SCHLUSSEL: Commanderatrix in Chief: Desperate Housewives Pick Chick Prez

DebbieSchlussel.com ^ | September 29, 2005 | Debbie Schlussel

[Cool Chick]

Everything is wrong with ABC's new show, "Commander in Chief."

It's not just that the show about the first female President is a weekly hour-long campaign commercial for Hillary Clinton. It's not just that conservatives are mean and evil on this propaganda hour.

It's that this is what a female President will be like as brought to you by Oprah and the women of "Desperate Housewives"--and the legions of female fans who love them. Do you want them picking the leader of the free world?

I don't.

Here's why. Every presidential election year, Harvard's Shorenstein Center conducts 26 polls. Each time, the school finds that women didn't quite know what was going on. Men, on the other hand, were more likely, during the preceding day, to have thought about the elections, talked about it, and read or heard about it on the news.

The University of Pennsylvania Annenberg Public Policy Center does a similar set of polls and studies each presidential election year, conducted by two women professors. The results of these studies are even more disturbing. Out of 25 questions on policy issues, women lag behind the men on most of them. In 2000, women lagged behind men in knowledge of all policy issues but one (on which they were equal).

The men knew more about the Presidential candidates' positions on taxes, weapons treaties, gun control, and even "traditional women's issues"--healthcare, education, and abortion.

Sorry, but I don't want "Thelma and Louise," Star Jones, and the women of "Desperate Housewives" picking my President. Keep them out of the ballot box and busy whining, crying, and obsessing over a broken nail and the handsome plumber next door, instead.

The women voters in these surveys bested the men on one issue: They . . . .

[McGavin999]

Just keep reminding those women you know that who you vote for matters. Look at what happened in Louisiana. Do they really want to see that on a national scale?

[WOSG]

"I don't know where I failed. : )"

You failed to stop NOW, NARAL, and Hillary, is all.
They are the ones 'effing' it up, and have brainwashed clueless women to follow.

Socialism by feelgoodism is the order of the day.

Reading the bio on Schussel, an accomplished woman, and then reading the comments on the Proahfied women-in-the-street, and how hysterical and wachked out women's special interest groups have gotten ... I know the problem.

It's not women... It's feminism.

[hlmencken3]

She is also Orthodox, so I presume that is a wig she is wearing.

[Cool Chick]

You guys have no idea. I became a fan of Debbie when I met her. I've heard her speak a few times in the last year, and I can tell you that she is very, very attractive (yes, I am a woman, but no, I'm not a lesbian).

I think the pic on her site doesn't do her justice b/c she is a lot younger looking in person and doesn't wear a ton of make-up like in the pic. She is tiny. I'd say a two or a four in size. Very, very short. Maybe 5'2" and wears very high heels to make up for it. I think she just doesn't photograph well, b/c I can tell a lot of the guys were after her at the last event I was at. She also has a lot of charisma and energy.

[Cool Chick]

Did NOT look like a wig to me. I don't think she's that religious to wear a wig. They wear wigs? Why? Is that like the Muslim headcoverings?

[exile]

"They wear wigs? Why? Is that like the Muslim headcoverings?"

I'm not Jewish so I'm not 100% sure, but I think it's similar.

[dogbrain]

no offense to women, but:

P.M.S.

[hlmencken3]

I'm not an expert on this matter of Jewish law, but yes, from a social standpoint, orthodox women cover their hair, though there are leniencies with this.

I would consider covering the hair, like head-covering on a male, one of the characteristics of someone who is actualy orthodox versus someone who just has orthodox sympathies or belongs to an orthodox synagogue.

[rmlew]

She is modern orthodox and far prettier than in the picture with Hannity.
She is not wearing a whig as she is not married.

[hlmencken3]

Thanks for the info!

[Koblenz]

It won the TV ratings on Tuesday because there was absolutely nothing else showing for it to compete against. Nothing! Premering a show on a Tuesday time slot is like offering water to someone who just walked across the desert.

Was it on against House? That Fox show is pretty decent. And the Amazing Race is also on Tuesday. I like both of those shows. Other shows I like are:

E-Ring (NBC, Wed): potentially a good show, although the acting is a bit too heavy, but maybe that's the way the military is.

Reunion (Thu, Fox): sort of a cool premise, each episode a year long.

Prison Break (Mon, Fox): well written show, keeps me engaged.

Then, CSI and Law/Order seem to be on almost always, but I'm not as excited for either of them, or the shows like Bones or these other crime investigator shows...

[hnorris]

It is quite simple, this show is against the law. It clearly violates the limits on soft money contributions and should be sued and stopped immediately. It is clearly a candidate advertisement, Davis is a more attractive version of Hillary Clinton, especially with the reddish hair. Disney and ABC should be sued for violations of campaign contribution law. Someone needs to make the case and make this show stop before all of America is brainwashed.

[Cecily]

Laura Schlessinger's son uses her name, which is her maiden name, rather than his father's (Bishop).

[Cecily]

I think ABC would have a hit show if they had come up with a well-written show about an American Maggie Thatcher type who runs for president, wins, and governs like Maggie did. Somebody like Dixie Carter would be good, with Hal Holbrook as the First Gentleman/Denis Thatcher character. Successful man in his own right with a great sense of humor who supports his wife to the hilt.

[pollyannaish]

Perhaps. It would certainly be a hit with me.

But my gut instinct is that people are looking for a show with NO obvious political agenda that doesn't fly in the face of their basic principles. You know, essentially pro-traditional family, not overtly religious but respectful of it, Pro American but neutral beyond that. And optimistic.

Of course, that is the only kind of thing that Hollywood appears to be incapable of making...it is perceived as boring, and terminally unhip.

[radiohead]

It's feminism.

Probably. It is unfortunate that the NOW nags have co-opted the term. I am firmly for women's ability to get an education, to work at the job she wants -and is capable of performing (they always forget that point), and participate in society.

Sadly, you can't just stop there and call yourself a feminist. The label now includes all kinds of anti-women, anti-family, anti-American BS that I find offensive.

I'm an academic, I'm surrounded by folks who don't think I'm a feminist because I don't go around hating men, etc. One thing that gives me a different take on the whole movement is that, since I was there near the beginning, I know how white-centered it was. No one was talking about black women - the same black women who were working low level jobs, keeping the white kids so mom could go off and demonstrate, etc. The movement ahd a decidedly white, middle & upper class slant that it retains in a large degree today.

One of my sisters worked for NOW when Patricia Ireland was there. She saw it as just a job, but wanted to quit after a few weeks due to the racism, anti-Christian, anti-family sentiments, etc. that she had to put up with. Ireland got her to stay another month or so, but my sister finally had to leave.

These folks don't fool me. They are as much for a woman's choice in life as I am for Air America.

[Pessimist]

"Men had a better clue than women what was up then."

LOL! "What was UP then" !! Get it? :)