Oh, Fickle Young Love...

The recent media coverage plaguing the Palin family is the news of Bristol Palin and Levi Johnston's break up. According to several news sources, the break up happened a couple weeks ago for unknown reasons, but only became public knowledge in the past couple of days. There is speculation Bristol broke it off with her fiance but there is no conclusive evidence as of yet. Some claim Bristol is heartbroken while others claim she is fine. Levi's sister, Mercede, has been quoted as saying: "Levi tries to visit Tripp every single day, but Bristol makes it nearly impossible. She tells him he can't take the baby to our house because she doesn't want him around 'white trash'!" While we can deduce this might have played a role in the split, it seems that Levi will continue to maintain a fatherly role in two month old Tripp's life.

Many claim to have seen this coming from the very beginning, so I have to wonder if Bristol and Levi were fooling themselves for the sake of Sarah Palin's image on the campaign trail? In trying to empathize with the single parents, though, let's drop the subject.

Yahoo featured a blog which gave Bristol advice in her new role as a single mother. Among the advice were "Reach out to other single parents" and "Embrace the family you have, not the family you envisioned." I found this blog very touching, because instead of poking fun at the recent developments, the post asked for others to contribute words of wisdom. What would you do in her situation?

The post also drew attention to the fact that there are over 13 million single parents out there, and that there has been a 3% upswing in teenage pregnancy. From 1991 to 2005 the number of teenage pregnancies was decreasing, but in 2006 it began to inch back up again. I wonder what caused this to occur? The blog blames the omnipresence of sex in the media, but with great sexual education I do not think sexual liberality can be blamed.

On a completely random note, how unfortunate is it that the split has left Levi with a tattoo of "Bristol" on his ring finger? Dating rule 101 could quite possibly be "Never tattoo someone's name on your body." I suppose he learned his lesson the hard way.


For further information visit:

People.com
Foxnews.com
Huffingtonpost.com
Chicagotribune.com

What Sarah Palin's Email Got Hacked?

Yes its true, as i was browsing online for any recent information about Sarah Palin I came across a couple of articles saying that Sarah Palin's email had been hacked. Last September 2008, a group that called themselves, Anonymous, found a way to hack themselves into Sarah Palin's Yahoo email account. They got hold of two emails, a contact list, and a couple of family pictures and displayed them on a website. Supposedly according to another article, Sarah Palin in the past had been criticized for using web mail rather then official government servers, and so this in return as backfired on her. McCain on the other hand sent out a statement after he had heard what had happened:

This is a shocking invasion of the governor's privacy and a violation of law, the matter has been turned over to the appropriate authorities and we hope that anyone in possession of these emails will destroy them.

Apparently Time said that Sarah Palin herself could face charges for "conducting official state business with her personal email." However this investigation is yet to be solve. The secret service along with FBI are in search of more emails and anymore people in possession of the emails. Sarah Palin came to find that her email had been hacked by her aide who received the following email:

This email was hacked by anonymous, but I took no part in that. I simply got the password back, and changed it so no further damage could be done. Please get in contact with Sarah Palin and inform her the new password on this account is samsonite1.Thank you and best wishes,the good anonymous

In my opinion this is ridiculous how low can people get. Getting into someones account, especially Sarah Palin's you have got to know that you in return are going to get into big trouble with the police. But then again why didn't Sarah Palin use the official government website? Something like a yahoo account should be a no brainer that it is most likely going to get hacked. But I could be wrong, what do you think?

Credibility and Perception of “She’s too Sexy?”

I recently read an article that discussed the affect of people's perception of Palin and the possible relation with the unfavorable outcome that resulted for the McCain-Palin campaign. The group of people who focused intensely on Sarah Palin's looks were distracted from the important question of wether Palin was competent enough to be Vice President. The author of the article, Geoffrey Dunn, described a study conducted at the University of South Florida by Nathan A. Heflick and Jamie L. Goldenberg that was published in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. In this study undergraduate students, whom the study used as a representation of the entire American society, who payed more attention to what Sarah Palin was wearing rather then her political strategies and ideas ended up voting for another candidate thus reducing the votes for the McCain-Palin ticket. The studies main point was the affect of the emphasis by the media on Palin's looks and how it negatively impacted voters opinions.

 Mr. Dunn, who had a doctorate in sociology, says that he takes this study with a "block of salt" since many of these "academic" studies use "false assumptions and bad science" to recreate results that the study desires. The entire study consisted of inaccurate and poor methodology. The study gathered research by having students write down their thoughts about one of two American women celebrities, Sarah Palin or Angelina Jolie.  From that group, half were asked to write their opinions about the person and the remaining group was to discuss the person's appearance. The students then evaluated their subject in terms of certain attributes such as competence. Finally they were to identify who they were intending to vote for in the next election. The study asked questions that would not relay any insightful information. To further support the inaccuracy of this study is the number the subjects observed. The study used 133 students all ranging in the same age group, which does not relay appropriate information to draw an accurate conclusion. Also the study's participants consisted of 96 females and an underrepresented number of males totaling 37. The list goes on for all the variables that were not considered for an appropriate "academic" study. 

