Someone Must Be Very Worried (Bump: Smelly Indeed)
Fresh on the heels of the Los Angeles Times attack on Fred Thompson's lobbying, the New York Times lowers the bar by attacking Fred Thompson's wife. Calling Fred "grandfatherly" and Jeri Kehn Thompson a "trophy wife", the Gray Lady wonders whether America can deal with a May-December romance in the White House:
AS the election of 2008 approaches with its cast of contenders who bring unprecedented diversity to the quest for the White House, the voting public has been called on to ponder several questions: Is America ready for a woman to be president? What about a black man? A Mormon?Now, with the possible candidacy of Fred D. Thompson, the grandfatherly actor and former Republican senator from Tennessee, whose second wife is almost a quarter-century his junior, comes a less palatable inquiry that is spurring debate in Internet chat rooms, on cable television and on talk radio: Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?
The question may seem sexist, even crass, but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters — have been wrestling with the public reaction to Jeri Kehn Thompson, whose youthfulness, permanent tan and bleached blond hair present a contrast to the 64-year-old man who hopes to win the hearts of the conservative core of the Republican party. Will the so-called values voters accept this union?
Mr. Thompson, who needs the support of early primary voters, is expected to formally announce his candidacy any day now. Meanwhile, much of the brouhaha around Mrs. Thompson, 40, is being stirred by photos of her in form-fitting gowns circulating on the Internet.
Sexist? Yes. Crass? Definitely. Ridiculous? You bet.
I'm touched, really, by the concern that Susan Saulny and the Paper of Record show for "values voters", a group that normally received little but scorn and ridicule from Pinch's crew. However, these people are not likely to have an issue with a man who spent seventeen years between marriages before marrying a woman in her mid-30s. Thompson's ex-wife speaks well of him, his children seem very well-adjusted, and his current wife is an intelligent and well-spoken woman who will be an asset to his campaign.
Now let's talk about the form-fitting gowns. Or let's not. The clear implication is that Jeri Kehn is some sort of a trollop who married for power on the basis of her beauty, which is ridiculous. Saulny faults the Thompsons for not officially distributing her resume, but anyone with access to Google knows that Mrs. Thompson worked as a media consultant in DC, as well as a staffer at the RNC and on the Senate Republican Caucus [see below]. She's no bubble-headed bleach blonde, but someone with her own record of accomplishment -- even if the New York Times and Susan Saulny apparently can't find it with both hands and a flashlight.
That's what makes the "trophy wife" slam so obnoxious. Saulny even tries to weasel past her use of it by telling readers that Fortune Magazine's original definition included accomplishment, but that probably lasted as long as that particular issue did on the newsstands. When people talk about trophy wives now, they mean arm candy -- beautiful but vapid social climbers with nothing more to offer than cleavage. Jeri Kehn Thompson does not qualify as a trophy wife. Does Susan Saulny qualify as a trophy reporter?
Is this the level to which the New York Times will stoop for the rest of the political campaign? All it indicates to me is that Pinch Sulzberger and his staff seem very worried about a Thompson campaign, so worried that they have already started attacking Fred's family rather than discuss his policy stands, contained in essays that he has published for months at Townhall and ABC. The caliber of these attacks show the quality of the opposition to Fred, and also give Fred some indirect credibility, as his opponents don't appear to have confidence that they can beat him on the issues.
UPDATE AND BUMP: Joe Gandelman puts this in the "smelly journalism" category. Be sure to read his criticism in full, but here's a taste:
So the writer of the piece knows for a A FACT that when Thompson married his present wife, she was picked as a “trophy?” There was no love involved? No relationship? No friendship? She didn’t share some of his values and dreams?She KNOWS that he just simply pointed to her and said: “TROPHY! I’ve GOT to have HER to show people! See this younger woman! Stand up, honey! See this guys? OK, honey, you can sit down now!”
UPDATE, 8-6: Jeri Kehn Thompson has never worked as an attorney, which I had mistakenly asserted. I apologize for the error.
Posted by Ed Morrissey on July 8, 2007 8:05 AM | Comments (62) | TrackBacks (3)
Comments (62)
Posted by Dale Michaud aka TexasDude | July 7, 2007 8:37 AM
When it comes to Republicans or conservatives, no restraint is shown when critcizing, especially from liberals or Democrats.
