Back Strokes

by digby

Jeff Goldstein's co-blogger pal wrote this yesterday:

Homophobia at Hullabaloo, but I guess it’s all right when the MSM strokes a liberal. It’s not as though you’ll ever find a left-wing pundit tongue bathing Obama just because he’s black and clean and articulate. They’re not superficial, like we are, which is why they’re so underrepresented in Hollywood.

Setting aside the disorienting notion of anyone at Protein Wisdom being concerned about homophobia, the article he points to as "stroking a liberal" is a puff piece on John Edwards, but I can't find any mention of his "manly attributes" or his "commanding figure" or any swooning about his virile, overpowering presence. Quite the opposite in fact --- they go into the "Breck girl" thing in some detail and refer endlessly to his his boyish earnestness, hardly a leadership archetype. It reads as a "stroke" but not a "stroke" if you know what I mean. (The post from Protein Wisdom, however, with its vivid evocations of "tongue-bathing" Obama, as is typical of the site, is a little bit more in the ball-park.)

The Hollywood link inexplicably goes to the controversial comments former Republican congressman Joe Scarborough made about Mrs Fred Thompson "working the pole." I'm not sure what the poster means by it, but it seems to be some sort of proof that Republicans are hetrosexuals. That's nice.

Anyway, just in case anyone cares --- my post said that this "mancrush" phenomenon had little to do with being gay or straight. I'm not even convinced that it's explicitly sexual at all, despite the fact that they often use turgid, sexualized language to describe these GOP politicians. (Don't make me drag out the codpiece transcripts...) I suspect it's mostly a lazy adhereance to shopworn stereotypes from their childhoods, (and perhaps a little too much time surfing porn sites) but who really knows? It's damned weird, I'll tell you that. More importantly, this ongoing capitulation of the media to rank GOP propaganda about the "natural" leadership qualities of the the respective parties is destructive to our politics, which is why I discuss it all the time.

Anyway, I only bring this up again so soon because I wanted to share this interesting comment by aimai on the subject:

I've always thought the republican male attitude towards their male candidates smacks more of a kind of pedophilic victim's stockholm syndrome. In other words, their longing for a strong, powerful, daddy figure is so strong that they wind up fantasizing about them in this almost sexual way. That is because, if I can turn to a different area, they are locked into a totally binary world: male /female, strong/weak, republican/democrat, sexual dominance/sexual passivity and attraction to dominance. If their candidates are ever going to be strong enough to dismiss the republican bases fear of weakness, they have to be so strong that all other entities in the universe are seen as their opposite. So even "manly men" are as women in the equation "republican leaders:followers" "men:women."

That would explain why the presidential candidates are frothing at the mouth trying to top one another's paranoid nuttiness. It's getting much more difficult to signal the appropriate level of alpha manliness.

They want Jack Bauer daddy:
FINEMAN: What‘s appealing about Rudy Giuliani is not the generous side, what‘s appealing about him is the tough cop side.

MATTHEWS: Right. You just wait until daddy gets home.

FINEMAN: Yes, that part...

MATTHEWS: That Daddy.

FINEMAN: ... of the daddy. It‘s the tough cop side, so...

MATTHEWS: Yes. Yes.

FINEMAN: And he can smile all he wants, and I understand why they‘re trying to do it, but come on. That‘s not why...


Remember, he would have been a great white hunter too, if only he'd been given the opportunity.


H/T Linda, also in the comments.



.