Tonight on Countdown the talking heads were blah-blahing endlessly about how inappropriate it was, at the press conference where Senator Vitter was apologising for patronising prostitutes, for Vitter’s wife to be wearing a “tight, sexy dress” 
with a “plunging neckline” that made her look “like a prostitute herself.” And judging from a quick websearch it looks like others are expressing similar sentiments.
Huh? What on earth are they talking about? I’ve seen the clip over and over ad nauseam, and to me the dress looks perfectly ordinary, even somewhat conservative. (Here it is, on the right.) What am I missing?
I have a theory: The entire mainstream media is so synchronized into their groupthink as a result of having to manufacture consent that they will instantly repeat ad nauseum any trivial thing that comes along.
There is nothing you are missing, except how conservative and machist the media can be
Re: What am I missing?
The neckline appears rather ordinary to me as well. Perhaps the hemline is around her navel. I mean, they coul;dn’t possibly be so silly as to think it scandalous just because it’s a leopard-print pattern — could they?
Well, it’s not one of those hideous skirt&jacket/suit outfits you see presidential candidate’s wives wearing.
I suppose she could have worn something more conservative, baggy and with a neckline just under her chin to conceal any evidence of her having a body. Maybe even a burqa. Then the talking heads would be dropping subtle hints about her being too plain and not sexy enough, thereby driver her man to seek his pleasure from prostitutes.
And what about that scandalous bit of ankle showing?
Off-Topic: Would you consider writing a reply to Randy Barnett’s WSJ piece? I think you could probably do it best.
Thanks — I’d like to, but not sure I’ll have time; I have to finish up a paper by the end of next week, and then I have three conferences in a row coming up — and then classes start.