That should be clear and no surprise, sad to say.
Posted by Ken | July 7, 2007 8:43 AM
Grandfatherly? As opposed to all those other candidates that are, what, great-grandfatherly? Last I looked I didn't see too many 20- and 30-somethings running for the job.
Posted by Gaius Livius | July 7, 2007 8:51 AM
This says a couple of things:
1. There's going to be no sewer-like avenue left unexplored by the "drive-by media" when it comes attempts at smearing Republican candidates in the 2008 presidential election; and
2. After what has no doubt been considerable digging for dirt on Fred Thopmpson, the gang at the NYT has come up with precisely zilch.
Posted by vet66 | July 7, 2007 9:01 AM
Saulny and the NYT operatives are begging for a comparison between wives.
No more missile gap for them and their lack of a foreign policy. Instead we have a "Cleavage Gap" to ponder. The 'Dims' will lose this one big time. John Edward's hair will certainly be a contender but his pretty boy locks are no match for a plunging neckline topped by brains and beauty.
Posted by Lewis H | July 7, 2007 9:03 AM
compare the Thompson piece with the front page article making Hillary Clinton a woman of Faith.
Posted by Bennett | July 7, 2007 9:04 AM
This is certainly going to hurt Thompson's chances with the male vote because I'm sure most men in America will not understand why the Senator fell in love with a younger, attractive woman.
Posted by syn | July 7, 2007 9:05 AM
Of course if she were just a 20 year old intern who gave him a BJ this would be okay but since she married him and bore children she must be barefoot stupid cooking up slop in the kitchen for the chauvanist pig man.
Does this about capture socially engineered philosophy of feminism?
Posted by KBK | July 7, 2007 9:12 AM
There is an old formula which works well: the ideal age for a prospective girlfriend or wife is half the man's age plus seven years. The formula seems to predict successful matches whether the man is 10 or 90.
If Thompson is 64, then the formula gives 39. Mrs. Thompson is a year too old (but may have been perfect when she married him).
Posted by coulter | July 7, 2007 9:13 AM
"Of course if she were just a 20 year old intern who gave him a BJ this would be okay "
Hmm...which 20 yr old gave a blow job..ohh..talking abt lewinsky and clinton...and I think it was A-OK with republicans that lewinsky gave a blow job to Clinton.
Syn,
Did you go to a coma all of 90's? haven't you seen the congressmen stumbling over themselves, nytimes, washpost, drudgereport..all were A-OK?? with that...C'mon..
Posted by Philip | July 7, 2007 9:16 AM
Pathetic beyond words.
Never once does the worthless rag knows as the NYT acknowledge that many middle-aged women PREFER older, successful men. She's not a college co-ed for Pete's sake and even if she were - so what? Here's a news flash for the Times: It's been this way for about 10,000 years. Time for the Times to grow up.
And at least Fred has the good sense to prefer intimacy with his own wife unlike some past presidential campaigners we could mention (or current ones?). Or certain Los Angeles mayors!
That the Times dips their quill in this particular ink well is disgusting and telling of only one thing:
The New York Times is a national disgrace.
Is it any wonder that millions continue to cancel their subscriptions as the NYT's stock price bombs right along with their last vestiges of reputation?
Posted by Fausta | July 7, 2007 9:17 AM
They're worried alright: Look at these idiotic articles and ponder:
Fred's a great speaker who expresses his opinion of the issues clearly.
He's very famous.
Has had three successful carreers (law, acting, politics),
His long-term marriage ended in tgood enough terms that his former wife speaks well of him,
His children like him.
He's married to a beautiful woman of substance.
AND HE"S NOT EVEN RUNNING YET
Posted by Steph | July 7, 2007 9:21 AM
The moniker "trophy wife" is inaccurate but what do you expect with the media we have today? Think JFK and his wife Jackie... while getting it on with Marilyn Monroe on the side. The big issue here is Jeri's age, not her looks.
I'd say it was because Jeri couldn't find a mature adult in her own age cohort and there's something to be said for love. I recently saw, Fred, Jeri, and the two children up close. There's love there and that's what counts the most.
