Mark Leibovich, formerly of the loathsome and regrettably influential Washington Post Style section, continues to infect the New York Times with nonsense like this about Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton's clothing and (supposed) body language:
Woodstock or no, Unity at least provided the ultimate festival for students of political body language. Mr. Obama, the presumptive Democratic nominee, and Mrs. Clinton appeared arm in arm, waving to a cheering crowd. U2’s “Beautiful Day” blared over loudspeakers, sputtering out for a few nervous seconds before recovering. Mr. Obama’s too-long blue tie went nicely with Mrs. Clinton’s blue pantsuit.
Once on stage, Mr. Obama placed his hand on Mrs. Clinton’s shoulder but stopped short of a full hug. There was minimal physical contact between the two throughout, though they shared a few close whispers, punctuated by laughter. He waved, she waved, often in opposite directions. There was no joint raising of hands. She smiled deferentially while he spoke, hands folded at her waist.
Are Leibovich's ties always the right length? Why is that detail relevant?
Since coming to the Times, Leibovich has (among other things) psychoanalyzed Hillary's signature, referred to her campaign as "Version 08, Nurturing Warrior, Presidential Candidate Model," compared Al Gore to a recovering alcoholic, and gratuitously pointed out that Gore has gained weight. What a hire!
It really is pathetic for the New York Times to waste ink on this nonsense. I wonder whether newspapers are weaker today than they were in the past. Or are we more aware of their shortcomings thanks to blogs like this one?
Posted by: David | June 29, 2008 at 10:45 AM