Completely Unnecessary

I’m starting to get a flood of emails and Facebook invites for groups/blogs that want me - as a woman - to proclaim why I - as a woman - am against Sarah Palin for veep.

While I appreciate the well-meaning intention behind these emails/invites - and some actual organization against the McCain/Palin ticket - I’m not joining or contributing to these sites/groups.

Here’s why:

As I woman, I am against the kind of cynical, craven politics that the selection of Sarah Palin represents. I acknowledge that she was chosen, at least partly, on the assumption that there are women out there for whom allegiance to sex trumps common sense and self-interest. (Insanely, it appears that some of these women exist).

But my own allegiance to my gender (or what’s good for my gender) is not why I am against Sarah Palin for vice president.

Yes, she disagrees with my views on abortion and sex education and health care. But I also disagree with her on a vast range of issues outside the traditional concept of ‘women’s issues’.

Asking me to disagree with Sarah Palin ‘as a woman’ boxes me in. It makes gender the defining characteristic for me and all women - be they voters or politicians.

It’s this commonsense reasoning that explains why women politicians are always asked about abortion, education and health care, but rarely about foreign policy or the economy. It’s why the media never interview men about women candidates. It’s the reason why the New York Times saw fit to say that women ‘deserted’ Hillary Clinton in Iowa (9 Jan: 1), but ‘rallied around’ her in New Hampshire (9 Jan: 17).

I don’t vote with my vagina.

And while it annoys me that the McCain campaign thinks I would, being against Palin ‘as a woman’ only compounds the ideology that drove McCain’s decision.

I’m not against her because I’m a woman. I’m against her because I’m an American citizen and she doesn’t represent my interests.

Anyone who would like me to join ‘Americans Against Sarah Palin’, send me a link.

While we’re at it, however, these women-focused Palin groups always seem to come with a great deal of sexist baggage. Here are three of the five comments currently on the Women Not Falling for Sarah Palin as Vice President group I was asked to join:

I heard she stuffs her bra. just sayin..

What a hooker!

…Pass this website onto to anyone who has questions about Professor Palin-Umbridge (for those who “get that”, chuckle chuckle!)

One of the emails I’ve gotten came laden with similar baggage.

So here’s something I feel comfortable saying: as a woman, I call bullshit on supposed feminist rhetoric that uses empty sexist garbage to to cut a woman down.

Vaguely Related

• Biden and the Feminist Argument on Palin
• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention

…but it’s still gonna roll in the mud.

I didn’t really have anything funny there. Sorry.

As for Obama’s “lipstick on a pig” comment… I reckon, totally on purpose.

I don’t think he used it to malign Sarah Palin, but rather to provoke a reaction from the McCain campaign and inject himself back into the news cycle.

The front of the nyt.com right now? About Obama’s remarks and his appearance on Letterman. The Palin scandal du jour is below that.

The predictable fireball reaction from the McCain campaign not only puts the spotlight back on Obama, it allows him to point to another instance of the McCain campaign’s lack of policy focus

Makes the McCain campaign look like they’re the ones who want to wallow in the mud.

So to speak.

And now, a moment to lament a political system where getting onto the news agenda is the main focus of both campaigns.

Update: I should do my political reading first. Nate at 538 wrote a similar post, along with an ad the Obama campaign might run in response to the McCain campaign taking the bait. I like when people think like me; when I link to them it makes me look like less of a crackpot.

Vaguely Related

• Legitimate Concern on Palin
• As McCain Implodes, Think of a Senate 60

Is there really an article in the NYT today about the hugging ‘protocol’ between John McCain and Sarah Palin?