Fred's fit and relatively healthy. They have two beautiful children. I can bet many a man would like to have "trophies" like those when in the public eye.
If the media can't get over their jealous spasms, well, I don't think Fred will have a apoplectic fit such as the one the DNC had over Bush's elections.
Posted by Philip | July 7, 2007 9:22 AM
As for Capt. Ed's issue about "someone with her own record of accomplishment": Who cares? I'm glad for her but she is not the running for President. And unless Fred's wife is an unapologetic ax murderer I could care less about her "record". I don't need "two for one". I don't want "two for one"
Posted by kindaskeptical | July 7, 2007 9:34 AM
Yep, looks like slime, stinks like slime, about on a par with Rove getting the message out that McCain's wife is "weird," and that McCain fathered a black child and then adopted it.
About on a par with the slime Kerry's wife took.
About on a par with the slime Nancy Reagan took about making her husband consult an astrologer for national decisions. Remember that? The left sliming a president's wife. Disgusting.
Pretty stinky and pretty low.
But it's not sliming if it's all true. Right, Hillary? Remember her cookies, her hair, her glasses, her book? Remember articles about "Travelgate," Whitewater, her billing? Remember that tawdry viciousness? Seems so long ago. Remember book after book after book accusing her of everything from murdering Vince Foster to hiring consultants for her hair and clothes? Would Pat Nixon have done that? Imagine the first lady, a Democrat, writing a book about the care of children. Disgusting.
As Ed says, somebody must have been scared.
Posted by newton | July 7, 2007 9:55 AM
Just another proof that the NYT and all other libs think Republican women are Stepford Wives.
Posted by redherkey | July 7, 2007 9:57 AM
Apparently the NYT will be running an equally alarming story tomorrow on Dennis Kucinich and his troubling relationship with trophy-wife Elizabeth Harper Kucinich.
Elizabeth apparently attended high school from 1989-1996, marking her with a 1970s birthdate. Contrast that with the elderly Kucinich's 1951 birth and you've got another cradle robbing baby boomer politician screwing hot young chicks.
Are progressivists ready for such unequal relationships? How is this equitable when all the old ugly geezers like Dennis are taking the available youthful babes? Does this poaching on the young broads cause homosexuality in young males who lack suitable female counterparts? Does it say anything about the relative maturity of the geezers?
I'm so relieved we'll be seeing equal treatment from the Times, since I know every liberal who demands the return of the fairness doctrine does it out of a desire for equality and parity in news coverage, and not out of hatred for the successful "thinking man's media" talk-radio programs.
Posted by GarandFan | July 7, 2007 9:59 AM
Disgusting? Yes. The NYT is getting desperate. Couldn't find any dirt on the Thompson kids last week. Must have been a bummer when the only off-spring to get into trouble last week belonged to the Goracle. I'm surprised the NYT didn't bash Thompson's kids for "not trying hard enough, therefore they must be pampered and lazy". Just wait. Pretty soon they'll just start making crap up. Something like 'Well it sure looks like child molestation to us, look at the age difference'.
Ah yes, the NYT expounding on values. The same NYT that has no problem exposing perfectly legal anti-terrorism programs.
Posted by redherkey | July 7, 2007 10:05 AM
Apparently the NYT will be running an equally alarming story tomorrow on Dennis Kucinich and his troubling relationship with trophy-wife Elizabeth Harper Kucinich.
Elizabeth apparently attended high school from 1989-1996, marking her with a 1970s birthdate. Contrast that with the elderly Kucinich's 1951 birth and you've got another cradle robbing baby boomer politician screwing hot young chicks.
Are progressivists ready for such unequal relationships? How is this equitable when all the old ugly geezers like Dennis are taking the available youthful babes? Does this poaching on the young broads cause homosexuality in young males who lack suitable female counterparts? Does it say anything about the relative maturity of the geezers?
I'm so relieved we'll be seeing equal treatment from the Times, since I know every liberal who demands the return of the fairness doctrine does it out of a desire for equality and parity in news coverage, and not out of hatred for the successful "thinking man's media" talk-radio programs.
