People are already handwringing about how the Democrats can attack Sarah Palin. That’s stupid. There’s plenty to attack Palin on. She’s radically anti-choice, she’s a social reactionary, she’s got no foreign policy experience to speak of, and her pick by McCain bespeaks a sort of belief that women are interchangable and that any vagina will do — Palin and Hillary Clinton are as similar as James Dobson and Dennis Kucinich, and only someone who thinks women are too dumb to know the difference between the two would think that Palin’s very presence on the ticket would win over Clinton Democrats.
But let’s state this flatly, right here, right now — where you don’t attack Palin is based on her looks. Based on her femininity. Based on her being a mother. Based on her XX genotype. Sarah Palin is a former Miss Alaska, and conventionally attractive. But that doesn’t mean her mind is irrelevant to the discussion, that her experience as a Mayor or Governor is somehow worthless.
Contrawise, Palin is not immune to being attacked because she’s a woman. Joe Biden is more experienced on national security; he should make that a point of attack. Sarah Palin isn’t particularly experienced; that should be an issue. Palin is extraoridnarily pro-life, way out of the mainstream on the issue; that should be brought to light. Those issues don’t go away because she’s a woman. Those issues don’t go away, period.
Palin should be judged in the same way any other candidate for the vice presidency should be judged — on her merit as a candidate and a leader. Period. Attack her record and attack her experience — those must be on the table. But her gender — that should be off the table, period.
Cool. Let Joe Biden attack her on her lack of foreign policy experience. And then she can ask which is more important – a lack of experience on the part of the Vice President, or a lack of experience on the part of the President?
Oh, I hope they go there. That’s a loser for the Democrats.
I actually agree with RonF here — it would be foolish for Democrats to attack Palin for lack of experience.
However, I think it still hurts the McCain campaign, because this makes it much harder for them to credibly attack Obama for lack of experience.
@RonF – I still say her lack of experience is less of a shadow on her than it is on McCain for selecting her. There is no scapegoat for Obama’s selection, since he came through the primary process, and is selecting a man who, whatever his faults may be, is obviously qualified for an executive position in the US federal gov’t.
McCain, on the other hand, has gone out of his way to pick a woman for obvious political reasons – she was chosen because she’s not an old white guy – she’s a (comparatively) young and attractive woman. Her fundamentalist conservative views are just gravy.
Still, I could see her providing the same base-energizing abilities to the Republicans that Obama has in his own sphere. Well sir, I don’t like it.
As for her views, I’m less concerned by her opinion on abortion (I can at least _understand_ the pro-life perspective, even if I disagree with it) than I am on her opinion on gay marriage and creationism, two subjects where I believe that religion leads otherwise reasonable people to take a vacation from reality. The fact that she’s bought into the party/church platform on those issues speaks a great deal about her.
Um… how about by not attacking her? Everything, from the timing of her selection to the fact of her selection, was about generating media hype. This is an attempt to close the enthusiasm gap, which the Republicans are smart enough to know exists. Why play into it with these games? When do Veep selections really matter, anyway? During the media cycle for the week they’re rolled out, and if your Veep is found molesting a dog or getting shock therapy. Not much else.
From what I see of interviews of her from when she ran for Governor, she personally favors the discussion of creationism in the public schools but had no intent (nor has she taken any actual action) to push for any change in the Alaska schools’ curricula.
I sure as hell don’t want the schools teaching creationism. What she personally thinks of it is less of a concern to me as long as she has no intent of pushing it into the schools.
Wow, this whole event is causing me to reflect on my sexism. Cuz, honestly, I don’t think anyone needs to attack Palin on her lack of foreign policy experience. She’s young; she’s pretty; she has five kids, including a 5-month-old(?); and – oh yeah – she has no federal or foreign-policy resume. Like it or hate it, before the candidate has spoken a single word to a national audience, what conclusion do you think the average undecided voter is gonna draw? Anyone who can’t answer that question should be assigned to read the archives of this blog for the past five years.
In any event, Biden (and other Democratic surrogates) shouldn’t be attacking Palin; they should be attacking McCain. The only time Palin should be relevant to the discussion is by inference: when McCain talks about the importance of experience, Democrats should talk about the importance of “vibrant, youthful energy” as code for the idea that McCain is old. And if McCain continues, the Democrats can simply say, “Maybe that’s a matter you’d like to discuss with your choice for VP.” And leave it there.
As our various discussions of “privilege” have explored, mere hints, gestures, and understated remarks are sufficient to call forth the unstated assumptions that our culture has planted in the backs of our minds. Causing people to doubt Palin’s foreign policy credentials? Shouldn’t take any effort at all; indeed, if it looks like you’re exerting effort, you’re doing it wrong.
