Bush’s colon, Hillary’s cleavage and the roles of privacy, gender and the presidency
Dan Brawner
July 25, 2007
Recently, President Bush underwent a much publicized colonoscopy. For the duration of the procedure, Bush transferred control of the country to Vice President Dick Cheney. (Yeah, I didn’t notice any difference either.) The nation held its breath and waited for the results.
No cancer was discovered in the president’s colon. But what a relief they finally found the weapons of mass destruction! Those wily al Quaeda! What will they think of next?
There’s a lot of talk these days about protecting the average person’s privacy. But what about the president’s privacy? Isn’t it bad enough that reporters quote every silly, fumbling thing he says? Now, the prying public eye intrudes into his very bowels and broadcasts in graphic detail what it finds. Isn’t the leader of our country entitled to keep the contents of his lower intestine to himself?
Actually, no. Because as president, Mr. Bush is not a private individual. Symbolically, Bush IS the United States. If he is healthy, the country is healthy. If he is ill, we are ill. If he freezes up like a raccoon caught in the headlights...well, you get the idea. So we are intensely interested in and entitled to know the outcome of Bush’s colon exam.
It is fascinating to note the fixation the press has with the bodies of presidential candidates. Much analysis has been devoted to the appearance and upkeep of John Edwards’ hair. Is Bill Richards too fat to be president? Is Dennis Kucinich too short? Is Mitt Romney too handsome? Barack Obama is black. But is he black enough? Hillary Clinton is a woman. But is she woman enough to be president?
During a recent YouTube presidential debate, one audience member asked Clinton, “Are you feminine enough?” Fortunately, the caller was too far away to get physically injured. But Clinton replied, “I couldn’t run as anything other than a woman.” Which, you must admit, was a pretty good answer. I mean, maybe she could run for the senate by impersonating a New Yorker, but Mrs. Clinton has never tried impersonating a man. (Although, her focus groups are reportedly looking into the possibility.)
America wants its male president to be manly. He must have a many name and a manly body and a manly walk. He must speak sternly like a strict father who knows what’s best for us.
And we will expect our female president to be womanly. I guess. In a July 20th editorial in the Washington Post, Pulitizer Prize winner Robin Givhan wrote exhaustively about Hillary’s recent show of cleavage, a phenomenon as rare as a glimpse of Big Foot (though not as exciting.) Givhan’s observations were mainly confined to Clinton’s severe taste in clothes, but it did bring to mind that a President Hillary Clinton would serve as the mother of our country and would have to demonstrate her symbolic capacity to um, nourish the nation.
Still, when it comes to the president’s colonoscopy, I prefer to look at it like a hockey game–skip all the unpleasant details and just cut to the final score.
No cancer was discovered in the president’s colon. But what a relief they finally found the weapons of mass destruction! Those wily al Quaeda! What will they think of next?
There’s a lot of talk these days about protecting the average person’s privacy. But what about the president’s privacy? Isn’t it bad enough that reporters quote every silly, fumbling thing he says? Now, the prying public eye intrudes into his very bowels and broadcasts in graphic detail what it finds. Isn’t the leader of our country entitled to keep the contents of his lower intestine to himself?
Actually, no. Because as president, Mr. Bush is not a private individual. Symbolically, Bush IS the United States. If he is healthy, the country is healthy. If he is ill, we are ill. If he freezes up like a raccoon caught in the headlights...well, you get the idea. So we are intensely interested in and entitled to know the outcome of Bush’s colon exam.
It is fascinating to note the fixation the press has with the bodies of presidential candidates. Much analysis has been devoted to the appearance and upkeep of John Edwards’ hair. Is Bill Richards too fat to be president? Is Dennis Kucinich too short? Is Mitt Romney too handsome? Barack Obama is black. But is he black enough? Hillary Clinton is a woman. But is she woman enough to be president?
During a recent YouTube presidential debate, one audience member asked Clinton, “Are you feminine enough?” Fortunately, the caller was too far away to get physically injured. But Clinton replied, “I couldn’t run as anything other than a woman.” Which, you must admit, was a pretty good answer. I mean, maybe she could run for the senate by impersonating a New Yorker, but Mrs. Clinton has never tried impersonating a man. (Although, her focus groups are reportedly looking into the possibility.)
America wants its male president to be manly. He must have a many name and a manly body and a manly walk. He must speak sternly like a strict father who knows what’s best for us.
And we will expect our female president to be womanly. I guess. In a July 20th editorial in the Washington Post, Pulitizer Prize winner Robin Givhan wrote exhaustively about Hillary’s recent show of cleavage, a phenomenon as rare as a glimpse of Big Foot (though not as exciting.) Givhan’s observations were mainly confined to Clinton’s severe taste in clothes, but it did bring to mind that a President Hillary Clinton would serve as the mother of our country and would have to demonstrate her symbolic capacity to um, nourish the nation.
Still, when it comes to the president’s colonoscopy, I prefer to look at it like a hockey game–skip all the unpleasant details and just cut to the final score.