Recently Amy Siskind, President of The New Agenda, published an article pleading with America to see The Undefeated, a film that celebrates Sarah Palin. To not "get to know her", states Siskind, is sexist. I would argue that continuing to prop up this dolt is reverse sexism.
When Palin burst onto the national political scene I was first surprised (I had anticipated another running mate being chosen by McCain), then curious (she did not yet even have a Wikipedia page at the time) and then, much like a teacher that hopes her student does well when called on in class, I hoped that she would prove to be a strong woman for the role. I will admit that I harbor those desires for women in politics -- even when we do not share political views -- because there are so few of us.
Then, as her lack of qualifications and loose grasp of the issues began to surface, I was horrified at the cries from some that women should continue to support Sarah Palin because...well, just because. You know, she's a woman and I'm a woman. She's a mother and I'm a mother. She likes shoes and I like shoes. That should be enough to support her bid for the vice presidency, right?
Setting the crazy and emotional fervor of the '08 campaign aside, it's time to take a real look at this almost-candidate -- who now might run to be the leader of the free world -- and see what she has shown us. That first involves the assumption that the person we have seen on her reality show, in interviews, in clips run almost daily by the media, via Twitter, on Facebook and on Fox News ad nauseum is the "real" Sarah Palin. (It further involves the assumption that I have seen enough of Sarah Palin to "know her" and that her mock-umentary is not, as Siskind suggests, going to suddenly open my eyes to a new depth of her persona, but rather that it is self-promoting propaganda thinly disguised as cinematography. But I digress...)
It is not a sexist media that caused Palin to call our Commander-in-Chief "dithering" while on foreign soil. She came up with that on her own and relished in it. ("I realize that America has a tradition of not criticizing our President on foreign soil BUT...") The media did not force Palin to insult an entire culture's painful history by using the term "blood libel", and in fact it is widely speculated that she was specifically asked not to say such things on air. And it is not because we are a sexist society that many of us do not refer to her as "Governor Palin". She left office early; it's etiquette; let the title die.
And Sarah, if you don't want to be mocked every time you incorrectly answer a question about history or government or current events then here's an idea: use some of the massive wealth you have accumulated to take a refresher course on any of those topics! Erin Andrews, esteemed ESPN correspondent, studies sports facts constantly. Katie Couric, one of the most well-respected female journalists of our time, still reads news. Madonna and Lady Gaga continue to rehearse and do vocal exercises. To believe that a winning smile will get you where you need to go without any additional work behind the scenes is the very definition of sexist.
Siskind is certainly not the first to draw comparisons between Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Palin. As two of the most prominent women in politics, it would difficult not to invoke Clinton when Palin's rise in her party is mentioned. However, there are other strong women involved in politics that deserve mention, such as write-in victor Senator Lisa Murkowski who has proven time and again that she is willing to stand up against her party to support what she believes in. Americans truly have not yet "gotten to know" Murkowski very well -- possibly due to the fact that she does not travel everywhere with a camera crew in tow. If the coverage of Sarah Palin is sexist, is the lack of media coverage of Lisa Murkowski sexist as well?
There is still a level of discrimination and sexism -- usually unintentional -- that still exists in the media both as a profession and in how women are portrayed. On most of this topic I'm sure that Siskind and I would see eye-to-eye. In fact, I'm currently reading and feverishly nodding in agreement to Mika Brzezinski's book "Knowing Your Value". In it she discusses the idea of working hard and having to be more assertive to get where you want to go as a professional woman. She interviewed leading women in politics, technology, business and media and all of them generously shared their wisdom and experience. Remarkably, none of them came back with the advice of "fake it 'til you make it and then blame everyone else when you fail".
So here's the million dollar question: as I rail against Palin's media coverage then why bother to discuss her in any capacity? In the words of Ernie, I'll show you Bert. Right now a few dozen people are either officially running or considering a run for President of the United States. It is still likely that Sarah Palin may be among them. If she declares her intention to be our leader, she will inherently have a huge advantage -- the type of name recognition and media coverage that even all of Mitt Romney's massive fundraising cannot buy. In other words, she actually has a chance to win the nomination.
For those Obama supporters that may be wishing for her to win the nomination because you think that she will be a weak opponent, I invoke my residency as a Floridian as Exhibit A against that terrible idea. One would have thought that a corrupt CEO who was involved in one of the biggest Medicare fraud schemes in history that has the personality of Voldemort would have been easy pickings. Do you know what voters do when they are not excited about the candidates? They stay home. Hence, the Governor-who-shall-not-be-named.