I frequently run into studies that are supposedly credible because they are peer reviewed articles, but this study still brought up an interesting point to further analyze. Initially, the Republican party contributed to Sarah Palin's representation as "the hottest governor in the coldest state" and as "Caribou Barbie" with signs at events and buzz words in the press. Although, they soon recognized the sexism behind these loaded words and images which led voters to question her credibility and competence. I believe Sarah Palin was hurt politically by the poor representation by the media and its focus on her looks and unintelligence. Even though Palin played into the objectification, and unfortunately for her campaign she was unable to move past the attacks and prove herself as a reliable, competent candidate. She ultimately could not prove to the country that they should place our economy and safety into her hands. Lack of knowledge and her fumbling interviews only weakened her position. 

   I still would like to know whether or not her portrayal as a sex symbol impacted our perception of her? I believe it has and there is evidence that supports this claim, other than the article mentioned above. There is no doubt in my mind that Sarah Palin was treated in an absolutely sexist manner. None of the male candidate's faced the same scrutiny on their appearance as intensely as Palin. This is simply another example of the media placing emphasis on the materialistic and trivial information of a female candidate, rather than judging qualifications based upon knowledge, skill, and ability. Sara Palin played a part in her on objectification, her winking into the camera and her choice of sexy clothing along with her pageant strides across the stage all contributed to the countries perception of her sexy portrayal. The RNC also played the sex card with Palin, but only when it was beneficial to them and then they turned the table and complained when it blew up in their faces. All in all I feel Palin's lack of knowledge compared to the competing candidates was the ultimate cause of her downfall. Even if her sexy representation lead to her portrayal as unintelligent, she still lacked all other qualities that are required for a Vice President. 

Did Palin's looks hurt?

Politico blogger Ben Smith wrote today of a new study published in the Journal of Experimental Psychology. The research discusses how Sarah Palin's looks and the focus on them hurt her and John McCain.

The sample consisted of Republicans and independent voters. Participants were asked to rate former Republican vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin and celebrity actress Angelina Jolie on various factors including competence.

"The study suggests that their confidence in her abilities may have decreased the more they focused on her looks – and thus, in feminist terms, objectified her."

I think this research paper affirms that sexism did play a role in the 2008 presidential election.

Americans, especially the male population, view Angelina Jolie as one of the most "attractive" female celebrities. Americans also tend to believe that celebrites are not the most "intelligent" people.

This study confirms that Palin was considered a political "celebrity." Because of this status and Palin's physical appearance, her intelligence was questioned by the American people. I still stand by my statement that she energized the Republican Party and gave McCain a fighting chance of victory.

The full research paper can be found here. (Note: It is not free)

Who'd run the best daycare?

As I was browsing the internet last night, all of a sudden, a poll on the U.S. News & World Report website caught my eye. "Who'd Run the Best Daycare?" The poll went on to ask, "If you had a choice of four daycare centers run separately by Michelle Obama, Sarah Palin, Hillary Clinton, and Nancy Pelosi, which would you choose for your kids?" http://www.usnews.com/polls/whod-run-the-best-daycare/results.html Had this poll not proceeded the 2008 Presidential Election, I would have been utterly shocked that a major news publisher would have the audacity to allow such a blatantly sexist question to be posted all over their website. Unfortunately, this election seemed to pave the way for the acceptance of sexism as a form of discrimination which was no longer seen as very offensive.

Rather than looking at these four women as serious politicians, the media is once again shedding light on the fact that they are just that, women, and more specifically, mothers. Although this poll may seem like a very minute example, almost a joke, it's small things like this one that are looked upon as the building blocks for the perception of gender roles in America. Setting the tone that women, even those in high positions such as the four in this poll, should be looked upon as women and caretakers, seems to overshadow all the accomplishments they may have in the political world. Throughout the election, this same perspective pervaded media articles around the nation. Rather than being looked at as politicians first and foremost, the media began focusing more attention on personal lives of the female candidates, and on various occasions, the women vying for office were looked down upon for leaving their families behind in order to pursue political recognition, especially in the cases of Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama.

But putting all the criticism and gender stereotyping aside, I fell into the trap that this poll was setting up. I gave in, and soon found myself clicking the "View Results" button. Ironically, and much to my surprise, after all the mocking and harsh words of disapproval, Sarah Palin was winning overwhelmingly.

