BlogHer - FRAGILE! McCain campaign handles Palin's exposure with care...and sexism - Comments

Look, don't touch, don't ask, don't tell

media girl — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 21:22:45 -0500

So far she's an ornament, speaking by teleprompter, offering nothing but flack talking points. She's the Patriarchy's girlfriend so far.

Sexism? You bet!

--media girl

Thanks Avery

Jill Miller Zimon — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:36:15 -0500

You make some really good observations with which I definitely agree or can see. I think it's part of why I'm so curious - there's just something...I don't know what. But then I always say, it could be me. But...I don't think so. :)

Anyway - thanks for commenting - I think you definitely have some insight worth thinking about.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Palin proliferates

averyotto — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 20:22:55 -0500

Avery Otto

Palin is imprinted with a "pain as gain" mentality. She thinks she is as cool as Anne Coulter. My guess is that both women have serious problems with intimacy, self-image and ability to relax and just be. Sarah Palin falls into a mold of high profile angry women, who seek to lead by control and fear. I share your sadness that women feel its necessary and "right" to express this type of hatred to the world.

Change takes place one star fish, one human being, one event at a time. Don't give up hope.

yet where will we, our daus, our granddaus (& sons, hubbies) be

Jill Miller Zimon — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:30:25 -0500

I agree - I know you are right, Deb. But I can't stop the gnawing I feel about the following:

Sarah Palin is being used as a human shield - much like women have often been used, in so many different contexts. And this argument plays out in all of them: well, if she WANTS to, it's her CHOICE to let herself get used this way.

And then the argument that it's not about being used -look at what she's getting?

But I don't buy that either. There will not be a net gain for women, whether the McCain ticket wins or loses - because the sexism will go on - in our culture, our language, our silence.

I don't know that it will ever be resolved - or even how we resolve it. But I do wonder, why - why is our American culture so messed up with this? How have other cultures come to value men and women and the work they do, with or without families, in more or less equal ways, making sure they both get support to pursue ambition?

Seriously? This is what keeps me up at night. I'm not saying it's normal or rationale. I'm just saying - it saddens me deeply to see any American involved in trying to win the way I see primarily Palin herself and some Clinton and Obama supporters (as opposed to the two candidates who have shot FAR fewer arrows in all these months than Palin has in just two weeks - ha, in her convention speech alone).

Who teaches people to fight that way? It's just really, really upsetting to me, at a very deep level.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

The public won't let her stay quiet for long.

debontherocks — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 19:20:31 -0500

You are spot on: the sexist views of McCain are evident in every aspect of the Pailn pick and management.

But I don't think the "Trojan Horse" theory is the biggest explanation. Strategists on the Right are capitalizing on the Hillary -Obama contest and have incredible insight into the middle. I would suggest that Palin was selected to continue to radicalize the religious community and to call out the Left for sexist hypocrisy. it is a huge distractor, to be sure, and so far a skillful way to avoid having their own campaign defined as racist.

They will ride the wave started by our own primary sexism problems as far as they can. With a female candidate, they have a wide berth to exploit sexism. Campaign theory 101 says Obama's stragegy should be to stay clear of even talking about her, or making any more gaffes that give them an opening to call out sexism, and stay focused on McCain. Biden can take on Palin beautifully, with or without her speaking on her own.

Deb

www.debontherocks.com

blog

www.3smartgirlz.com

consulting

You and Me Both

Laracolvin — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:37:54 -0500

I'm sure the TUMS are flowing freely in both of these campaigns' offices! :)

I'm not sure of the alternatives, but I know I have Palin-fatigue. I also know there is something subversive and manipulative going on that is keeping her in play, and it is disappointing that so many in our country are being sucked in by it. The only way I, personally, know how to combat that is to use my "backwards design" (a curriculum design term) and look at what I want my final product to be: an Obama/Biden win. Then I look at the steps I need to take to help get there. And right now, with less than 2 months to go, questioning the nuances of the media's response to Palin and participating in threads that aren't about the issues are not on my list of steps.

I don't want to belittle those posts, so please don't take what I'm saying the wrong way. These conversations are important, but I'm afraid of what will happen in Nov. if we let them be the prominent debate among us.

Notions of Identity

For sure

Jill Miller Zimon — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 09:20:05 -0500

But what are the alternatives? What would be each one's impact? Are we able to have several debates at the same time - why, or why not? What are we swapping out when we change our focus?

