Palinoia
ByAs per Michael’s request for more divisive content (sorry, no video this time, Michael) fellow Englishman in NY(State), Tony Fletcher, has an interesting take on the liberal reaction to Sarah Palin’s candidacy:
Rarely – perhaps, never – have I witnessed anything in American politics that has so united my many female leftist friends as their immediate, visceral, intense dislike – make that fearful hatred – of Sarah Palin, the woman who could become, potentially, America’s first ever female President. What started out as a surprise – like, is this the Republicans’ idea of a bad joke? (to which the answer remains, yes it is… but it’s also for real) – has turned into a collective riot of Palin-bashing missives that comes in the form of fake YouTube videos, speech corrections, animal rights petitions, forwarded newspaper articles, Planned Parenthood donation drives, and bad old urban myths (re: lists of books she supposedly tried to ban from the Wasilla library).
The anti-Palin panic comes in every shape and form. The new issue of the Woodstock Times is filled with letters from longstanding female residents listing all the many solid reasons that she’s a political liability for the nation as a whole. The Sep 22 New Yorker contained a Talk of the Town editorial, an investigative piece by Philip Gourevitch, and a comic take on her manner of speech. When I was in Prospect Park this last weekend, enjoying a short stay in my old neighborhood of Brownstone Brooklyn, my reverie was interrupted by a procession of Cavewomen For Palin, all dressed as per Wilma Flintstone (albeit with delightfully exposed tattoos), carrying banners stating “A woman’s place is in the cave,†while chanting “ugga-ugga-ugga.†(And no, I didn’t have my camera with me; you’ll just have to take my word on this one.) And the last 24 hours has brought FOUR different e-mails asking me to take part in a PBS online poll questioning Palin’s experience (or lack thereof) for the Vice-Presidential post, a poll that has apparently been hijacked by “the right wing†and which must therefore be reclaimed by us anti-Palinites as if her (non-) Presidency depends on it. It’s enough to make one reset their spam filter to ban anything with the word “Palin†in the headline – and for that matter, maybe the contents too.
Not that Tony is a fan of Palin. His point is that the vice-presidential nominee is a sideshow.
Look, for the first time since I moved to this country, I thoroughly believe in the Democratic Presidential Candidate. I can not wait to cast my vote for him. Though Obama has showed signs of tiring towards the end of this incredibly (and unnecessarily) long campaign, and though he has played just a little too nice of late, my support for him remains solid. When he speaks on an issue, he’s usually already informed; this gives him the capacity to think on his feet. He demonstrates great intelligence but also deep compassion; he is an agent for much-needed change even as it’s becoming increasingly clear that he’s actually quite cautious. (And caution is not a bad thing, when you think about the speed at which our current President rushed this country to war.) The post-Palin bump in McCain’s polling numbers have had a lot of Democrats worried, but I admire Obama for not panicking; he’s trusting, I believe, that he can ride out the Palin surge by taking the moral high ground – and I just pray that tactic will work in such a cynical country.
So, my friends, let’s take a pause from sharing our disgust with Palin amongst our fellow non-Republicans, and resume the much harder part of the political campaign: getting the vote out for Barack Obama. Perhaps we need to be sending out e-mails listing the ten attributes that make Obama’s running mate, Joe Biden, a better Vice-President than Palin – because, as yet, no-one has listed them for me, and in a nation that’s become enslaved to the 24-hour cable news cycle, “MILF†is certainly not one of them. Maybe those of us who live in areas that are divided between semi-urbanite progressives and rural conservatives need to engage in friendly conversations in the local diners and supermarkets, assuring our suspicious neighbors that having a well-traveled, intelligent, caring, (half)black family man (with a Harvard degree, and experience in the Senate, and yes, experience in the Community too) as President might actually be a good thing for this country. It would ssurely be more beneficial than another round of Palin-bashing e-mails and petitions sent to our close friends whom we already know wouldn’t vote for her if she were the last woman on earth. We have very little time left, and we need to reclaim the message. It’s not about her. It’s not about PBS online push-button polls….It’s not even about Planned Parenthood. It’s about President Obama. Don’t you like the sound of that?