Posted by Fight4TheRight | July 7, 2007 10:13 AM
Did you see it? The REAL crux of the article? That last line:
"much of the brouhaha around Mrs. Thompson, 40, is being stirred by photos of her in form-fitting gowns circulating on the Internet. "
Can you imagine the travesty?! The horror!! A form-fitting gown! How irresponsible of this young woman! Doesn't she know she should be parading around in a pants suit like Hillary! America certainly didn't take any kind of shine to Jaqueline Kennedy's good looks and sense of fashion, now did we?
Oh no! It's 2007 and we want our Hillary and the other politicians' wives to be seen only in pants or as in Hillary's case, a very appropriate potato sack.
Posted by Hank Essay | July 7, 2007 10:24 AM
Funny, I don't remember the same level of outrage here when the NYTimes ran a front-page piece on the Clintons' sex life just a few months ago...Strange, no?
Posted by Lightwave | July 7, 2007 10:25 AM
Ed asks:
"Is this the level to which the New York Times will stoop for the rest of the political campaign?"
Short answer, no. It will get much worse.
"Worried" doesn't begin to describe the liberal MSM when it comes to Fred, for three reasons:
1) The MSM's job at this point is to put the Hillary/Obama ticket in the White House. They know that Bush Derangement Syndrome will not and cannot win in 08, but it's all they have. Hillary and Obama have so many flaws and so much baggage that the MSM has to tilt the playing field for there to be any chance of them winning. Fred doesn't have that baggage. They are terrified of that.
2) Right now, the MSM is firing huge salvos at any GOP primary candidate they can find in order to demoralize GOP primary voters and fundraising efforts. And while McCain has pretty much buried himself at this point, Fred will energize the base and help the GOP as a whole. They are terrified of that.
3) Finally, the liberal MSM crew is personally antagonized by Fred. They know he's been on the right side of the Scooter Libby issue, the Immigration issue, and the Iraq/National Security issue from the start. The moonbats cannot attack him on the issues, so they make up garbage like this to smear him. They know they can't beat him on merit. They are terrified of that.
The libs are mortified by Fred, because they are well aware he'd put the GOP right back in control of this country and put the Dems out in the wilderness for another 20 years.
They are terrified of the fact he'd almost certainly have to make a Supreme Court appointment as President. Bush paved the way, but Fred would finish the flopping corpse of bleeding heart multi-culty global warming baloney liberalism off in this country for a generation.
And they will do anything to stop him.
Posted by proof | July 7, 2007 10:33 AM
Wasn't it Sharon Stone who talked about Hillary's sexuality, which is presumably (to the libs) a good thing in a Presidential candidate, but a bad thing for a First Lady?
Posted by TombZ | July 7, 2007 10:52 AM
Re: the NY Times authorette,
Rowrr!
Posted by El Coqui | July 7, 2007 10:52 AM
Another item to add to the long list of charges against the NYT, irrelevant.
Like many here, I find that their attempts to show concern about values to be highly hypocrite. No that they ever stop or make them pause.
The only good thing that I can see is that's the worse that they can find on Mr. Thompson.
He had my vote.
Posted by FredRum | July 7, 2007 11:03 AM
Funny, I don't remember the same level of outrage here when the NYTimes ran a front-page piece on the Clintons' sex life just a few months ago...Strange, no?
Hank, it sounds like you don't quite grasp what a "blog" is. It's a newfangled intarweb thing where the person who runs the blog (usually referred to as a "blogger") writes about what they want. Believe it or not, this may or may not coincide with what Hank Essay expects to read. The beauty of this system is that if Hank Essay gets his panties in a wad because another blogger doesn't write about something near and dear to Hank Essay, or if another blogger doesn't write in lockstep with Hank Esmay's opinions, then nothing is stopping Hank Essay from starting his own "blog" where the "blogging" will probably be more to his liking. Easy, no? Hopefully these concepts are not too "strange" for you.
Posted by gaffo | July 7, 2007 11:29 AM
NYT is looking alot like a tabliod these days.
this is pretty reprehensible IMO -a cheap shot.
Washington Post is a classier paper.
NYT used to a decent paper decades ago - its just crap now however.
