-
Welcome, Eve, and good call about Politico's top 10 blunders. The piece doesn't itself point out that the screw-ups it lists were sexist (though Fox does get dinged for taking two "racially tinged shots at Michelle Obama"). I'm with you in not complaining. Better to mount a broader critique of some of the coverage of Michelle and Hillary and Sarah Palin than to slap a sexist label on it. As we watched all of this unfold over the past year, what drew us in, I think, were the ambiguities and complexities, as well as the high drama. Maybe that, too, is a reason to take heart--as we got to know these women as public figures, we kept coming back for more because they only got more interesting.
Also, a quibble: I don't agree entirely with your list. The NYT's presentation of Vicki Iseman's affair-nonaffair with John McCain was an old-fashioned story without the goods—or at least, without the goods in print. I'm not sure it's more problematic than that. And the failure of the mainstream press to run with John Edwards and Rielle Hunter, after the National Enquirer nabbed them—well, nobody likes to get beat, and once the tabloids make a story their own, it's tainted from the point of view of major newspapers and TV. I'm not defending the laggards—as I said ad nauseam at the time, the Edwards story was wholly legit. But I'm not sure you can chalk up the way the press handled it to the pitfalls of covering women.
-
Yes, it is embarrassing, but I am going to say it, anyway: How glorious to have a president I can not only stand to see on television, but would have watched over Desperate Housewives, had it come to that. I kept trying to think of the last time such a thing had occurred—is it time yet? the president's going to be on!—but the answer is: never. ("For the first time in my adult life ...") A year from now, Obama will no doubt have to do more than show up and say true things grammatically, absent any mugging or winking. But tonight, he had me at "America doesn't torture.'' And when he declined to place sole blame for deregulation on Republicans. And when he said he was not very interested in having the same old tired left-right tug-of-war. So for as long as this lasts, I'm going with it.
I was a little surprised that he put Eisenhower up there with FDR and Lincoln on his list of presidential greats; Was this post-partisan politesse, or was it Eisenhower's lack of drama he admires? His warning about the military-industrial complex, maybe? Or the taste and vision of his granddaughter?
It also came as news that the first couple's 60 Minutes interviewer, Steve Kroft, was such a T-Rex: "So, you have a new dog and your mother-in-law's moving in?'' (Right, it stinks to be Obama.) But 44 put the kibosh on that and on Kroft's suggestion that Michelle's whole mom-in-chief routine is going to get old in a hurry when she's "knocking around that big house'' on Pennsylvania Avenue. "Here's one thing I know about Michelle,'' the president-elect informed him. "She's serious when she talks about being a mom; that's why our girls are so wonderful.'' It doesn't happen by accident, in other words, or in five-minute snatches of quality time. So we shouldn't judge low-income families by one standard (stay home and read aloud all day; turn off that TV!) and Ivy League graduates by another (you're home with your kids? gosh, sorry to hear that). If parenting is so important, how come Kroft and Traister and maybe most of us at some point act as if no one who could get a decent job would spend their days doing it? Obama seems proud of his wife's accomplishments as a mother, among other things—and why wouldn't he be?
-
Ann, don't you love how we've all turned into headhunters for Hillary, eager to pitch in and help her locate just the right job? State wouldn't be the best possible platform for her diplomatic and managerial skill set. But Hillary as war czar isn't quite the ticket, either. (Because nearly everything reminds me of a scene from a musical, what I'm thinking is "May God bless and keep the czar ... far away from us.'' In the Senate, for example.) Obama has created a problem for himself by dangling a major cabinet post as an option; if he doesn't offer it to her now, her partisans won't be happy. But it would be even worse to begin his bright new day in Washington with a confirmation hearing starring all the ghosts of Clinton scandals past. And Defense doesn't work as a Hillary landing pad any better than State does; her initial and lingering poor judgment on Iraq wasn't a plus in any way. Where did rewarding those who were wrong about the war ever get us? Truly, I never followed the '04 reasoning of those who argued that since Bush made the mess, he should be the guy on cleanup. During the run-up to the war, I remember talking to a top Clinton foreign policy person who patiently explained to me that, in fact, the Clinton and Bush administration's views vis-à-vis Saddam and invading and coalition-building were just not that different: "Together if we can, alone if we must.'' Which is why Clinton at DoD would not be different enough for me.