And could it possibly yield one of the most awkward paragraphs I’ve ever read?:

Already, there has been one noticeable shift in protocol: Mr. McCain now introduces his wife first, not Ms. Palin, when both are on stage. But it was not always that way: at his first postconvention rally with Ms. Palin, in Cedarburg, Wis., last Friday, Mr. McCain began by lavishly praising Ms. Palin, who had just rocked the Republican convention. “Isn’t this the most marvelous running mate in the history of this nation?” Mr. McCain asked the roaring crowd, as Mrs. McCain stood quietly by.
…
Mr. McCain’s closest adviser, Mark Salter, insisted that there had been no behind-the-scenes stage direction — “Nobody said, ‘Cindy first’ ” — and that no one in the campaign had discussed hugging etiquette or protocol between Mr. McCain and Ms. Palin. “They’re going to behave like normal human beings,” he said. “Nobody ever told him, ‘Just shake hands.’ ”

Some commentators have criticized the NYT’s article about Obama ‘dispatching’ Clinton and female surrogates, but this type of story is harder to stomach.

The use of verbs like ‘dispatch’ and ‘deploy’, I’d argue, have more to do with the media’s tendency to use sports and war metaphors in their election reporting than sexism. Clinton is now one of the troops in the Obama campaign machine.

In addition, Obama, as the head of the Democratic party, has the authority to direct supporters to where they are most useful. As such, it is also not surprising to see him as the subject of the sentence (though I could say a few words about the NYT’s seeming obsession with what will women do?! in this election).

The story quoted above smacks more of gender-based trivialization in its light, isn’t-this-so-weird-gurlfriend? tone. It quotes a male McCain representative, followed by two women etiquette experts and then Christopher Buckley for the funny.

Right in the middle is a comment from whatever woman they could find (and create more awkward sentences about):

Christine Todd Whitman, the former administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under President Bush who 15 years ago was the first woman elected as New Jersey’s governor, said that she, for one, had embraced many of her male counterparts, as long as she knew them well. “I gave them lots of hugs and kisses, depending on the governor,” she said. (Tom Ridge of Pennsylvania was one, John Engler of Michigan was another.)

Look, other girls do it, too! (And here’s who they do it with!)

I’m much less concerned with a (perceived) linguistic affront to Clinton (imagine her being sent somewhere, like every other surrogate!) than with articles that emphasize a (perceived) need to treat women candidates differently from their male counterparts.

The article doesn’t explore how Obama and Biden (the McCain/Palin equivalents) interact - it details interactions between Obama and Clinton.

The message is that political body language (at least hugging) is only important between the sexes.

This view posits women as outsiders to the political process - their presence in the arena is awkward and makes us scrutinize what is considered appropriate behavior.

In this article Palin, Clinton, Whitman and Ferraro are women first, politicians second.

It reaffirms and makes commonsense the notion that women in politics (and, perhaps most troubling, their bodies) are something unusual enough to garner special coverage. The constant repetition of this logic in the media prevents the naturalization of women as equal political figures.

One might say, it keeps them at arm’s length…

Vaguely Related

• Life Without Hillary Clinton
• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention

I’ve been thinking about Sarah Palin during my weekend hiatus (I was in Adelaide, which is an entirely different, occasionally terrifying story).

But remember last week? Remember when everyone was convinced that the level of scandal was too great, that Palin would be replaced by the end of the week?

It’s funny how one speech that didn’t say a whole hell of a lot totally changed the tone about Sarah Palin.

I’m a little concerned that the coverage and Democratic outrage over her speech (mine included) has legitimized Palin as a candidate. I wonder if a better reaction might have been, ‘Yes, well, that’s all very nice speechifying, but you’re highly unqualified to be president, so….’ *

It may also have taken our eyes off the ball.

John McCain seems to have gotten a free pass on his speech - not much fanfare, but - Barack Obama aside - not much critique either. Palin is the big story of last week - and McCain seemed small beside her.

That might be a good thing, but I’m conflicted. I feel as though treating Sarah Palin like the enemy only grants her power and diverts attention from the fact that the best way to keep Palin out of the White House is to make sure that John McCain doesn’t get there.

Palin excites the base - fine. She might get some people out to the polls that would have stayed home (and, for the record, I’m glad about that; the more people voting the better, I say). She might get some pumas and some panthers.

