Should Pres. Obama give exclusive interviews to women’s fashion magazines?

A few days ago, Women’s Wear Daily (WWD) broke the epic political news that Pres. Barack Obama had given an exclusive interview to… Glamour Magazine! The editor-in-chief of Glamour, Cindi Leive, had flown to Portland, Oregon in the middle of Obama’s campaigning to interview the president herself. This, of course, is the biggest, most gigantic political scandal ever. Conservatives and Washington media types (“media elites,” I almost wrote) are really angry that the leader of the free world would sit down with a glossy fashion magazine! And I’m sure they were equally pissed off when George W. Bush sat down for an interview with Glamour in 2008.

GLAMOUR GETS TIME WITH O: Add Glamour magazine to the list of nonpolitical publications that have scored an interview with President Barack Obama.

Editor in chief Cindi Leive flew to Portland, Ore., last month to sit down with the President for an interview that will appear in the magazine’s November issue. It is not the first time Obama has sat down with Glamour — he did so in 2008, along with John McCain — but it is his first time as a sitting president.

A woman’s magazine like Glamour would not traditionally be in play for an interview with the President — first ladies have been more their turf — but agreeing to the interview is a mark of changing media strategies. The Obama campaign has recently been exploring alternative news outlets to press their message — ESPN Magazine, People magazine and Entertainment Tonight have all scored interviews, much to the dismay of the White House press corps, who have not enjoyed the usual privilege of questioning the President since Aug. 19. Stephanie Cutter, a spokeswoman for the campaign, described these outlets as being “equally important” to traditional political media.

Glamour pitched them on a big audience, said Washington editor Linda Kramer Jenning. “There’s a lot of attention being paid to young, women voters,” Jenning said. “That’s the calling card that opens the door.” It took five months to lock down some face time.

Jenning said Leive asked the President about women’s health care, among other topics, even though the interview took place before the recent uproar over the antediluvian comments about rape by Missouri congressman Todd Akin.

The Obama interview is not the extent of Glamour’s political coverage. Like other magazines, it is sending staffers to report from both political conventions, with the Republicans beginning [this week]. All and all, 15,000 credentialed media are expected at each event. Tina Brown buddy Martin Amis is traveling to Tampa as part of Newsweek’s six-person team to cover the RNC; the same number is at the DNC, minus the novelist. Esquire is sending five staffers to Tampa and four to Charlotte to report for both its political blog and the magazine; contributing editor Charles Pierce is working both events, while writer at large Tom Junod is going only to Charlotte. GQ is sending a team of four, including senior editor Mark Lotto. Marie Claire editor in chief Joanna Coles is moderating a panel — on women’s leadership, natch — and Seventeen has asked six teenagers to blog for its relaunched Electionista blog.

Jenning, who’s been covering the conventions for Glamour for four years, wants to share with the magazine’s readers “what it’s like to be there.” Sometimes, she’s also just looking at the fashion. “There are more pearls at the Republican convention.”

[From WWD]

On one side, I can see why the White House press corps would be pissed off that Obama isn’t giving them enough access (during an election cycle, which seems weird) all while reaching out beyond the Washington “echo chamber” to less political media outlets. But the bulk of the criticism is ridiculous, sexist and hypocritical, in my opinion – why wouldn’t the POTUS (any POTUS) want to reach out and speak directly to women? Sure, the president should give interviews with Meet the Press and Face the Nation and 60 Minutes. But I think it’s smart for Pres. Obama (and any politician) to reach beyond the traditional news outlets. Glamour Mag has an average circulation of 2.3 million, and my guess is that not many of those women watch Meet the Press (no disrespect, I haven’t watched Meet the Press in a few years too). And Pres. Obama has made it clear that he’s actively seeking the women’s vote. Why NOT give interviews to fashion, health and beauty magazines? Or, put another way, why isn’t Mitt Romney also giving interviews to women’s magazines? Or is Romney content to let Todd “Legitimate Rape Won’t Get A Lady Pregnant” Akin speak for the GOP’s platform on women’s issues?

Photos courtesy of WENN.

 

You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.

156 Responses to “Should Pres. Obama give exclusive interviews to women’s fashion magazines?”

Comments are Closed

We close comments on older posts to fight comment spam.

  1. This Just In says:

    Of course his supporters will say YES because for them Obama can’t do anything wrong.

    • Kaye says:

      But why would this be wrong?

    • mia girl says:

      You should also say
      “Of course his detractors will say NO because for them President Obama can’t do anything acceptable”.

      • Monie says:

        + 1,000,000. The Obama presidency hasn’t been perfect by any means but I am perplexed by the vitriol against him. Like he’s smothering babies and bashing old ladies’knees with a baseball bat. lol.

        Wait, why am I commenting so much about politics on a gossip site? *checks herself*. Off to read the Travolta post. Toodles! :-)

      • Nymeria says:

        @ This Just In – Don’t forget #8: Voted to extend and strengthen the Patriot Act.

        He’s no better than Bush II, IMO.

        I’m no fan of Ronald Reagan, but in 1980, he asked the question: “Are you better off than you were four years ago?” (Mittens is apparently asking this question as part of his campaign, which is a patently offensive question coming from his billionaire ass. This offense is intensified by the fact that he drafted a large part of the Obama health care act, making him effectively a second Obama.)

        Four years later, hope has turned to desperation. Oh, yeah. Our country is *so* much better off than it was four years ago.

      • Tiffany says:

        I feel like the people that dislike Obama so much try to paint the picture as if HE caused the recession. They forget what happened in October of 2008, forget what the economy was doing when he was sworn into office.

        I can’t believe people think that bringing in someone with the exact same plan as Bush will help the economy (deregulation, cut taxes, increase defense spending). Did they not pay attention last time?

      • gg says:

        meh, they’re all hypocrites. Each side does it to the other side, every chance they get.

  2. Girlygirl410 says:

    This would not be a big deal if he was not trying so hard to be an A list celebrity.

  3. Monie says:

    You speak directly to your audience so I see nothing wrong with it. Now if the interview accompanied a photospread of him posing and modeling; I’d find that tacky and unbecoming of the office. As noted, GW was interviewed by Glamour in 2008 to no fanfare. The same way he raised the debt ceiling well over 10 times with no bellyaching and threats from the Republican Congress. Amnesia is an illness that is running rampant these days.

  4. Nev says:

    He is the PRESIDENT…go on Obama!!!!