1. 36.38% First lady Michelle Obama's
2. 58.83% Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin's
3. 2.58% Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's
4. 2.21% House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's

Strategically Taking The Beaten Path

In the latest episode of The Secret Life of the American Teenager, the mother of the pregnant teenager, Anne, is dressed in business attire preparing breakfast for the family when her husband, George, saunters in. George gives her the one-over and scoffs something along the lines of: "What, just because you're the mother of a pregnant teenager you think you can be mayor now?" Whether this was an innocent remark or a sly dig at Sarah Palin, I drew a connection and later decided to check in with the "First Mother" of the United States.

In an article titled "Michelle Obama takes well-trod path in first lady role", the Chicago Tribune discusses how Michelle seems to have taken the position of "First Mom" over that of "First Lady" in the beginning days of the new presidency. Apparently Michelle Obama has been reading books, scheduling games, meeting with chefs, and getting to know the neighborhood.

There is doubt expressed over the fact that "First Mom" is the largest role such a high-powered woman will take. Hillary Clinton is discussed and the journalist writes that Michelle is probably trying to avoid Hillary's mistakes as First Lady:

First Lady Hillary Clinton suffered a backlash for barreling straight to the role once termed "co-president" after joking that she had chosen professional fulfillment instead of cookie-baking and tea-hosting.

Michelle Obama is clearly taking the opposite approach, starting with hearth and home and venturing outward. It's a more familiar route for the experienced six-figure professional with a reputation for sizing up the waters before diving in.

In that quote the journalist claims the "First Mom" strategy is just a way for Michelle to ease into the role of First Lady, but I have to wonder: Is Michelle truly going about this in a "professional" manner, or is she just doing her best to conform to the "undefined role of the first lady?" Michelle is an advocate of the "work-life balance." Is it a true lifestyle or just a way to sooth the Social Conservatives?

"She is looking and learning and isn't going to make the same mistakes because she's aware of what the mistakes were," said Letitia Baldridge, the author who served as social secretary to Jacqueline Kennedy when she was first lady.

Isn't it possible that Michelle is just making sure her husband's transfer into office is as smoothe as possible by giving the public what they expect and desire?

While I don't necessarily fault her for it, I have to question whether I, as a feminist, would rather have had a First Lady who barrels straight for co-president, or a First Lady who will "help women realize that a woman can juggle the two, that she can find that division between family and job, and experience joy in both places."

What do you think?

"Gender Affinity Affect", Major or Minor Play in the 2008 Election?

Gender was one of the play cards used in the 2008 election; however, to what extent did it work? According to a scholarly research article, the gender affinity affect is when women voters are most likely in support for female candidates. This article found women do actually feel positively towards a female candidate because of the "shared sex identity".

In this past election Hillary Clinton was a female candidate up for running as president. The Washington Post conducted a survey and found that 51 percent of women supported Hillary while 24 percent supported Obama and 11 percent supported John Edwards. Here is a clear example to the gender affinity affect. However how far does this affect go? Far enough for women to cross over parties? Interestingly, John McCain was the main candidate that tried to used this phenomenon for his advantage, and it somewhat worked. He felt as though having Sarah Palin as his vice president nominee would switch women supporters of Hillary Clinton over to support his campaign. However this article states otherwise:

......women often evaluate female candidates through the lens of political party. That women respondents feel more positively toward female Democratic candidates than do men, but do not have the same affective feelings for female Republican candidates, suggests that any gender gap in evaluations of female candidates should take into account partisan differences as well as sex-based identity.

Overall John McCain's pick for Sarah Palin as his running mate made a difference, but not a drastic difference. A poll conducted by Newsweek found that only 14 percent of female Hillary Clinton supporters wanted to switch and support McCain. This was an affect on McCain's campaign, but not substantial change enough to help him win the election.

The gender affinity affect, in my opinion, played a major role for Hillary Clinton. There were huge numbers of Hillary Clinton supporters that were female and this did help her in the election. On the other hand, McCain thought he could use this affect to his advantage, but it ended up only playing a minor role and not helping out as much as McCain wanted. The gender affinity affect did exist in this election as much as we did not want it to. This article has found that with the number of women increasing in office, we as women are getting a greater understanding and becoming more complex in our thought patterns, when choosing a candidate to support. To some this affect may play a minor role, but the gender affinity affect does exist sometimes for the better and sometimes for the worst.

My Flirt with Sarah Palin

A feeling of relief inundated my mind as the results of the November 4 presidential election were announced. No longer would I have to debate others over who I voted for in the presidential election. My decision was made and now the election season was finally over.

I am a Democrat. I have been since the presidential election that occurred when I was in second grade. I support a woman’s right to choose, the freedom to choose one’s life partner, the environment, and helping the poor. I was against the War in Iraq from the beginning. I supported former vice-president Gore for president in 2000 and United States senator John Kerry in 2004. In 2008, I wholeheartedly supported Hillary Clinton for president.

