Lifetime Poll Pinpoints Negative Media Coverage of Clinton & Palin

In their sixth poll since November 2007, Lifetime's Everywoman Counts campaign assessed what women were thinking, post-election. Their latest survey had partners WomanTrend and Lake Research conducting a nationwide telephone poll of 600 women. The live interviews took place from November 21-24, with sampling controls to ensure proportional demographics reflecting race, age, and region. The focus was on "women's reaction to the presidential election and it's impact on the future of female political leadership."

Zoning in on what women felt should be the primary issue for the incoming Obama administration in the first one hundred days, it should be no surprise that 71 percent of women pointed to the economy. 51 percent of those responding said they had been directly affected by the economic "downturn." Almost one-third of retirees and at-home Moms (31 percent) acknowledged that they might need to go back to work to cover household expenses. A major apprehension was the possibility of losing retirement savings as a result of the financial crisis.

Proving that capabilities superseded gender when it came to the selection of who should be in Obama's cabinet, 67 percent of women said Obama should focus "just on qualifications." Regarding the nomination of Hillary Clinton to the post of Secretary of State, 51 percent
"definitely" supported her, with 20 percent at a "somewhat" stance. It was clear to 65 percent of
women - across the political spectrum - that male and female candidates were held to "different standards on the campaign trail." 79 percent felt it was easier for a male candidate to be taken seriously by the voters, and 71 percent believed that the media covered male candidates more seriously. When addressing specifics such as national security and terrorism, 70 percent of women gave men the edge.

Regardless of party affiliation, women saw the coverage of both Clinton and Palin as "too negative" and without adequate substance. 70 percent of women found that too much reporting was devoted to Palin's wardrobe, and 44 percent had the same complaint in regard to Clinton. However, despite these perceptions, in a margin of more than 12-to-1, women believed the 2008 election was "a step forward" toward the future election of a female Commander-in-Chief. The candidacies of Clinton and Palin led 93 percent of women to think more women would be encouraged to run for office.

When the topic switched to the "preferred role" women would like to see Michelle Obama take
in the White House, 49 percent wanted to see her tackle a few issues (33 percent suggested an education agenda; 22 percent pointed to work/life balance). Devoting herself to the responsibilities of wife and mother was the preference of 38 percent. The majority of Republican women (53 percent) favored Michelle Obama prioritizing her duties as wife and mother compared to 41 percent of Independent voters and 25 percent of Democratic women.

During the telephone conference call, there was a discussion of the negative verbiage used to describe both Clinton and Palin. In what could be characterized as two extremes, Clinton was labeled as "anti-male and a she-devil," while Palin was assigned the role of "a ditz and an airhead."

When Kellyanne Conway of WomanTrend was questioned about the response to Palin, she asked, "Why wasn't she [Palin] charged with a platform to discuss? Why was she given the Bill Ayers agenda?" Her advice to Palin was to "reintroduce herself on her own terms." Conway added, "She also needs not to do this now. She should wait, plan, and get re-elected in 2010."

In the historic and exhaustively covered 2008 election, this poll showed there was one factor that a majority of American women concurred on. They weren't satisfied with the way either female candidate was covered.

Originally posted at Fem 2.0 Website

Technorati Profile

Comments

[bronceye]

The repube campaign was nothing but extreme negativity and McCarthyism. The reporting reflected negativity. Kinda like calling a blizzard bad, isn't it?

[waverly]

Personally, I think a negative campaign leads to negative coverage regardless of gender.

[oafishcad]

The coverage of Palin wasn't negative enough. It still isn't.

[chris76543]

Interesting article, but this:
" When Kellyanne Conway of WomanTrend was questioned about the response to Palin, she asked, "Why wasn't she [Palin] charged with a platform to discuss? Why was she given the Bill Ayers agenda?" Her advice to Palin was to "reintroduce herself on her own terms." Conway added, "She also needs not to do this now. She should wait, plan, and get re-elected in 2010." "
should be obvious - Katie Couric showed why Palin wasn't allowed to do much more than throw out barracuda-like, disrespectful comments - she's not capable of much more. She's a political cheerleader - not a leader. Now that Stevens' senate seat has been taken, Palin has a chance to prove her capabilities as governor for the next two years - without the benefit of federal handouts. I hope she does well, but don't want her out stirring up the nutcakes again - this country had enough division over the past 8 years.