-
No doubt Hillary Clinton could fill Condi's high-heel boots and still have time left over to advise Michelle on what not to do as first lady. (Remember when Rice took the job almost four years ago and described her mission as building on the foreign policy achievements of the previous four? Quick work, when you think about it; wonder what she turned to after lunch?) Only, if America wanted a third Clinton administration, wouldn't it have gone for the real thing? I get that in tapping some of these Clinton folks for his transition team and new administration Obama is trying to avoid some of the mistakes the Clintons themselves made when they blew into town with their Arkansas friends and '92 campaign team and made clear they didn't need anybody to show them around or tell them anything. But at what point does this "new'' team start to seem a little too familiar with the way things have always worked and a little too much like the "old Washington'' that Obama campaigned against? I hope he doesn't forget that in both the primary and the general, voters saw experience as less important than a new direction and a new way of doing business.
-
I am trying to decide why I don't share the distress that Rebecca Traister expresses on Salon in her thought-provoking essay about the "momification" of Michelle Obama. Traister criticizes the press for covering not her departure from her former job at the University of Chicago Hospitals, but her clothes and her kid-piloting and her propensity for domestic-art shortcuts. Traister blames the media for its lack of curiosity about what it's costing Michelle to become "an extension of her husband" and for assuming that she, not he, is the one sheperding her family through their actual move. Michelle Obama, Traister concludes, "will come to stand in more prominently than anyone could have imagined for the shortcomings of feminism."
For a bunch of reasons, this seems more off-base than on-target to me—and also premature. First of all, I don't buy the reflexive blaming of the media. Michelle Obama is putting her own motherhood and sisterhood and wifely virtue front and center. She did that in her speech at the Democratic Convention, she did it during the campaign, and she's doing it now. You can wish she didn't feel like she has to, but she surely knows what she's doing. To wit, Michelle Obama can't risk repeating Hillary Clinton's rocky first lady performance. And so she won't. The media is merely following her lead. To be fair, Traister acknowledges some of this. But she soft pedals Obama's own choices while kicking the press, which is a little convenient.
Also, don't we imagine that the Obamas made their bargain about their roles a while ago? Didn't Michelle Obama effectively stop working at her hospital job long before now? That is a real sacrifice, don't get me wrong, but on the other hand, her husband is president. That is an accomplishment with its own set of rules. It's also one that requires a team effort, and that gives Michelle Obama, as crack defensive end aka first lady, enormous power. A weird and retro form of power, to be sure, but power nonetheless. Before we knock all of that, let's give her a chance to wield it. She is promising to focus on the concerns of working women. Amen and hallelujah: If she does it and gets somewhere, that will be concretely groundbreaking in a way that all this image-obsession never is, and she'll come to represent not the shortcomings of feminism, but its strengths. Maybe Michelle Obama is the woman to channel Eleanor Roosevelt (without the misery of marital infidelity, of course).
And in the meantime, yes, she is the one honcho-ing their physical move, or at least whom to delegate it to. I hope so! Because I want my president-elect working on other pressing matters like our economic crisis. I am glad Traister reminded us that the Obamas used to have a different kind of partnership and that Michelle Obama had to work hard to make her peace with her current role. But hey, when quitting your day job gets you to the White House, how much can the rest of us rue the trade-off?
-
Just a year ago, the burning questions before us were whether we as a nation were ready to elect a black president, and whether we were ready for a woman in the White House. And in a sense, what we learned since then was yes and yes. Because even though Hillary Clinton didn't win the election, her supporters so clearly saw her gender as a plus that it would be hard to argue that she would have won had she been a man.
But in a larger sense, I think what we learned is that these weren't ever the right questions, because it's only when the right person shows up, at the right time, that we're ever ready to elect him or her. Just like that's when we're ready to marry. (And yes, I do see everything relationally; you were expecting maybe a sports analogy?) You know that guy you dated for 8 years who just wasn't ready to commit -- until three minutes after you broke up? On paper, Americans were never going to be ready for a Democrat without a hint of a southern accent whose middle name was Hussein. But then we met him, got to know him, and found to our own surprise that we felt differently; it was a go after all.
That's how it will happen with a woman, and an Indian-American, and any other person of hyphenated heritage. (Maybe someday, we will even fall for one of those Godless Americans Elizabeth Dole referred to in her final campaign ad.) We prefer to look at candidates as the sum of their policy priorities; to do otherwise would be to suggest that voters are what Rachel Maddow would call ‘post-rational.' But voting for president is a decision of the heart as much as the head - a reality that Republicans seized on long ago, and that Democrats - or one Democrat, anyway -- now seem to understand, too.