Posted by fmfnavydoc | July 7, 2007 11:36 AM
The problem that the MSM is having with Thompson is that they can't find any real obvious dirt. The women that he dated before he married Jeri all think that he is a gentleman and would campaign for him...who would have thought that?
Memo to the MSM - you're scared of Fred...you see him as a threat...just face it, HE IS!
Posted by tgharris | July 7, 2007 11:40 AM
Anyone think Fred will YouTube a response to the NYT? Nah, that would give a sinking ship too much credibility.
Run Fred, run.
Posted by GRS | July 7, 2007 11:41 AM
Goes without saying that if anyone to the right of Lieberman were to suggest that Hillary's continued marriage to Bill was anything more than mere political convenience, there Gray Lady et. al would be aghast, decrying such character defamation.
Posted by daveinboca | July 7, 2007 11:44 AM
These two LAT & NYT hit pieces come on the heels of Keith-O's "Nixon's Mole" charge. Mike Rowe should take a stint as a DNC truffle-snuffer nosing through the garbage heaps of slander and innuendo---beats most of the Dirty Jobs he's done on his Discovery show!
Fred Thompson reeks integrity, and Clinton Inc has a thousand skeletons buried, in closets, & in plain sight. Can you imagine the shrieks & twittering if B. Hussein Obama gets a closer look in his childhood madrasa in Indonesia?
Posted by syn | July 7, 2007 11:48 AM
Coulter
No not in a coma, I remember very well the National Organization of Women surrounding their hero, it was my first indication that the sisterhood in which I believed was not at all what they claimed. I also remember the NYTimes suggesting several times about how Saddam Hussein was a threat to the world, sponsored terrorism and should be removed. Of course all this was in 1998 and almost every left leaning whatever believes the world began on January 2000 and we're all going to die because the climate changes.
Posted by viking01 | July 7, 2007 12:02 PM
I demand the Liberal media provide equal coverage of angry Hillary's female love interests. No pictures please. Reminiscences of a Hillary / Reno / Shalala love triangle provide sufficient emesis.
Was it the Associated Press the other day pimping Mrs. Bill Clinton as a woman of faith? I've no doubt she's deeply religious though I'm not sure whether she cackles, throws the bat wings into the bubbling cauldron or kills the goat for the dark under lord first.
Posted by Frank S | July 7, 2007 12:18 PM
Such huffing and puffing over utter nonsense! One has learned to expect this from America's most parochial newspaper, the NY Times.
No May-December White House marriages, eh? Does anyone do ANY research anymore?? Grover Cleveland, a New Yorker and confirmed bachelor was, I believe, 49 (and POTUS) when he married 21 year old Frances Folsom in 1886 in a White House wedding. Save us from ignoramuses, please.
Posted by wirro | July 7, 2007 12:58 PM
Jeez, stop whining. Every major contender of either party goes through this silly season when every half-a**ed charge is thrown on the wall to see if it will stick. If it does, then the campaign has a problem. Remember Gore sighing, Edwards haircut, Obama's mosque?
The media gets fed oppo research and runs with it. This is nothing new.
Posted by azlibertarian | July 7, 2007 1:19 PM
In lefty-land, are "serious people" and "Thompson supporters" mutually exclusive?
"...but serious people — as well as Mr. Thompson’s supporters..."
Posted by viking01 | July 7, 2007 1:20 PM
A few more observations on what the Old Gray Bag Lady now peddles as news:
Agreement especially with the Captain's last paragraph: They can't get at Thompson himself so they go after his wife. Much like the days when the socialist reporters and gossips went after Nancy because Ronaldus Magnus had frustrated the old media agenda.
Jeri is a neat, attractive woman of culture with a figure to match whereas Hillary is a shrill, rotund, unpolished hausfrau whose appearance and hair suggest poor, perhaps nonexistent hygiene. It's not Jeri's fault if Hillary is a slob.
Sulzberger's rag seems to by trying to suggest that somehow Jeri must plan to be co-president as was the case during the Clinton-Snopes administration and therefore Jeri must be attacked as though she seeks a "vote for him and you get me" sorta deal.