  5. Lulu says:

    Sure, why not? He’s not like he’s working much being the President. Worst. President. Ever.

    • Monie says:

      Wow, I’ve met my first vampire. Been around for every presidency! Neato!

      • Lulu says:

        Apparently you’re not acquainted with history and books about it. Go back to watching your silly vampire shows.

      • Monie says:

        I’m very well acquainted with history; obviously more than you. Ever heard of Herbert Hoover, Woodrow Wilson? Heck, your gang even said Jimmy Carter was the worst ever. So which is it? And please give detailed reasons why he is the worst “ever”.

        And fyi, I haven’t watched a vampire show since Buffy the Vampire Slayer, darling.

      • mel says:

        He might not be the WORSE EVER but he ranks up there – I compared him to Carter – I compared him to Carter – never said Carter was the worse President. That being said I have a lot of respect for Carter for the work he has done after is presidency. I think Obama would of been a great President if he had not been so eager to be a young President and had more experiences in leadership. Hillary was robbed and we now have our country in a financial hell (please do NOT blame Bush) and our other alternative is a women bashing Republican team. Its so effing depressing.

      • Sarah says:

        Why can’t we blame Bush? It’s his administration’s fault! Two wars that he left off the books, tax cuts that only benefitted the wealthy and corporatations… shall I go on?

      • Tiffany says:

        I seems like people who call him the worst president ever forget that the economy started to tank in Oct. of 2008. Remember, the collapse of Lehamn Brothers, the stock market nose dive to the 6000s? The stock market is back up to 13,000 now. Obama didn’t cause the recesssion, he ended it. Yes, the economy is struggling, but that is because 40% of middle class wealth was sucked out when the economy collapsed before and during his first few months in office.

        Stop trying to re-write history, which is what people are doing when they blame Obama for the economy. You can’t dig yourself out of a hole THAT deep over night.

    • Beth says:

      Carter was so widely disliked because he had a very bad foreign policy. Obama has one of the best foreign policies in recent administrations. Even the Republicans have trouble criticizing his foreign policy. So he’s really not very much like Carter at all.

      Furthermore, Carter’s economic problems were a result of rising oil prices due to trouble in oil producing nations in the Middle East and southwest Asia. Obama’s economic woes are a result of a previous Republican administration’s deregulation and banks and businesses running away with that deregulation and crashing the economy while padding their own pockets.

      • cocogirl says:

        +1 totally agree on every point made.

      • garvels says:

        Response to Beth on comment 31.-Obama’s foreign policies great? I guess if you support the Muslim Brotherhood taking over the Middle East..it is just lovely. Iran has now denied all women the right to attend University in Iran.I am curious as to why Obama said nothing during the Iranian protests in 2009 when the Iranian midget stole the election;but Obama speaks up during the Arab Spring in Egypt, when there were strong indicators that Mubaraks replacement would be the Muslim brotherhood.Many analysts said that Egypt will follow in the foot steps of Iran. President Morsi in Egypt is already prosecuting journalists and dissenters of his government.

        I also love how President Obama’s administration does not find it necessary to seek Congressional approval to engage in war..instead he consults with the United Nations. Leon Panetta is on the record stating that he felt that if they had United Nations approval then Congressional approval was not necessary. I guess if you are into a global government like Hilary Clinton and President Obama then this is just fine.

        In terms of looking out for the best interests of the United States,I strongly feel that Hilary Clinton and President Obama is not looking out for the best interests of the U.S..

        I really literally laugh hysterically when I think about the Lefties opposition to water boarding under Bush, when president Obama just goes out and blows people away without due process with his drones and he actually maintains a kill list.

        How would we like it if a foreign government sent drones over to the US to blow away our leaders if the foreign government considered the US leaders to be terrorists??

        I also just love how Obama’s administration releases national policy secrets to the public…..I feel so much safer-NOT!

      • Beth says:

        Garvels:

        National security secrets? You’re right. that was terrible when the Obama administration released the name of Valerie Plame, the undercover CIA agent, just to seek revenge on her husband. OH WAIT THAT WAS THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION.

        Your entry is earnest at best, but please try to organize your thoughts. I don’t know where the torture comment came from. I would respond to each of your “points” in kind, but I would need to watch an archive of “Fox and Friends” to figure out what you’re even saying.

      • garvels says:

        Beth and it is quite obvious that you are probably Chris Mathew’s of MSNBC number one fan. You really should look at multiple sources and understand the leanings of the source. I don’t watch network news,I get my information from conservative and liberal sources on the internet…more and more people are moving this way.

      • Beth says:

        Garvels:

        Thanks for the advice. I find Chris Matthews’ shouting tedious. I get my information from the B.A. I hold in Political Science and History from a reputable private liberal arts college in Ohio.

        I spend most of my recent time as a stay-at-home mother to two children, whose father is an active duty United States Marine and veteran of Operation Enduring Freedom, which you might know more commonly as “that war we fight because of 9/11.” Except we’ve lost friends. So we pay attention to the REAL effects of foreign policy, not just the metaphorical “how-big-is-America’s-cock” that you right wing psychos do.

    • bluhare says:

      Lulu: Actually, no. That honor goes to George W Bush who was instrumental in getting us to this nightmare.

  6. Nanz says:

    I’m glad to see the Obama campaign acknowledge the importance of the women’s vote, especially when women’s reproductive rights are largely being discussed and legislated by men (not that we women aren’t discussing these issues, but the men are getting a lot of air time, because obviously). I agree that the real question here is “Why ISN’T Romney doing the same thing?” I don’t read fashion magazines. But I’m glad to know that the POTUS values the fashion mags’ readership, as they are most certainly a valuable voting contingent. This is not about political party preference – it IS about Women and educating all women about each party’s attitude toward women’s rights (reproductive and otherwise).

    • Monie says:

      +1. Blind hatred for this man is extinguishing the obvious, rational reason behind the interview.

      • This Just In says:

        Blind hatred? Because he’s done nothing wrong, the country is in awesome shape, our allies loves us and our enemies fear us, a 16 trillion dollar debt is fantastic, 64% of the nation on some form of welfare is super, it’s fantastic that Obamacare was passed LITERALLY in the middle of the night with no one allowed to read it, and Obama’s just the best ever?

        So if a person doesn’t think THIS way then the only other option is “blind hatred”?

