they are endorsing Senator Obama or Senator McCain (because they’re not women)?”
Meanwhile, over at Woman’s Day, editor Jane Chesnutt said there was simply no way she could throw her weight behind Mrs. Clinton. “We go to press with our November issue before the conventions are even held,” she said. “So to endorse anyone is, you see—even if you assume the candidate is set—a physical impossibility.”
Plus: “I have to say that I don’t sense this monolithic support for her among women,” Ms. Chesnutt said.
Nor was Rosemary Ellis, editor of Good Housekeeping, conferring her magazine’s renowned Seal of Approval on the senator from New York. She wrote that the publication “doesn’t endorse candidates, but we do educate our readers about the political issues they care about such as health care, education, and violent crime reduction, so they can make informed decisions about who they’d like to see in the White House.”
Perhaps if Mrs. Clinton were elected, she could visit the Good Housekeeping dining room. like past presidents Gerald Ford and Ronald Reagan. “They all seem to love our famous popovers,” Ms. Ellis wrote.
No one seemed to have considered the possibility of soliciting baked-goods expertise from the country’s first potential First Gentleman. “If we got a recipe from Bill this year, that would be pretty fun,” Ms. Fears said thoughtfully.
I'm not really sure what the point of this article is, and frankly, the women's magazine editors' responses to the author's asinine questions hit the nail on the head: why the hell would the author assume women's magazines would endorse a woman candidate, if any? Why assume that women will blindly back a candidate of their own sex? Give us some credit, for God's sake.
It seems this author must have been really hard-up for election-oriented content ideas. I love The Observer, but this was truly lame.
Perhaps the author is not so hard up and is reacting to groups like New York chapter of NOW which labled Sen. Kennedy's endorsement of Sen. Obama instead of Sen. Clinton as the "ultimate betrayal", even though Sen. Kennedy has been a leading supporter of Women's Rights for decades. Moreover, Ms. Papas, NY NOW's head, state emphatically that Sen. Clinton's gender was the main reason for supporting her. This is not a criticism of Sen. Clinton; just pointing out that the article is relevant and franklly, I found both amusing in tone and interresting for demonstrating that there are fissures between some women-oriented poltical and economic groups.
What these reports seem to miss as it concerns the Vogue flap is the fact that Republican shill - Julia Reed - was sent to write about Hillary. I'm no Hillary fan, but Wintour should think twice before sending a Reed anywhere near a Democrat. Reed has done numerous puff pieces on Republican women like Condi Rice, Laura Bush, and Karen Hughes at the height of America's disgust with their collective incompetence. She hails from New Orleans and she never wrote about, nor commented on the Bush cronyism that wrought such pain on her hometown.
This kind of nonsense about missing a photo shoot equals not endorsing a candidate is more lame fashion shallow action. Wintour best stick to hemlines and facelifts since that is clearly where her judgement begins and ends.
The question is a good one as to why men's magazines are not asked the same question. Yet that does not let women's magazines off the hook. Is glamour incongrous with intelligence or leadership? Should the woman ceos be confined to glamour magazines. They are certainly rare in the fortune 1000 (1%).
So much double talk on this issue. Certainly too many women like or accept the status quo.