We cannot rail against politicians for not taking our problems seriously when we do not even take our own democracy seriously. Does that involve putting forth the most qualified candidates and not handicapping them because of gender, how many catch-phrases they have or how quaint their small town is?
You betcha.
Shawna Vercher is a political talk show host, political news correspondent and national advocate for participation in Democracy. Feel free to hit her up on Facebook or Twitter with all questions, comments or death threats relating to this article.
Follow Shawna Vercher on Twitter: www.twitter.com/shawnavercher
Sorry, no dice. Palin's values don't align with my own, and beyond that, I think she's a coward. I knew all I needed to know when she didn't give a press conference or go on Meet The Press during the '08 election.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion. But to ignore any particular source of information by posing it under the facade of sexism is proclaiming ignorance.
Go see the movie if you have the opportunity. If it does nothing more than validate your prior position, so be it. But don't couch the decision on the basis of sexism.
However, I agree with your thought that no one should cling to ignorance proudly in any situation.
I was born in 1942, and I remember the ridicule heaped on Margaret Chase Smith in the 60s. Geraldine Ferraro didn't face quite such attacks, but she was an unviable candidate. Now that has changed.
A woman candidate can be just as awful as a man; she's attacked for her awfulness, not her gender. And that IS progress.
Supporting women for their merit alone--unless you are actively counteracting apparent biases--is the only way to be feminist. Supporting them because of their gender, or giving them such flagrant passes when a man would be laughed out of politics for the same stupidity, is every bit as misogynistic as sexism.
I believe you are correct in your position. But if you ask Anthony Weiner he might feel differently about supporting a woman based upon her anatomy
Warm regards,
Michael Winters
Well played sir ;)
Is there a prerequisite for running for Pres? do you have to have education, background, work ethics, knowledge, degree, past experiences, etc., etc., ya know the kind of stuff you put on your resume when applying for a job!!
Do you elect a quitter? and someone who is always putting down the Us? It's Mind boggling and shameful - that there is no intelligent person left in America - and your only choice is SP.
no i support her because she has VALUES i agree with. she has principles for less government, and less spending, which i know usually affects democrats, but sorry less is better. and the everyone knows if there were no democrats there would be little or no government.
%u2022 A Democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of Government. It can only exist until the voters discover they can vote themselves largesse (a liberal gift) out of public treasury. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidate promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the result that Democracy always collapses over a loose fiscal policy, always to be followed by a Dictatorship." Democracy in America, Alexis DeTocqeville (1848)
Less government is only better when more isn't necessary. Government serves to enforce both law and social morality--when we let banks get by without government oversight, they destroyed our economy for personal, and fleeting, gain.
And btw--Tocqeville referred to an actual Democracy. We are a Democratic Republic. Of course, somebody who could comprehend the difference would likely also realize that LESS or MORE of a government are not desirable ends in and of themselves--the END should be gaining a BETTER government.
When you replace that end with one of gaining a smaller government without taking reality and quality into account, all you do is limit our nation for the sake of some political mantra you don't even understand. Because if you did, you'd realize that the only benefits of a smaller government are to give its people more power and to give its leaders more compassion for, accountability to, and insight into those people.
Odd how the party trying to increase government intervention is far closer to meeting those criteria than the one gutting the government. Sacrificing the needs of our citizens, their health and jobs and futures, for the sake of a political agenda is counterproductive at best.
regulation time line - http://www.sechistorical.org/museum/timeline/#1930.html
as i recall it was the "community reinvestment act" which promoted home ownership among democrats who could not afford such purchases. more government is NEVER necessary, and the matter is summed below
The great art of law-giving consists in balancing the poor against the rich in the legislature, and in constituting the legislative a perfect balance against the executive power, at the same time that no individual or party can become its rival. The essence of a free government consists in an effectual control of rivalries. The executive and the legislative powers are natural rivals; and if each has not an effectual control over the other, the weaker will ever be the lamb in the paws of the wolf. The nation which will not adopt an equilibrium of power must adopt a despotism. There is no other alternative. Rivalries must be controlled, or they will throw all things into confusion; and there is nothing but despotism or a balance of power which can control them. John Adams
there are NO instances of a government increasing dependency without also reducing freedoms.
• “it is hardly too strong to say that the constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they aim to be masters.†Daniel Webster
• There was never a DEMOCRACY yet that did not commit suicide. John quincy adams
• I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of the freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments of those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. James madison
Government is best which governs least. Thomas paine
• Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; IT IS FORCE! Like fire it is a dangerous servant, and a fearful master. Never for a moment should it be left to irresponsible action. George washington