        Everything isn’t about “women’s issues”.

        I truly and honestly don’t give a flip what magazine he gives interviews for. I just want to see him gone come January 2013.

      • Dragon says:

        And this is all Obama’s fault, not inherited by the Bush area? Your memory is pretty short, like a goldfish, once around the bowl ….

      • Erinn says:

        Agree with Nanz and Monie.

        I don’t understand the hate. This man was set up with a terrible situation- no matter who got voted in the results wouldn’t have been much different. It’s a shame that so many people hate on him for that.

        And honestly, I don’t understand how any woman can FULLY support the whack jobs the Republican’s picked. I’m generally a conservative with some liberal leanings, but honestly, when men are the ones that make decisions about women’s bodies, that terrifies me.

        I’m all for free choice, and making your own decisions- vote however you want. But if you think voting in the Republican candidates is going to magically fix the country, I think you’ll be disappointed. It’s going to take a lot of work to fix the mess America is in right now.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        The deficit is Bush’s fault, it wouldn’t exist in the first place if it wasn’t for his embarassing joke of a presidency-denying it over and over again won’t change that reality.

        If it helps any, This Just In, you’re not changing anybody’s minds here. The tactic of abandoning rationality in favor of anger rarely works to sway opinion and certainly DOESN’T EVER work to gain favor in the political arena. You can put your anger to work and vote for Romney, it’s all good. Just know that there are millions of women that disagree with you and we’re all coming out to vote.

      • Ranunculus says:

        @This just in

        “Everything isn’t about “women’s issues””

        Do you realise that women make up half of the population?

      • flan says:

        @Just in.

        If you care so much about the debt, you would have no problem getting rid of those tax-breaks the rich got under Bush.

        Remember how they were supposed to help create jobs and help everybody?

        HAHAHAHA.

    • Susie Q says:

      I don’t see a problem with it either. As a Canadian looking in I think Obama has done a good job considering the mess he inherited coming into the Presidency. I really can’t understand how any woman can vote Republican.

      • Erinn says:

        Same situation, Susie. I think perhaps Obama could have handled it better, but honestly it doesn’t so much affect me, as a Canadian. As far as women’s issues go though, I think he is the obvious choice.

      • whatthehell456 says:

        Sorry, it won’t let me reply to This Just In personally…

        This Just In:

        Please, please, PLEASE STFU. We GET it, you liked Bush, hate Obama and you’re a rebublican. MOVE ON, you don’t have to reply on every post and try and jam your anti-Obama rhetoric down all our throats.

        *rant over*

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @This Just In-
        You don’t help your cause by being disrespectful and the insinuation that women who are pro-choice are pro-abortion and think “abortion is a great thing” is not only false, but ignorant.

        Maybe we just don’t believe in government owning our bodies and treating women like worthless baby-carrying receptacles? But you go and vote for Romney with his *small government* plan. I guess *small government* applies to everything EXCEPT controlling a woman’s body, because a woman’s body is property of the government right?

      • Erinn says:

        @ This Just In,

        It’s not just being pro abortion. Ryan Paul has supported the act that would not allow hospitals to perform abortions in the case of the mother being in immediate threat of dieing from her pregnancy. He is also friendly with Todd ‘legitimate rape” Akin. He cosponsored legislation that would have outlawed most forms of birth control, and likely IVF. The man is a mess. And any woman that falls for his “dreamy looks” I truly feel sorry for.

      • Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

        Another Canadian observer. Canada is obviously not a perfect nation and we have some big messes of our own to sort out before pointing smugly at the nation down south. Our relationship with minority groups isn’t exactly glittering (medical assistance provisions for First Nations peoples in the form of body bags, being made to pay for one’s own state of emergency recovery efforts, huge youth suicide numbers, violent offenders against women given free reign–the fact that most of us don’t know that the last residential school closed in 1996, but that was probably due to the act that crimes committed by blacks are over-reported by a ratio of 9:1 and Julian Fantino’s ‘Let’s All Hate Jamaica’ campaign was very, very, VERY effective in grabbing the attention of those individuals just looking for a reason, hell, I would not be to be a Persian individual who is a client of Toronto Dominion Bank right now, those poor folks can’t access their own damned money), but in those instances when American politicians expect us to just shut up and fall in line (because that happens sometimes), I’m grateful that we don’t have psychos like Akin that and the only thing I have to have in common with Rick Santorum is a birthday.

        Maybe it’s my wandering womb or excess of melancholic humours or a simple case of acute greensickness, but when I hear phrases like ‘legitimate rape’, this uterus wants to collapse in on itself as would a supernova do if it got pregnant and thus proved with the application of slut science that it was either lying or secretly enjoying it. The proof is in the monster in your gut, so that’s your punishment? BATSHIT.

        I know it’s played out, but George Romney ran for president and was born in Mexico. McCain was repatriated when his father’s stationing overseas ended, so what makes them more legitimately American than a person born in America? What’s the difference?

  7. Kim says:

    Its Ok for Glamour and Marie Claire would be even better since they cover social issues like domestic violence, reproductive freedom issues, salary disparity…

  8. Ranunculus says:

    I don’t get it – I love fashion and clothes, I love cooking, gardening and interior design. I am very interested in politics and do watch political magazines. I love to engage with my friends in discussions about philosophy or psychology. Why the hell (I even occasionally love to swear) am I not to like and do ALL these things.

  9. Garvels says:

    I don’t see what is wrong with this if he has time between his golf games,hoops and celebrity parties. It is not like he has to run a country. It’s not like he has to work on a budget,after all,the US hasn’t had a budget for over 3 years…so what’s the rush.

      • Garvels says:

        Well why did the president submit a budget to congress that received zero votes. The president makes recommendations to the Congress for the Budget. The democrats had both houses and the presidency for the first 2 years of Obama’s presidency and no budget was passed. Since then,the house has passed several budgets but Harry Reid has done nothing to advance a budget in Senate. If the president was a leader and if he knew what he was doing,there would be a budget for the world’s largest economy.

        The president is running like he has not been president for the past 4 years.

      • This Just In says:

        Unfortunately the POTUS doesn’t get off so easy, just by “blaming” Congress. This is the OBAMA ADMINISTRATION. POTUS was involved in socializing healthcare, so why can’t he be involved in getting a budget done? POTUS was involved in bombing Libya (who never did nothing to us). Why can’t he be involved in a budget? Obama involves himself wherever he *feels* like it.