After Hillary conceded the Democratic nomination to Barack Obama, I became disappointed and even depressed. I could not recall a time when I had so fervently supported one candidate. To me, Hillary was a hero, an inspiring politician, and a champion. I decided to commit my support to Hillary in January 2008. When Hillary won a primary or a caucus, my spirits were lifted. When she lost a contest, I voiced frustration but also heightened support for her to remain in the race. Just like Hillary’s other supporters, I was angry at the media and the Democratic Party establishment. In my opinion, they were biased toward Barack Obama.

Once Hillary’s loss became a reality, I turned to Obama to see whether he would do all he could to raise money to retire Hillary’s campaign debt. I looked to see if Obama would choose Hillary to be his running-mate or someone who had supported her. Neither of these things happened.

John McCain chose Sarah Palin, a dark-horse candidate and little known governor of Alaska, to be his running-mate on Friday, August 29, 2008. During the days leading up to vice-presidential announcements, I suggested that Obama choose Evan Bayh and McCain choose Palin. To say I was surprised when I found out would be an understatement. I screamed and jumped all around my apartment. McCain did it! McCain did it! He actually chose Sarah Palin. (Never did I think McCain would take a gamble by selecting Sarah Palin!)

McCain made a political decision when he selected Sarah Palin. It was clear McCain was sending a signal to disgruntled Hillary supporters and disappointed women that a woman may still have an important role at the White House. I think McCain was playing the gender card and he was smart to do so. His campaign was struggling and dying. McCain desperately needed a game-changer.

Sarah Palin brought to the McCain campaign three things: a new image for the McCain campaign, expanded support among voting demographics, and a revitalization of a failing presidential campaign.

Palin, 44, brought her youth to McCain’s campaign, invoking a refreshing and new picture. The image of Palin’s family brought family issues such as teenage pregnancy and special needs children into the presidential debate. Palin’s conservative credentials shored up support among factions of the Republican Party. Her executive experience coupled with McCain legislative experience added to the presidential ticket.

I did not agree with Sarah Palin on a wide-range of issues including the right to an abortion and keeping ANWAR off limits. I did not agree with many statements Palin made. I thought her debate performance with Joe Biden was awful.

So why was I attracted to the McCain-Palin team? It’s simple, the McCain-Palin ticket reached out to me. While I realize McCain was just trying to earn votes, he appealed to me when he praised Clinton’s historic candidacy. He appealed to me when he chose Sarah Palin, a political newcomer and maverick.

Do I think the choice of Sarah Palin as vice-president was a smart and risky decision? You betcha!

Did Sarah Palin cause more damage to or reinvigorate support for McCain’s candidacy? That’s debatable.

It was a difficult choice when it was time for me to fill out a vote-by-mail ballot. As attractive as the selection of Palin was to the McCain campaign, I did not vote for McCain. I also did not vote for Obama. Who did I vote for? I voted for Hillary Clinton.

Why I Voted for Barack Obama

I'm a moderate republican. I like the 2nd amendment, the death penalty, and Ayn Rand. I'm a capitalist at heart and I believe the best societies have more financial freedom. I'm also a woman, and some of my social views are pretty liberal. Because of this I spent a long time debating who I should vote for, making lists of the candidates' platforms and voting records, and trying to align those with my own views. Even though there were only two choices, I felt like who I picked would tell me a lot about myself and which views I found more important. For a long time, I couldn't make the decision. The answer easily came to me in early September, and my decision never wavered after that.

I chose to vote for Barack Obama because of the introduction of Sarah Palin as the Republican Vice Presidential pick. When I initially heard rumors of McCain's choice, I thought two things. 1) He is using her gender to get the female vote, and to compete with the fact that the democrats had a historical nominee. 2) It could be nice to have a female as second in command for a change. The second thought disappeared as soon as I discovered Sarah Palin in no way represented the values that I do, as a female, and Barack Obama absolutely did.

When I heard Palin say things like, "I'd oppose abortion even if my own daughter was raped," my feelings about guns and the free market were no longer important. When I found out about her desire to push an abstinence-only sex education on the nation's youth, it was like I had not even read The Fountainhead. Sarah Palin opposed expanding hate crimes to include sexual orientation (I believe homosexuality is included in women's issues), and advocated making women buy their own rape kits, and just in general, seemed to oppose everything women activists have fought for for the past century.

2008 was my first presidential election, and it was certainly very interesting. What I took from it, more than anything, was that the economy will rise and fall as it normally does. I am always open to my political views changing, as they have in the past. I was not born a republican, but a woman, and I will die a woman, so I am a woman first, and my rights need to be protected. My right to govern my own body, my right to marry who I want, my right to not have to take out a loan to find out who raped me, my right to the knowledge about safe sex - all of these made Obama the right choice for a female who finds these issues important. Most of all I learned that the gender of an individual doesn't make them a feminist, their actions and choices do. If Sarah Palin had become the Vice President of the United States, I believe feminism would have lost a lot of hard-earned progress, and that is why I voted for Barack Obama.

