Embarrassed: The Wendy Vitter Double-Standard

Tonight's Countdown With Keith Olbermann with Allison Stewart featured a segment (#2 on the countdown) in which Stewart and Jeff Bercovici discuss the dress Wendy Vitter wore last night in terms of the sexual messages it sent.  

We rightfully objected to the media scrutiny of Nancy Pelosi's scarves and sense of fashion.  It is a sexist double-standard, and we should be no less in opposition to this double-standard just because the target happens to be a Republican.  

The transcript is not yet up, but the summary of tonight's show appears here.

I'm embarrassed for this low point in Countdown history.

•  Didn't see it, but bizarre that they'd even

  discuss it. What's worse was the monumental hypocrisy of "most marriages would get to do this in private." She can blame her husband for that.

  by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 05:58:28 PM PDT

•  I thought you meant Wendy Vitter was embarrased

  But then it occured to me, these people have no apparent level of embarrasment.

  To hell with her.  She said she was gonna do a Lorena Bobbit on him.  She didn't (unless that's what he was recovering from for a week).

  The GOP spent months talking about a blue dress.

  by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:01:43 PM PDT

  •  No, I'm embarrassed.

    Yeah, they did it, and it wasn't right then, either.

    by osterizer on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:03:10 PM PDT

    •  The segment was done tongue-in-cheek

      and wasn't meant to be taken too seriously. The dress was unflattering and a somewhat questionable choice given the circumstances.  

      The Vitters deserve any media scrutiny they get, even when it's a bit of mockery at their expense.

      by jayden on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:08:37 PM PDT

      •  I Repent of the Bad Thing I Said Earlier

        Today about Mrs. Vitter.

        You're right ...  This isn't fair.

        If she had dressed in something more modest, people would have said, "Well, no wonder he went looking for action outside the home."  She probably tried to put on something flattering that she felt would represent her powers of attraction in order to counter those kind of insults.

        This really isn't about her.

        It's about a guy who screeched with the rest of the Republicans about Monica Lewinsky, and gay marriage and abstinence and the rest of that crap ...  While all the while cheating on his wife and messing his pants at diaper parties in a bordello in New Orleans.

        by bink on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:13:01 PM PDT

        •  she deserves our sympathy. Diapering a Senator

          can't be fun.

          by JohnB47 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:23:25 PM PDT

        •  She ws forced into this

          Her husband chose this. I can not stomach what is being said about her.

          by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:25:44 PM PDT

        •  Are you kidding me???

          put on something flattering

          The color was all wrong for her. Her skin tones faded into the dress. It was frumpy and bunched up around her waist, making her look as if she had love handles there. On my tv there was a dark brown spot above the waist, I was wondering what the stain was. She wasn't wearing a properly fitting bra, making her look saggy. The low neckline also enhanced the slight sagging and wrinkling of her throat. Her shoes were hideous and a season or two out of style.
          She looked like a desperate housewife trying to compete with someone half her age.

          Whoever picked that dress she was wearing should be fired on the spot.

          She should have worn a nice sexy suit like this with a splash of red cammie underneath and  fabulous pumps. She would have looked elegent, sophisticated and definately feminine.

          ...since we were talking about clothes and all...
          wonder if she's got a position open for a clothes consultant.

          by Silent Lurker on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:51:31 PM PDT

      •  No they don't. They don't deserve, or WE

        don't deserve such bullshit. the way you put it it'd be okay if they went after them for being Jewish, if they were, which I know you don't believe.

        by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:19:49 PM PDT

•  she

  she stands by a guy who runs on the sanctity of marraige etc but who in reality hires hookers to put him in pampers so he can shit himself.
  Then when caught he doesn't even have the honesty to admit maybe he needs help.

  Fuck him and her, they are a FUCKING DISGRACE.

  by pissedpatriot on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:02:29 PM PDT

  •  All of those are fair criticism.

    You're criticizing their actions, and their hypocrisy.  Those are fair game.  Taking the way she dressed and speculating on her sexual motives for dressing that way was sexist and detracted from the genuine issues you raised.

    by osterizer on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:05:43 PM PDT

    •  I strongly disagree - the display was pathetic

      Wendy Vitter got up and attacked the press in her animal print dress while her husband cowered behind her.

      She didn't need to Lorena him. The little creep is half a man already.

      by FishOutofWater on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:07:50 PM PDT

      •  wtf?

