As of now, I am in control here, in the White House

Video || Jimmy Fallon Spanks Hillary’s Wardrobe

Maybe the liberal Tonight Show host is trying to move to the center . . .

It’s at the beginning of the monologue.

Share on FacebookTweet about this on TwitterShare on RedditShare on LinkedInEmail this to someone

9 Responses to Video || Jimmy Fallon Spanks Hillary’s Wardrobe

  1. Oh, boy-o. It is not wise for ANY man to ridicule any woman’s choice of attire on national TV, nooooo, not ANY woman.
    Maybe JoanRivers could get away with it if she were so inclined, maybe.

    Re: moving to the “center”
    There isn’t anyone of note or importance, out here in flyover land, that thinks women should only wear dresses and skirts. The notion that conservatives want women to take back their role as obedient wives and mothers, the “pregnant and barefoot” ideal, is a liberal talking point with no basis of truth.
    The “joke” was written by some liberal Dem flack who believes he found a theme that would appeal to conservatives, and he is wrong.

    • It is odd that Hillary is constantly ridiculed (mostly by conservative men) over her “pantsuits” when nowadays most women wear pants most of the time, including to church on Sunday. It’s also nasty, because the reason she switched to pants all the time is that those same men were ridiculing her thick ankles. Woman may be able to change their weight, but some were just born with relatively broad frames and thick bones around the ankles.

      I don’t have an objection to criticizing the tacky, outlandish fashion choices that are made by women in the spotlight who really should do better — e.g. Michelle Obama. But I don’t understand why so many people consider it acceptable and even virtuous to ridicule women over physical attributes they were born with and cannot change, or for being old.

      Most people think it’s morally unacceptable to ridicule people over a conspicuous physical disability or deformity, or a disfiguring accident; those things are viewed as misfortunes, deserving sympathy. But if a woman has physical imperfections that are merely aesthetic — especially the tiny differences that separate a “beautiful” face from an “ugly” one — they’re treated like MORAL defects. Women who have healthy, completely functional but “unattractive” bodies and faces, or who have outlived the beauty of their youth, are treated as though they are ipso facto bad human beings and deserving of opprobrium.

      For men, of course, the rules are very different. I’m recalling a video of Andrea Mitchell arguing with John Sununu, and there were many comments about that “ugly, shriveled-up old prune hag” — while the distinctly unhandsome Sununu got a free pass.

  2. The political cynic in me speaks up: this was intentional. Like the shoe that was thrown at Hillary, Fallon’s joke was meant to drum up sympathy for HRC. In fact, some in the audience were not amused.

  3. Waaaay OT:
    I’ve never completely understood the much written about ” evils ” of the Common Core Curriculum, until now.
    Give the Daily Caller website, that MrKoffler graciously provides a link to, and read the article on what is going to pass for education in Chicago. If this is what Common Cores about, then they dumbing down of America will be successful.

    • I just read that in NY state there are ads for big corporations, e.g., Lifesavers candy, on the Common Core tests. This is shamefully exploitative and I would think the children would be distracted while they are being tested. Although what’s going on in Chicago is more egregious.