Again, I’m speaking on the basis of almost total ignorance of the woman. Of course, that’s also the basis upon which many people will vote.
Amp, she hasn’t been picked for her experience in foreign affairs. Let’s take a look.
She becomes the only person with executive experience, however short, on either ticket (and there’s been no ticket elected without at least one governor on it for a very long time).
She makes sure that the Republican ticket doesn’t look like two old white guys (hello, TV). The second woman chosen for a major party’s ticket will get a bit of play in the news cycle.
As is quite standard among VP candidates, she was (I presume) chosen to appeal to constituencies that the candidate at the top of the ticket doesn’t – normally a geographical/regional thing, but in this case I guess we’re talking young and/or female. How much the issue that Jeff raises of people being insulted because it gives the impression that McCain figures he can choose “any vagina” will unfold during this campaign.
She certainly appeals to part of the Republican base with her religious and cultural views, her lifetime NRA membership, lots of kids, pro-life, working class husband, etc. McCain is a little weak there. There hasn’t been a lot of talk about it, but there’s some conservatives who have grumbled about sitting this one out because McCain isn’t a conservative. She should help there.
The “If you support the war why haven’t you sent your kids to it” won’t wash on this ticket. Both McCain and Palin have kids in the service.
I wonder how much the “Mom” thing is going to work for her? This is a woman with 5 children who describes herself as a “hockey mom” (think “soccer mom” in a state where what would be soccer fields are mostly covered with ice much of the year). There’s some sympathy with the fact that her fifth child has Downs’ Syndrome – and that she knew in time to abort it, yet had it anyway. Now THAT’S pro-life.
And I’m getting the idea that she’s going to fulfill the one position that a VP candidate traditionally occupies in a stellar fashion: attack dog. She seems to have a lot of energy.
I don’t think Obama should attack Palin on her lack of foreign policy experience.
I do think Democrats should be BLASTING the McCain campaign for hypocrisy. To claim that Obama doesn’t have the experience to be President is a legitimate argument; it’s dead wrong, but it’s a legitimate argument. But to do so and then hire on someone with practically NO experience shows that their original argument was just a bunch of hot air.
Well stated, Jeff.
“before the candidate has spoken a single word to a national audience, what conclusion do you think the average undecided voter is gonna draw? ”
The immediate conclusion given your criteria would be “Maybe I will vote for McCain after all”. Allow those same decideds to get a whiff of her bio, though, and many will revert back to undecided.
As impressive as it is that she is voluntarily raising her Down’s baby, I think the “delivered the Down’s syndrome baby” thing could work against her slightly. I mean, how many “the only moral abortion is my abortion” types would get queasy at the thought of being asked to keep a severely disabled baby? I do wonder if anybody would be crude enough to ask about it though – whether she believes that others should be made to make the same decision she did.
So, will Tina Fey show up on Saturday Night Live to play her? I’m good for $50 for “Yes”.
Bjmartmarr, I’ve posted what would be a response to you in more detail on another thread, but the short version is: you’ve got a point, and if people viewed such things rationally it would count, but I just don’t think people will look at it rationally. They’ll just go along not thinking about the concept of “If McCain dies, she’ll be President.” It’llget some play, but while I could be wrong I don’t think it’s going to cause people to pull one lever or another in the voting booth.
I mean, think about the people we’ve had as VPs before. Dan Quayle. Spiro Agnew, for God’s sake. Yeah, their Presidents weren’t as long in the tooth as McCain is, but back in those days most voters had a mental picture in their heads of the President getting his head blown off, so I figure it balances out.
Ron, I think it’s less about what “most people think” — as far as I can tell, most undecided swing voters are horrifyingly irrational and will make their voting choice based on worthless bullshit — than it is about which arguments the mainstream media finds more and less credible. We’ll wait and see what happens, but my bet is that this will make the MSM consider the “Obama is too inexperienced to be president” argument to be less credible, which in turn will make it more difficult for McCain to make that argument if he wants to get positive media coverage.
Just like Hillary Clinton’s was.
Although I agree that her looks and gender are not a reason to attack her, they may be a reason to question McCain. Because this is the second time he’s chosen an exceptionally good looking, much younger woman as a partner. Is this going to be a pattern with him? Are we going to see a cabinet of beauty queens?
Who knows, if he can heal the rift as well as Obama has with Clinton, there might be a position in a McCain government for Hilton.
@RonF – so, what’s your Fark handle? Tina Fey jokes have been flying like mad over there.
Daran, was that a joke?
Fark? What’s that?
Was what a joke?
