• Search Now:
    In Association with Amazon.com


« The Bush/McCain small business fallacy | Main | Interest in a comment feed? »

June 28, 2008

Leibovich's Style section imperialism

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!

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451d25c69e200e55393c9b98834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Leibovich's Style section imperialism:

» Obama on Clinton at unity rally: 'She rocks' from Unpartisan.com Political News and Blog Aggregator
Sens. Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton plan to appear together Friday at a rally in Unity, New Hamps [Read More]

Comments

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?

Verify your Comment

Previewing your Comment

This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.

Working...
Your comment could not be posted. Error type:
Your comment has been posted. Post another comment

The letters and numbers you entered did not match the image. Please try again.

As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.

Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.

Working...

Post a comment