        Comments like these are mind-bending. What in th fuck does her clothes have to do with anything about this?

        by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:20:56 PM PDT

        •  it was just

          was just kind of curious that she would dress like a dime store vegas hooker considering the circumstances.  People are gonna talk, those two are now the butt of every conversation when they enter or leave a room.

          by pissedpatriot on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:30:48 PM PDT

          •  Of fuck that. What the fuck is this dime

            store hooker puritanical fucking bullshit? I can't believe this. This really is hypocritical and it belongs in the ditch where "She deserved to get raped - look at that dress" bullshit.

            I know that that is not consciously being thought here, but the slope to that ditch is proving it ain't just for RWers.

            by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:33:52 PM PDT

            •  I am a guy

              I'm a guy, and even I take time to dress appropriate for important meetings, occassions, etc,  to act as if what we wear has no meaning is kind of silly.  

              I am a tee shirt jeans man, but even I understand clothing is important and carries meaning at certain times.

              by pissedpatriot on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:41:55 PM PDT

              •  I don't think that answers my qestion

                if she had come out looking like the wife on "Married with Children" it wouldn't have made a bit of difference to me. (I just literally paused and was speechless for several seconds - i can't believe this even needs to be explained.)

                Does the possibility that she just has a weird, or maybe "absent," or just different sense of  fashion mean nothing? I actually admire  people like that.

                And did you see the video? Nothing in it jumped out as that bizarre. I didn't notice anything about her clothes until it became an issue later.

                by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:53:16 PM PDT

                •  How could you not notice her clothes

                  As a politician's wife, the uniform is pastel suit, flag lapel pin, small gold/pearl earrings, tasteful necklace, nice pumps.  Anything outside of that will be noticed.  

                  I've never seen Mrs. Vitter before, but I was taken aback at what she was wearing, not because my fashion senses were offended (and great googamooga, they were), but because she knew that she was going to a press conference about her husband's infidelities and still choose to dress like this.  

                  Clothes do send a message, no matter what the situation is and the message she seemed to be sending was, "I've been shamed, fuck you."  As someone mentioned above, if she came out in a dowdy suit, look older than her years, then yeah, people would think, "No wonder he was steppin' out on her."  This was signal to women that says, "He stepped out this?"  The chats on my mommy boards about this, especially with the women whose husband's have cheated on them, were largely in support of Mrs. Vitter because of the dress.  

                  by fabooj on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:55:16 PM PDT

                  •  I agree with you and personally

                    I would have come out in a sexy/sophisticated power suit with a splash of spice for a show of strength and confidence.

                    But that's just me.

                    Anyone wanna go shopping with me?

                    by Silent Lurker on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:03:29 PM PDT

                    •  I would have come out

                      Looking like a million bucks AND at the end of my speech, I would have announced my upcoming divorce from the creepin' SOB.  

                      by fabooj on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:12:44 PM PDT

                      •  you bring up an interesting point.

                        If it was just one time, I don't know if I would forgive my husband or not.
                        It was with prostitues (more than one, taking money away from supporting the household) and a repeating habit. I would have to divorce as well.

                        by Silent Lurker on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:21:49 PM PDT

                        •  I can't abide cheating

                          My friends tell me that if my husband cheated on me, that I'd probably forgive him.  I know me.  Not only does a person get one chance to so utter disloyaty, but I can hold a grudge AND I'm vengeful.  Cheating?  I'd have his shit out on the front yard in heartbeat.  Prostitutes?  I'd shame him so bad, he'd have to move to another country under an assumed name.

                          But you have to understand that even with my friends, if I find out that they are cheating on their SOs, I usually end the friendship.  I'm zero tolerance when it comes to stuff like that.

                          by fabooj on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:29:43 PM PDT

                          •  once

                            once trust is lost in a relationship, that relationship is lost. You can go on and put on a show and/or put up with it, but trust is THE MOST important thing in any relationship.

                            by pissedpatriot on Wed Jul 18, 2007 at 10:20:34 AM PDT

            •  Thanks for fighting the good fight, Little --

              I appreciate you sticking up for me; I wish other people saw a greater distinction between one's actions  (voting record, public comments, etc.) and one's persona (hairstyle, clothing).  I also wish folks would see that the mainstream media blurs that distinction much more with women than with me.  I've heard Olbermann call Dubya many things, but not, for example "frumpy".