The election, however, is going to be decided by the vast majority of people who will vote for the top of the ticket.

My desire to not have Palin as a VP is marginal compared to my desire not to have McCain as President. Last week she earned, as far as Republicans are concerned, her right to be on the ticket. As for the rest of us, I think we should laugh her off on the rhetoric, hammer her on the issues should she ever bring any up, and let Biden raise expectations for the debate.

The focus, however, should be McCain.

Speaking of Biden - this is three minutes of a speech he gave after the RNC. Pretty good stuff:

* - my exception to that is the snipe at community organizers. Seriously, where does she get off?

Vaguely Related

• Reflections on Palin’s Convention Acceptance Speech
• Navigating the Sarah Palin Daughter Pregnancy Scandal

The thing that sticks out most in my mind is the Dallas theme song used for the Palin and McCain videos. Nothing says ‘we understand the working folks’ like culture referencing a 1980s television show about rich people.

For serious.

Looking forward to the McCain greenscreens. Even stormtroopers will make that tie look better than the White House lawn.

Palin was the star of the convention for sure, but she was talking to people who were going to vote Republican anyway. Maybe she’ll get them to come out to the polls, but that’s really the most gain I think they’re going to see from her.

McCain didn’t say a whole lot. For all the policy he promised, it was more like “Democrats will raise your taxes” [by repealing Bush's tax cuts that McCain used to oppose], and the like.

The 9/11 video was out of control. The use of the close-up shot of the fireball coming out of the second tower - to rising music, nonetheless - was damn near pornographic. Congrats on breaking that cherry, Republicans.

Overall, I thought the Obama/Biden combo was better (surprise!), but those two speeches have been sort of lost in the clatter over Palin, the hurricane and the RNC this week. But I don’t think the RNC pulled over any independents and/or liberals. And I don’t think they can win Bush’s 2004 map.

I wonder if anyone will be doing any polling this weekend?

Vaguely Related

• Reflections on Palin’s Convention Acceptance Speech
• Last Day of the Conventions Liveblog

Thank god, huh?

I’m pretty sure Lindsey Graham just said that Barack Obama doesn’t speak the same language as the rest of us. He also used Obama’s ‘it’s not that he doesn’t care, he just doesn’t get it’ line - but twisted it to be about Obama himself. Oooh.

8:04: Hey, they’re running the Palin video Rudy made us miss last night!

8:11: Palin’s RNC video argues that when McCain and Palin joined forces, ‘The world shook, the world trembled.’ Yeah, but it was with more of the “whaaaa?’ kind of trembling than the good kind.

8:15: Tom Ridge is wearing the Hope tie. Party foul.

8:17: Yeah, the barnburners were last night. Brownback ham-fisted his way through his speech, Graham didn’t get such amazing applause either, and now Tom Ridge keeps stopping woodenly until people clap.I’m getting a coffee.

8:31: Cindy McCain started a non-profit that organizes doctors and nurses. HA HA HA HA HA.

8:33: She sounds like a nice, accomplished woman - it’s a shame the crowd is going to boo her helping others… oh, wait, they’re cheering.

8:40: Cindy just said the Republican Party was based on ’service, community, self-reliance… [and] compassion for each others’ neighbors.” Again, to a lack of laughter. Strange.

8:45: I got bored and watched this clip from The Daily Show instead. Awesome.

8:53: I like the setup for Cindy McCain’s speech - hand held mic. I think that’s the ‘town hall’ feel that McCain’s going to do, too.

8:57: I’m offended that they’re using Johnny B Goode. That’s the iconic song from my favorite movie they’re co-opting.

9:00: All the news organizations have huge, backlit signs proclaiming their names. It’s like watching global crises where every runs around with Oxfam armbands and stands in front of the WorldVision water tank. More flags though.

9:03: Okay, they’re running the same song in the McCain video as they did in the Palin video. It’s not the music from Mary Stouffer’s Wild America, but it’s really close. It’s something I know - I swear it’s from an animal show. Ugg, and synthesized again. Why do Republicans hate our instruments? Update: Oh my god - it’s the theme from Dallas. Thanks, 538.