Sarah Palin Opens a PAC

The former Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin launched her first political action committee (PAC), SarahPAC, yesterday.

Here is an exerpt from the Politico article.

Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (R) has launched a political action committee designed to raise funds for local and national candidates.

It is interesting to note that with a majority of the news articles I have read about Sarah Palin and John McCain, journalists refer to the lack of a strong and "negative" relationship between the two former partners. In this article, they point out that Sarah Palin only briefly mentioned her failed bid for the vice-presidency in 2008. Why do you think the media is specifically targeting Palin and McCain's relationship?

Introducing The Esteemed Authoress, Sarah Palin

She may not have had the degrees, diplomas, or credentials to be a viable vice-president candidate; however, few can contest the fact that Sarah Palin could earn some substantial income by selling an autobiography. Working mothers relate to her struggle to balance five kids with a career. Parents of autistic children or young mothers feel a bond with Sarah Palin. Aspiring politicians are bound to learn something from her biography whether it is how to appeal to the public, or how to earn a little temporary infamy on SNL.

Liz Wolgemuth wrote an article for US News exploring four ways in which Palin relates to working women: Being a mother on the job, the implications for the children, newborns and working mothers, and lastly, attractiveness and determination defining a new type of working woman. One of the most important pieces of information was the following, which hints toward the large audience to whome Palin's autobiography might appeal:

Maria Bailey, founder of BlueSuitMom.com, says a recent survey on her website found 74 percent of women feel they can relate to Palin. 'They're telling me that they don't think what she's doing is any harder than what they have to do," Bailey says.

In an article in the LA Times by Andrew Malcolm, Robert Barnett, an attorney who has negotiated book contracts for Bill and Hillary Clinton among others, is reported as being Palin's new representation. The autobiography is seen as being not only a method of income, but a way to potentially reconstruct Palin in a political sense from her current "dimbo" status:

But she's got a fine line to walk now. She's got to keep Palin out there in the media now and then to keep her name in the GOP buzz for 2012, but she can't keep talking about last fall, even though that's what she'll surely be asked about. She's also got to be seen focusing full attention on running an open, efficient state government well.

CBS featured an article by Brian Montopoli which also claims that TV producers would love to get their hands on Sarah Palin, as she is a former sports reporter.

All in all, it seems like the future is very bright for Palin. Rumor has it that she may sign a deal for around 4 books in exchange for $14 million

That seems ridiculously high for a book deal," a publishing insider told OK magazine. "Even though she's a huge star, that doesn't mean anyone wants to read an autobiography by her. To make back that much of an advance, the publisher would have to sell 'Harry Potter'-size numbers." (Mercury News)

I just have to wonder... What next, a Sarah Palin reality TV show?

The Effects of Gender and Race in Politics: What Effects?

From observing politics for the past few years, I came to the conclusion that there are no dramatic effects of gender or race unless a politician provokes such effects. Now, I do know that voters do tend to choose candidates according to who they can relate more towards, but I don’t think that such impact is so profound that it’ll change votes single handily.

During the 2008 presidential election, I was surprised that gender had a much bigger impact on the election than I had initially thought. According to the New York Daily Times on May 2008, one of the six reasons Hillary wanted to be president was because of the “women in their 90s who had told her they were born before women could vote, and they wanted to live to see a woman in the White House”. When Hillary lost the Democratic nomination, McCain saw the opportunity to win over disgruntled Hillary supporters due to the emphasis that Hillary put on feminism in addition to Hillary’s slow and cautious backing of Obama. Surprising the world, McCain picked Palin to be his VP, an action which he would later regret. Palin made her central campaign theme focused on how she was just like any ordinary “hockey mom”. She fortified her campaign theme with subtle parts in her speeches such as calling herself a “Pitbull with lipstick” in addition to twisting her role as mom to be a qualification for being a VP. For example, during the VP debate, Palin continuously described her role as a mom when she stated:

But it wasn't just that experience tapped into, it was my connection to the heartland of America. Being a mom, one very concerned about a son in the war, about a special needs child, about kids heading off to college, how are we going to pay those tuition bills?

The full VP debate transcript can be found here.

Unfortunately for Palin, her choice of using the theme of being a mom also had a disadvantage. Because Palin thought that being a mom was something worthy of being in the spotlight, the media naturally also focused on her theme of being a mom. So in today’s society, what does the normal “hockey moms” do? They take care of their kids, do daily household chores, and go to PTA events. All of which were topics that the media focused on. Many complained such treatment was sexist, but then again it was Palin’s own choice. She could have ran on her executive experience as governor, but instead she chose to run on being the first women to the white house.