-
Do you mean, Maureen, that women in politics may have to be nine times nuttier and more narcissistic than even your average hey-look-at-me male of the species, just to get elected? Not sure I'm with you on that, having known some really menschy women officeholders. (And I know you're not saying there aren't any.) But maybe I would be with you if I'd had the job you had and seen all you have, right? What your post did make me think: We have no idea whether these stories about Sarah Palin throwing fits and clueless about whole continents are true; we weren't there. I've had two batshit bananas bosses in my life, one a he and one a she, and I almost never talk about either one of them—not because I am so nice, but because it's such crazyola stuff I don't think anyone would believe it. (Plus, even I don't want to hear it.) So maybe that's what Palin's aide Nicolle Wallace, or whoever the source was for this stuff, is learning, too: Sometimes, even the truth can splash back quite nastily. But if that were the case, it would certainly be an ironic coda to a deeply dishonest campaign.
Update: Sarah speaks, denies divadom. "I never asked for anything more than maybe a Diet Dr Pepper once in a while," she told reporters. She also disputed tales that she didn't know Africa was a continent and couldn't name the signatories of NAFTA: "That's cruel. It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context [from debate prep], and then tried to spread something on national news. It's not fair and it's not right."
"This is Barack Obama's time right now, and this is an historic moment in our nation and this can be a shining moment for America and our history, and look what we're talking about. Again, we're talking about my shoes and belts and skirts. It's ridiculous." I've said it before: This woman has some moves, and might not be so easily written off. The fact that Hillary came as far as she did with so much baggage -- and that Sarah came as far as she did with almost none -- means that we are not just ready for a woman in the White House, but ready to overlook a lot to put a woman there.
As McCain's running mate says, this is Barack Obama's time right now. But women in general were not "rejected'' because he won. And catchy book titles aside, I'll bet Anne Kornblut doesn't think they were, either.
-
Sounds like those McCain aides are fast-tracking their guy's return to pariah—I mean, maverick—status by alienating every last conservative who voted for him with their mean, sexist, and derriere-covering hooey about Sarah Palin. I'm sorry, but I do not for one second believe that she did not know Africa was a continent. If she threw those poor foot soldiers for democracy into a panic by appearing at her hotel-room door "essentially ... wrapped in a bathrobe''—grow up, people; it's not the first time a candidate has finished dressing on the run. And from what I saw of the crack McCain-Palin organization, somebody needed to engage in the dreaded "throwing of paperwork and things of that nature.'' I see this as the jump-start of her rehab with women voters: diva, shopaholic, temptress, hmmm. Keep up the women-hating insults, McCainiacs, and it'll be Palin in '12.
-
The first thing my son (who is so not a morning person) said when he woke up today, with the biggest smile on his face, was President Obama! I don't think he could have been any happier if Steven Spielberg had dropped by to talk shop. But have you noticed the number of (much) older Obama supporters who are relieved, awed, exhausted, and proud, but also unexpectedly ... quiet? As if after years of outrage, it's going to take a minute to register the enormity and import of what just happened; how is it one behaves, again, when the country appears to be setting off on the right track? When negative campaigning is not rewarded and baser instincts resisted from sea to sea? A pal with whom I've been watching election returns since our supersized shoulder-pad days came over last night, as per tradition. And this is someone who not only gave to Obama until it hurt but had been out door-knocking for him, in Virginia, every weekend for months. Yet when Ohio told the tale, we were so stunned, we never did open the vintage Dom she'd brought over. Another friend who's been working for Democratic candidates and causes his entire adult life just called to say he is wandering around in a park somewhere, not knowing what to call the way he is feeling: "I've waited so long ...'' Oh, we'll process this, I'm confident, but who knew winning wouldn't automatically compute? Maybe if I hadn't been a Cubs fan, too?
-
If you've already voted and already memorized the Slate tipsheet for tonight's returns, you may be feeling like I am: anxious, restless, hovering uncertainly in the intense stillness before this evening's big noise. Futile attempts at normalcy shut down at least an hour ago. If you're unable to rip yourself from your laptop, scroll through this terrific visual summary of all we have weathered to get here. (Sinbad and the Snipers of Tuzla!) It should help get you closer to Indiana o'clock--I mean 6 p.m. Eastern.
-
There have been times, yes, when I've felt like the corniest living American. But, oh, this is not one of those times. Suddenly, here come e-mails even from normally non-woo-woo quarters, sharing Obama-related stories of people coming together and feeling great about it, like they were not only thirsty but had forgotten what water was. My favorite: A gentlemanly McCain supporter in Ohio offers his XL Dale Earnhardt jacket to three XS elderly Jewish ladies so they can vote despite having shown up in forbidden Obama T-shirts—and they not only bond but win his vote without ever asking for it. Others tell of African-Americans taking photos of their deceased parents into the booth with them, and a former Freedom Rider who cannot believe this day has come. In Santa Monica, my friend who is wearing her lucky Indiana Motor Speedway shirt while dialing undecided Hoosiers reports enjoying even those "long, cordial conversations'' that do not end in conversion experiences. A certain husband who in 24 years has never sniffled at anything other than my Amex bill is beyond misty that Obama's grandma didn't live one more day. And my hands-down most levelheaded friend, Rose, who is a teacher (but no, she's not that "Rose the teacher") writes, "I see a new day dawning after today.'' McCainiacs, beware, or you just might get hugged into submission; we needed this, bless our hearts.