[humbleforest]

In the "eyes of the Supreme Almighty " all men and women are equal. Equal in the sense that each has their full responsibility and sincerity to fulfill their jobs. There must be no discrimination on the gender.
Selection is done on who is capable and qualified for the job or mission. Gender discrimination is to be left aside. The co-existence of yin and yang has no discrimination, it is to be in harmony. No one is superior or inferior of the other. They work in equilibrium.
Man-made laws or secular laws only discriminate for so many centuries in gender.
The Law of Nature does not discriminate but remains always in harmony for many millions of years before human beings appear on this Earth.

[loper2008]

This poll sounds like it lead the participants in the direction it wanted them to go. The only thing you cite was the emphasis on clothing for both women. I barely remember any mentions to Clinton's attire, and I think it is a mistake to lump these two women together. They ran very different campaigns and represented themselves in nearly opposite terms.

[NevaforLeadership]

Coverage of Hillary Clinton too negative?

This woman was once fired for, in the words of the Democrat who fired her, being a dishonest, unethical lawyer and a liar. Since then her continuing scandals and lies are very well documented.

Now she is Secretary of State.

Negative, but true, coverage of Hillary Clinton was almost non-existent. When I spoke to friends and associates who supported her, I discovered they knew absolutely nothing about her record and history.

What's the bottom line. Is America a nation that condones the rewarding of extremely bad behaviour with high public office? Or is America a nation that simply does not follow politics or read enough to really know about its candidates?

[hardybear]

Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true."
~~ Buddha, Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta

I believe we each possess the right to find our own opinions within the facts or lack thereof.
Clinton vendettas withstanding,

[NevaforLeadership]

Hardybear,

I followed Hillary Clinton and her behaviour as "first" lady of Arkansas. I followed Hillary Clinton, her behaviour and her scandals as "first" lady of the US. I followed Hillary Clinton, her behaviour, her lies and her vicious politics during her campaign. I have read her books, and I have read half a dozen books about her.

I myself have tested the conclusions and judged them to be true.

[Cutout]

Many of us believe that Palin was a cynical choice of the McCain Campaign to get the women's vote. I found her to be dangerously lacking in knowledge and historical experience for the job. If all her image problems were due to her handlers, then I believe that she was even more inappropriately chosen for the job as she could have intelligently dealt with that problem - rather than being a puppet as the apologists would like to say.
Like with every group, essentialism does not hold true for women. We are all as different as there are individuals among us. There is no reason to dumb down because of Bush's precedent. Sarah Palin was unaware of the importance of separation of church and state as being a foundation of our democracy. The wardrobe issue was just another indication of her lack of integrity and will. No matter how petty the issue, it does give one insight into her choices.

[Allamr18]

hmm, i think some of the attacks on palin were pointless and some on hillary were just the fact that shes a clinton. However I never saw a more concerted effort to destroy michelle obama than ever before. well yes i have The Gop did it to john kerrys wife, and hillary when their husbands were running. I mean there were news stories on Michelles undergraduate sociology paper i mean for real? Where was Todds high school paper? Hannity devoted an entire show to Michelle Obama being Baracks bitter half. didnt see that anywhere else. I am proud though. This election cycle i saw more women of color and women in general involved in politics that i hadnt heard of. Women anchors women reporters political analysts etc. While coverage may have been negative not everyone who watched it thought negatively of the women being portrayed.

[Kiabell04]

Whatever, I dont see how the media was anymore cruel to Palin than they were to McCain and Obama.

[harriscrl3]

When you have women who are not negative in their camapigning or dont have baggage like Clinton and you show they get negative coverage then I'd be inclined to believe there is bias but Hilary and Sarah have done more than their fair share of attack and negative campaigning so its the women and not some blatant evidence of sexism. When we find a woman that run a more positive campaign and get negative coverage in the media then I will agree on evidence of bias. Dont get me wrong it exist but the people they have as evidence that it exist are FLAWED.

Carol

[Cil]

What in the name of heavens did they expect women to say?

These POLLS ARE VERY BIASED IN MY OPINION!

Just look at the HUGE FLARE UP, COMPLETE WITH
WAILING AND WRINGING OF HANDS, DISPLAYED BY
"WOMEN" WHEN HILLARY LOST THE ELECTION!

LOOK AT THE SITUATION WHERIN MANY "WOMEN"
THREATENED TO VOTE REPUBLICAN BECAUSE SHE
LOST, and surely we can't forget those "WOMEN" who
threatened TO VOTE FOR McCAIN/PALIN, SIMPLY
BECAUSE THEY WANTED A WOMAN IN THE WHITE
HOUSE, regardless of who that WOMAN MAY BE!

