-
sponsorship
My beloved Liz Lemon—er, I mean Tina Fey—isn't the only one suggesting that Sarah Palin's focus has shifted from 2008 to 2012. Today, trying get a jump on the post-election story before the polls even open, much less close, a host of politicos are placing their bets over who will emerge from the broken GOP as the next to be (unofficially) crowned party leader.
When John McCain chose his running mate, he was rightfully lambasted as cynical for passing over experienced insider men for an accessible outsider woman. In the end, he was right on one count: that a swath of the American public—though one which perhaps may not be wide enough to elect him tomorrow—felt so disenfranchised by the people who hold power in this country that they would line up behind someone who reflected and could articulate their own proud feelings of ordinariness. (This profound cultural conflict—rooted deep in issues of education and economics—will require far more systemic thinking than the fuzzy feeling of "unity" Obama hopes to usher in tomorrow and beyond.) Where McCain may have been wrong—and this is big—was in his perception of this election as a game of identity politics.
People have talked plenty about whether Obama is a post-race candidate for a post-race America. I've generally taken issue with that notion—and should he be elected, my heart positively swells with the notion of the descendant of slaves raising her children inside the White House. But by the same flawed token, did Sarah Palin become a post-gender candidate for a post-gender America? Of course, Palin has certainly worked her gender in this race: from that flirty wink and sky-high Manolos to her uber-mom positioning. But like Obama's race hasn't been the totalizing meta-narrative of his candidacy, neither has Palin's gender, and just as this hasn't been an election year for single issue voters, it hasn't been one for single-identity ones either, despite what pundits may have predicted from the outset. We entered this race all aflutter about our first female presidential candidate. We're ending it considering the next one with hardly a shrug about her gender.
While I am hardly a Palin fan, and for myriad reasons shudder to imagine how she might develop with the next four years to study up, the fact that neither her supporters nor her detractors seemed to make a big deal about a female commander in chief (remember those days?) suggests that in unexpected ways, we've come a long way during this long march to Election Day.
-
sponsorship
In Rachael's battle between who is speaking more truth to power--Elaine Lafferty or Christopher Buckley--I think the real winner may be Tina Brown. Both articles by Lafferty and Buckley, which have inspired a lot of Web chatter, appeared in Brown's new Web site, the Daily Beast (named after the news outlet in Evelyn Waugh's novel Scoop.) Brown, of course, famously saved or ruined The New Yorker, depending on your point of view, in the early 1990s, after she created the still-successful formula for Vanity Fair. I worked at The New Yorker, briefly, during her reign and was among those who felt she was often unfairly maligned because of her sex. Rosa's insight--that pretty women are typically more successful than their less attractive counterparts but also punished more harshly when they fail--seemed to apply a lot to Brown at the time and may explain why she was eventually drawn to the subject of Diana, Princess of Wales (and is now working on a book about Hillary and Bill). In fact, many of the writers that define the current New Yorker are ones Brown hired and first brought to national prominence: among them, Lawrence Wright, Anthony Lane, John Cassidy, Malcolm Gladwell, Phillip Gourevitch, Larissa MacFarquhar, and David Remnick himself (who became her successor). One of my personal favorites of Brown's discoveries was Nancy Franklin, then a staff editor at the magazine. Previous male bosses had overlooked Franklin's considerable talents. Brown, however, saw a natural wit and born writer and promoted Franklin to critic, a post she still winningly occupies.
Brown had a keen appreciation of the sexism that surrounded her--especially the ways women were expected to work like dogs (as Brown did) while many of the men got to lounge around being "intellectuals." Upon learning I grew up in Texas, she once joked to me that she loved Texas men because unlike most of her male literary peers in New York, they were still man enough to flirt with her. In today's political vernacular, Texas men were "dudes," unintimidated by a woman who is both attractive and powerful. Brown's quip offered a brief glimpse into how sexually isolating it can be to be a fiercely intelligent woman. (I think this explains, in part, why otherwise seemingly smart women, especially of Hillary's generation, sometimes ended up with the Bills of the world: Bill was probably the first guy sexually acquisitive enough not to be put off by Hillary's own brains and star power.) I wonder if, at the Daily Beast, Brown hasn't found her natural home. She's surrounded by a younger generation of web-savvy male and female editors more used to smart, assertive women, and she always did love the outrageous, counterintuitive piece on which blogs depend. I, for one, am glad to have her back, mixing it up.