My comment about Clinton was rhetorical irony, intended to point out the contradiction between what Fecke said, and what feminists generally do. (When I wrote it, I hadn’t seen this comment, which illustrates the contradiction even more starkly.)
My reference to a cabinet of beauty queens (and Hilton’s possible position in it) was exaggerated. But the underlying question about whether McCain has an eye for pretty women, and whether this, rather than their qualifications for the job, might influence his appointments was serious.
Now I get it. I just pressed a hot button by suggesting that a woman might owe her position to her looks, rather than merit. So strong, I guess, is the injunction against this that you mustn’t criticise the sexists who might allow women’s looks to influence their appointing decisions (unless it’s a negative influence of course).
I stand by what I said. Palin’s candidature should be evaluated on the basis of her resume and nothing else. McCain’s candidature should be evaluated on his choices, and the motivations behind them. Those choices include his selection of a running mate.
Edited to add: “her resume and nothing else” is not intended to exclude her motivations. Such questions are legitimate in evaluating her candidacy, but they are not at issue here.
Daran, for your continuing contempt toward other commenters, feminism, and this community, you are banned from the blog for six months.
This temporary ban is made because of a pattern of contemptuous behavior displayed particularly over the course of the past few weeks. It is temporary out of deference to Ampersand’s sensibilities. Anyone who wishes to discuss this decision (apart from Daran) may do so in an open thread.
Thank you for this post. While there’s plenty to point out in Palin’s record (or lack thereof), I have already seen way too many comments about her looks, her past as a beauty queen, her young disabled child, none of which have any impact on her ability to be a successful VP.
We’re writing about this over at the CA NOW blog too: http://www.canow.org/canoworg/2008/08/mccains-vp-choi.html
@RonF
I think you raise some valid points but I take issue with this:
Maybe I’m just reading this wrong and this is what you see some hypothetical Republican thinking, but I’d just like to point out that I’m sure there are plenty of pro-choice women who would choose to keep a Downs Syndrome child too. Because that is their choice.
Palin is what I term a colluder. She is a woman that has internalized patriarchal values. She may be female be it is clear that is more than willing to throw women under the bus to achieve power. That said I think Melissa is right she needs to be defended against sexist attacks but it should also be pointed out that her behavior supports the kind of sexism that she will be forced to deal with.
Ali –
I don’t mean to imply that anyone who favors abortion rights would automatically abort a Downs’ Syndrome affected fetus.
I have to say that considering Palin to be a tool of the patriarchy is somewhat prejudicial. Obviously, as a member of the Republican party she is tied somewhat to their patriarchal values… but that speaks nothing of her personal beliefs. She considers herself a feminist despite being pro-life, to the point of being in an organization that refers to them as exactly that – Feminists for Life.
Obviously, I disagree with her on most of her positions – I’m generally pro-choice, and despise creationism in the classroom and a number of her other political opinions. But I haven’t yet heard anything from her that would be considered anti-feminist otherwise. But I think the “with us or against women” attitude that some feminists carry is very unhealthy. There are only two parties in the USA, and I doubt that the Democratic party would ever carry someone of her fundamentalist anti-abortion, anti-gay-marriage values, so obviously the Republican party is the main venue for her to enter politics (Independants are a realm for celebrities and the polically irrelevant).
Obviously, I’ll grouse with the rest if she ever mentions getting the women back into the kitchen – but at this point, it’s a little unfair to start slinging the mud on that issue.
Let’s see,
Governor, Photogenic, popular with a base that’s lukewarm about the candidate, anti-corruption (actually did stuff about it also). The choice seems okay as far as that goes.
The experience thing is pretty hypocritical. But that sword cuts both ways.
I don’t think he picked her because she’s a woman. I do think it was part of the calculation. Identity politics are a fact of life. Biden is popular with working class white folk. So I’m sure that was part of Obama’s decision.
Whatever. Neither candidate will accomplish much that I approve of when they get elected. Until then it’s just political theater.
I don’t think he picked her because she’s a woman. I do think it was part of the calculation. Identity politics are a fact of life. Biden is popular with working class white folk. So I’m sure that was part of Obama’s decision.
I don’t (entirely) share Joe’s cynicism, but I agree with this. Considering her combination of social conservativism with her anti-corruption record and her apparent come-from-nowhere, fight-like-hell-and-win record, she looks like someone the old, sincere, stright-talkin’ McCain would have really been impressed with. So I think it is entirely possible that, while political calculations and the need for a Hail Mary pass were certainly part of this decision, a gut-level feeling of sincere belief that she is what the country needs may also have been part of McCain’s decision.