I seriously doubt Jeri has the slightest of megalomanic desires to become supreme fuhrer of nationalized healthcare like Bubba's doormat did the instant her shadow disgraced the White House entryway.
Posted by Okonkolo | July 7, 2007 1:57 PM
personal story that attacks a candidate you like = hit piece
personal story that attacks a candidate you dislike = revelatory exposé
kind of like activist judges
Posted by jpe | July 7, 2007 2:24 PM
I guess this will be Thompson's $500 haircut. Welcome to Presidential politics.
Posted by SDN | July 7, 2007 3:13 PM
Of course, Fred isn't simultaneously running on a platform of understanding and empathizing with the common man with his $400 haircut either.
Posted by Tom W. | July 7, 2007 3:26 PM
"Is America ready for a president with a trophy wife?"
Is America ready for a president who:
a) said she did her own research and consulted with her own military and intelligence analysts before voting to authorize a war with Iraq;
b) then said the president misled her into voting for authorizing a war with Iraq;
c) then said she didn't even read the National Security Estimate of 2002, before she voted to authorize a war with Iraq;
d) then demanded that our troops be withdrawn in four months, despite assurances by the U.S. military and the Iraqis that this would lead to a bloodbath of unprecedented proportions.
This is the sort of courageous, responsible leadership we need in the White House right now. Let's make her president!
Posted by Phil | July 7, 2007 3:57 PM
And then there is today's AP headline:
Thompson Aided Nixon on Watergate
Good God. How blatant a hit job can the Mainstream throw out there. Scraping the bottom of the barrel. Worst hatchet job I've ever seen. And yes, it will get much worse.
Posted by Steve | July 7, 2007 5:05 PM
Can the media bias be any more transparent?
Posted by ggeisel | July 7, 2007 5:28 PM
For pete's sake...the NYTwits want us to swallow gay marriage and who knows what else, but find a beauty in the bed of an older man a problem? What utter bovine excrement.
Posted by Brian from NY SSR | July 7, 2007 5:50 PM
I've finally found a reason to get excited about a Republican candidate. Barring Fred T being exposed as an illegal immigrant, I'm now going to vote for him.
Thank you NY Times!
Posted by flenser | July 7, 2007 5:52 PM
The AP story.
AP is now indistinguishable from The Nation. But of course, there is still no media bias!
Posted by SCOTT | July 7, 2007 6:08 PM
It is kind of hard to take this seriously since the NYT never did a story on John Kerry being a trophy husband.
Posted by philw | July 7, 2007 6:53 PM
The NYT is disgusting!
Oh, anybody know where I can find some hot cleavage pics of Jeri?
Posted by Mwalimu Daudi | July 7, 2007 7:07 PM
Personal story that attacks a Democrat candidate you like = a right-wing Christianist Rovian chickenhawk smear.
Personal story that attacks a GOP candidate you dislike = a revelatory Pulitzer Prize-winning exposé necessary to protect a free society against a right-wing Christianist Rovian chickenhawk conspiracy.
Kind of like it not being censorship if Democrats propose it.
Posted by hermie | July 7, 2007 8:38 PM
The attack was not on Thompson, but his wife. It was a clumsy, vicious attack, but typical of the MSM.
Posted by flamethrower | July 7, 2007 9:41 PM
More and more people are waking up to this MSM nonsense and bias. It has become so incredibly obvious that two acquaintances who I swore would never come around have finally awakened from their numbness and taken off their blinders and are flabbergasted at what passes for news. And don't you just love the rampant hypocrisy of these so-called feminist sympathizers and supporters.
Posted by Pam | July 7, 2007 10:43 PM
Fred better not be paying 4 or 5 hundred for a haircut; he's supposed to be a fiscal conservative. Besides he dosen't have that much hair!
Posted by Bithead | July 8, 2007 1:00 AM
As I'm sure he would laughingly tell you, it's one advantage of not having much, anymore.
Posted by Carol Herman | July 8, 2007 1:50 AM
One thing about Fred, he's skilled at TIMING. And, he's not about to jump into this race, yet, either.
The only reason you're getting all this mud thrown now? Hillary has the war chest. And, the groveling hyenas of the press are trying to please her.
If there were level heads in journalism, the industry wouldn't be shedding customers.