I have also come to notice that just like gender, race doesn’t affect politics unless the politician makes race a key factor. For example, when Governor Blagojevich controversially appointed Burris to take Obama’s seat, many senators (including the democrats) initially objected to his appointment and wanted to block him from the senate. However, Senator Burris defended his appointment with a variety of reasons. One of the reasons, according to his good friend Representative Bobby Rush of Illinois, was because Burris is black! During the last few minutes of the press conference Gov. Blagojevich held regarding Burris’ appointment, Rep. Rush stated:

Let me just remind you that there presently is no African- American in the U.S. Senate. Let me remind you that the state of Illinois and the people in the state of Illinois and their collective wisdom, have sent two African-Americans to the U.S. Senate. That makes a difference. This is just not a state of Illinois matter, although it’s (INAUDIBLE) to appoint and (INAUDIBLE) — which is in the state of Illinois, but it (INAUDIBLE) — it has tremendous national importance — national importance. We need to have not just one African-American in the U.S. Senate. We need to have many African-Americans in the U.S. Senate.

So I applaud the governor for his decision. And I will ask you to not hang and lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer. Separate, if you will, the appointee from the appointed. Ronald Burris is worthy. He is the only one, I believe, that could stand in the gap (INAUDIBLE) time, and gather the confidence — reestablish the confidence of the people of the state of Illinois.

(…….)

This is a matter of national importance. There are no African- Americans in the Senate, and I don’t think that anyone — any U.S. senator, who’s sitting in the Senate, right now, wants to go on record to deny one African-American for being seated in the U.S. Senate. I don’t think they want to go on record doing that. And so, I intend to take that argument to the Congressional Black Caucus.

The full transcript of the press conference is here.

Currently, there is heavy speculation that because Burris played the race card, many senators were afraid to block Burris’ appointment since the senators were afraid that they would be labeled as racist. Burris’ strategic usage of race heavily differed from Obama’s position with using race in his campaign. Surprisingly, Obama never mentioned race and gender in his campaign despite being the first African American presidential nominee. Even when issues about Obama’s race were brought up by his opponents, he brushed off the accusation and focused on the main issues campaign issues. Obama’s decision to never use race or gender in his campaign just shows how a politician is able to control whether or not race or gender will be an issue.

Satire is not just for Sarah

http://www.pantsdown.wild.net.au/vote1.jpg

In a recent interview, Sarah Palin credits the loss of the 2008 presidential election in part to Tina Fey’s Saturday Night Live sketches and her interview with Katie Curric.  This idea is debatable in its own right, but begs the question, how much does satire and "electoral guerilla theatre" play into the public’s opinion?  Does satire really work to mold the public's opinion of a person?  Personally I find this to be a bit far fetched, but to Palin's credit, precedent does exist. One such example is the October 1989 election for Austrialian Parliament. 

In 1996 a lower working class woman from a small town in Queensland by the name of Pauline Hanson was elected to represent the Oxley seat. Despite being expelled from her party shortly before the election due to some anti-Aboriginal comments quoted in a local paper, she won the seat, and quickly gained support as a leader for the far right. Her anti-Asian and anti-Aboriginal views resulted in the creation of her own party known as the “One Nation Party,” which quickly gained followers.

As Hanson's support grew, her values were thoroughly questioned, including many allegations of racism and xenophobia. While she insists that she is not racist, her views take the form of “cultural racism”, and while these setiments gave her followers, they also created enemies

One such person was a man by the name of Simon Hunt.   When Hanson was up for reelection, Hunt legally changed his name to Pauline Pantsdown and got himself on the ballot.  Besides wearing Hanson’s clothing and taking on her accent, Pantdown used political satire to attack Hanson.  His first attack took the form of a song known as “I’m a Backdoor Man,” which, once released, soared to the top of charts.  It was being played all over the nation, and because Hanson was such a well-known figure, the nation quickly learned of Pantsdown’s cause.

“Instead of dealing directly with Hanson’s white supremacism, he [Hunt] used her argumentative methods and her actual (digitized and rearranged) voice to make Hanson’s unwilling mouth advocate gay supremacy.”

In retaliation, Hanson and her party filed a defamation suit, and despite public requests, no radio stations would pick up the song.

Unfortunately for Hanson, the Party hurt themselves when they sued Pantsdown, as they demonstrated to the country that they were only supporters of free speech in certain cases. Knowing that he was supported, Pantsdown launched another attack, using Hanson’s own words to create a new song, entitled “I Don’t Like It.”

“While its satirical method is simpler, “I Don’t Like It” is more technically complicated than “Backdoor Man.” It actually creates new words from different Hanson syllables; for example, “San Francisco” was pieced together from four different words.”

Because the song was not using analogy, and therefore was less obviously damaging to her campaign, the One Nation Party largely ignored the attack, and the song was able to play on the radio. In fact, it because so popular and because One Nation did not sue, Pantdown’s friends and supporters banned together, and created a music video, allowing for a new dimension to the song.