9:09: Ewww, way to make hay from the Bangladeshi daughter. It was alright in Cindy’s video, but here it was like, ‘We saved this girl! From a brown country!’

9:12: McCain went with the (Aussie/Howard) yellow tie! Interesting. (Steph, your door is shut; you’re missing it!)

9:14: Every ‘homemade’ sign has exactly the same paint. Guys, when you’re trying to fake it - purchase widely.

9:15: Oh shit! They green-screened McCain. Let the YouTubing begin.

9:20: Now blue screened, so people have options. Neil points out the irony of critiquing Obama for using the seal when McCain’s running a picture of the White House behind him.

9:22: Whoa - out of sync cheering interrupting their candidate. Sounds like booing. And he can’t get them under control. Awesome. Are their protesters? That’s what I get for watching the FoxNews feed (again, MSNBC cut out…)

9:25: Did he just say that Palin worked with her ‘hands and her nose’?

9:28: That tie looks awful against the blue backdrop. And he looked good coming out, too. Red would have been great! Neil calls it ‘criminal’ - I don’t know if I’d go that far. ‘Unfortunate’ is about where I’m at.

9:29: I wonder if Sarah Palin is going to be one of the people he ‘outs’ for loving pork barrel spending.

9:29: McCain just referenced Abramoff obliquely. He got sentenced today - too soon?

9:31: By the way, did anyone see the terrifying 9/11 video? I wasn’t even going to blog today until I saw that (and I’ve got some time now as John craps on about random, made up voters). There was a flute riff as flames burst out of the second tower. It was awful. Update: Josh Marshall notes it is the first time the attacks have been used for partisan gain.

9:33: Wasn’t he supposed to lay out policy tonight? It’s like a random collection of talking points I’ve heard a thousand times.

9:34: Nice, someone had their sign upside down. Next to a ‘Peace through strength’ sign. ‘War is Peace; Freedom is Slavery; Ignorance is Strength’

9:37: Health care? BOOOOOO. ‘Where a bureaucrat stands between you and your doctor.’ You know what? Fuck you - lots of people don’t even have doctors because of Republican, market-based approach.

9:41: Neil says, ‘what’s the point of school choice if there’s vast differences in spending across districts?… Can I choose a school in a white suburb?’

9:44: More ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ Okay, this is now just word for word what Palin said last night about energy.

9:45: Oh, I didn’t know that rising oil prices were what was damaging our planet…

9:47: ‘[Russia] invaded a small democratic neighbor to gain more control over the world’s oil supply’ - he’s talking about Russia, but (except for that ‘democratic’ part) what does that sound like?

or put better by Neil:

___ invaded a ______ ___ in order to gain more control of the world’s ______ supply.
Mad libs!

9:51: McCain’s complaining about the ‘constant partisan rancor’ - seriously, after Palin’s and Giuliani’s speeches last night. Really?

9:53: Here we go on war hero stuff - so, maybe this is a good time to talk about how sad I feel for McCain. I think he does genuinely want to be post-partisan - or used to. He’s been forced to kotow to the Christian and neo-con right to get on this stage. What a cost.

10:01: Be a community organizer!

10:02: Awkward ‘fight with me’ and now they’re totally drowning him out. What’s that?

10:06: Oh they finally found the confetti and balloons. Even the confetti is lackluster. And video of fireworks. Palin’s speech was better.

10:07: Wow. They’re actually playing Barracuda.

10:15: Yeah, I’m done. It was… fine? I don’t know. He didn’t really say much or present it in any particular way. I don’t know whether that will hurt him or help him. I feel meh.

Vaguely Related

• Reflections on Palin’s Convention Acceptance Speech
• Reflections on the Republican Convention

I have mixed feelings about Palin’s speech last night (which is still today for me).

I’ll give her this, she’s a better speaker than I would have anticipated.