22 Comments
September 30th, 2008 at 3:40 pm
Oh, I don’t know . . . this is an intellligent and well-reasoned piece, looking at an issue from both sides despite clearly stating his voting intentions. There’s nothing really divisive here, merely observations of divisiveness, unless you pick and choose and look for stuff to slam “the other side” with, which, of course, has become the standard level of discourse in this country. Wow, you Brits are so polite.
=+)
It’s an interesting observation, though, that feminists are so upset at Palin who clearly has sought to achieve much regardless of her gender. It rather delves into the question of whether feminism as a whole is about female empowerment, equal rights, control over your own body, or simply respect in the eyes of all the other genders. Although these thoughts come from an admitted non-woman, I have to admit that on the surface, Palin does seem to be a Feminist in the broadest sense of the term, that of person who succeeds in spite of (and, in some definitions, because of) cultural mores about women.
There is a deeper argument that has been made that at its core Feminism virtually requires one to be Pro-Life, and maybe that’s why some Feminists don’t consider her one of their own.
See? Now THAT’S divisive . . .
And I agree that we should be talking right now about Obama vs. McCain. but I don’t think we can discount the Palin issue enttirely. The Vice Presidency DOES mean something when paired with 72-years-old-history-of-cancer, and the unvetted pandering of such a move tells you something about John McCain’s excecutive decision-making skills.
BTW, if a man with Palin’s exact same experience, opinions, and ability to respond to Katie Couric were up there, I’d feel exactly the same, but I don’t think it would ever happen. Palin was picked to play to the Hillary effect, and my personal, conspiratorial, and highly unprovable opinion is that she was picked BECAUSE she wasn’t highly experienced. If they’d just wanted a woman, Kay Bailey Hutchinson is FAR more qualified and plenty conservative.
The comparison between Palin and Biden in this area is stark. Can you imagine, honestly, McCain seeking Palin’s counsel on any important issue? On the contrary, she’s been isolated from nearly all media contact so she can be COACHED on what to think.
It’s nothing but an if, but IF the Republicans picked an attactive, spunky, lesser-skilled woman for precisely those qualities then told her what to think . . . All you who hate Obama simply out of spite that you didn’t get Hillary nominated, is this really the ticket you want to vote for?
I’m tired. Is the election over yet?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:44 pm
Okaaaay……I’m getting the message loud and clear;)
September 30th, 2008 at 3:49 pm
I was not referring to any one person, and certainly not you, Ali. And I could be wrong. I’m just a man, after all.
=+)
September 30th, 2008 at 3:51 pm
have any of you cats who are so free with your opinions ever travelled? Ever seen the world? Amazing, if true, that Palin got a passport only a year ago, but what about you chaps? Have you ventured further bravely from your screens or not?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
Lived in Germany for a year, and I’ve traveled to Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Sweden, and even G.B.
Admittedly, this gives me no props on anything outside of Europe or the U.S. . . . but do I have to go to medical school myself in order to insist my doctor’s seen the inside of a classroom?
September 30th, 2008 at 3:55 pm
And thanks . . . for calling me a cat? I feel so hip.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:06 pm
Oh sorry to be so ambiguous, I did’t mean by you in anyway, Michael! I just don’t think I should comment on this topic anymore because the sexism towards this woman (whom I am not a fan of, BTW) is getting to me. Sexism is sexism. I don’t even like it when I hear my very “liberal” brother-in-law refer to the despicable Michelle Malkins in sexist terms….
But I do like the ending sentiments of the piece above…. as someone who does not support Obama but has only ever voted for democrats, I believe more arms could be twisted if Obama supporters started talking about what is great about Obama’s experience and achievements… address reasonable concerns about Obama (and no I don’t mean his biracial heritage, which is a plus in my book) and stop obsessing about Palin.
September 30th, 2008 at 4:11 pm
Blame Paul . . . he brought it up!
(wow . . . I guess he WAS divisive)
I’d be curious to hear your response, however, to the portion of his piece where he describes the feminist response to Palin. Can a woman who is a feminist be sexist against another woman?
September 30th, 2008 at 5:45 pm
Mike,
Oh, in regard to your question, absolutely! I have had to reflect on my own sexism during this election and I have been appalled at the extremely sexist language and sentiments of some of my favorite feminist friends as well. We feminists are totally sexist!