              You're one of the few folks in here tonight who can separate the principle from the partisanship, and I appreciate that.  But you sound like you're getting really worked up about this, and I hate to see an ally so stressed out.  Would it help to take a break?
               

              by osterizer on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:53:24 PM PDT

              •  It is a bit more frustrating than it should be

                I'm off for a drink - cheers to you - and all.

                by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:55:52 PM PDT

              •  Don't see it

                They talk about Pelosi's scarves, and Hillary's hairstyles, but they also talk(ed) about Edward's hair, Paul Simon's bowtie, Abe Lincoln's beard, etc. Some people dress in a particular or unusual way, and others notice this. Where's the sexism?

                by doc2 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:00:28 PM PDT

                •  Good examples -- may I rebut?

                  I've never heard of anyone talking about Paul Simon's "see-through come-hither bowtie that makes him look like he's just asking for it."  His bowtie, and Lincoln's beard were both noticed without ascribing sexual connotations to their choice of dress and grooming.  

                  The folks criticizing Edwards's hair were specifically trying to emasculate him; they also referred to him as a "Breck Girl".  You don't find that sexist?

                  by osterizer on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:06:59 PM PDT

                  •  an example was

                    tucker's boetie. He was mocked about it unmercifully and now he no longer wears it.

                    by Silent Lurker on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:06:12 PM PDT

                    •  And yet --

                      No one ever called Tucker's bowtie slutty.  

                      by osterizer on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:56:07 PM PDT

                      •  no

                        he was mocked by being called a little boy, not a mature man.

                        by Silent Lurker on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:15:47 PM PDT

      •  It wasn't a leopard skin dress -

        It was just a plain white dress that her husband pooped on.

        by doc2 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:34:55 PM PDT

        •  She should switch detergents

          to one with a stain-fighting formula.

          by jayden on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:49:10 PM PDT

    •  it may OR may not be fair criticism

      If she was wearing that dress b/c their handlers suggested it thinking that the nature of the outfit would convey an image that Diaper David was back sleeping with Wendy and all was ok, then it's fair game for criticism.

      If the dress was worn simply b/c that's what she felt like wearing that morning with no ulterior motives behind that decision, then the criticism would be unfair.

      by davefromqueens on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:59:20 PM PDT

      •  BUT...

        Since we don't know and can't know what was going through her mind, we should assume the worst, and thus, the criticism is fair.

        by doc2 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:02:24 PM PDT

        •  However

          we have to use the evidence available to us and she is on record as bashing HIllary for what Clinton did, for criticizing what she calls "san francisco values," for advocating sex as only b/w a H + W + for dressing quite conservatively in campaign commercials to portray some 1950s Mamie Eisenhower image.

          So a logical inference can be made that she wore this dress b/c her handlers told her to thinking it would help her husband save his senate seat.

          I can't say I'm 100% sure this was the reason but I find it more probable than not.

          by davefromqueens on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:13:10 PM PDT

  •  my god

    my god it really just hit me.  One of the men we have running this country and right now is deciding if we should end this war, in his spare time has hookers put him in diapers so he can shit himself among other things.

    I think we can safely assume this country has pretty well jumped the shark

    by pissedpatriot on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:07:28 PM PDT

    •  Exactly.

      Even the Brits are laughing at us (not like they haven't had their own politicians practicing peculiar pecadillos in the past).

      (say that five times real fast)

      by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:11:48 PM PDT

•  Hey, if all he did was wear diapers,

  where's the crime? I don't see the sex, do you?
  hehe

  by BoringDem on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:03:39 PM PDT

  •  No shit, no crime

    But I suspect Mr. Vitter stunk up the place. What a pathetic freak.

    by FishOutofWater on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:05:33 PM PDT

  •  at least he didn't wear them to the press conf

    ...or DID he?

    by lisastar on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:25:38 PM PDT

•  Wendy Vitter's appearance was noteworthy

  Her pathetic husband hid behind her. That she was wearing an animal skin print dress is significant because of the situation. She was taking the dominant position and her husband was playing diaper baby.

  by FishOutofWater on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:03:43 PM PDT

  •  FUCK

    I hate this  place, or I guess the more accurate thing to say is that I fucking hate people sometimes and it's depressing to see it happen to people you trick yourself into thinking are "on your side" or some horseshit.

    by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:22:29 PM PDT

•  Context is all important

  I'd have to see this before commenting, but there are subtle messages made in clothing, speech, appearance, and the general decision-making process that can and do influence the entire message in general.

