Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Sep
7
At the post, “Sarah is the Fresh Air,” on Blogher, I found this comment today:
When can she be interviewed by reporters – I find it disturbing that the McCain campaign isn’t allowing Ms. Palin to be interviewed by reporters. What are they hiding?
According to Nicole Wallace of the McCain campaign, possibly never:
Oh, well, wait – maybe in two weeks, said Todd Harris yesterday, a Republican strategist who was John McCain’s communications manager. Why not for at least two weeks? Listen:
And in fact, did anyone see Sarah Palin on the Sunday shows this morning? Nope. Just the boys. Governor Sarah Palin, the candidate about whom we know the least, remains the person we’re seeing the least often and hearing from the most infrequently.
But is this scarcity of Sarah due to sexism?
The McCain campaign is so afraid that she might make a mistake that they’ll keep her out of the voters’ view for at least fourteen days – when there’s only 60 days left for voters to choose. Andrew Sullivan of The Atlantic calls this move sexist:
The sexism that implies that someone cannot stand up to reporters because she is a woman is appalling. This entire pick, of course, is incredibly sexist, and the handling of her in the last week the most sexist double standard I have ever seen in American politics. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying she wasn’t going to answer questions for two weeks? Or Margaret Thatcher? Or Kay Bailey Hutchison? Or Elizabeth Dole? And none of these women were ever as close to global power as Sarah Palin now is. This is getting to Manchurian Candidate levels of creepiness. It’s deeply sinister and slightly terrifying.
And, Jay Carney wrote the following in regard to Nicole Wallace’s shrug off, in TIME’s blog, The Swampland:
…in [Nicole Wallace's] smug dismissal of the media’s role in asking questions of the candidates, Wallace was really showing contempt not for reporters, but for voters. I bet there are a lot of undecided voters out there who were intrigued by Sarah Palin last night, but who don’t yet know enough about her — what she believes, what she knows — to be comfortable with the idea of her as vice president of the United States. It’s important to them to know if Palin can handle herself in an environment that isn’t controlled and sanitized by campaign image makers and message mavens. Maybe she can, maybe she can’t. As far as Wallace is concerned, it’s none of their — or your — business.
David Frum, of The National Review, wants the McCain ticket to win and wants to see more of Palin. In his post, “Why Bother?,” he answers Wallace’s laugh-filled opinion that no one cares if Palin ever meets with the press by saying that he cares, because in order to win, McCain needs to go beyond the non-Elitist vote that the controlled messages hit:
If you want to win a debate, you have to come prepared to debate for every audience at every level. We can all understand that it is unwise to refuse Oprah. But it is equally unwise to do only Oprah. It’s not just Jay Carney who wants more. As President Bush’s current numbers suggest, so does Oprah’s audience.
What other evidence have we seen that the McCain handlers might be sexist?
In this August 30 New York Times article, McCain advisor Charlie Black, when asked about Palin’s ability to handle matters of foreign policy, says:
…that [John McCain] viewed her as exceptionally talented and intelligent and that he felt she would be able to be educated quickly.
“She’s going to learn national security at the foot of the master for the next four years, and most doctors think that he’ll be around at least that long,” said Charlie Black, one of Mr. McCain’s top advisers, making light of concerns about Mr. McCain’s health, which Mr. McCain’s doctors reported as excellent in May.
And then, in regard to the same question, but this time posed by Campbell Brown, McCain spokesperson Tucker Bounds paints a similar image of a maiden at the feet of the experienced master:
Bounds: Governor Palin has the good fortune of being on the same ticket with John McCain, who, there is no question, is the most experienced and shown proven judgment on the international stage; he understands foreign affairs, he has a familiarity with the players across the globe—
Brown: Well, we know all that about John McCain, Tucker. I asked you about her, though, because we all know the role of the VP, as John McCain has defined it, is to be able to step into the job of the presidency on day one if something should happen to the president. So I’m asking you about her foreign policy experience.