-
sponsorship
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.
-
sponsorship
That's what she seems to be saying in this interview with People magazine. When asked whether her 17-year-old daughter's pregnancy has changed how she talks about sex with her other kids, she says: "I've always been a proponent of making sure kids understand—even in schools—they'd better take preventative measures so that they don't find themselves in these less than ideal circumstances. Perhaps Bristol could be a good example to other young women that life happens and preventative measures are, first and foremost, the option that should be considered.'' Which does not sound like abstinence only—and does sound completely sensible. I was also kind of surprised by the New Age Sarah who comes through in the interview when she describes Bristol as "kind of an old soul.'' So many layers, and only 12 days. ...
-
sponsorship
OK, I have to say this, though I'm guessing it will not make me XXer of the day or anything. (Ergh, that sounds like something John McCain would say, bragging for the 9 millionth time about not being named Miss Congeniality.) Anyway, though I happen to think the whole ‘Bama pals with terrorists' line is toxic as well as so misshapen as to qualify as an outright lie, I would not characterize what Michelle Bachmann said on "Hardball' as a rant; in all fairness, Chris Matthews saw his opening and maneuvered her into it. He took what she did say - "Most Americans, Chris, are wild about America'' - I think she means you, Dana - "and they're very concerned to have a president who doesn't share those values.'' And then, he successfully pushed her to take that to its logical conclusion, that being critical of anything America does ever is the same as having anti-American views. That is an argument I disagree with, and one side of a conversation that's been going on at least since Vietnam. But it is still a mischaracterization to react as though she went on screaming that the FBI should forget Bin Laden and look into Nancy Pelosi. (What bothered me more was her assertion that, "It was Michelle Obama who said she's only recently proud of her country.'' No, she didn't.)
If negative campaigning really had finally found its floor, in any case, that would be the best thing since Caller ID. And whatever her motivations, I'm glad Sarah Palin has apologized for her comments dividing us into the "real America'' of small towns like the ones she and I grew up in and...not so real America, like New York and Washington, where lots of us small town natives wind up. As Jon Stewart said the other night, Bin Laden must feel like a real *&F@# after having realized he bombed the wrong America. Not to mention those from-the-wrong America firefighters who ran into the Twin Towers; gosh are they embarrassed.
-
sponsorship
Is anyone but me freaked out by the fact that the big punch line of Palin’s SNL performance was “Hee hee hee, I am never going to give a real press conference?” Her line to Lorne Michaels, “You know, Lorne, I just don't think it's a realistic depiction of the way my press conferences would have gone,” nearly led me to knock over a basket of poorly folded laundry. A candidate who has made herself all but unavailable for rigorous media questioning is cracking wise about how a press conference “would have gone” and this is funny? Her concluding joke, “"No, I'm not going to take any of your questions, but I do want to take this opportunity to say, 'Live from New York, it's Saturday Night,’ ” was only a joke in that it was totally true. Auggggggghhhh!!!!
Why is that funny?????
-
sponsorship
I take back what I said about his bright future even as a Fox News star.
Joe is a faux plumber! (Quel horreur!) And a tax scofflaw! And something about Obama just happens to remind him of Sammy Davis Jr.! And-- if true, this next thing is weirder than weird—Joe may be related by marriage to Charles Keating, star of the S &L scandal that almost ended McCain's Senate career! And—his name's not even Joe!
By now I am starting to feel kind of sorry for Joe. Faux Joe. Samuel. Whatever his name is. He registered as a Republican last spring. By now, he's probably having second thoughts about how great it is to be championed by John McCain before a viewing audience of 38 million U.S. households.