-
I don't have anything to add to Lauren's post about Obama's grandmother, or John Dickerson's lovely piece. But this sentiment from Yale law professor Judith Resnik seemed worth sharing:
As I reflected on the poignancy of the timing of the death of Obama's grandmother, I thought, may this be the day that so many of us think
-- would that our parents or grandparents had lived to see this. And may it also be the day that our children and grandchildren will
come to take for granted, to assume its naturalness as if it
was always obvious that it would come to pass.
Maybe the symbolic part of this sentiment is one that people can share, however they voted.
-
Welcome, Lauren, and thanks to you and Nina for starting to puzzle over these identity implications of the campaign, which will be with us long after the polls close today. (Oh, what a glorious phrase: The polls will actually close.) If post-gender means that you don't run away from the female part of candidate but you don't lead with your mother or sexy librarian side, either, then I'm with Nina: Palin isn't there. For that matter, Hillary wasn't quite either, because at key moments she appealed to women by reminding us of her own victimhood. On the other hand, she did get us past the commander in chief bar. My own fear has been that Palin ran right back into it. But that's not because she's a woman or even because she winks and flirts with her audience. It's because she has shown us that she knows little where a vice-presidential candidate should know a lot. So maybe we are at the point at which the next woman with serious qualifications will indeed mount a post-gender candidacy. And maybe Palin helps bring that about, too, in the sense that Michael Kinsley writes about today: Because of her and Obama (and I'd add, Hillary), he argues, it's "hard to imagine" that future pictures of the two presidential candidates with their VP picks will show us four white men. Actually, that seems a bit aspirational to me: I can imagine plenty such pictures. But are they less likely than they were before? Yes.
-
Wow, even the McCain camp is turning blue. Or at least that's the way I read this McCain aide's reaction to the Doonesbury cartoon predicting an Obama victory on Tuesday: "We hope the strip proves to be as predictive as it is consistently lame," said McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.
-
Can I just say I am loving reading Bill Bishop on Slate? Every song is a dance. Today, however, my already acute "Big Sort" confusion grows as he explains that conservatives are more apt to be neat freaks while liberals, who rarely iron, can go weeks without needing to know which stack of papers the cordless phone got lost in. (Dude, where is my corner? Is there such a thing as being un`sortable?) Often, I know, my difficulty with the majority view is plain contrarian; something about hearing that everybody knows X or thinks Y makes my throat scratchy, to the point that agreeing with so many people about Obama is slightly unnerving. (Oh to be you, Rachael!) Only, that wouldn't explain how I swung from conservative slob to silver-polishing liberal, would it? In my 20s, my sister once found my room in the apartment we shared in such disarray that she called 911—and I arrived home to find a police officer standing in my personal space: "Ma'am,'' he informed me, "this place has been ramshackled." No, actually, it was just as I'd left it. So, hasn't recycling made anybody else increasingly fastidious? And I'm curious; how are the rest of you sorting out?
-
Good point, Ann. I found Lafferty's take on Palin tiresome for a different reason—it read to me like a rehash of the worst of the days of women beating one another up over Hillary Clinton's candidacy. I'm perfectly happy to be told that Palin is smart, since at the moment, I've started worrying that if McCain loses we're going to have to listen to some of his supporters blame a woman and her campaign's dumb idea of a $150,000 shopping trip. But Lafferty then trots out all the old horses: Feminists reject Palin "for the sin of being a Christian personally opposed to abortion." They "have been silent as Palin has been skewered in the old ways that female public figures are skewered, as well as a host of sexualized new ways as well." And they say she's not a feminist, Lafferty accuses.
Whatever. There are plenty of feminist reasons to oppose Palin no matter what you think about abortion, if you define feminism as advocating social policies that help women and families. Feminists haven't been silent about Palin and sexism, but some of them have wisely separated valid criticisms—she knows little about big important matters!—from the problematic put-downs. And sure, Palin can call herself a "conservative feminist." (Though has she actually used that term?) But is any of this an argument for why women, or anyone, should support her? At this point of One Week and Counting, that's the only debate that really matters.