What is going on here? Sure, often-maligned as not too bright former Vice President Dan Quayle was tightly managed and, as Frum points out, very likely he shouldn’t have been – for more than superficial reasons. But would Charlie Black or Tucker Bounds have given the same portrait of getting educated at the feet of the master if the GOP veep choice had been Mitt Romney or Mike Huckabee?
Let’s look at what the senior Bush’s campaign did with Quayle: they let him out, right away, and guess what? As this New York Times article from 1988 memorializes, he did a whole lot of talking, and getting into trouble.
So is the McCain campaign holding back because Palin is a woman, or because they fear what happened to Quayle? Dick Cheney wasn’t held back, nor was Bob Dole’s 1996 running mate, Jack Kemp.
Why is Palin being held back?
Subtle and not so subtle sexism. All of which needs to be called out.
I have almost a zero-tolerance for sexism at any level and don’t agree with the opinion that we dilute the cause of calling it out if we point it out when we see it, any of it.
For example, not all voters saw the sexism in the media coverage of Hillary Clinton. I tangled with Obama supporters in particular as to whether this New Republic images was sexist. And although I agree that Clinton didn’t lose because of sexism, it sure didn’t help her either.
The acceptance of sexism – subtle and not so subtle, from friendly and not so friendly corners, contributes to what I consider sacrificing the soul of feminism in order to at last get its face closer to the ceiling. By no means are we getting through any ceiling if the GOP ticket succeeds since Palin will be what got the man to where he is and will only re-entrench the image of women being the support behind the man.
The McCain campaign’s constant reference to Palin as a naif not only contradicts the image of a pitbull with lipstick, but reinforces the image that Palin is only the lipstick on the pig.
The result of tolerating these lower levels of sexism is the treatment of Sarah Palin that we’re seeing now, at the hands of the people who supposedly want to make her a queen in yet another pageant.
But many men and women decided a long time ago that there’s no value in winning the pageant trophy if all you get to do is look good holding it.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:59 am September 7th, 2008 in Campaigning, Elections, Gender, John McCain, Media, Politics, Republicans, Sarah Palin, Sexism, Vice President, Voting, WH2008, Women
Comments
14 Responses to “FRAGILE! McCain campaign handles Palin’s exposure with care…and sexism”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Agree, agree, agree. Honestly, I am already sick of discussing McCain and Sarah Palin and we still have two months to go. They have absolutely nothing to offer the American people. The McCain campaign’s selection of Palin was sexist on its face–here girls, here’s your lady candidate. She is under investigation for ethics violations and has been a governor for ALMOST 2 years.
If you’re going to pick a woman just because she’s a woman, pick someone formidable. Pick someone who we believe has the experience to be president if McCain has to step down.
Before Bush, many of us thought that veteran advisors would protect us in case of incompetency. Well, thanks to the Cheney and Rumsfeld presidency, none of us believes that anymore.
The entire McCain candidacy has become a joke.
Nice job. I’m so obsessed with her policy stuff (not that you aren’t) that I haven’t even been paying attention to this perspective so it’s a great resource.
Very nicely written, Jill. Personally I think their strategy is to not have her try to be exposed to questions. If she were male, (hard to compare since she wouldn’t have been chosen if she were male), she’d still not have answers that were any better than mine. If you ask me, it’s a smart strategy. Spend thousands to decry celebrity then push a candidate who can’t possibly have good talking pts on issues, on sheer celebrity. Will the voters see through this? I have no clue. It’s going to be a close race.
She is being briefed and grilled, she for sure is being brought up to speed on the middle east and Islam, geopolitics etc.
She is an alpha personality so I am having trouble with the sexism, its at odds with that. Are they sheltering her, lot likely more likely they are holding the hell cat by the tale.
I suspect that she is very narrow minded with respect to diversity, its more about having a comprehensive understanding of the opposition on the major issues and not stonewalling. She seems like a stonewaller to me, the far right is often an immovable object.