So don't expect much.
Fred Thompson says that we he ran for the senate, his oponent loaded up on mud. And, that mud? Kept him back by about 20 points.
When Nixon said "it doesn't matter what they say about you; as long as they spell your name right," he wasn't complementing the press, ya know. But he was focussed on how important it is to get your name constantly out there.
Being a nice guy? Seems to me nice guys finish last. Let the gossip begin. Heck, I can see hear Sinatra singing in my head; about May to December marriages. Very romantic stuff.
Posted by swabjockey05 | July 8, 2007 5:53 AM
Syn,
It's not that the cowardly Ghouls LIKE sucking baby's brains out (just ask them). It's that there are already too many people on Mother Gaia...culling the herd is their religious duty.
Did I say you ROCK!!?
Posted by AnonymousDrivel | July 8, 2007 12:02 PM
NY Times? Didn't it used to be a newspaper? When did it become a tabloid? Or is it now trying out comedy... because clearly it has become a joke.
Ed, drop your subscription and save some time. Opposition research shouldn't force you to read the funny pages. Yeah, you'll lose some material, but you'll regain your sanity.
Posted by Only_One_Cannoli | July 8, 2007 12:19 PM
If a man's choice for spouse is so important then I guess I need to know the names of spouses/S.O.s for the NYT writers and editors.
And I need to know their S.O.'s attractiveness on a 1-10 scale, age differences, whether or not the balding editor rates such a hot girlfriend/boyfriend, whether or not the writer or editor insisted on one of those icky prenups... After all, I'm led to believe this crap is an important indicator of a person's credibility.
Stupid.
Posted by Phelps | July 8, 2007 1:20 PM
Bubble headed bleach blondes are native to the evening news, so a reporter should be our best judge on that.
Don Henley rules.
Posted by richard mcenroe | July 8, 2007 1:28 PM
"This is the sort of courageous, responsible leadership we need in the White House right now. Let's make her president!"
Tom W. --- Never happen. You think Bill has a chance in the swimsuit competition against Jeri T.?
Posted by PSGInfinity | July 8, 2007 5:56 PM
Richard,
Depends on whether they shove Chelsea out on stage...
Posted by FredWM | July 8, 2007 10:52 PM
I wonder where the corresponding article concerning John Kerry's various trophy wives is located? I don't seem to be able to find it.
Posted by jaeger51 | July 9, 2007 1:18 AM
Yep, this is pretty funny. GGeisel points it out! Leftism is a mental disorder and creates its' own Bizarro World!...In Bizzaro Leftist World, we are supposed to admire and respect men who marry men...but have profound uneasiness about a man who marries a good looking woman who is younger than he is. Hysterical! It would be so much fun to bring people from oh, 1965, to the present and have them see the media today. They'd think the country had gone insane.
Posted by Beldar | July 11, 2007 10:32 PM
Ed, here's a small correction of no great weight: In response to my emailed inquiry as part of my follow-up to a couple of posts I've written about Jeri Thompson (here and here), a trusted source close to the Thompson organization (one whom I believe you'd also have grounds to trust) confirmed for me that although she was employed as a political and media consultant in the Washington office of the Verner Liipfert law firm (which merged into DLA Piper in 2002), she is not, by training, an attorney. Verner Liipfert employed a number of other high-profile non-lawyers for the services it offered in addition to legal representation, including, for example, the late former Texas governor Ann Richards.
The theme of my posts is that, in fact, from her perspective, Fred Thompson is a "trophy husband" to the same extent that she's may be considered a "trophy wife" for him.
U.S. News & World Report noted "that in preparation for Thompson's early July entry into the race, Jeri suggested to friends that she might 'frump it up,' to which Fred barked a 'Hell no.'" I like this report quite a bit. It could be read alternately, I suppose, as a statement by an enlightened, non-sexist, thoroughly modern man who wants to ensure that his spouse's unique and independent identity and personality weren't artificially suppressed for his political benefit. Or it could be read as the politically incorrect remark of a man who enjoys looking at, and even showing off, his much younger and very attractive spouse (with whom he has two young children under age 5). I suspect, and frankly hope, that both interpretations are entirely correct.