  In this case, the message is, "my wife is so hot, why do I need a hooker"?

  And in that respect, this IS as important as any other part of the debate. Anyone who wears animal prints is clearly without any sense of fashion at all, or fucks for a living.  That might be the second message; my wife is already a whore, why do I need another...

  by Dcoronata on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:06:44 PM PDT

  •  And having no sense of fashion is something

    I love about people who are so lucky.

    by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:23:48 PM PDT

•  To Be Honest

  I'm not sure what one might wear to such a bizarre occasion.  Dressing like a nun seems a bit creepy as well.  The truth might be that they both love each other like crazy and just want to stay married and she doesn't mind keeping a lot of "baby wipes" handy.

  by bink on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:07:07 PM PDT

•  I love Keith and Allison-

  but I think this was a little unfair to do Wendy Vitter too.
  It's a very sexist double-standard that women have to "exploit themselves" to prove to the rest of the world that they aren't dogs/morbidly obese, or butter-faced to play into the male sterotype of women only being recognized for her looks and nothing else.It's more necessary (in her own mind)since her husband was caught so publicly philandering-must be extremely humiliating to her.I think this is what she was doing in the tight dress-a need to play into the "doll" seen-and-not-heard wife.Sad that that's the only measure of her own self-worth.
  I think it was extremely wrong to call attention to her-in light that she was the one cheated on with a hooker, by an unapologetic cheating husband standing right beside her.

  That was just catty of Countdown to do to Wendy Vitter.
  She's the victim in this instance-don't try to turn it around or deflect blame from Vitter (whom the story should have been about).

  by bethincary on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:07:18 PM PDT

  •  Will mildly disagree

    she isn't the victim; WE ARE.  He spouted his nonsense about Clinton, and harmed this nation by his actions.

    She chose this man, she chose this lifestyle.  She could leave at any moment, but she won't because she likes the perks, and is willing to look like a giant jackass in order to maintain.

    Think of her as the congressional version of Carm Soprano...

    by Dcoronata on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:12:08 PM PDT

    •  SHE got paraded out there-

      to take the heat of him-she got used and she let herself get used.
      Right now though- it's pretty pitiful because the public can see it(this whole apology ruse)-but she can't.

      by bethincary on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:07:32 PM PDT

  •  She opened herself up to criticism and the public

    eye because she is on record commenting about Clinton's escapade. I guess we could conclude from what she said about "bobbitting" her husband if she caught him cheating that Mr. Vitter isn't quite all the man he once used to be. Maybe that explains the vampy tigress dress and the forlorn look on her face?

    The hypocrisy of these people is equally as disgusting as the things we unfortunately learn they do in private.

    by jayden on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:14:59 PM PDT

    •  exactly

      Wendy Vitter is the one who is on record with all the vitriolic comments about the clinton.

      Had she said back in 1998 that it was a private matter and who are others to judge, then she'd be entitled to more comity.

      but she deserves none and will get none.

      by davefromqueens on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:05:20 PM PDT

    •  Which I'm sure she regrets now.

      That still does not change the fact that this was her husbands' "transgression" not hers. She should not be the one being judged so harshly-she's not the one making public policy or conducting impeachment trials-HE is.

      by bethincary on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:11:12 PM PDT

  •  Will strongly (but nicely) disagree

    Flip the parties.

    What would O'Leilly and peckerwood Sean do?  The dress (and its implications) would be all they would be talking about for weeks.

    Not that I want Countdown to sink to that level, but still...

    by Richard Cranium on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:15:25 PM PDT

    •  Countdown will not be talking about it for weeks!

      That's the difference. The segment was done in a lighthearted manner. It was not meant as a serious repudiation of the woman's morals or marriage.

      The Vitters are hypocrites and deserve a bit of mocking. Her ill-chosen attire was just an added bonus.

      by jayden on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:44:37 PM PDT

  •  Yeah?

    I think it was extremely wrong to call attention to her-in light that she was the one cheated on with a hooker, by an unapologetic cheating husband standing right beside her.

    Yeah, really?  Then what was she doing with the tenis pro?

    No, humour aside, do you think she was getting no "jolies"?  If she wasn't getting it from him then it is highly probable she was getting it elsewhere.

    by Demena on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:48:52 PM PDT

    •  Playing tennis perhaps?

      by bethincary on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 09:04:16 PM PDT

•  i did see it. But I thought they had a point.

