Just when we thought it was safe to go back in the water…. there she is again! This time, though, some of what she says is creepily unsettling. This loads slowly but is worth the wait – we can talk about it after you watch it.
Here’s the thing: Do you really think people, especially journalists, would have been so cruel to an “unwed mother” whose parents were progressive politicians? Or to a Rockefeller or even a Bush? Throughout the interview, Palin raises the issue of class, and of the attacks on her kids; we’ll touch on that in a minute.
During the campaign, I wrote about Palin and the class issue, and the sad parallels to Paula Jones. The fact is that Sarah Palin isn’t sophisticated, that she’ be a popular Girl Scout leader or Women’s Club president in the life that existed when I was a kid – around the Mad Men era. Maybe that would have been OK if she’d known more, or been less cruel and incendiary in her speeches. Her inherent lack of sophistication and experience, what William Galston has called “a celebration of ignorance” enabled much of the class snobbery the followed. But follow it did; not in the “she’s not our kind” sort of way – it was far more subtle than that. More in the collective realization of the “cool people” that she was a WalMart, polyester lady thrust into a J Crew sort of world.
Now. Let’s think about the kids. The family itself was kind of a throwback I guess. And their omnipresence – thrust onto the stage – was weird. But when Elizabeth Edwards was criticized for taking the kids on the road during the campaign, feminists and others leapt to her defense. When Al Gore Jr. was arrested in a DUI it was a “private family matter,” not a continuing object of ridicule. Somehow though, the way this pregnancy and relationship has been portrayed has been cruel and tawdry without casting much light on Palin, her tenure or her philosophy.* And remember the whole “mommy wars” thing – did Palin put her career ahead of her kids? One person who wrote consistently well about this is PunditMom. Take a look.
None of what I’m saying here justifies what Palin stood for or did as a candidate. She was, and is, a scary person hiding behind “adorableness.” But we need to think about the mainstream coverage of her campaign and how much of it derided matters of class and family, not policy and ideology. There was certainly enough of that substantial stuff to keep any reporter busy.
What do you think?
*I am not talking about conversations concerning issues of choice, sex education or contraception but of the less substantial, more visible harumphing.
She’s right – when Obama said “lay off my wife” it came off as strong man protecting his family. The right thing to do. The media respected it. We respected it. They did not give her the same courtesy. They ripped her family to shreds – for fun. For giggles. And cause that’s what we do to women who have the audacity to lead.
One important thing to remember, well two things; doesn’t her family income put them in the the at least upper middle class if not upper class? Also, she ran her whole campaign as if conducting her own class warfare on “east coast elites.” She forced people to see her that way because she WANTED to be seen that way. She thought it was a winning strategy.
I also wrote a sympathetic post about Palin, but it was more about the piling on punching bag effect I saw. But she was running for VICE PRESIDENT, not governor or even senator. I wish she would just go away.
I think she’s a tough sell as a poster child for civility. I do agree with Tracee’s comment that attacks on women by the media tend to be more personal but I’m not so sure progressive women have it any easier. Hillary Clinton certainly didn’t get a pass. The other side of that coin is that too often, certain women get pushed to the forefront for superficial reasons, like Sarah Palin’s beauty and Caroline Kennedy’s famous pedigree. That makes tearing them down easier if they don’t have the substance to stand up to scrutiny. The Joe the Plumber case is similar — he was a convenient, catchy name for McCain, so the media went digging and gleefully showed the dirt they found.
She’ll get no sympathy from me. The mean-spirited, nasty, and stupid (“I read all the newspapers”) things she said during the campaign grated on my last nerve.
The GOP always tries to paint itself as a bastion of morality and she is hardly a poster child for that. I would have had more respect for her if she had protected her children instead of parading them around the country.
My take is that she needs to show some class and stop whining.
I don’t agree that the media ripped her family to shreds. But there has been an underlying current of condescension toward Palin. Part of that I believe is warranted in terms of her intellect — she tried to portray herself as a brilliant woman and she isn’t. As for the family issues, I came to believe that talking about her pregnant daughter and her “choice” was fair game since Palin was a politician running on a platform of imposing no choice on all families.
Palin and her candidacy is a hard one to parse because there are so many conflicting things at play. But she isn’t doing herself any favors doing interviews like this, mocking powerful news anchors and playing the victim card.
I’m fine with audacious women — I just hope that those who want to lead actually have the real street cred to do it.
P.S., here’s my take on that video.
http://punditmom1.blogspot.com/2009/01/sarah-palins-whining-isnt-helping.html
Forgive the delay in responding to these smart observations. Being offline for Sabbath observance makes these delays unavoidable, but I’m sorry. I think Myrna/minx is right — maybe Sarah did want to be seen as other-than-upper/middle-class, but I still think the disdain with which she was treated demonstrated a deficit of some kind on the part of those writing about her, despite her manipulations.
And Jen has a great point about the nomination of an image rather than a whole person. It serves neither that person nor those who cover them.