-
sponsorship
I'm still not worried about Joe the Plumber. For one thing, the guy's now the most famous plumber in America, and I'd say he's got a future as a Fox News star.
But for another, Emily, he's fine either way: If he buys this company and it doesn't make enough to push his personal income over $250,000, then he gets no Obama tax increase, and depending on his income level, he very likely gets one of those Obama tax cuts. Lucky fella. And if his company's profits do push him over $250,000 (I can't find the link, but I believe that in an interview he says they probably would), then his marginal tax rate would go up a tad under Obama's plan, but he's still making far, far more than most of his fellow Americans—and keeping most of it, too.
So what's the problem here for Joe? He'd rather not have his marginal tax rate increase. OK, I get that. But no one—certainly not Obama—is suggesting he didn't work hard to get his money, or that he's not "entitled to keep most of it." We're talking about a small increase in the marginal tax rate for Americans in the top fifth percentile of incomes, not about nationalizing Joe's plumbing business. (Much as I'd like free government-provided plumbing ...)
I guess I just don't see why Obama's comment about wanting to "spread the wealth around" strikes fear into anyone's heart. That's what the progressive income tax is supposed to do—and no one really questions the core concept, just the details (What should the highest marginal tax rate be? What should the income threshold be? etc.). Right now, given the stunning levels of income inequality in this country, both parties agree that we need to spread the weath around a bit. The question is just what mechanism will most effectively do the trick. Is it improving education while cutting taxes for all, as McCain proposes?Or is it tax cuts for the lower 95 percent and marginal tax rate increases for the wealthiest 5 percent, including, hypothetically, Joe the Plumber—if he hits the big time?
-
sponsorship
Let's stop feeling so sad for poor Joe the Plumber, who just wants his teensy little piece of the American dream. In his original comments to Obama, Joe explained that he was about to buy a company that would make profits of about $270,000 a year. If that profit bumps Joe's own income over $250,000, then he'll be making more money per year than roughly 95 percent of his fellow Americans. In that case, yeah, as Obama explained to him, Joe won't be getting that middle-class tax cut.
Cry me a river. (The guy makes way more than money, I'll bet, than any of us poor XX bloggers. Maybe we can get him to redistribute a little free plumbing over here? Free plumbing for all: That's MY idea of the American dream.)
-
sponsorship
Emily, I think you are right that it’s always going to be a huge mistake to attack Sarah Palin for personal or family decisions—even if she is relentlessly cashing in on them. Images like this one don’t help, either. As Melinda observes, any references at all to Palin’s gender will net out to her benefit, even when the underlying criticism is valid. Let's not judge lest we be judged. So how do we thread this needle? What can we fairly scrutinize? Turns out that discussing her managerial mistakes and inexperience is going to be equally fraught; it’s patronizing to suggest she's unprepared. Perhaps the best place to focus, then, is on her fabrications—like the disproved claim that she opposed the “Bridge to Nowhere”—which the mainstream media now appears to understand despite its continued deployment by the McCain campaign.
The “new feminism” may include uncritical support for women who oppose teen pregnancy programs and for women who force rape victims to pay for their own rape kits. But I just don’t see where support for women who persist in fabricating their own records is a feminist principle.
-
sponsorship
Dahlia's got it: what's depressing about Palin is that she represents the Ann Coulterization of the Republican party. That's what was tugging at my unconscious mind as I watched her spout the most vicious and irresponsible claptrap, with such a gleeful expression on her face.
Watching Palin was like watching a cross between Ann Coulter and Michelle Malkin-- only Palin accessorizes with babies. And she's got a governorship, instead of a column or a TV show.
I'm beginning to suspect that it's not just me, either. Palin offered red meat to the hungry GOP faithful, but not sure how her speech played with independents. Way too soon to really know-- but for what it's worth, a Detroit Free Press focus group wasn't too impressed with her.