After a long campaign from both Hanson and Pantsdown, the election came, and Hanson was defeated. She had spent so long fighting against Pantsdown’s attacks, that she was not able to focus on her campaign, a mistake that eventually lead to her downfall. Of the other candidates, some felt that the parodies were a good campaign tool, while others were frustrated because Pantsdown made the election into something of a joke. Nevertheless, most agreed that it was because of Hunt that Hanson lost the election.

I do not know if the Palin and McCain campaign was adversely affected by Fey or Curric, but the introduction of satire into the public political domain will certainly grow, and only time will tell where it takes us.

You can download the full article written by UC Davis Professor Lawrence M. Bogad here.

Doonesbury compares Bush to Palin

See yesterday's cartoon here.

Maybe we are as hard on male politicians (some of them, anyway) as we are on their female counterparts. But wait, who's getting the worst of it -- Palin or Bush--in this comparison?

Gender Roles: The Mother

While stumbling across the internet, I found this website: www.teenmomsforpalin.com. At first it looked like another site in support of Sarah Palin, but upon closer inspection it turned out to be a typical satire site, ironically supporting Palin for all the wrong reasons. While quotes like "Because Women Have Suffraged Long Enough" were intended to make the audience laugh, they also brought up the role motherhood had to play in the election. Note: I know this issue has already been addressed in this blog, but I thought I might try to take a stab at it.

Hillary Clinton made history by being a woman running for president, but one of the many criticisms she received was that she was not feminine enough. Going along with this theme, it could be determined that with her lack of femininity she also didn't fulfill the gender role of mother, and if she didn't act like enough of a mom, then she wouldn't appeal as a mother figure to the country.

Picture from www.gov.state.ak.us
Sarah Palin took the opposite approach during the campaign: she largely depended on her role as a mother to earn votes for her party, constantly referring to herself as a "hockey mom," as well as calling upon her experience raising a family as if it were something to put on her resumé. Palin's progeny were on display immediately after she was announced as the VP nominee, attracting many camera shots during the Republican National Convention. Even though Hillary Clinton does have a daughter, Chelsea did not receive nearly the same amount of press time as the Palin kids, as Hillary didn't use her experience as a mom to assure the people of this country that she could also mother them.

The idea of having a matriarchy was (and still is) novel, but also distracts from the importance of having the person elected to the presidency be the best one for the job, not simply male or female. But elections are long and people can only talk about the economy or Iraq for so long, and so "relatability" becomes a key factor in who people will vote for. When Hillary didn't use her motherhood to define herself, she may have lost votes, and because Sarah Palin did the opposite, she may have earned votes. Either way, this election brought up the issue of women having to be stuck in certain gender roles, and highlights the distance women still must cover in order to escape them.

A new academic article on our seminar topic!

I saw this posted on ssrn.com. The article is by Quinetta Roberson and Gregory Scott Parks. Here's the abstract:

Scholars, and even the presidential candidates, have described the 2008 election as an extended interview process for a high-ranking job. Following that characterization of the Presidential race, questions about sexism and gender bias along the campaign trail implicate the law. Title VII protects individuals from sex bias in the workplace. And while modern conceptions of how such bias actually operates, largely drawn from social and cognitive psychology, aids legal decision-makers in determining whether such bias indeed took place in any particular case, greater insight into the intersection of psychology and the law is needed. Here, we explore the role of sexism and implicit (subconscious) gender bias in the Presidential race through the lens of Title VII. Further, we buttresses the proposition put forth by a growing body of legal scholars that the role of implicit attitudes in decision-making has significant implications for Title VII jurisprudence.

The full article is not posted for downloading, but I see on their author page that Roberson and Parks have also written about Michelle Obama.

Some year-end rumination about gender and the election

I just saw these over at blogher.com.

One post is titled "Feminism and Gender in 2008: The Good, the Bad and the Election" and is by Suzanne Reisman.

The other is under the headline "Politics: We Always End up Talking about Hillary, Don't We?"

They both provide some food for thought.

Parallels between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin?

One thing that has stuck in my head from Caroline Kennedy's early statements about her informal candidacy for the soon-to-be-vacant U.S. Senate seat for NY regards her credentials to hold that post. Kennedy gave this response a couple of weeks ago regarding her qualifications:

“I’ve written books on the Constitution and the importance of individual participation. And I’ve raised my family. I think I really could help bring change to Washington.”

Read the full story here.

One reason this comment has lingered for me is that it is so similar -- the parenting/mothering part, anyway -- to Sarah Palin's presentation of her credentials to become U.S. Vice President. While stumping on the campaign trail, she frequently played up her experiences raising five children. Here's the video of her self-identification as a hockey mom at the Republican National Convention. While Republicans tended to valorize Palin's motherhood, Democrats tended to downplay its relevance, if not outright scoff at it. (Of course, Palin's critics also had some things to say about the quality of her parenting).