For crying out loud, STOP WITH THESE WORTHLESS
POLLS!

[DeniseD]

I agree! These women brought the negativity on themselves, especially Sarah Palin.

[IndependentTogether]

Well said! Once again, Carol, you beat me to the post.

[NevaforLeadership]

Exactly, Carol,

How on earth did America end up with these two women (Hillary Clinton with all her negative baggage and bad behaviour and Sarah Palin with her first-century zodiac beliefs and comic-book mentality) as candidates in the presidential race?

Let us not forget that it was Hillary Clinton who started the nasty politics of ugly, untrue diversions against Barack Obama and Sarah Palin who so eagerly picked them up where Hillary Clinton left off.

Now Clinton is destined to be Secretary of State and Palin has already hit the 2012 presidential campaign trail.

Heaven help America. Heaven help the world.

[SeanGardner]

Folks keep talking about the negative media coverage that Clinton got, as if that was "the reason she lost". People need to look at the one group that helped power Obama's primary and caucus victories: "white women 18-40". This group largely rejected Clinton. The numbers bear that out. Obama won this group by large margins.

So while Hillary did encounter sexism, just as Obama encountered racism, young white women went with Obama, and that clearly helped him put together an unbreakble coalition that helped Obama open up a 140 plus delegate lead at 11 straight victories in February - a huge lead he never relinquished.

I suspect most of the women taking part in the poll are white women 45 and over, which explains the feelings. But a poll of mostly white women 18-40 would show just the opposite.

Hillary just could not inspire young white women to vote her in massive numbers. Period.

[fayemac]

The poll your talking about was after she lost and was against McCain in the general. We dont need you to tell us how 18 mil voters voted. The only reason he got those women voters enmass was because of Hillary. Because of her work bringing those women over he won the race and she got the SOS, case closed.

[SeanGardner]

You're wrong.

18 million people didn't vote for HIllary "because" she was Hillary Clinton. It was much more varied than that. Some voted for her because they didn't want a "non-white" as president. Some voted for her because they wanted a woman to be president. Some voted for her because they thought she would be an easier person to defeat vs. McCain than Obama.

Obama got more than 18 million votes as well. And when you break down his numbers, people voted for him for different reason too.

In the end, Hillary helped bring the "salty, aggrieved, middle-aged white women" over to Obama, who were supporting Hillary because she is a middle-aged white woman. Period...

Hillary ran an "identity politics-laden campaign", and Obama ran a "coalition politics-laden campaign". That's why Obama won. Get your facts straight.

[NevaforLeadership]

Hello SeanGardner,

I am one of the many women over 45, who supported Barack Obama for well over a year.

I would never, never, under any circumstances support Hillary Clinton. Her cloudy, spotty, scandalous record does not deserve support.

I believe a nation's greatness rests with its leaders. Without integrity, it's leaders will never attain greatness. Hillary Clinton has no integrity.

It is troubling that women of over 45 chose to ignore this important leadership ingredient, because they are old enough to know about her record. They are old enough to understand the importance of integrity.

It is troubling when the man who ran his campaign on change, transparency and integrity chose to appoint Hillary Clinton, who is anathema to all three, Secretary of State.

[tm68]

Okay wait. Republican women want Michelle to stay home and take care of the kids- her TWO kids- but when their girl Palin was running and she has FIVE kids, one of whom is special needs - they were all for her to be a working mom. It was sexist of us to say she should stay home and take care of her kids. Somebody explain this to me.

[DeniseD]

Republicans are hypocrits?

Sarah actually has a special needs infant who requires more care than a healthy child. Michelle has 2 school age daughters, and she is more than capable of being more than a stay at home mom. I worked 70 hour weeks when my two were Malia's an Sasha's ages.

[NevaforLeadership]

Sarah Palin chose to have her FIFTH child in her forties, when she should have known or cared that the singular most pressing problem in the world today and a direct or indirect cause of all other problems is over population.

She chose to have her FIFTH child in her forties, when she should have known or cared about the huge risk of Downe Syndrome. She justifies her choice as the will of God, but it is the child who will live a lifetime of suffering, and it is the taxpayers who will pay for the special needs.

[klondiker]

"Why wasn't she [Palin] charged with a platform to discuss? Why was she given the Bill Ayers agenda?"

Three words: Katie Couric Interview

After it became patently clear that Palin could not talk about any issues without making a fool of herself, the campaign assigned her the only thing she seemed to be good at: flinging mud and delivering snarky one-liners.

[Thorn]

Yep. When you want experienced and accurate polling, look to Lifetime.