September 30th, 2008 at 6:28 pm
Ok then I need you to give me your definition of “sexist”, if that’s ok with you.
September 30th, 2008 at 10:23 pm
Meanwhile, check this out from my wife, who is much much smarter than I am:
http://achairandtwoapples.com/?p=700
October 1st, 2008 at 1:09 pm
Your wife has an interesting blog! I was wondering why you asked me to define sexism, but after reading your wife’s post, who seems to be trying to define feminism in the context of this election, it makes more sense.
Anyway, my two second response to what sexism is…..
behavior or language that demeans women through the use of gender stereotypes and/ or an inappropriate/ violent/ unnecessary focus on the female body/ sexuality.
Yeah, I thinking listing “MILF” as one of Palin’s main attributes for being VP – totally sexist. Although I wouldn’t have chosen her as a VP candidate, Palin does indeed have an impressive resume in Alaska, is surely a “maverick” in her home state and one can see how McCain identifies with her achievements and her spiritedness. And who was it that said her main qualification seems to be NOT having an abortion? This is violently sexist, and coming from a woman! Not to mention bigoted towards adults and children with special needs which I can’t imagine is part of the feminist agenda.
Um… all you “Obama feminists” out there…. this is NOT the way to win over the Hillary vote;) And not that we are one-dimensional with a one track mind on women’s rights. But come on! Your PR skills suck!
October 1st, 2008 at 1:53 pm
I understand where you are coming from, Ali, as best I can. I’m not even going to get picky and argue that your literal definition of sexism as posted above specifically applies only to women, apparently.
=+)
I know what you meant, and I’m not that kind of argumentative jerk (I’m a completely different kind of jerk). I guess what I am wondering is this:
Is addressing the subject of Palin’s qualifications sexist in itself?
She’s gotten a lot . . . a LOT of press (she’s probably the only one grateful for the current financial crisis, since it got her off the front page for a bit). Like Microsoft with Viruses, when you have a bigger footprint, you’re going to get targeted a lot more, and it’s simple mathmatics that the level of sexism will rise accordingly. And I am ashamed of people of both genders throwing out the sexist comments left and right, but in some ways it’s beneficial in that it makes us all do a gut check about how enlighted we all really are. That doesn’t excuse it, of course.
But is it that simple? Is she under more scrutiny and cynicism because of her gender? Perhaps. But I believe that the sexism here is just the signal noise. She’s being hounded because she’s different, yes, but also because we need strong, prepared leaders right now, and she has never completed a term in office except for Wasalia.
I re-iterate from an earlier post — McCain COULD HAVE PICKED OTHER, BETTER-QUALIFIED, CONSERVATIVE WOMEN. I don’t believe we’d have had anywhere near this furor with, say, Elizabeth Dole or even Condaleeza Rice (her Bush ties would’ve been a casualty in some ways, but then again, McCain doesn’t seem to want to get out of Iraq anytime soon). Palin’s “impressive” resume in Alaska is a matter of opinion — first time governors that have to worry about a “-gate” -type scandal and must equivocate so many decisions could hardly be called unique, but it’s still not necessarily impressive:
http://www.timesargus.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080907/FEATURES05/809070306/1014/FEATURES05
I guess what this boils down for to me (and all these posts have really helped me think and refine my thinking and understand other points of view — Thanks CJ and Ali and Paul), is that it IS all about McCain, and that’s a real shame, since the first Republican woman on the ticket should have had it be about her.
McCain has gambled that her “just-plain-folks”, sassy, creationist-conservative, and, yes, FEMALE qualities will address different parts of the ticket he was having troubles with. The only problem with this, and it’s why I have no problem still arguing about this, is that she is a shill — a straw (wo)man not picked because of her qualifications but her gender, beliefs, and attitude. Even that’s not the worst part, the worst part (and what got me posting so furiously on the video thread) is that they’re not being upfront about this, but pretending she DOES have qualifications that she is so plainly missing. I really hate to say it, but this is totally a Bush way of thinking . . . oh, there ARE no weapons of mass destruction? Then let’s hint that Iraq was involved in 9/11 until everyone forgets that! This is the kind of President I never used to think McCain could be, but it’s very clear he’s comfortable with this way of thinking.