-
sponsorship
It was a great speech and she delivered it almost perfectly. She had one job to do tonight—persuade Americans that Barack Obama is a meringue, wrapped in a soufflé, served on imported bone china, and she did it well. And then she did it again. And again. The turns and the aphorisms and the all-out smears were delivered with a megawatt smile, which set her off from Rudy Giuliani, who simply looked to have been off his meds. They also set her apart from Hillary Clinton, who never managed to deliver a zinger without being blown back by the recoil. And if it’s small to go after community organizers, or people who are not “always proud of America,” or people with the misfortune to reside in cities, or people inspired by idealism, well so be it. She’s a small-town girl.
It’s a risky tactic: If your opponent is larger than life, strive to be smaller than life. Paint Washington, government, and the entire world stage in miniature, until it’s good enough to have been mayor of a town of 6,000, and, frankly, it would have been good enough just to have been a hockey mom. This is the view of America that scares the pants off most of our allies: That we are the view.
-
sponsorship
Wow, Palin is a pit bull with lipstick. Her speech was good with some killer lines—the one about "We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about you one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco" (or vice versa, I'm paraphrasing) will be hard to refute.
What struck me most, however, is how much the pitbull theme extended to the entire night: The whole tenor of the evening was more mean-spirited than any convention I can remember. The crowd laughed at the mention of Obama being a community organizer during Giuliani's speech—what I think was not supposed to be a joke but rather a throwaway credit—but I'm sure all those laid-off steelworkers that Obama was working with to rebuild their lives wouldn't think it was funny. "Proud steelworkers," as Palin pointed out that her husband was. It's pretty mean to laugh at someone trying to help those with the true misfortune of a layoff; it seems cruel and unusual that those they were laughing at are professional kin of Palin's husband.
-
sponsorship
Can we just stop for a moment and consider how amazing it is, in more than one sense of the word, that we have a vice-presidential nominee who has a son going to Iraq AND a baby? The time span itself leaves me flabbergasted. That is motherhood extended, motherhood practically eternal. It makes me want to know a lot more about Palin, but it also makes her seems awfully different than almost any woman I can think of.
You're right, Melinda, that Palin's demonstration of putting her anti-abortion views into practice will add a twist to the debate. Though I'm not sure I want the personal story of the vice-presidential nominee to overshadow the larger question about policy choices for the rest of us. Actually I am sure--it would be a mistake, and so the Democrats will probably try to tread as lightly as they can here. The more important question has got to be the one Dahlia raises, about whether this will come to seem like the catapulting forward of a woman who can handle the leap up the ladder and then some, or like the shaky choice of a campaign desperate to seem younger and hipper and daring. Since she's been in the national spotlight so little until now, Palin's performance over the next week or two matters a lot more than most VP choices would. She's got to seem like more than the sum or her quirky, unorthodox, bedrock conservative parts.
-
sponsorship
Rachael, I wholly agree with 50 percent of what you say. Obama’s message about our tendency to hunker down behind extreme identity differences (religious, ideological, racial) would have been better delivered directly to the group he was addressing. Just as U.S. Rep. Geoff Davis, R-Ky., might have been better off talking to the 3Ls at Harvard when he said of Obama at a fundraiser last Saturday night, “That boy’s finger does not need to be on the button.” Davis went on to compare Obama to a “snake oil salesman” who “probably doesn’t understand normal Americans” because he went to Harvard. (Hat tip to Steve Benen.) (Davis has since apologized.)
It can’t possibly be true that Obama’s biggest sin—like Davis’—was simply that he addressed a like-minded audience. Unlike Davis, whose audience evidently LOVED his insights about out-of-touch private-school liberals, Obama is being clobbered for the extra sin of elitism. That’s because it’s only condescension when liberal intellectuals reduce groups to stereotypes. When salt-of-the-earth blue-collar Americans like Davis or Bill Kristol or Rush Limbaugh skewer Harvard grads, it’s heroic anti-intellectualism. Me, I’d rather live in a world where we stop caricaturing both pro-gun groups and pro-choice groups. But my point is that it’s equally reductive and mean-spirited in both directions, and whether you choose to call it “condescension” or “sham populism,” it’s still just misdirection.