In sorting through my own thoughts about the relevance of motherhood to the role of politician (or, for that matter, any work outside the home) I recalled this op-ed piece in the New York Times on Mother's Day, 2005 (memorable for me as my first Mother's Day as a mother). Katherine Ellison's piece was titled "This is Your Brain on Motherhood," and it asserted that having children can improve your intelligence. She explained how the human brain creates cells on an ongoing basis and that the cells that get used are more likely to survive. Because parenting often provides emotional, challenging, and novel experiences, those neurons get exercised. Ellison writes:

Children constantly drag their parents into challenging, novel situations, be it talking a 4-year-old out of a backseat meltdown on the Interstate or figuring out a third-grade homework assignment to make a model of a black hole in space.

* * *

[Children] fail to thrive unless we anticipate their needs, work our empathy muscles, adjust our schedules and endure their relentless testing. In the process, if we're lucky, we may realize that just this kind of grueling work - with our children, or even with others who could simply use some help - is precisely what makes us grow, acquire wisdom and become more fully human.

So, Ellison argues, we should see a mother's brain (and presumably a father's, too, if he's engaged with the full range of parenting tasks and experiences) as an asset rather than a handicap.

Does Ellison help convince you that raising children is relevant experience for one seeking public office? As a related matter, it is surely also worth considering how we view people who have never married or never had children. (Read Gail Collins recent column, "One Singular Sensation," here). Don't we sometimes see the absence of a spouse and children as a negative factor? Are women and men equally damned if they do, damned if they don't when it comes to being married? to having children?

Whatever relevance you assign to it, mothering roles are not the only experience shared by Palin and Kennedy. Another similarity is now being revealed, and it is the subject of an AP story by Jennifer Peltz today. Here's the lede:

If Caroline Kennedy had, you know, only known. Tracking the would-be New York senator's verbal tics has become a political parlor game in the days since she gave her first round of in-depth interviews, even spawning a hip-hop-style mash-up online blending her "you knows" with President-elect Barack Obama's "uhs."

Peltz goes on to report that one video on YouTube counts 30 "you knows" in 147 seconds of Kennedy excerpts. The other YouTube video referred to is here.

Remember how Palin was roundly and soundly criticized for her accent and use of language. Among those who got in on the act were Judith Warner, Roger Cohen, Maureen Dowd, and many others.

I have queried elsewhere whether all of this criticism of how Palin communicates is sexist. After all, various Presidents have spoken using colloquialisms (a wonderful example is here), and some have had (oh no!) Southern accents. Now I'm rethinking whether the criticism of Palin was more about gender or more about class. After all, no one doubts Kennedy's elite pedigree and education (Harvard and Columbia), yet she makes some of the same verbal blunders that Palin did--and she's being criticized for it.

The latest installment of Doonesbury with the Sarah Palin Action Doll

This is the one from Nov. 26, 2008.

View others here. Does making it an "action" doll keep it from being sexist? And where is the "action" anyway? I just learned about this series and am catching up on it, but I'm not sure what the Palin doll does . . . .

Steinem on HRC and Palin

Gloria Steinem wrote a couple of high profile op-ed pieces over the course of the election. Here are excerpts from two -- one about HRC and one about Sarah Palin.

This appeared on January 8, 2008, after Hillary lost Iowa and before she won New Hampshire. It was titled, "Women are Never Front-runners," and it cleverly juxtaposed female gender with some of Obama's biographical details to make the point that Obama's credentials might be subject to greater scrutiny and skepticism were he a woman. Here are the first few paragraphs:

THE woman in question became a lawyer after some years as a community organizer, married a corporate lawyer and is the mother of two little girls, ages 9 and 6. Herself the daughter of a white American mother and a black African father — in this race-conscious country, she is considered black — she served as a state legislator for eight years, and became an inspirational voice for national unity.

Be honest: Do you think this is the biography of someone who could be elected to the United States Senate?

Steinem says that if you answered "no," you are hardly alone. She goes on to call gender "probably the most restricting force in American life." She notes a study which found that the United States "polarizes gender roles more than the average democracy."

The second Steinem piece appeared in the Los Angeles Times after Sarah Palin was chosen as McCain's running mate. It is titled "Wrong woman, wrong message." After labeling John McCain the "real culprit," Steinem argues that he chose Palin to curry favor with "right-wing ideologues." She continues:

Palin's value to those patriarchs is clear: She opposes just about every issue that women support by a majority or plurality. She believes that creationism should be taught in public schools but disbelieves global warming; she opposes gun control but supports government control of women's wombs; she opposes stem cell research but approves "abstinence-only" programs, which increase unwanted births, sexually transmitted diseases and abortions . . .

Gloria Steinem, long-time editor of Ms. magazine, is a so-called second-generation feminist who is famous for saying, "a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle." Do you see any inconsistencies in the positions she takes in these two editorials?