Now let’s all talk about puppies until Paul takes more cool photos and posts them.
October 1st, 2008 at 3:32 pm
Mike,
You are not a “jerk” even if you completely missed my point;)
My point was much simpler – my repulsion to the sexist language, much of which has come from the left, during this election (and prior). I never said that people shouldn’t grill Palin, Hillary, Ann Coulture, Mother Theresa or whomever. But does my well-educated, American Studies major, very liberal B-I-L really need to make a rape joke about Michelle Malkins to prove his point? Same goes for Hillary and Palin regarding the blatant sexism they have been subject to (and I am not talking about any reasonable discussion regarding their qualifications!). This sexism is important enough to discuss on it’s own without getting into a big political discussion about… is Palin qualified? Who is more qualified, Palin or Obama? That’s a different conversation.
I know sexism doesn’t inspire the same rage as racism anymore. But I would think it might inspire a bit more than “yeah, but…”
Well, I for one am done talking about the “S” word except with like-minded people. The condescension (I’m not talking about you) is exhausting. BTW, I’m not really into puppies, I’m more of a cat person. So I will leave it in your court to link an adorable puppy photo if you like;)
October 1st, 2008 at 5:23 pm
michael that does not past muster sadly, I have socks that have out travelled you in the last 3 months alone. And yes you should ask a doctor in medical school if he’s had practice, I think. But I’m not sure if I understood you as I’m fresh out a moscow bar and more jaded than an emperors pants. I leave you, for now, with the suggestion that you cats put me in mind of fleas discussing which horses’ hind leg they plan to infest vis a vis potential risks of being pissed on.
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:21 am
Good day everybody
Wow, my posting inspired so much more comment here than it did on my own site. Paul, you appear to have no shortage of people willing to debate politics. Good for you!
My initial point, Michael and others, was not to “discount the Palin issue entirely†but to get my feminist friends out of the hole they’d dug themselves into, whereby winning back a PBS push-button online poll was suddenly more important than winning the election. I have to thank those same feminist friends though, for so quickly and thoroughly getting the word out about Palin’s policies and her past. Fortunately, it appears that Palin has dug her own grave. Further kudos to the Obama campaign for not panicking when she gave McCain a post-RNC bump in the polls.
From my own perspective, being a woman no more makes you a feminist than being a man makes you sexist. As for my MILF comment, Michael, I’m glad it got to you. Political incorrectness is a wonderful tool when used facetiously. But seriously, if you don’t think that there aren’t (or at least weren’t) white male middle-aged voters out there (initially) deciding to support Palin because they considered her a MILF, then you clearly over-estimate the American voting public. And yes, I do believe those voters would be using that word. It’s the most in-vogue expression I know right now. The media had to settle for the word “hot.†But then I know plenty women who consider Obama to be “hot.†Image is important in politics as it is in pop music.
Anyway, thanks for debating the points. (Paul, your comments section is a little confusing as to who is actually making the comment. Maybe people should sign off to make it more clear.)
Tony Fletcher
October 2nd, 2008 at 10:29 am
Thanks Tony! And thanks for the interesting and well thought out post that sparked this debate.
Is anyone else having trouble with the comments?
October 2nd, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Well, I wasn’t, but then Tony attributed the “MILF” comments to me, when I believe it was Ali to commented on them directly.
October 2nd, 2008 at 2:40 pm
no Paul Im getting along swimmingly with your comments section.
October 2nd, 2008 at 4:41 pm
Michael/Ali
Ha ha! See what I mean… It would help to have a thick line between each comment: it’s real easy to assume that the comment is attributed to the name underneath, as opposed to the name above!
t
October 2nd, 2008 at 6:58 pm
Good point, Feed.
Or should I call you “Mr. on comments to this Post”?
=+)
October 14th, 2008 at 8:32 am
I know this is an old thread but those Palin t–shirts are getting to me. I guess I’m going to have to hang out with these ladies to find like minds on sexism.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/011077.html#
Tony, you wrote:
“Political incorrectness is a wonderful tool when used facetiously.”
I’m wondering if you think political incorrectness is a wonderful tool, when used facetiously, against African Americans? Do you tend to use racial “political incorrectness” with such ease?