I'll try not to rant, but the McCain campaign's accusations that Palin critics are sexist is really getting on my nerves. The criticism and scrutiny she has received is no worse than what the other candidates have endured (remember Reverend Wright?), and it positively pales in comparison to the false rumors about Obama that too many Americans accept as solid truth (e.g. the belief that he's Muslim or was raised in the Middle East).
Even more frustrating to me is the double standard these complaints demonstrate. The Palin supporters who howl the loudest are often the same ones who skewered Hillary Clinton supporters a few months ago for making a similar implication that Clinton was heavily criticized because of her gender.
Palin herself summed the whole matter up nicely in March 2007 (presumably talking about the Clinton-related sexism complaints): "When I hear a statement like that coming from a woman candidate, with any kind of perceived whine about that excess criticism or maybe a sharper microscope put on her, I think, 'Man, that doesn't do us any good.' . . . I mean, work harder! Prove yourself, to an even greater degree, that you're going to be the best candidate." Perhaps she still feels that way (so far I haven't heard her personally play the gender card), but if so I sure wish she'd share that philosophy with some of her fans.
The latest incident of supposed sexism speaks volumes about both campaigns. In a statement about McCain’s resemblance to Bush on major issues, Obama said that “if you put lipstick on a pig, it’s still a pig.” Since Palin recently compared herself and other hockey moms to pit bulls with lipstick, the McCain camp insisted Obama's comment was an insensitive, sexist insult to Palin, and they demanded an apology. Never mind the fact that McCain made the same pig-and-lipstick joke about Clinton’s health care plan last year.
For his part, Obama expressed regret that when our country is in the middle of an energy crisis, two wars, and a recession that threatens millions of homes and jobs, the McCain campaign wants to focus on slander rather than solutions, taking an innocent remark out of context and blowing it out of proportion when there are so many other things we need to be talking about. The whole affair is consistent with the campaigns' contrasting philosophies: Obama tries to inspire people's hearts and minds, while McCain appeals to their fears and prejudices.
The most frustrating thing for me is that McCain's smear campaign, though reprehensible, is also shrewd. Our emotions affect our choices more than we like to admit, and propaganda often influences people more than rational discussion. It also requires less mental effort than actually analyzing issues and reaching a conclusion about whose plan is best. It's so tempting to take that easy road, but I really hope Americans will base their ultimate choice on reason and principle rather than inflammatory rumors, no matter who they vote for.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
7 comments:
P.S. If there's anything sexist about the lipstick controversy, it's the implication that a female candidate needs people to come to her defense if anyone insults her. If someone compared a male candidate to a pig, no one would bat an eye.
Palin's a big girl - let her stand up for herself. Otherwise you're reinforcing the stereotype that women aren't strong enough to be presidents.
i feel so out of the loop, i don't watch or read the news and i haven't been following the campaign at all ... i just hear whats going on from you! haha!
i hate it when politicians do smear campaigns ... UGH!
I usually only hear the news when I listen to NPR in the car and occasionally at home. Then if I hear something that catches my interest I'll often do some research online to flesh it out in my mind.
Google News is handy for that - you have access to hundreds of news sources so you can get multiple perspectives on things. It's also nice if you just want to skim all the headlines and get a snapshot of what's happening in the world but you don't have much time to read in depth.
Isn't it interesting that even politicians who pride themselves on being Mavericks will stoop to mudslinging and try to drum up controversy instead of simply pushing their ideals and policy platform? No wonder we're all sick to death of politics.
Science Teacher Mommy thinks we ought to base our voting decisions on more than just the abortion litmus test. I can't do that, because for me this election does boil down to who opposes abortion. If not, I'd base my decision solely on who ran the cleanest campaign. So far Biden has been the gentleman. He even said that perhaps Hillary would have been a better VP candidate than he is. That was a breath of fresh air.
Amen on many counts, Christie.
The "litmus test" has been on my mind a lot lately. I'd elaborate, but it would make for a very long comment. It will probably end up being a very long post, instead . . .
Hi Christie,
Are you interested in who is opposed to abortion or who will actually make it illegal? I mean, do you want to know that the person in charge doesn't like abortions or do you want some one to come forward and say "this is how I will ban all abortions in the USA"?
I have strong personal views against abortion and would like to use it as my litmus test. However, I find myself in conflict. I appreciate n8ma's question about views vs. likely actions because it clarifies that conflict some. Should I support those who espouse significant personal views of mine, even when they may not have the opportunity (or the inclination) to act upon those views? Or should I go with those who have plans to act to uphold other views of mine? My mother says that the McCain ticket is likely to get her vote because she'd rather have them picking the next judges in the Supreme Court, with an eye to overturning Roe vs. Wade. I did some research tonight(mostly using Wikipedia), looking at the current composition of the court, age, and decisions on the last really landmark abortion case in 1992, where 5 provisions of Pennsylvania state law were being contested. Pennsylvania actively asked the court to overturn Roe vs. Wade. It was a close race then--for a while it looked like it might be overturned in a 5-4 decision. It was eventually upheld 5-4. Still, it was close--closer than I'd believed was possible. Of those who voted to uphold it, three of them (Stevens, Kennedy, and Souter) are rapidly aging, at 88, 72, and 70 years respectively. The other two are gone from the court already. Kennedy was originally expected to overturn Roe, and then upheld it. I'm not sure what those who have been appointed since 1992 feel about abortion, and would welcome research on that point.
What does all of this boil down to? It does matter what judges are appointed if there's a possibility of Roe vs. Wade being overturned. If it were, that which should have happened in the first place could occur--legislation that reflects the decision of the people. Those who support abortion would still get their chance to cast a vote for it, and I'd finally get a chance to vote against it. But again, this is voting based on a possibility. The real litmus test for me this election may be that of the environment. I was initially appalled at the invasion of Iraq but could support staying there longer on the basis of owing it to the Iraqi people or withdrawing sooner to allow them to use their agency and make the country they want to make, so Iraq's not my litmus. Both McCain's and Obama's economic plans would more deeply entrench us in debt, though Obama's is more preferable to me in other aspects. But McCain and Palin especially on the environment? They scare me. Sure, let's drill more in the Arctic. Keep up our love affair with oil. In the mean time, the world suffers with global warming, we trash Alaska, and most significantly to me, the poor countries clustered around the equator may have life rendered significantly more difficult and millions may starve.
Sorry. I rarely comment but that has led to a spontaneous overflow of emotion. I hope that tranquil reflection can now take place and I can sleep instead of fretting over politics!
Post a Comment