I'm not a campaign advisor or anything - never have been - but I'm really glad I'm not one right now.

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

I agree

Southerngirl — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:28:06 -0500

I agree with you Laura. Thanks for the reality check.

Michelle

I blog at http://www.mommycan.blogspot.com/

Maybe we play a part

Laracolvin — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 08:22:42 -0500

Hi, Jill. I agree on so many levels, but I wonder if we are playing a part in this? By we, I mean bloggers and citizens who can't seem to stop talking about Palin when really, she is a trojan horse. I think we are falling into some trap by the McCain campaign by continuing to focus on her. NOT that she doesn't cause some genuine conversation that is important, but is it important now when we have an election on which to focus? I just worry we are distracting ourselves and in some way helping to perpetuate the "glamour" of the Palin pick, which is exactly what the GOP is hoping will happen.

I don't know, it is just something I've been wondering a lot about lately, and why I have redirected my energies to helping the Obama campaign and not commenting a whole lot this past week on Palin and sexism, etc.

What do you think?

Lara

Notions of Identity

But let's be REAL

Jill Miller Zimon — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:05:06 -0500

How can we say this isn't about issues, you know what I mean?

I live in Ohio. We need JOBS. We need to keep people HERE. We need environmental policy shifts. We do not need the lipstick - just give us the hard work and thought and solutions and implementation.

Ack. :)

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Great point!

Jill Miller Zimon — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 21:03:10 -0500

Shelley - what a great point. I can't believe I haven't even realized or thought of that - duh!!

Jill
Writes Like She Talks

Sorry, double post

topsyturvy86 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:58:40 -0500

...

Spot on!

topsyturvy86 — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:58:08 -0500

Totally agree. The McCain camp said a few weeks ago that this election is NOT about issues though, so I think it'll be hard for the Obama campaign to redirect the media's attention to issues if the diversion is a strategy because new things would be out every week about Palin and the media has to cover them.

Temi

Oh yeah, me too. He would

shelleyp — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 18:48:31 -0500

Oh yeah, me too. He would have loved this election, and it was always a delight to see his analysis.

He was not perfect, but he was good.

Speaking of which, this is an excellent post. It seems like Biden has more respect for Palin than her own running mate.

the Democratic No. 2 reminded his audience
that "there are an awful lot of very, very accomplished women holding office that I debate, and we beat up each other every day in the United States Senate." He continued: "Try debating Barbara Mikulski. Try debating Barbara Boxer. Try debating Olympia Snowe. So the idea that there's a woman and somehow we go,'Oh, my God, I don't know how todeal with this' ... the only guys who think that way have never been around strong women." He'll assume, he said, that Palin is "as smart as I am, as thorough as I am, and knows as much as I do"--and that's that. "She's going to have to answer questions," he added.

"Palin aka Bush" - Let's say it all together now.

Catherine Morgan — Tue, 09 Sep 2008 16:17:46 -0500

Excellent idea Suzanne. Now we just need to get the word out to the MSM.

"Palin aka Bush" - Let's say it all together now.

Contributing Editor Catherine Morgan
at Catherine-Morgan.com, The Political Voices of Women, Care2 Election<

FRAGILE! McCain campaign handles Palin's exposure with care...and sexism

Jill Miller Zimon — Sun, 07 Sep 2008 13:15:16 -0500

At the post, "Sarah is the Fresh Air," on Blogher, I found this comment today:

When can she be interviewed by reporters - I find it disturbing that the McCain campaign isn't allowing Ms. Palin to be interviewed by reporters. What are they hiding?

According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, possibly never:

Oh, well, wait - maybe in two weeks, said Todd Harris yesterday, a Republican strategist who was John McCain's communications manager. Why not for at least two weeks? Listen:

And in fact, did anyone see Sarah Palin on the Sunday shows this morning? Nope. Just the boys. Governor Sarah Palin, the candidate about whom we know the least, remains the person we're seeing the least often and hearing from the most infrequently.

But is this scarcity of Sarah due to sexism?

The McCain campaign is so afraid that she might make a mistake that they'll keep her out of the voters' view for at least fourteen days - when there's only 60 days left for voters to choose. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic calls this move sexist:

The sexism that implies that someone cannot stand up to reporters because she is a woman is appalling. This entire pick, of course, is incredibly sexist, and the handling of her in the last week the most sexist double standard I have ever seen in American politics. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying she wasn't going to answer questions for two weeks? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or Kay Bailey Hutchison? Or Elizabeth Dole? And none of these women were ever as close to global power as Sarah Palin now is. This is getting to Manchurian Candidate levels of creepiness. It's deeply sinister and slightly terrifying.