When they say Washington will not change her…I disagree, she has to change and there is not that much time to wait for her. She is not an excessively blinking liar and she is not a dim bulb. She is a narrow minded conservative or at least that is the stance she chose for politics, that is a mantra and if you listen to it often becomes offensive and often shows a lack of empathy and compassion, actually a lack of real life exposure.
Ever been to NY city? How many African American do you know? Then how about complex social issues? We have a plethora of things that Sarah Palin could have minimal exposure to and no understanding of?
Larry King, Barbara Walters, Oprah how about an interview with Christiane Amanpour?
I would give her two weeks, she had some very persoanl issues thrown out in public and she can have some time to deliberate on those, who knows maybe she is so pragmatic that she requested two weeks to get back to being a govenor? She is hot now and there needs to be cool down period…
Two weeks of spinning tale chasing media, let them get sick of themsleves I say, so many on the edge of their seats ready to shread her to pieces? She is without any doubt getting more attention than any VP in history ever has, excess, let the pressure build, but she has to put out eventually…was that sexist?
True, true, Jill, and thank you as always for consolidating so much important information about your topic. I only wish the MSM were as diligent. Not to mention the Obama campaign which hasn’t got its groove on yet, though I imagine they will soon–and I have 55% confidence they’ll figure out how to counter and better the paradoxical Sarah be before it’s too late.
Oh goodness Gloria! Just 55% eh?!
Thanks so much for taking the time to read – I’m posting about the “deference” the campaign is demanding the media give Palin now. Did your read about that!?
It’s funny how she seems to threaten you, Jill.
Damn, Larry! You nailed it. I guess I can stop blogging now.
Palin said in her speech that she wasn’t going to Washington to win the good opinion of the reporters and commentators. She hasn’t been hidden from view. She’s been on the campaign trail meeting with voters who are excited to see her. That seems to be working out well, so I can see why the campaign is asserting to the media that they are in charge of the campaign schedule, not the MSM.
Nevertheless, I’m sure the major network TV interviews are on the horizon, so I don’t buy into your “sexist” hysteria, and I predict she’ll do just fine. By contrast, I’m not sure that you’ll be fine if those interviews turn out well. Instead of 5 panicked posts a day about Palin, I’m worried you’ll up it to 20 jittery posts a day about Palin.
Take it easy on the caffeine.
Hmm, thought I left a comment here.
Sorry Myrna – I thought I’d recovered it too! Argh. Hope to get things fixed by the end of next weekend. I’m sorry.
Daniel, you’re missing the point, and there’s no hysteria. But there is hypocrisy. If she’s a pitbull, why are they keeping her on a such a tight leash? I read a tweet today about a female candidate in N.C. who says that she doesn’t ask for deference, she just asks for more questions.
I’m also pointing out the subtle sexist ways in which the McCain campaign folks refer to Palin. I don’t like it and I don’t think it’s right. But that’s me.
Finally – I’m a voter like anyone else and I cannot believe that a person who could be president will remain so unknown, again, esp. since the McCain campaign has helped push the “what do we really know about Obama” stuff.
larry d. wrote: It’s funny how she seems to threaten you, Jill.
I don’t think Jill feels threatened. Based on the plethora of Palin posts, maybe obsessed. But not threatened.
Because there has been discussion about who feels threatened by Sarah Palin … I thought I’d post about a National Review blog post titled “NYT is Threatened By Sarah Palin” about a New York Times blog post about a Sarah Palin rally. I think both the NR and NYT posts are worth reading.
I’ll also quote a bit from the NYT post:
[University of Virginia Professor Jonathan] Haidt has conducted research in which liberals and conservatives were asked to project themselves into the minds of their opponents and answer questions about their moral reasoning. Conservatives, he said, prove quite adept at thinking like liberals, but liberals are consistently incapable of understanding the conservative point of view. “Liberals feel contempt for the conservative moral view, and that is very, very angering. Republicans are good at exploiting that anger,” he told me in a phone interview.