        The bottom line–despite the obvious discomfort it causes many people–is that President Obama is a failure of the highest order. So yes, let him give allll the interviews to fluff magazines he wants to. He needs to beg to keep his job.

      • Jilly says:

        @This Just In: Where have you been? The White House DID supply a budget for Congress to consider EVERYTIME that Congress has been in budget talks. Its up to Congress to approve the budget though and they refuse to do that even though the White House has supplied them with a balanced budget. The problem is Republican’s want poor people and the middle class to loose their programs while we keep tax cuts for the 1%. The White House agreed to negotiate cuts for social security and Medicare IF Republican’s would negotiate tax rates, but the REPUBLICAN’s refused. So its not like the White House had their feet up doing nothing. They stuck their neck out risking programs their base adore. Republican’s have taken our government hostage refusing to compromise on the budget issue and it is not okay.

    • Esmom says:

      @This Just In: As TheOriginalKitten put it so well: “The tactic of abandoning rationality in favor of anger rarely works to sway opinion and certainly DOESN’T EVER work to gain favor in the political arena.”

      It’s people like you, who insist on mindlessly spewing conservative talking points, who make me truly frightened for the future of our country. What ever happened to rational dialogue?

  10. tripmom says:

    I’m not bothered by the president taking time to sit down for an interview with Glamour. I think it’s a smart move on his part.

    I am bothered that Glamour is taking the time to interview the president. Quite frankly, Glamour and other similar magazines are escapism for me. When I want to hear about news and politics I watch CNN, read The Economist, or listen to NPR in the car. But when I want to look at pretty dresses and get ideas for manicures while I soak in the tub I pick up Glamour or In Style. I subscribe to Glamour for the fashion tips, not the political interviews!

  11. Nanz says:

    That’s not how I read Kaiser’s comment about Akin. My interpretation of it is that by not reaching out to women through magazines or otherwise, Akin’s voice (and those who support him) becomes the loudest voice in the room re women. It’s not doing Romney any favors to simply distance himself. He could go along way in courting the women’s vote by reaching out to women who may not otherwise pay attention to politics in detail. It certainly couldn’t hurt Romney to go the extra mile BECAUSE of people like Akin who potentially threaten the Repubs. But maybe I’m reading too much into her statement.

    • Nanz says:

      Edit: the comment I responded to is no longer here.

    • Kaiser says:

      Nope, that’s exactly what I meant. Thank you.

    • Garvels says:

      I think Romney’s goal is to court everyone’s vote. Romney does not divide the country into special interest groups preparing different speeches for each group. Romney’s speeches have been consistent across the board..Romney does not pander…which I find very refreshing. Romney’s focus has been the economy,jobs and the growing debt . Our growing debt is a national security issue. I,as a woman find these issues to be most relevant to me and my family.

      • Beth says:

        “Romney does not divide the country into special interest groups preparing different speeches for each group.”

        HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Delusional.

      • MerryHappy says:

        Please do not make me be condescending to you.
        ALL candidates have groups they market to. Whether its latino votes, womens votes, African American, or narcissistic celebrity votes. Candidates market to every single group, because they want every groups vote. I’m saying this in the nicest way: don’t be so naive. Romney isn’t some captain America candidate that doesn’t see economic divisions, color, or creed. He sees them as much as the next candidate. I’m glad you’ve found a candidate you believe in, but he is playing the same campaigning and marketing game they all play.

      • Johanna says:

        Beth: you beat me to the ‘delusional’ comment

        Just in: Why do you feel the need to reply to everyone who disagrees with your point of view? As if anyone cares what you think.

      • flan says:

        There would be a lot less debt over the years without tax-breaks for the rich.

        But there is no way that Romney will ever want to get rid of those. Even if people would die of famine in the street, that would be the last thing to go.

    • TheOriginalKitten says:

      Ok, now Nanz-I completely agree with you.

      BUT, and here’s the problem with politics in general, once he starts “courting” the female vote and shows that he is a moderate Republican in a lot of ways, then he threatens to alienate the GOP and Repub voting base. He really can’t afford to do that during an election year. Again, this is why politics are completely f*cked up-people always complain that there’s not enough bi-partisanship but for every person that values a moderate approach, there exists a hard-liner who wants to see their presidential candidate take a strict, unwaivering political stance.
      Remember when Kerry got CRUCIFIED as a “flip-flopper” just because he made unilateral decisions that weren’t necessarily in line with his party? That sh*t arguably lost him the election.

      It’s a no-win situation. It’s not fair but that’s the reality of politics.

    • Tiffany says:

      The men that pay Romney’s bills are extreme in their views on women’s health. His Vp pick Ryan co-sponsored a bill with 180+ congressional house GOP members that gave different treatment to women who were victims of “forcible rape” and “non-forcible rape” (women who were drugged, mentally ill, etc.) The GOP platform now says no abortion exception for the mother’s health, rape, or incest.

      The people that pay Romney’s bills and the party that he represents do NOT support women’s rights. Romney has no core values, he just is the mouth piece for whomever is paying him.

      • This Just In says:

        Tiffany, your choice of words is manipulative. Do not say that Republicans “don’t support women’s rights”. That’s just dishonest and designed to demonize and provoke outrage against Republicans, who–I will remind you–make up roughly half of the American population. By using this choice of words, you are making it sound like women’s rights is synonymous with abortion rights. Women’s rights are more than just the ability to get a safe and legal abortion. If you really want to know what abuse of women’s rights looks like, go to Saudi Arabia or Iran or North Korea.

        I am a woman. I am a Republican. And I resent this kind of slander. So you’re for abortion and we’re not. It’s a free country. That’s what democracy is about, the freedom to exchange ideas and opinions publicly without fear. There is more to life in this country than just abortion rights. And, after all, abortion is LEGAL.

      • Ranunculus says:

        @Thisjustin
        I think a woman has more rights to decide what she wants to do with her own body than a MALE dominated political party, ESPECIALLY when a MALE did something forcefully and without consent to that woman’s body. So you are saying women should not complain and just be happy not not be living in a country where their rights are being kicked into the gutter. I think it is essential that women can live free and safe from male aggression in a country, the Rep Party’s record in making that sure is not very impressive. There have been many, many incidents of murder, bodily harm and aggression against abortion clinics over the years. What exactly does “Pro Life” mean?