Doesn’t mean he’s right, of course. She is ETREMELY inexperienced in both the skills necessary to run the country as well as compete in a national campaign. You can win election to mayor of a town of less than 6,000 people by just walking up to nearly evry single voter and talking to them personally. winning a smal state gubenatorial election during a scandle that wipes out your oppents is nothing compared to jumping into the U.S. Presidential race(*). Dealling with the Alskan press might be tough, but it doesn’t prepare you at all for being the subject of the intense focus of the national MSM. And being able to smack down the best debaters in Alskan poltics prepares you to debate someone with the debating experience of Biden the way being the star of your state championship high school football team prepares you to sub in as a halfback in the SuperBowl.
May she is up to it, but damn, what a risk. Luckily for McCain, I think RonF is right. If the Republicans can win with Agnew, Quayle, or Cheny on the bottom of the ticket, it would be hard to blame Palin if McCain loses.
(*) Actually, the cercumstances under which she won the governor’s job probably put her though a tougher campaign than Obama went through to win his U.S. Senate seat. Which is one reason primaries are better on a practical level than smoke-filled rooms. The primary season certainly vetted Obama’s campaigning abilities on a national level as well as taught him how to be a better candidate. Palin’s jumping into the championship game without having played the season.
As a mom and a pretty conservative democrat, I find the selection of Palin to be completed preposterous. Not only is she inexperienced, she’s a rather lousy example of a mother who is juggling family life and professional life.
She went back to work *2* days after her youngest child was born. Given that maybe Dad is around to take care of the child, etc. etc., I think such a decision is a clear indication of her priorities or her affluence or whatever.
The only other person I have heard of going back to work so quickly (and it was a week after the baby was born) was someone who worked for dirt wages as a nursing assistant and the choice was starve or work.
Is Palin capable of compassion for a single, working mom of 1 or 2 who is having a rough time of it?
I really do believe that the personal choices that politicians make reflects the public, political, economic decisions they inflict on the rest of us. Her anti-abortion, creationist views are scary in and of themselves, but they are just a part of the picture.
And, her “executive” experience has been in a state with a population of 700,000 and no taxes because the state is flush with money from its production of oil. Any bill that she has refused to sign has had nothing to do with hard economic choices.
Pingback: McCain, on the other hand, keeps his cynicism intact « Read It Or Not
Republican tokenism means thinking that everybody who isn’t a white guy is interchangable and so promoting unknown women and POC who are already loyal and will have great reason for remaining so, given that they could never have gotten their jobs without a lot of help from white guys.
But, Christ, I’m not going to attack her for going back to work too soon after her kid was born. I mean Bush went golfing the day of one of his sibling’s deaths or funeral or something (I’m not looking this up) and that seems cold. But blaming mothers for doing it wrong is like a national fucking pass time. It’s bullshit. So she wanted to go back to work, so what? The kid has two parents. She loves her job. What the hell is wrong with that? Do people blame dads for going back to the job so soon? No, they do not.
(This is futile and probably stupid, but woman =XX and woman = vagina is cisgenderist. I mean, yeah, most people are cis, but . . . )
This was a great pick for McCain for many reasons. One of the great upsides is the entertainment value. The spectacle of the Obama campaign and his supporters attacking her for her inexperience is genuinely good comedy given Obamas record of accomplishments. We will also have the vision of pro-affirmative action people criticizing McCain for using gender as part of his reason for naming her. Good times.
Feminists for life is a faux feminist organization. In my personal opinion any woman claiming the political beliefs that she does is staunchly anti-feminist, and in fact a colluder. Taking on a title and then acting against it, is false representation. I don’t care how many babies the woman has, attempting to control the bodies of other women is anti-feminist.
I would have a (somewhat) easier time accepting Feminists for Life if they expressed *any* significant concern about any other feminist issue. Where is their concern for equal pay in the workplace, or family leave policies, or the attack on welfare, or providing healthcare for women and children throught the entire lifetime? Etc. Many of these policies would actually reduce the number of abortions, most likely, but they’re just about campaigning to make abortion illegal and dressing it up as faux feminism.
I’m uncomfortable with judging other people to be “not good enough” feminists just because they disagree with a political point of mine. However, I do reserve the right to call this woman batshit
Pingback: Alas a Ban | Feminist Critics
You can’t criticize her for being female, but it would ludicrous to ignore her sex when evaluating her positions.
On the issue of choice, for example, the views of men and women are often framed very differently (on both sides of the table) and for good reason. I find strongly antichoice women to be more disturbing than strongly antichoice men* though I generally detest them both.
Pingback: GlobalComment » Sarah Palin and Michelle Obama: Hypocrisy in Mainstream Feminism