  They noticed she was dressing hot.  I didn't even think of it until they pointed it out, but it was true.  I didn't feel like they were attacking her. They were just analyzing the dynamics of the situation.  She could have chosen to wear a pantsuit or a string of white pearls over her demure sweater set.  It is true that your average Washington senator's wife would not have shown up in a tight fake leopard skin dress for a press conference at any time, much less the time in which her job was to defend her husband because he does weird shit with hookers and got caught and publicly humiliated her.  I think they were right that there was a chance the dress was sending some kind of message -- maybe to Vitter or to the world? Not sure what the message was. I wasn't sold on their interpretations -- ie., she was dressing like a hooker as some sort of passive aggressive retaliation (although, I suppose that could be true). I saw it as a kind of defiance --like "okay, I'm supposed to stand up here and defend you, but I'm not going to be the mousy little woman" --who, as Hillary might have put it -- would stay home and bake cookies and "stand by her man!"   In other words, "It's not my fault. I'm attractive, he didn't NEED to go find hookers!"

  Someone else have a better interpretation?

  by derridog on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:19:20 PM PDT

  •  An interesting tidbit

    is that one of the msnbc morning anchors wore the same dress on air this morning and she also commmented on the fact that Wendy Vitter wore it.

    I can't remember the newswoman's name...but she is terrible.

    by etherapy on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:26:54 PM PDT

•  How is she a victim?

  She's married to this creepy guy who sleeps with whores and then, after the fact, continues to run around for years castigating all the rest of us for not being as pure of heart as he is.  And as he publicly continues to masquerade as something he's not, supporting the right wing and evangelical agenda, including the war, his wife stands by him, a full participant in the scam. So Keith Olberman points out that she also dresses like a slut, and someone actually feels sorry for her for THAT? I wouldn't be embarrassed for Countdown; I'd be embarrassed that this witch is one of your gender, just as I'm embarrassed that Vitter's one of ours.

  by doc2 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:20:18 PM PDT

  •  Olberman was on vacation. eom.

    by UntimelyRippd on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:25:24 PM PDT

•  Her anger overshadowed her dress...

  I happened to watch Vitter's odd statement live, and the first thing that struck me was that his wife had a pronounced "deer in the headlights" look to her.  Her eyes were darting about and she seemed someplace between confused and extremely angry.

  It struck me odd because she's not really a beginner at this, like some ordinary person who, through some tragedy or other news event, suddenly winds up on the news or even talking to Larry King.  Mrs. Vitter is the wife of a Senator, and she must have been in front of many audiences at countless political functions.

  When Vitter essentially hid behind her and she took over the appearance, I began to think that she's pissed off because of what's never going to happen now.  Vitter was Giuliani's biggest supporter in the south, and the Vitters probably thought that Rudy might even pick him as his running mate.  Mrs. Vitter probably had dreams of being the next Lynn Cheney... and now she has to stand in front of a bunch of reporters she obviously hates and defend her jerk of a husband.

  As for the dress, I didn't really pay attention to that until I saw it mentioned sarcastically on Americablog last night and thought, yeah, it was kind of a strange dress.

  And as for Alison Stewart, she's smart and funny and can do no wrong, so let's not pick on her!

  by rjmac on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:21:30 PM PDT

  •  too bad honey

    Mrs. Vitter probably had dreams of being the next Lynn Cheney

    by lisastar on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:23:40 PM PDT

•  does she deserve our respect

  as the long suffering, supportive wife of this pathetic excuse for a congressman?  No.

  Should Countdown have taken advantage, wasting time on what the woman wore.  No.

  Keep the white hot spotlight on him til he resigns.

  by lisastar on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:22:37 PM PDT

  •  re: does she deserve our respect...

     Should Countdown have taken advantage, wasting time on what the woman wore.  No.

    I disagree.

    Countdown neither "took advantage" or "wasted time" on what she wore.

    I could never understand why liberals think these loud-mouthed wingnuts should be constantly let off the hook & cut a break.

    If Mrs. Vitter is going to talk shit about cutting the dick off adulterers & (my personal favorite) those evil "San Francisco values" then they should be held up to scrutiny.

    & the only place in the MSM they are going to be held up to scrunity is on Countdown.

