Wow. . . this is hilarious.
I think somebody at the New York Times is a little biased. I have a hard time believing that the only stock images available for some of our 2008 presidential hopefuls happily masticating are those that make Hilary Clinton look like a piggy and reveal Rudy Giuliani's secret aspirations to be Steven Tyler.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, looks like he stepped out of an L.L. Bean catalogue and the Corn Dog Eating Society of America should certainly consider him for their poster boy. (Oh, if only there was a corn dog-eating society.)
But besides all that hilarity, are we really so hard up for news that we have to resort to watching the future leaders of America eat? I'm pretty sure there are more important things to talk about. And besides, eating is already being covered elsewhere. (<-- And look who it is! Giuliani!)
I get really frustrated with how voracious the "news" media is about gossiping-up politicos as if who wears boxers or briefs might influence me at the polls. I do not deny that the personal lives of presidential candidates are interesting and even important in supplementing the body of knowledge needed to make a more informed decision (Giuliani's surprise separation announcement from ex-wife Donna Hanover -- catching her unawares -- gives a better indication of his character than perhaps, say, his penchant for extra cheese). Former White House chef Walter Scheib said, “There are few things more personal than eating . . . and if you reject someone’s food, you kind of reject them”. That's exactly right. And I'm 100% guilty of that kind of snap-judgment: on more than one occasion I thought, while walking passed the alfresco diners of Charlottesville's Hardware Store restaurant (a'hem, now closed), I could never be friends with any of you if it would mean we'd have to eat here. I'm totally a food snob! And I also hate corn dogs and love ice cream. Does this mean I should reject Obama and raise my spoon to Hilary? Certainly it means I need more information. While an interesting look at local politics, attempting to appeal to voters on a national scale through food is virtually impossible. You will offend vegans and vegetarians by scarfing southern barbecue and annoy the cattle farmers by patronizing that hip sushi joint in mid-town.
Anyway, while the eating habits of the battling Dems and Reps are entertaining, I'm ready for something pertinent (besides, my main gripe is with how ridiculously The Today Show those images and video are). Even if Americans are reading less, this does not mean those in a position to report news should encourage a mindless stall in foodie land. Report something pertinent and newsworthy; make me think, please.
NYTimes, you make me LOL.
Wow. . . this is hilarious.
I think somebody at the New York Times is a little biased. I have a hard time believing that the only stock images available for some of our 2008 presidential hopefuls happily masticating are those that make Hilary Clinton look like a piggy and reveal Rudy Giuliani's secret aspirations to be Steven Tyler.
Barack Obama, on the other hand, looks like he stepped out of an L.L. Bean catalogue and the Corn Dog Eating Society of America should certainly consider him for their poster boy. (Oh, if only there was a corn dog-eating society.)
But besides all that hilarity, are we really so hard up for news that we have to resort to watching the future leaders of America eat? I'm pretty sure there are more important things to talk about. And besides, eating is already being covered elsewhere. (<-- And look who it is! Giuliani!)
I get really frustrated with how voracious the "news" media is about gossiping-up politicos as if who wears boxers or briefs might influence me at the polls. I do not deny that the personal lives of presidential candidates are interesting and even important in supplementing the body of knowledge needed to make a more informed decision (Giuliani's surprise separation announcement from ex-wife Donna Hanover -- catching her unawares -- gives a better indication of his character than perhaps, say, his penchant for extra cheese). Former White House chef Walter Scheib said, “There are few things more personal than eating . . . and if you reject someone’s food, you kind of reject them”. That's exactly right. And I'm 100% guilty of that kind of snap-judgment: on more than one occasion I thought, while walking passed the alfresco diners of Charlottesville's Hardware Store restaurant (a'hem, now closed), I could never be friends with any of you if it would mean we'd have to eat here. I'm totally a food snob! And I also hate corn dogs and love ice cream. Does this mean I should reject Obama and raise my spoon to Hilary? Certainly it means I need more information. While an interesting look at local politics, attempting to appeal to voters on a national scale through food is virtually impossible. You will offend vegans and vegetarians by scarfing southern barbecue and annoy the cattle farmers by patronizing that hip sushi joint in mid-town.
Anyway, while the eating habits of the battling Dems and Reps are entertaining, I'm ready for something pertinent (besides, my main gripe is with how ridiculously The Today Show those images and video are). Even if Americans are reading less, this does not mean those in a position to report news should encourage a mindless stall in foodie land. Report something pertinent and newsworthy; make me think, please.
Oh, Mandy, you hate corn dogs? I'm not sure I can be friends with *you*. Then again, I can forgive you if you hate corn dogs because the only kind you've ever had are those nasty ones with the thick icky spongy coating from the frozen food section. A corn dog with delicate, lacy homemade batter, deep fried to perfection...is a thing of beauty. Mmm...git yrself a deep fryer & try this one...http://www.foodnetwork.com/food/recipes/recipe/0,1977,FOOD_9936_25894,00.html
Also, I don't want any of these people to be president, regardless of their noshing preferences. Would I want to sit down for a drink with any of them? No. No, I would not.
Speaking of the Clintons, I didn't know this, but apparently Chubb's paid out almost $10MM in legal costs on the Clinton's *$5MM* umbrella because Gennifer Flowers refuses to settle her suit & the court case just keeps draggin' on...bet they wish defense costs weren't outside the limit on this one!
$5MM umbrella with $10MM++ in defense costs?! Oh, snap!