And, Jay Carney wrote the following in regard to Nicole Wallace's shrug off, in TIME's blog, The Swampland:

...in [Nicole Wallace's] smug dismissal of the media's role in asking questions of the candidates, Wallace was really showing contempt not for reporters, but for voters. I bet there are a lot of undecided voters out there who were intrigued by Sarah Palin last night, but who don't yet know enough about her -- what she believes, what she knows -- to be comfortable with the idea of her as vice president of the United States. It's important to them to know if Palin can handle herself in an environment that isn't controlled and sanitized by campaign image makers and message mavens. Maybe she can, maybe she can't. As far as Wallace is concerned, it's none of their -- or your -- business.

David Frum, of The National Review, wants the McCain ticket to win and wants to see more of Palin. In his post, "Why Bother?," he answers Wallace's laugh-filled opinion that no one cares if Palin ever meets with the press by saying that he cares, because in order to win, McCain needs to go beyond the non-Elitist vote that the controlled messages hit:

If you want to win a debate, you have to come prepared to debate for every audience at every level. We can all understand that it is unwise to refuse Oprah. But it is equally unwise to do only Oprah. It's not just Jay Carney who wants more. As President Bush's current numbers suggest, so does Oprah's audience.

What other evidence have we seen that the McCain handlers might be sexist?

In this August 30 New York Times article, McCain advisor Charlie Black, when asked about Palin's ability to handle matters of foreign policy, says:

...that [John McCain] viewed her as exceptionally talented and intelligent and that he felt she would be able to be educated quickly.

“She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s top advisers, making light of concerns about Mr. McCain’s health, which Mr. McCain’s doctors reported as excellent in May.

And then, in regard to the same question, but this time posed by Campbell Brown, McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds paints a similar image of a maiden at the feet of the experienced master:

Bounds: Governor Palin has the good fortune of being on the same ticket with John McCain, who, there is no question, is the most experienced and shown proven judgment on the international stage; he understands foreign affairs, he has a familiarity with the players across the globe—

Brown: Well, we know all that about John McCain, Tucker. I asked you about her, though, because we all know the role of the VP, as John McCain has defined it, is to be able to step into the job of the presidency on day one if something should happen to the president. So I'm asking you about her foreign policy experience.

What is going on here? Sure, often-maligned as not too bright former Vice President Dan Quayle was tightly managed and, as Frum points out, very likely he shouldn't have been - for more than superficial reasons. But would Charlie Black or Tucker Bounds have given the same portrait of getting educated at the feet of the master if the GOP veep choice had been Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee?

Let's look at what the senior Bush's campaign did with Quayle: they let him out, right away, and guess what? As this New York Times article from 1988 memorializes, he did a whole lot of talking, and getting into trouble.

So is the McCain campaign holding back because Palin is a woman, or because they fear what happened to Quayle? Dick Cheney wasn't held back, nor was Bob Dole's 1996 running mate, Jack Kemp.

Why is Palin being held back?

Subtle and not so subtle sexism. All of which needs to be called out.

I have almost a zero-tolerance for sexism at any level and don't agree with the opinion that we dilute the cause of calling it out if we point it out when we see it, any of it.

For example, not all voters saw the sexism in the media coverage of Hillary Clinton. I tangled with Obama supporters in particular as to whether this New Republic images was sexist. And although I agree that Clinton didn't lose because of sexism, it sure didn't help her either.

The acceptance of sexism - subtle and not so subtle, from friendly and not so friendly corners, contributes to what I consider sacrificing the soul of feminism in order to at last get its face closer to the ceiling. By no means are we getting through any ceiling if the GOP ticket succeeds since Palin will be what got the man to where he is and will only re-entrench the image of women being the support behind the man.

The McCain campaign's constant reference to Palin as a naif not only contradicts the image of a pitbull with lipstick, but reinforces the image that Palin is only the lipstick on the pig.

The result of tolerating these lower levels of sexism is the treatment of Sarah Palin that we're seeing now, at the hands of the people who supposedly want to make her a queen in yet another pageant.