    All things considered, if the hypocritical bitch is going to dress like a whore, she should be slammed for it.

    by wyvern on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:34:02 PM PDT

    •  I see your point

      and agree with it. But while she is definately hypocritical, I'm not sure she's a bitch or a whore. I'd go with witch and slut, those are less harsh and are not offensive to women.

      by doc2 on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:40:50 PM PDT

    •  Mrs. Vitter is a hypocrite for sure

      and should be criticized as such. She criticized Hillary.

      But the diarists point is that her clothes are irrelevant.

      Calling her a whore for what she wore is ridiculous. Plenty of women wear dresses like that. It's in fashion.

      by fatbob on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:42:10 PM PDT

      •  Wow. Thanks --

        You said it much better than I did.  

        by osterizer on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:57:31 PM PDT

    •  yeah, what fatbob said

      Plus there are too many other really important things to cover. Like poopy diapers.

      by lisastar on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:06:24 PM PDT

•  I told my son it was shabby and unfair.

  Who cares what she was wearing? I can think of a few reasons she might have been particularly concerned to appear physically -- even sexually -- attractive. None of those reasons matter, in any way at all, to anyone whose perspective on this little scandal is in the proper place. Nobody with any sense cares why he was stepping out, and nobody with any sense is worrying much about Mrs. Vitter's relative virtues as a wife. She is, indeed, wholly peripheral to this story.

  by UntimelyRippd on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:24:05 PM PDT

  •  No, she in not peripheral to this story

    She is on record commenting about Clinton's escapade. Apparently it was fine for her to stick her nose into other's people's business but expects others to turn a blind eye to her and her husband's blatant hypocrisy.

    Creepy repugs doing creepy things wearing creepy clothes.

    Diapers and Leopards, oh my!

    ugh.

    by jayden on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:30:33 PM PDT

    •  And what does that have to do with her

      clothes? And do you have a link to her comments about Clinton? Do you mean the one about "Lorena Bobbit"? that was in response to a question about Vitter's alleged hooking in 2000, so it's not fair to say she was sticking her nose into anything.

      by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:36:16 PM PDT

•  San Francisco values...

  ...Brother Coulter constantly wears a black mini-skirt.  

  We've seen what Law & Order Thompson's wife wears.

  Apparently, Mrs. Vitter was wearing a form-fitting, leopard-skin dress with a plunging, v-neckline.

  I know this diary is about not doing this, but when these right wing women talk shit about "San Francisco values" then dress like 2 bit hookers themselves, I think they should be called on it.
   

  by wyvern on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:25:53 PM PDT

  •  You didn't even see it and you feel qualified

    to comment on the appropriateness of her outfit? Christ.

    by Little on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:31:32 PM PDT

    •  it's the hypocrisy not the dress

      She criticizes others + then acts like those she criticizes.

      It's not the dress, she has every right to wear it.

      it's the hypocrisy.

      by davefromqueens on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:08:45 PM PDT

  •  Brother Coulter?

    What's up with that?

    by rserven on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:07:03 PM PDT

•  Hillary comparison.

  I remember 9 years ago, when Clinton got caught getting a freebie; and all the Conventionally Wise demanded an explanation why Hillary stayed with him. Vitter pays for it, and the same people are silent about Ms. Vitter's continued support.

  by Judge Moonbox on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:39:10 PM PDT

•  She gets no sympathy

  ...because of what she has said in the past.  Not only did she personally condemn Bill Clinton, but she also said if she were in Hillary's position, she'd pull a Lorena Bobbitt on her husband.  Not only did she not do that, but she stayed with Vitter.  No matter what she was wearing, she's just another hypocrit.

  by Tam in CA on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 06:53:38 PM PDT

•  Gee, 'n I thought the Wendy Vitter Double Standard

  ..was making comments about Bill Clinton's infidelity and how she would never stand for that as Hilary did, and then doing a 180 when she in fact was in the same position.

  silly me

  by mr nj on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 07:08:51 PM PDT

•  No sense of taste: J'accuse Allison

  Nasty, mean and sexist comments about Mrs. Vitter's clothes in the shittiest way possible. Not funny, not appropriate, not professional. Crap on Allison. She gets my vote for the  third worst TV host of the night. (1 & 2 are always Bill O'R and Bill O'R)

  by OHdog on Tue Jul 17, 2007 at 08:21:07 PM PDT

•  Followup:

  Olbermann apologized.

  by osterizer on Mon Jul 23, 2007 at 05:23:39 PM PDT