When she hit her stride (after being rushed on after a chatty, mugging Giuliani), her style was rather natural, something we’re bound to miss in McCain’s speech tonight.

As I suggested the other day, the bar was set very low for Sarah Palin. She definitely got over it, with some room to spare.

The tone, however, represented just how far this campaign has gotten away from McCain.

He wanted a moderate Republican (Ridge) or a crossover Independent (Lieberman) for personal reasons, but also to draw in independents and liberals.

The speech we saw last night was directed at the choir. Its choleric, mocking tone enthused the base, just as I’m sure it turned away some of those drawn in by McCain’s (once) maverick promise.

Part of the problem, I think, was Giuliani. He was supposed to speak on Monday, but it was moved because of the hurricane.

His barn-burning, angsty rhetoric would have been better then - crazy uncle Rudy gets ‘em all fired up, whilst McCain/Palin talk soberly about the future a couple days later.

Instead, Giuliani’s spoke tonight, and he was having such a good time that they had to cut what I’m sure was a happy-dappy video intro for Palin. So we got much of the same rhetoric back to back, without the feel-good happy in between.

What really stands out for me is the three roars of jeering laughter about community organizing within 20 minutes.

I grant you that I’m a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, but what on Earth is laughable about community organizing? It’s the ultimate ‘pull yourself up by your bootstraps’ activity.

I can see them hitting Obama on the experience angle, but the laughter during all three mentions seemed to be directed the idea of it. It was the one slam of the evening I found truly baffling (aside from Romney calling the Democrats the party of Big Brother, in what I assume was a misspeak).

Anyway, if McCain’s speech is in anywhere near the same vein, I think the Dems will have a compelling argument that he isn’t even driving this flying number of them anymore. I’m really surprised that the story about McCain losing the battle for selection of his own veep isn’t getting more play.

What’s the point of experience if you’re not allowed to use it?

Oh, well, Josh Marshall at TPM said almost exactly the same thing, but more concisely. My blog, living up to its name once again.

Here, read this article instead about the complete lack of elected officials currently running Alaska. My favorite line:

If a special election ensues, look for a comeback of former Gov. Tony Knowles (D), who served from 1994 to 2002, or Mr. Knowles’s lieutenant governor, Fran Ulmer, now chancellor of the University of Alaska Anchorage, says Marc Hellenthal, a pollster and political consultant who works mostly for Republicans. [Or
…
“After that, it drops off,” on both the Democratic and Republican sides, he says.

Hellenthal added Anchorage Mayor Mark Begich to that list, but Begich is running against Ted Stevens for his Senate seat. Three politicians on this side of the ‘drop off’ - that just makes me laugh.

Speaking of Alaska politics, my Alaskan aunt says that while Palin did put the plane up on E-bay, it didn’t sell. And they eventually sold it for a loss to a private buyer. She’s right.

Vaguely Related

• Reflections on the Republican Convention
• Last Day of the Conventions Liveblog

Oh, hot mics - when will you cease to plague the punditry among us?

They, the commentariat, who - while never saying a word of actual substance whilst on the air - have a legion of apt, insightful (and frequently profanity-filled) opinions on the matters of the day.

And those opinions are captured every time someone forgets to turn. the. damn. thing. off.

Peggy Noonan wrote in her column today:

Gut: The Sarah Palin choice is really going to work, or really not going to work. It’s not going to be a little successful or a little not; it’s not going to be a wash. She is either going to be magic or one of history’s accidents.

Fair enough. A seemingly honest assessment of a conflicted conservative.

What does Peggy Noonan really think, though? Only a MSNBC hot mic can tell us [video and transcript]:

It’s over… The most qualified? No. I think they went for this — excuse me — political bullshit about narratives… Every time the Republicans do that, because that’s not where they live and it’s not what they’re good at, they blow it.

Hell yeah, Pegs!

Also, whoops!

How much better would political television be if stuff like this was actually on the air. Have an opinion, let’s argue! Great!