      • garvels says:

        Tiffany,abortion is legal in the US and women have acces to contraceptives so what’s the problem? I personally do not want my tax dollars going to support abortions because I am pro-life.

        In college I was pro-choice until I read and saw a video on partial birth abortions. We now have a president who voted 4 times in the Chicago legislature,and it is documented on tape,that abortions can apply to a baby born alive after an unsuccessful partial birth abortion attempt. This to me is extreme and barbaric.

      • TheOriginalKitten says:

        @ Tiffany-It’s why I never use the term “pro-life” and only use the term “anti-choice”. Every woman I KNOW is pro-life, nobody WANTS to have an abortion. But shhhhhhh, don’t tell that to This Just In-it’ll ruin everything for her.

      • Tiffany says:

        Garvels, you said, “Tiffany,abortion is legal in the US and women have acces to contraceptives so what’s the problem?”

        Because the GOP platform, the documented goals of the party, says they want abortion to be illegal in EVERY instance, with no exceptions for rape, the health of the mother, or incest. If you disagree with the establishment of your party, you should let them know. They state their legislative goals in platforms. This is not slander by any means.

        This Just In–I know fully well that women’s rights don’t limit themselves just to abortion rights…which is why the GOP finds themselves on the wrong side when they try to legislate state laws that make it illegal for a nurse practioner or anyone other than a doctor to impliment IUD devices. You have Santorum speaking at the convention, and he is against simple birth control. The GOP as an establishment has fought to prevent birth control being covered as basic medical care. In Arizona lawmakers tried to pass a law where a doctor could with hold a female patient’s medical information from them if it influenced their decisions on abortions. (I think they succeeded, but not sure). I hardly think that doctors keeping health information from patients is supportive of a woman’s rights!

      • yolo says:

        @Tiffany – I almost hesitate to get involved in this debate but I would like to point out that you comment is incorrect. The GOP clearly stated that they support abortion under certain circumstances. This doesn’t mean that I support that view because I would want the right to make my own decisions. I wish people would actually listen to what is being said from each party rather than make knee jerk decisions based on what they hear 2nd hand or that has been twisted thru the media. The Rep party is also distancing themselves from A-hole Aiken, requesting and urging that her remove himself. I’m not a dem. I’m not a rep. Nor am I a lib. I’m more of a realist that finds it very difficult to side with any party. Our options at this time seem very limited.

      • Rachel says:

        This is meant as a reply to Yolo: actually, in the new version of the platform, there is no exceptional circumstance for abortion. It is theoretically “left to the states”, but the official platform is no abortion, no exceptions.

        http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/21/g-o-p-approves-strict-anti-abortion-language-in-party-platform/

      • Tiffany says:

        Yolo, you seem to be implying that I am having a “knee jerk” reaction…when really this is factual information that I am sharing. Not trying to be mean, but you are the one making assumptions that are incorrect. From Fox News yesterday:

        “Republicans emphatically approved a toughly worded party platform at their national convention Tuesday that would ban all abortions and gay marriages”

        http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/08/28/gop-oks-platform-barring-abortions-gay-marriage/

        Sad…but true.

      • yolo says:

        I wasn’t saying you specifically (making knee jerk decisions), I was saying people in general, so no assumption was made about you. Did you watch any of the Conference last night? (not asking in a rude way) I was 100% sure this was cleared up to include “certain circumstances”, but if I misheard, my mistake. It’s so hard to believe that these issues are still such a topic of discussion after all these years of debate. I personally don’t think anyone should be allow to tell me what to do with my body or how to live my life. I don’t oppose abortion, but I do think it should NOT be used as a method of birth control. I unfortunately know someone that has had 7 abortions before she was 25. *smh* I don’t know if we (women) will ever get the resolve we truly seek…until maybe a woman is in office..?? But even then, we could still be divided. All these different rape terms being thrown around, when rape is rape…it’s crazy.

    • Chatcat says:

      I’ll start by saying that I am an Independent and a Moderate. I don’t dislike the Dem party but I do admit I don’t like Obama as President. I followed his campaign 4 years ago and made my decision to vote with McCain not because of party, but because of my lack of belief Obama was leader material. Now if Hilary would have been the nominee, I would have voted for her for she has what it takes to lead, and truly not because she is a woman, but because I feel she has what it takes to lead. That is what I want and expect of my President and their administration.

      It’s 2012, not 1912, and I feel confident as a woman and a Mom that because one f*cking moron in the political arena shows his absurd view on “pregnancy due to legitimate rape” doesn’t reflect the sentiments of an entire party’s position or feelings. Hell everyday here at CB we critique and criticize the actions or sayings by an individual but we seem to generally understand that it is an individual thought or action.

      Each party has its share of buffoon’s (Biden to the left and this Akin to the right) but I accept that on face value, every “group” has it’s village idiot, and I won’t assume other individuals have the exact sentiments of the idiot simply because they are villagers.

      • Tiffany says:

        Yes, every party has their fools, but the real issue here isn’t Akin’s comment about “legitimate rape” it is what he (by his own admission) MEANT to say.

        He meant to say “forcible rape”. Over 180 House GOP members co-sponsored legislation that would give women who are “non-forcibly raped” fewer options in their health care. These women could be drugged, mentally ill, passed out, or too young to give consent. I feel that the GOP as a whole ignores the rights and needs of rape vicitms, while trying to push their pro-life agenda. Paul Ryan, the VP candidate, was one member who co-sponsored this legislation. We are not talking about foot-in-mouth syndrome. We are talking about acutal legislation that the GOP as a party tries to make into law.

      • Tiffany says:

        “I feel confident as a woman and a Mom that because one f*cking moron in the political arena shows his absurd view on “pregnancy due to legitimate rape” doesn’t reflect the sentiments of an entire party’s position or feelings”

        The views and goals of the party can be found in their platform…which makes no exceptions for victims of rape.

      • Chatcat says:

        “The views and goals of the party can be found in their platform…which makes no exceptions for victims of rape.”
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        Well let’s see Tiffany. Abortion is legal. The Republican Party is not trying to overturn or repeal. In fact, the philosophy of Roe v. Wade is that health care decisions like abortion are a private matter and government has only limited authority to intervene in private health care decisions.

