On Twitter, Reardon called the interview a "disaster." And, as politico.com reports, on air, the host huffed that, although Steelman is hot, she "isn't exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer."
Which got us wondering: Just how hot is Sarah Steelman? Is she Sarah Palin hot? Nikki Haley hot? Or -- be still our hearts! -- Kirsten Gillibrand hot?
For the record, we don't believe women should be judged on the basis of their looks, or lack thereof. Nor do we think that, just because she's hot, she's automatically stupid. Steelman holds a master's degree in economics; she also served as state treasurer, which is way beyond the abilities of this Daily RFT correspondent.
But, based on Reardon's response to their brief chat, Steelman's looks are clearly gonna be an issue. (Call it the curse of the hot chick: Like Rodney Dangerfield, they can't get no respect.)
So, readers: What do you think?
Is Sarah Steelman too hot for politics -- or do we only think she's hot because she's a relatively attractive woman in a profession that, until recent years, had few of them?
Are Sarah Steelman's good looks causing her to be unfairly labeled as dim -- or are her looks a big part of what's gotten her this far?
First let's get this out of the way. Looks doesn't have anything to do with her being unfairly labeled as dim. Watch the following videos and you will see she earns that title.
Now let's examine the Riverfront Times question, "Is Sarah Steelman too hot for politics?"
Let's get real. Sarah Steelman hasn't aged well at all, yet she still tries to pass off herself as the hot politician in the miniskirt, which you can see in the above videos. It doesn't work. She is well past her prime to be wearing miniskirts. If she gets to the Senate, do you want to be represented by a 54 year old woman who hasn't grown out of the need to show lots of legs to quickly climb up the ladder?
Yeah, maybe twenty years ago, Sarah Steelman was hot. Take a look.
In 2010, Sarah Steelman isn't hot. To compare her with Sarah Palin, who is librarian hot, well take a look these days.
However, a liberal Web site with a feminist section has rushed to Steelman's defense. Change.org is upset at the Riverfront Times for even asking the question.
In all seriousness, a story called "How Hot is Sarah Steelman anyway?" -- a piece judging the attractiveness of potential 2012 Missouri Senate candidate Sarah Steelman -- is a good example of the unequal treatment of political women in the newsroom and our political discourse at large. Inspired by a radio host who called her "hot" but not intelligent, the Riverfront Times ran with the story: "Just how hot is Sarah Steelman? Is she Sarah Palin hot? Nikki Haley hot? Or -- be still our hearts! -- Kirsten Gillibrand hot?"
Reporter Sarah Fenske actually justifies the fact that she's discussing a candidate's looks before launching a call for reader feedback on Steelman's hotness quotient: "For the record, we don't believe women should be judged on the basis of their looks, or lack thereof...[but] Steelman's looks are clearly gonna be an issue." Okay, it's unfortunate that the political discourse immediately trends towards judging women's looks rather than, rather than discussing their policy positions. But -- tempting as it is to join in the hot-or-not-fun -- here are a few directions the author could have gone in instead:
Instead of assessing the opinions and policy positions of potential Missouri Senate candidate Sarah Steelman, pundits are commenting on her looks.
Even if everyone else is talking about Sarah Steelman's looks, here is the real low-down on the potential Republican nominee.
Potential Senate candidate Sarah Steelman is the latest victim of our sexist political discourse, which judges women based on their looks, rather than their record.
As this latest example of sexist punditry demonstrates, female candidates don't get a fair shake -- and the sexist coverage damages their campaigns.
But no, the Riverfront Times had to join in the fun and start demeaning female candidates by eagerly discussing their political fortunes as a function of their looks. Congratulations, you are now part of the problem since studies have shown sexist punditry actually damages women's campaigns. Next time the Riverfront Times faces a similar editorial decision, I hope they take a look at the calendar; it's 2010 for Chrissake.
Well, at least Steelman has a few new liberal buddies thanks to Mark Reardon. They can meet for tea and discuss how to play the victim card. Steelman is quite good at it from watching her sit on the fence trying to decide whether or not she wanted to be a Senator last year. Amazing how political deals work. She is obviously the chosen one in 2012, and all because she backed down from her challenge of Roy Blunt in 2012.
