Doonesbury by Garry Trudeau for March 20, 2013

Don’t you just want to strangle the little twit, Joanie ?

Smack that silly beech,

Joanie’s hair is the cut and length in keeping with current femaie heads of state and CEOs, her nose is non-Doonesbury so ok, and she did her nails, at least at home. Will that be enough?

Why does the ‘sniff test’ tell me that Joanie is being royally played…

I cannot imagine that in real life Elizabeth Warren would ever employ a little twit like this superficial airhead. A woman of intelligence who knows how to achieve in the political area would surround herself with people like Joanie, whose life experiences and expert advice are more important qualities than how she looks.

They are all so young, so idealistic, and so self-absorbed !

Looks like, the Senator’s office is going to need wardrobe and makeup departments.

This girl has got to go. Just think how she’s making her boss look to everyone else she’s doing this to.

Young and Dumb. Eventually she’ll learn, just as we all have.

I don’t find this storyline very convincing.. nobody does what Joanie does, without being able to put the youngsters in their place when needed

right, to see Joanie played by the “fashion” queen after seeing her taking on her “writer” son. so off, so odd. the glamor of TV seems to be winning out again.

yeah, and the orange man john boehner has to see what color of paint is on the walls so he doesn’t blend in.

As a musician in Salem, Oregon’s capital, I occasionly brushed up against the political community. The actual representatives, senators, etc., were pretty nice, and their aides were insufferable.

I can’t believe Joanie even works for that statist fraud Faux-cahontis

My first thought on seeing this was “Does anyone else despise this silly little twit as I do?”. Based on the comments, most of you even called her the same name. There’s no way Elizabeth Warren, no slave to the fashion police (but not bad-looking!), would let her get away with this in real life.

Was going to dump on the little snip, but that’s pretty well covered. Will, however reminisce about how I registered for gym once in my regular comfy clothes, and was reminded that I could dress out when I started working out. I told my little snip that I was already dressed out, that what she saw was what she was getting.

Elizabeth Warren looks great to be 64. I am sure she would never tolerate the attitude of her young staffer as depicted in this strip. GT is trying to give us a behind the scenes look as in real life and yet we are all wondering about how realistic it really is as shown here. We can all see how effective EW is with the bankers in giving them what for, so you have to wonder what will happen next with the silly twit shown here tormenting Joanie.

I don’t think new clothes will help. She still looks like a Basset Hound. No offense to any Basset Hounds who are reading this.

Joanie is supposed to be in her 70’s in this strip now. I realize some movie stars still look good at such an advanced age, but we can’t all be movie stars. Joanie’s appearance is acceptable.

I have a basset hound, and Joanie looks nothing like him at all! (For one thing, she’s much taller…) Back when Lacey Davenport was on board, was there this much chatter about her appearance? I mean, would there have been if there had been comments forums?

Joanie has exquisite taste and preferences in terms of politics, which would seem to be a little more important than what is popular in fashion and whether or not she could grace the cover of ‘Glamour’ or ‘Vogue.’ After all, she works in DC, not Paris. BTW, when was the last time we worried about what the male staffers were wearing sitting behind someone testifying and being televised on Cspan?

Considering what Trudeau’s wife does for a living, I assume he knows firsthand the pressures on women to look as much like interns as possible while moving into their years of most experience, wisdom, and effectiveness. Monica Lewinski’s highest ambition was to earn her “presidential kneepads;” the youngster in this strip can’t yet see beyond the hair-makeup-wardrobe fascination of her generation. Many in her group, like many in my/Elizabeth’s peer group, will outgrow this and develop into citizens of substance. Some of them will continue to whiten their teeth, color their hair, bleach their dark spots, tone their muscles, plump up their lips, suction out fat, and/or surgically purge their excess skin; others will find other things more important. Seems to me all those personal choices should of less concern to the rest of us than the work they do. Thanks, Garry!

Neither Joanie nor Elizabeth looks fine “for her age.” They just look fine.

What not to wear, big leagues edition!

@montessoriteacher

“…people didn’t view Lacey in quite the same way. People grew up along with Joanie, so it seems different.

*

Good point; Lacey appeared already in place, as it were, and already older than most. One of the things I appreciate about Trudeau’s cast of characters is the fact that they represent so many different recognizable “types.” Lacey was the classic petite, elegantly “done” lady of her day. Joanie has always been a bit more zaftig than any of the other female characters that I can think of, and her style has always been simple and unremarkable, but not frumpy or behind the times. She just doesn’t make style-ISH-ness a priority! Like Lacey, she has by no means “gone to pot;” the under-chin looseness is typical for many women, as baldness is typical of many men. It’s distressing to some, no big deal to others. Personally, I find somewhat offensive the suggestion (earlier today, I think) that Joanie owes it to the public to have her throat surgically tightened up. Shall we insist that men with bald spots should go get implants?!