        “The views and goals of the party can be found in their platform…which makes no exceptions for victims of rape.”
        ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

        The Democrats’ Obamacare is based on a philosophy that there is no right to privacy in health care. Government can control what health care people can obtain by forcing them to purchase insurance that may not cover the type of health care they want or need and fine and/or tax you if you do not. So Tiffany, exactly what point are you trying to make about a “party’s platform”?

        Abortion is one of MANY important issues in the country, but it is not the only one and I will not discount any party based on one issue, because we have to get our economy improved, create sustainable jobs, and pay down our debts. In this election, the Republicans have the folks in play to get that done. In the 90′s the Dem’s had it with Clinton, but they do not now with the Obama Administration.

      • Tiffany says:

        “The Republican Party is not trying to overturn or repeal”

        That is NOT what the party says in its platform. A “party” is an organization, and a “platform” is the specific goals of that party. It might ease your mind to think that the GOP is more moderate, but the organization as a whole is working towards making abortion illegal in all forms.

        If you are focused on the economy, why would you think that repeating the same plan as Bush would make things better? Romney wants deregulation (that helped create credit default swaps), tax reduction (heaven forbid we pay off the two wars that were started and unfunded during Bush), and an increase in military spending (we have the biggest military many times over, time to invest in America). The fact is that the GOP talks about fiscal responsibility, but they do not legislate fiscal responsibility. Decreasing education funding will not help our economy. An uneducated workforce is an unemployed work force.

      • Tiffany says:

        When you said that the GOP isn’t trying to overturn Roe V. Wade, it made me wonder if you knew what a platform is.

        Definition:
        political platform – a document stating the aims and principles of a political party;

        So yes, by stating in their platform that they want to end all abortions, they ARE trying to overturn Roe V. Wade. But that is just one of many reasons not to vote for the GOP.

      • Chatcat says:

        Well Tiffany I do know what a platform is, and as a matter of fact I have reviewed both the Democratic and Republican platforms for 2012 and for me and mine I feel the Republicans have a better plan on the multiple items outlined in each platform. I am glad we live in a country that we can investigate and listen to multiple sides of issues, make a decision based on which side feels right to us, and then get to vote conscientiously.

      • Tiffany says:

        Chatcat, the Democratic Platform hasn’t been released yet. The most you can gather from it is what it “reportedly” contains based on claims of some websites. It will be finalized and released at the Democratic Convention that starts on Sept. 4th.

        How can you review something that hasn’t been released yet? The only Dem platform available is from 2008.

      • Chatcat says:

        Yes it won’t be officially released until the delegates convene in Charlotte, but all sources indicate that it will not be different than the 2008 statement. Since we are currently living the platform daily here in the US, and Obama and Co. have not deviated one iota from the message in the last 3 1/2 years, I feel confident that no material changes will be made to make me believe the Dem’s are the better equipped party to fix problems of the last 6-8 years. After seeing the Republicans platform this morning, I am more confident then I was a week ago that they are the party that has a better chance of turning this mess around starting in 2013.

      • leuce7 says:

        Chatcat,

        I don’t know where you got “forcing you to purchase insurance you don’t need.”

        First off, Obamacare just says you need to be insured.

        You can get that insurance through your job if you have one and they offer a plan, and you’re all done.

        And if your job offers you insurance, and that insurance company’s money goes to overhead or profit more than it does to providing care (85%/15%), then your company gets money back.

        You can be a healthy person and pay $70-80 a month for basic coverage like I did when I was an unemployed 20-something out of college (not that you’ll need to for all of your 20s, since Obamacare also lets children stay on their parents plan until the age of 26).

        And if you do opt to individually purchase basic care insurance, Obamacare sets a minimum for benefits that should be on there and covered. Like birth control, for instance. And preventative care.

        And if you do buy on your own, the same thing about insurance companies having to send you back money if they don’t spend your premium money on health care applies (80%/20%).

        You can be on Medicare or Medicaid, if you qualify for it. More poor people will qualify for Medicaid under Obamacare, and that will hopefully help put a dent in the costs we all pay from people just showing up to an emergency room with their health problems, instead of having access to preventative care to stop health problems from developing. Oh, right, unless your state decides to opt out of this one.

        If you don’t have insurance, you can get whatever kind of insurance you want. Or, you can choose not to get insurance. But you will now have to pay for the privilege of being uninsured, which is one of the things that already raises everyone else’s rates (the bigger the pool of insured, the less we need to pay in premiums to have enough to cover those who do get sick). And this will help keep health care costs down (the US already spends more per capita than any other country, pre-Obamacare) instead of everyone’s tax dollars going to subsidize the uninsured when they, inevitably, use health care they can’t pay for.

        And, if you don’t have a job and your state doesn’t opt in to extend medicare, you can still get federal help to pay for the insurance you do end up buying (if you chose to) when you get it through an exchange that your state sets up, where you can go to compare and shop for your private health insurance. Businesses can too.

        I know this is a super-long post, but the utter disinformation that floats around the internet about this plan really irks me. And I’m not even a huge fan of it–I prefer Canada’s single-payer, private-provided medical care (Go Canada!).

      • Tiffany says:

        So Chatcat, you are admitting you lied about reading the 2012 Democratic platform?

        And it is silly to say that we are living the Democratic platform already. The GOP in Congress has used filibusters 300% more than at any other time in the history of our country to prevent Democratic legislation from being debated on, much less voted on and passed into law.

        It seems you are judging dems on based on GOP talking points and not actual fact.

      • Esmom says:

        “…the utter disinformation that floats around the internet about this plan really irks me.”

        THIS. I get these “urgent” spam emails full of flat out untruths…most recently one saying that Obamacare imposes a tax on all home sales…and then, of course, urging me to “save America” by voting Obama out.

        I wish people would checks facts before blindly passing along bad info….to get back to the untruth above, Obamacare only imposes a tax on profits above the capital gains threshold, which only affects a tiny percentage of Americans. It’s begun to seriously enrage me.

      • garvels says:

        Leuce7-Obamacare is going to be the largest middle class tax on the people and at the same time it will lower the quality of care. Attached is a summary of all of the taxes imposed by Obamacare. Please notice the 40% tax on cadillac healthcare plans. Those of you who have great insurance plans will be forced to pay a 40% tax on that Insurance.What I find odd is that if the president wants to encourage people to have healthcare,why would he tax them 40% if they have a cadillac plan?? I thought this was suppose to be the Affordable Care Plan?? Some unions were able to receive a temporary waiver on this point but everyone else has to pay the tax.