-
Are we really preparing to underwrite private insurance companies? I'm sorry, but when did they ever do that for us? In fact, I'd say their current symptoms involve a pre-existing condition, wouldn't you? If we're gonna nationalize this bunch of heartless scammers, mightn't this be an excellent moment to think seriously at last about a single-payer health care system? You gotta give John McCain and Sarah Palin credit for chutzpah, running around squawking that Barack Obama's health care plan is booga-booga scary socialist. But the idea that we should reserve our largesse for bean-counters looking for reasons to cut off benefits mid-chemo makes me feel Sicko.
-
Wow, forget medicine and law; I'm gonna push my girl toward beauty school, where the big bucks are. Here's where Sarah Palin's traveling makeup artist made more money than anyone else in the whole McCain-Palin campaign during the first two weeks of this month. According to the New York Times, Amy Strozzi, "who was nominated for an Emmy award for her makeup work on the television show 'So You Think You Can Dance,' was paid $22,800 for the first two weeks of October alone.'' Now that she's moved on to Project Runway, "the campaign categorized Ms. Strozzi's payment as "PERSONNEL SVC/EQUIPMENT." Does that mean the lipstick is included?
Either way, Sarah Palin's makeup artist makes more in a month than a lot of people make in a year. We are really veering toward Marie Antoinette land here, aren't we? With perfumed sheep down on the old faux farm? And if she wants to talk small towns, I'll see her and raise her, because where I come from, this lame non-explanation of the $150,000 the RNC spent on her new wardrobe would be considered worse than no explanation at all: "That is not who we are,'' she told the Chicago Tribune. "It's kind of painful to be criticized for something when all the facts are not out there and are not reported.'' Only, she didn't elaborate, didn't add or subtract any facts from our Escada-gate knowledge base at all, so her "denial'' is .. .denying what, exactly? "That whole thing is just, bad!'' she said of the uproar over her clothes. "Oh, if people only knew how frugal we are." OK, I'll bite: How frugal?
-
Sara, I was intrigued by your post (Palin May Be Pretty, But Her Poll numbers Aren't) noting that Palin's "supposed sex appeal hasn't translated into more votes." I'm no Palin fan (though I can't get too worked up about the $150,000 wardrobe expenditure)—but I can't help wondering if Palin's sex appeal isn't actually hurting her, at this point.
I've blogged here before about the benefits—social and financial—our society hands out to those fortunate enough to be attractive. Reasearchers call it the "beauty premium." But ... it turns out that there's also a "beauty penalty." One 2006 study found that:
People are more likely to trust a pretty face, but when that trust is betrayed, the backlash can be ugly. ... Numerous studies have shown that attractive people generally make more money, get higher reviews from their supervisors and are viewed as being more intelligent and trustworthy. What surprised researchers in this study was that subjects deemed attractive also were penalized more harshly for failing to live up to expectations.
I wonder if that's what's happening to Sarah Palin now. Quoth the Sage:
For if that flower with base infection meet,
The basest weed outbraves his dignity:
For sweetest things turn sourest by their deeds;
Lilies that fester, smell far worse than weeds.
Ahem.
-
To answer Meghan’s question, according to Brooks Brothers online, you can get a very nice suit for less than $1,000. And you can get its top-of-the-line suit for around $1,600. A nice shirt and tie might bring this to $2,000. I seriously doubt Joe Biden bought 70 such suits after becoming Obama’s running mate. And whatever happened to the fine political tradition of wearing jeans and a flannel shirt when courting Joe Sixpack? I’m not sure Chanel is (or should be) the female equivalent.
I also find the argument that Palin had nothing else to wear, prior to the RNC’s shopping spree, a little unbelievable. Palin is the governor of a major state. She campaigned for this office, appeared on TV countless times in that election (including in multiple debates), has surely attended governors’ conferences and other formal events in an official capacity. Are we to believe that prior to being tapped for VP, she never owned anything besides a seal-skin coat and 'coon cap?
As a native of Dallas, I’ve spent my fair share of money at Neiman-Marcus’ flagship store, but as Slate’s piece points out today—it’s pretty hard to blow $150,000, even at a store like Neiman’s. Moreover, I know a lot of high-society women in Dallas who brag about the fine fashion they’ve also found at Target, especially in these tough economic times. (They call the store “Tar-chez.”) Is it really the opinion of the women on XX Factor that a woman can’t look good on TV or at a rally in anything less than a $4,000 designer suit? Seems to me we’re buying into Carrie Bradshaw’s world view a little too much. The dress Michelle Obama wore when she went on The View famously cost $148 off the rack.