I remember GT’s wife, Jane Pauley, on the Today Show. She was bumped rather abruptly for a newer, younger version. Not long ago, they bumped Ann Curry, a talented and attractive woman also. Balding Matt Lauer continues to hang in there.

If they could come up with a frumpy Republican who was up-to-date in his/her views, I would be more than happy to vote for that candidate. It isn’t about what the person wears. Lots of GOP folks look great in terms of physical attributes, but that simply isn’t the point. I didn’t vote for Romney because I didn’t think he was handsome. Although I don’t like Romney I would never describe him as ugly. I also wasn’t all that impressed with Arnold Schwarzenegger and Ronald Reagan, and they were both movie stars. It isn’t a beauty contest.

I have no idea how anyone could say that I discriminate based on one’s appearance. That is the opposite of what I said. I vote based on the views of the candidate, not on how they look.

Troll alert.

Obama is definitely not a rock star. I voted for him because rmoney is a rock head.

Joanie, just remember your first ever conversation with the boys on their road trip. The one where you finished your lines with ,“and then I decked him” or words to that effect.Channel that younger Joanie and send this twit packing.

Hang in there. Remember it took over two years, an inside whistle blower and persistent investigative reporting to bring the Watergate cover-up to light. The Benghazi affair could be more of a challenge because the mainline press is too busy climbing over one another kissing up to the Messiah and great divider. In addition the Obama/Clinton cabal is much more organized, sinister, funded, dangerous and viscous than the Nixon bunglers.

I would be proud to belong to any party you trolls would not vote for.

I like the little twit a heckuva a lot better than the rest of Trudeau’s females. And Joanie—well, she’s kind of a loser at life anyway. Ran out on her husband and kid, trapped Rick into marriage, raised a spoiled, self-centered, brat of a son. Payback time.

@montessoriteacher

I think SkepticCal misunderstood your statement “I didn’t vote for Romney because I didn’t think he was handsome.” Is it possible you meant “I didn’t vote against Romney because I didn’t think he was handsome”? Or, “My vote for the other guy had nothing to do with Romney’s looks”?!

It is possible that my comment was misunderstood. I didn’t vote for Romney because of his looks. I hope that clarifies it…

The physical attractiveness of a politician is irrelevant. There have been many physically attractive and unattractive politicians who I have voted for. Only their views are important to me.

Your first remark was crystal clear, teach. The clarification makes it sound like looks were the criterion. The reclarification makes it clear again.

Thanks Kaffekup. I am glad to be understood.

On the 10th anniversary of the outrage that was the Iraq War, one would think there would be more attention paid to that, rather than Benghazi, actually.

Everyone is troubled by the fact that 4 Americans died in Benghazi. Ironically, those who are the most vocal critics of the Obama administration’s handling of Benghazi did not wish to provide more funding to avoid the Benghazi tragedy by beefing up the security situation there at the time and thereby avoiding the 4 deaths in Benghazi. Meanwhile, those same critics are untroubled by the 4000 Americans who died needlessly in Iraq. Hmm— 4 or 4000? Which is the greater tragedy? Also, why are those same Republicans unwilling to address the fact that they themselves could have played a part to avoid what happened in Benghazi? I am sure many of those same critics have plenty to answer for themselves, as they hold the purse strings, as members of Congress.

Too bad those who claim to be so upset about Benghazi couldn’t take that same energy and apply it to helping the Libyan people. If Bush has nothing to answer for in regard to Iraq, which was a deliberate war action, then certainly Obama can not be held responsible for something which was a tragedy caused by a handful of thugs in Libya. Obama did not cause the tragedy, a handful of thugs did. On the other hand, Bush decided to go to war due to false intelligence, causing our country to lose far more in blood and treasure, than the tragedy in Benghazi.

Um, actually, bush did not go to war on false intelligence; his administration falsified the intelligence. I come here through Slate, whose “Say what?” Sidebar has been chronicling the decision to take out Saddam from day one, if not before.And I wish the 4000 souls were all the cost. The thousands upon thousands of visible and invisible wounds will be with us for generations, and the 22 military-related suicides A DAY dwarf Benghazi.

I had always heard that the Bush administration had incorrect intelligence. It may have been falsified rather than false, though that is far worse…

They had several hearings on Benghazi, remember Hillary smacking Rand Paul. Dude, go to a doctor and get your memory checked.

I don’t think Mike was worried about receiving that kind of “service.” I think he had something else in mind in this particular instance.