        Obamacare is designed to force everyone into a single payer government run system. We will end up with a two tier system,where the wealthy will have private insurance with the best doctors and the peasants will have the single payer network. 30% of companies in 2013 will be dropping their healthcare and will just pay the penalty because it will be more cost effective according to a McKinsey report. The reimbursements for medicare and medicaid will be reduced once more and doctors are now opting not to take these patients because they lose money.

        Please read this report and please do your own research on the 21 taxes contained within Obamacare.

        Remember what Nancy Pelosi said, “We won’t know what’s in the bill until we pass it”.

        http://www.economicpolicyjournal.com/2012/06/obamacare-21-new-or-higher-taxes.html

      • flan says:

        It has not just been Akin who has been spewing out this crap. He’s not an anolomy in the party. Some of the things they are pushing through on state level against women are disgusting.

        Also, there’s probably a bunch of rich guys in the GoP who don’t feel this way. However, they care way more about the votes from the religious right than they do about women’s issues.

  12. Garvels says:

    Akin is a creep and essentially the GOP has conceded the senate seat in MO,(a seat that they were slated to win),because the GOP has condemned Akin and will not give him one penny for his election. Stop spreading propaganda,in order to prop up president Obama. Shall we assign all of Joe Biden’s gaffes to president Obama?

  13. cynicalsmirk says:

    Somehow, I think it’s inappropriate. I understand reaching out to voters, but having the president interviewed by a publication that focuses on what is essentially frivolous (fashion, celebrity, cosmetics) in my mind, cheapens his status, or that of any others in a similar position to him.

  14. lucy2 says:

    If it’s a serious interview, I don’t see a problem with any POTUS doing that. If it’s frivolous fashion stuff then no, but if it’s about serious issues, why not? I think it’s wise for any politician to look beyond their typical media outlets to reach more people.

    I agree that Romney should be trying to reach out to women voters more too. Given his record, he actually seems a lot more moderate than his current campaign would suggest, but when he doesn’t step up, I agree that the loud wacko voices like Akin become representative.

    • This Just In says:

      I tend to feel the same way, but at the end of the day I have to admit it’s really not a big deal. I think all this started with Clinton when he did interviews with MTV on the campaign trail. Since then the world of celebrity and media has become so important to a presidential campaign that a candidate can hardly so no to any form of media.

      • Esmom says:

        I don’t think it’s Clinton who started this trend per se, but the fact that the media really started to change right around then. People get their info from far more channels/sources today than they used to and campaigns are trying to make the most of all of them to reach as many people as possible.

  15. anon says:

    Exclusive Oval Office Interview

    As part of our five-year coverage about women and heart disease, Glamour editor-in-chief Cindi Leive sat down with President George W. Bush for a candid discussion about his wife’s legacy, his hopes for his daughters and even his old smoking habit.
    January 4, 2008
    By Cindi Leive

    Read More http://www.glamour.com/magazine/2008/01/george-w-bush#ixzz24wTHc0Kq
    I had to google this didn’t know :-) don’t read Glamor; good for both Bush and Obama to reach as many as possible
    So the answer yes

    • garvels says:

      GWB and Obama are alot alike in the fact that they spend alot of money trying to please everyone because they want to be everything to everyone and they do not want to make the tough decisions.

      I think GWB realized he screwed up by attacking IRAQ and he wanted to make up for it in his second term by spending money to make people like him.

      I truly want a serious,resolute person as president, who doesn’t go on entertainment shows and who will stay in Washington building bridges between both parties in order to turn this economy around.

      I also think in the future the media needs to act like a watch dog and not a lap dog. No president should be allowed to deny Washington reporters from asking the tough questions and no president should have the right to censor press stories before they are published. A president should be forced to conduct monthly press conferences and the media should not have to worry about losing access if their questions hurt the presidents feelings.

  16. I understand that he wants to speak to all voters but I don’t really think people who read these magazines care a lot about politics.

    • KaitX says:

      Then you seriously underestimate women

    • Kay_la says:

      I think that even if a lot of readers aren’t that interested in politics it could do a lot to reach out to young women who are curious but feel overwhelmed by where to start. With most people getting news on the Internet, for someone who is not familiar with reliable political news sources it can be hard to know where to look. Fashion mags often cover health and social issues that have no relation to fashion I don’t think a political article that discusses those issues is that different. And the good thing about magazines is if you aren’t interested in an article you don’t have to read it.

  17. TheOriginalMaxi says:

    I can’t wait until Nov, I’m so sick of BOTH candidates smearing each other. They need to start talking about how they going to fix the economy

  18. yolo says:

    Interesting that this interview is in the November issue since it will be a matter of weeks to see how effective O’s outreach to women voters actually was. It could very well be his last interview like this as POTUS. When I think of Obama, I always go back to his ‘Hope and Change’ slogan and wonder what happened.

    • Mac says:

      “Never let a good crisis go to waste” is the real mantra of the Obama Administration.

      They’re content to watch people struggle and rely on government handouts while demonizing a small segment of the population.

    • Seagulls says:

      Obstructionist republicans happened, Yolo. The president tred in every way to compromise with people who were determined to make him fail. When it came down to making sausage, they decided that if Obama didn’t want to make it out of live kittens, then they weren’t going to make a deal. Find a non-partisan source like NPR. Find out just exactly how close to the brink Republicans dcided to take us. You want to see Obama’s hope and change? Elect as many Democrats as are on your ballot.

  19. Junegorilla says:

    He needs to get to work on this mess of a country. Not give interviews to dopey fashion magazines and sit on the view chattering with those harpies

    • flan says:

      Those ‘harpies’ as you so politely call them, are Americans. Involving them in the politics of their own country is not a bad thing.

      We’re not that different from them by commenting on this gossip blog.

      Unless you are one of those who only come here to denounce Obama and have no other interest in this website.

  20. G says:

    “..equally pissed off when George W. Bush sat down for an interview with Glamour in 2008.”

    No not really since George Bush didn’t shun and have a “hit list” on the conservative media. Just sayin…

    Bush sucked Obama failed back to celeb gossip unless of course Obama is only a celeb and not a US President? Oh wait…carry on!

  21. Reece says:

    He’s campaigning and targeting a specific audience. I see nothing wrong with it. I remember people throwing fits (& I was a young teen so it had to be major fits for me to notice) when Clinton went on Arsenio Hall back in the day. Now they ALL go on late night talk shows.
    I agree the women reading Glamour on a regular basis aren’t up on Sundays watching Meet The Press. Those comments reek of “Why didn’t Romney come up with it first?”

