Gore Goes Glamour-ous
I'd rather be Bush-Whacked than Gored
By Kirsten Andersen

I do not read Glamour magazine; in fact, I am boycotting it, and have been for a few years. Of the numerous neo-feminist fashion magazines out there (the ones with the starving children on their covers -- oh wait, those are supermodels), Glamour has consistently been the worst offender when it comes to sticking its proverbial nose where it doesn't belong -- namely, politics.

Glamour has always had a liberal feminist bent to it, at least where pure politics is concerned (but someone ought to tell them there is nothing feminist about eighty-pound twelve-year-olds modeling trampy-looking ten-thousand-dollar outfits). Other magazines, such as Marie Claire and Mademoiselle have been actively trying to catch up with Glamour in terms of utter depravity, but Glamour has remained the front-runner in the race to the bottom of leftist lunacy.

The August issue of Glamour, which hit newsstands Tuesday, should shatter any illusions more conservative readers may have had about the magazine's true purpose. Forsaking my boycott, I obtained a copy of Tuesday's issue because of an article I read in The Washington Times highlighting a particular piece. The Glamour piece is called, "Karenna Gore Schiff's Guide to Not Getting Bush-Whacked," subtitled "How to make George W.'s term a lot less scary." Really nice for a supposedly apolitical fashion magazine, isn't it?

If the Gores are going to come out of hiding, and have chosen Glamour as their vehicle, then boycott or no, I want to see the wreck. After all, what is left to say when you shamelessly tried to steal the Presidency using every nefarious tactic possible and still lost miserably (have you seen the red-and-blue map, Mr. Gore?)? That Al Gore is not doing the speaking in this case is, on the one hand, rather irrelevant since Karenna was such a key advisor during the campaign as to be of one mind publicly with her father. On the other hand, that Karenna is venturing back into the spotlight first is significant for several reasons.

First of all, Karenna chose Glamour because the Gores needed a friendly audience. Apparently they found it in Glamour, which in the August issue alone boasts an editorial defending Governor-cum-absentee mom Jane Swift of Massachusetts and a sensationalist article about women with AIDS. Fashion has never been this politically correct!

Once they found a friendly audience, the Gores needed to put a friendly face on their message. Who better to re-introduce the Gore family to society than Karenna, a pretty 28-year-old with a law degree, a rich doctor husband, and one cute kid with another on the way? Karenna makes a much better cover model than her father, even with the tiredness and bloating of pregnancy present in full force (I hear Al is a little bloated these days, too, to the tune of about forty extra pounds).

Friendly audience, friendly face...all that is left is a friendly message. In her "Guide to Not Getting Bush-Whacked," Karenna sticks to the knee-jerk emotional issues that are so popular with most women, from gun control (get guns out of the hands of infants!) to abortion-on-demand (it's MY body and I'll do what I want to, even if it means ripping a baby to shreds for my own convenience!). Her piece is peppered with chatty, fluffy talk about what a nice guy her dad is and reality TV. She tries, and fails to connect with an audience that cannot relate to her privileged upbringing and fairy-tale life. The worst part is, she knows it.

Time after time, throughout the article, it becomes glaringly obvious that Karenna is talking down to her readers. Condescension is a nasty trait that Karenna seems to have inherited in spades from her father. Just as one got the impression that Al Gore was pitching policy to kindergartners whenever he spoke during the election, one feels that Karenna is writing to an audience of seventh-grade girls at a sleepover.

For example, toward the end of her article, Karenna encourages women to write to their elected officials in support of liberal issues: "I know you're not likely to feel like one of Charlie's Angels simply by scribbling down your feelings on legislation, but crime fighting comes in many forms!" Or this gem, from her criticism of Bush on so-called 'women's issues': "The old cry of 'women and children first!' seems to describe who will get cut from the new budget." Her idea of 'women's issues?' Universal health care, state-run day care, and more government regulations on guns. Not tops on my list, but then again, I never seem to agree with my gender on anything.

As a onetime Glamour reader and as a woman, I maintain that in this attempt to regain her relevancy, Karenna missed her target. Unfortunately, she probably fired up a lot of gum-snapping, soap-obsessed bimbettes for her liberal causes, but the type of woman who would be anything but offended by Karenna's elitist garbage is the type who will get halfway through writing a two page screed on why she supports abortion-on-demand before realizing "Oh! Oprah's on!" and forgetting Karenna and her issues altogether.

Women (even liberal ones) of any substance should be able to see right through Karenna's sanctimonious whining and see that what this Gore girl really wants is the spotlight. Glamour gave it to her this month, and I suspect they will not be the last, but the more this spoiled socialite exposes herself in public, the less all of us have to worry about her actually advancing her brand of liberal trash.

Back to column

PoliticalUSA.com Home