Finally, Noonan also wrote today:

…[Palin] is a feminist not in the Yale Gender Studies sense but the How Do I Reload This Thang way, because she is a woman who in style, history, moxie and femininity is exactly like a normal American feminist and not an Abstract Theory feminist…

Note: any gun-toting feminist already knows how to reload that ‘thang’.

Vaguely Related

• Privacy and Publicity at the GOP Convention
• Biden and the Feminist Argument on Palin

The McCain/Palin campaign has called for the media (and nearabouts the entire nation/globe at this point) to give some privacy to Bristol Palin.

The 17-year-old can’t be feeling so amazing at the moment, what with all the spotlight, insinuations and the like. [And can I just say re: my previous post, that the deliciousness is in the irony of Palin's policy stances, not in the plight of the girl herself.]

So, who thought it was a clever idea to invite Bristol Palin’s boyfriend to the RNC?

I can see the appeal in getting them all together for Palin’s speech tomorrow night. Getting the whole happy (if a little shell-shocked/shotgunny) family together onstage tomorrow night might seem like a way to try to put this horror of a five days behind them.

Instead, I bet it’s just going to inspire another insane round of photos, and exposes on the baby-bump and related, obsessive nonsense.

But, again, we have the disconnect that underlines this entire situation. They want privacy when it suits, publicity when it might help.

It’s the same idea behind the campaign’s lauding of Bristol Palin for her ‘choice’ in keeping the baby: celebration of a choice that would be denied to women all across America should McCain/Palin get their way.

Instead, the campaign is going to try to use this girl to their advantage, whilst crying ‘foul’ to anyone who seeks to debate this issues that arise from it.

If they trot her out tomorrow, boyfriend in tow, that’s really poor form.

[Oh, and can HuffPost and everyone else please stop using the term 'baby daddy'? That shit is taaaacky.]

Vaguely Related

• Navigating the Sarah Palin Daughter Pregnancy Scandal
• Biden and the Feminist Argument on Palin

There’s always one or two crossover speeches at each convention, so the fact that Joe Lieberman spoke at the RNC doesn’t really bother me that much. He and John McCain have been friends for years, etc.

Do what you want man - go with god.

But, seriously, can he, like, go with god already?

My favorite part of the 2008 election - Obama win or lose - is going to be winning enough seats in the Senate that we can give the sanctimonious old blowhard the heave ho.

Here’s Bush at the RNC tonight via video (and I’m sure there are several Republicans damning the miracle of satellite technology):

Fellow citizens: If the Hanoi Hilton could not break John McCain’s resolve to do what is best for his country, you can be sure the angry left never will.

That ‘angry left’ used to include Joe Lieberman. TPM’s got a series of clips of him railing against Bush, et al. ideology and policies as recently as 2004.

I’ve never been particularly fond of Lieberman, but his braggadocio was less repellent when it didn’t reflect an apparent willingness to abandon nearly all his values in favor of draconian, one-issue politics.

Or perhaps he’s still smarting from 2006, so he took his ball and went to the TC.

[Ergh. Sorry, I had some great (wrong) par from the NYT about how Dems had pushed Lieberman from his ticket in 2006, but I'm unable to find here. I think it's up on my work machine. If I find it, I'll update.]

Either way - really looking forward to the Senate pick up. No one person should have that much power. I hope the Senator enjoyed the smug cheers from the floor tonight; his status is bound to be downgraded come November.

In other news, some frightened part of me begins to suspect that all these Palin scandals and mini-scandals are only to place the bar so low that she only has to skip over it to succeed.

I’ve read multiple postings today (including this one from FiveThirtyEight) that say all she has to do tonight is avoid everything but the most major stuff ups.

Bear in mind that I also just re-watched Season Seven of The West Wing. Remember the one where Leo makes everyone think he’s a crap debater, just so he can hit it out of the park?

I bet Sarah Palin doesn’t even have any kids…

Vaguely Related

• Reflections on Palin’s Convention Acceptance Speech
• Reflections on the Republican Convention