  22. MerryHappy says:

    Jeeze, i just came here to say in Oregon, we usually write ‘Or’, not ‘Ore.’ Its like saying Washington is ‘Was’ or Idaho is ‘Ida.’ … Anyway… I’d rather not have a political conversation, but i think its important to market to people who wouldn’t have been marketed to. I think weekends magazines usually do a candidate breakdown come election time, but i think it is important to have more in depth material covered. I like that he did it. I like that my one sister who knows nothing about politics other than to vote for the guy who won’t try to make her uterus public property (good method but we all need to know a bit more) can read more about what’s going on. I support access to information. Not everyone wants to go to cnn or fox, some people want a different kind of breakdown. Sometimes i want a different kind of breakdown. My rights as a woman and a medium that takes those rights seriously would be an important reference to me.

  23. Susie Q says:

    Can any of you regular posters tell me if ‘This just in’ has ever posted here before, I don’t recognize the name or is he/she here just for this post? Actually I am seeing quite a few names I don’t recognize, were they just sent here to bash Obama?

    • Esmom says:

      Haha, I was wondering the same thing, I haven’t seen her/him before.

      Similarly, someone else I’d never seen here before either responded to many of the less-than-flattering Lance Armstrong posts from last week. He/she posted rebuttal after rebuttal but then must have gotten worn out because they stopped about halfway through. It’s tiring being a troll!

    • MerryHappy says:

      Yeah… TJI is giving a very fervent troll vibe to me, too. I’ve never seen the name. I know i personally go on big posting spurts then just lurk about only reading for a while, but keep the same name. We’re pretty good about name recognition here, and i don’t recognize it at all.

      • francesca1 says:

        What are you guys? The secret police? And before you get your billy clubs out, I am an occasional poster on a variety of topics here. And I agree with a lot of TJI’s points. Does this mean I’m not welcome, either?

      • MerryHappy says:

        No, of course not. I myself even said I’m only an occasional poster. But people who post here tend to use the same names and are thus recognizable. I recognize your name as one I’ve seen before. This is a high traffic site, and also a high-troll site. There are countless scientology trolls, etc, that visit, and so when a poster detracts from a conversation with just hyperactive, angry, fervent, propaganda–its pretty obvious and annoying. It doesn’t bother anyone when new people post, but when someone comes on literally just to troll, its SO annoying. I don’t care if someone has different views, especially if they are voiced in an articulate and constructive dialogue.

    • Esmom says:

      Francesca1, I don’t think anyone’s being remotely police-like here, we’re just making observations. It’s one thing when someone comments occasionally but another, noteworthy thing when someone comes in an starts commenting in an angry, combative fashion.

  24. hatsumomo says:

    I would love love love to see Michelle Obama in the spread. the POTUS could give the interview part and the First Lady could do the fashion layout. Now THERES a story I could get into!

  25. Megan says:

    His target audience is women/teens more concerned about someone else paying for their birth control than the economy and our country’s unsustainable debt. How sad.

  26. DapperDaph says:

    President Obama and First Lady Michelle Obama have been on the cover of Essence magazine and there was no problem with it. So I’m sure that if he had refused Glamour much WOULD have been made about that.

    Anybody who votes Republican and are not wealthy are like turkeys voting for Thanksgiving.

  27. Chria says:

    Wow idk where I should start! First off I think everyone bashing each other back and forth because of their opinions is childish and pointless. I’m new to this site so the whole “I haven’t seen your name before” line also adds to the ridiculousness of this conversation. I usually post on anything anti-kardashian, but this caught my eye.

    I’m in the middle too. We don’t have a perfect president and we never will. Every candidate is going to have opinions you don’t agree with and you’re going to sometimes have to “suck it up” when a policy plays out you don’t like.

    I see here though that the people that have been posting represent the sad country we have turned into – no respect. You can have different opinions that’s the beauty of America free speech, but draw the line somewhere. Demoralizing yourself by blasting someone elses beliefs makes you out to be just as ugly as the person you’re blasting. So someone disagrees with you, so what? That doesn’t make them a bad person or under your shoe just because they feel differently.

    So am I the world peace and let’s love one another type person? Yes. I’m not ashamed of that either. We just need to respect others beliefs regardless of how different they are from ours.

    So with that _ rant over

  28. Nikkers says:

    The economy collapsed in 2008 due to deregulation of the banking industry that started in the eighties. Reagans Trickle down economics does not work and America is proof of that. 30 years of deregulation, letting the free market decide has led to companies shipping jobs oversees to boost the bottom line. How exactly was Obama supposed to reverse that in 4 years? At least he jept a recession from turning into a full blown depression Some people had very high expectations of one man. Returning to the exact same policies certainly won’t change things for the better.

  29. Carla says:

    Obama has always been smart regarding strategy and shoring up votes, often those neglected by the Republican party. In 2008, he did very well shoring up the youth and minority votes, and he is smart to cater to the women’s vote, considering we make up 60% of the population and the Republican party is supporting numerous policies that are NOT women-friendly. It’s an easy win. Frankly, I love the strategy – Obama goes for underdogs and spreads the message that everyone counts, not just the lucky few, which make up a far larger percentage of the voting public in general. One man’s trash is another man’s treasure.

  30. natalina says:

    the date of bush’s glamour issue was jan 2008— about the time he left office. Obama is only interviewing NOW for women’s votes-plain and simple, its a strategy that im not falling for…

  31. sugasuga says:

    I’m a fan of Obama and I will not feel ashamed admiting it. There is no way I will vote for Republican. Hell to the no

  32. epiphany says:

    For the love of G-d, Celebitchy, can we stop with the politcal stories already? Keep your politcal beliefs to yourself, and let’s stick to REAL gossip!

  33. cherylk says:

    PPL ARE OUT OF WORK,STARVING,LOSING HOMES WHAT // he needs to focus on getting jobs and giving ppl back some dignity..not this BS

  34. Jo 'Mama' Besser says:

    All of this whinging about what people are allowed to talk about and when and who’s allowed to speak…alright, no one’s talking, just as you instructed. So, what’s your prize for accomplishing that? I mean, I know silence is the pillar of discussion and all, but exactly how much Rice A Roni is won?