The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Sarah Palin "Freed?"

Here’s Sarah Palin at today’s press conference at the Republican Governor's Association in Miami. It’s Palin minus the sass. But plus the gravitas. Minus the “betchas” and “atchas” and “gotchas.” But plus the edgy new slouch. But also minus the wink (Thank God).

If anything, Palin looks like she’s playing Tina Fey at a mob funeral in New Jersey.

Putting aside the absurdity that she’s finally giving her first national press conference because “the campaign is over,” I find her almost totally unrecognizable. I have one foot in the Sara Mosle camp (brilliant post!) and am desperate to put her behind us. My other foot is in the Andrew Sullivan/Anonymous Liberal/Kevin Drum camp: Covering her as though she is a serious politician with serious things to say is folly. But whatever you think of Sarah Palin, her performance today had none of the “charm” of the last two months, but weirdly, held none of the terror. Turns out Palin playing Palin isn’t very interesting at all.

Sarah, Michelle, and Hillary

Did I say Palin in '12? Correction: Palin in '09. And did I say she'd be back? Wrong-o; she shows no sign of going away.

As for Michelle Obama, my beef with that Rebecca Traister piece about the "momification" of the next first lady is that Traister supposes Obama is in mourning for her career in hospital administration. But based on what? She likewise assumes that Obama's emphasis on her duties as mom-in-chief were hoked up only to help her hubby get elected. In her view, the only reason Obama hasn't dropped the whole schtick now that the coast is clear is that she can't risk looking like a Hillary Clinton as first lady.

Only, Michelle Obama isn't Hillary Clinton; for one thing, I believe her when she says she has no political ambitions. Not that there would be anything wrong with it if she did have, and if she changes her mind later, she's got my vote. But why is a focus on her role as a wife and mother assumed to be just for show? Is she required to regard being a hands-on mom and first spouse as small potatoes just because she's in every way an equal partner to the president-elect and attended schmantzy schools?

As satisfying as running PR and community outreach and volunteer programs for the University of Chicago Hospitals no doubt was, like Emily I have a hard time seeing the White House as a step down. Is there a woman (or man) alive who wouldn't gladly take a few years off to advise and support the president?

Can smart, strong women not choose traditional roles? Everything I know about Michelle Obama tells me that this really is her choice, not her consolation prize. And if we're not OK with that (can you say projection?) I'm not sure it's her problem.

Why I Don't Assume the Worst About Palin

Marjorie, as for whether Sarah Palin believed Africa was a country not a continent, no I don't have any concrete evidence. Since she was so new to the national scene in August, Google isn't exactly bursting with transcripts of her speaking about Africa. But the only "evidence" we have that she did think Africa was a country was an unnamed source who spoke out in the aftermath of a painful election loss, a loss about which the finger-pointing started before the votes were counted. And please don't pillory me for bringing up Elaine Lafferty again, but Lafferty in this interview says that Palin had an in-depth knowledge of Afghanistan and the Taliban, showing a level of thought that doesn't mesh well with thinking Africa is a country. Rich Lowry at the National Review quotes Steve Biegun, who briefed Palin on foreign policy and who was part of the conversation that led to the NAFTA crack, and Biegun sticks up for Palin.

As for the clothes, the first nasty leak we heard was that she was told to leave her clothing at home in Wasilla because it was unsuitable. Now, when the election is over and someone wants to make her look bad, we hear that she was instructed to buy three suits for the convention and nothing more and that she was a "hillbilly looting Neiman Marcus." Both can't be true, so which is it? If she was dressing herself like this before the campaign, how did she become such an expert on fashion overnight? And for her personal preferences, she came out of the voting booth last Tuesday wearing a jacket that I'd expect to find at Cabela's, not Nordstrom or Saks.  

From the moment she was announced as the GOP veep candidate, critics were only too quick to believe everything negative about her, true or not, and cite it as gospel. As Palin herself said, someone accused her of trying to ban Harry Potter when the book wasn't written yet. The New York Times printed as fact that she charged victims for their rape kits when she was mayor of Wasilla, even though the city looked back through its records and found no evidence to the claim. So pardon me for not jumping to assume the worst in this instance, either.

I understand that she did not appeal to everyone, and I certainly understand why. And I'm sure there are many people who hope she's gone back to Alaska never to be heard from again. Personally, I'm still waiting to see what comes out of all the introspection and self-critiquing that conservatives have spent the last week engaging in before I start thinking about 2012, or even 2010. I don't know that having Palin on a national ticket in 2012 would be wise or helpful. But I don't want her to go away entirely. For whatever she lacks, she brings energy to a party that it is sorely lacking. She has moves, as Melinda put it, and I don't think we should underestimate her.

"The Only Clothing or Accessories She Had Personally Purchased in the Last Four Months Was a Pair of Shoes"

There's something a little too poor-little-match-girlish about this image of Gov. Palin sorting through stacks of clothing for a family of seven figuring out what part of the inventory belongs to the RNC. If I were the returning governor, I'd be designating piles Be My Guest (watchout for the spitup); Stuff I'll Just Have To Replace (who doesn't get a good bra and new underwear before trying on a bunch of new clothes?); and (sigh) Maybe the Designer Would Sell Me Another Just Like It at Cost (that shantung silk jacket is practically a Palin icon).

Continent First?

Juliet, Melinda, Lauren, and Rachael, I'm perplexed by your certainty that Sarah Palin did indeed know that Africa was a continent not a country. On what are you basing this assumption? Sarah Palin's denials? Forgive me if I find her credibility lacking. This is the same woman who said she never wanted all those expensive clothes purchased for her by the RNC and insisted she would gladly go back to wearing her own clothes. Now we learn that the price tag for those Neiman/Nordstrom's duds was even higher than the $150,000 originally reported and that the RNC had to dispatch someone to Alaska to retrieve the clothing from Palin.

We have no information to indicate or prove that Palin knew the difference between a country and a continent, but we have plenty of well-documented news stories and televisions interviews showing how little she knows about geography and how little interest she has about the rest of the world. Remember that she could not name a newspaper she reads and that she shamelessly revels in a "real America" type of anti-intellectualism. (And by the way, she's not the first person to make this mistake. I've heard other Americans refer to Africa as one country.) I also believe she really did not know the NAFTA signatory countries.

Melinda, you characterized my past criticisms of Palin's intellectual challenges as elitism, but as the New York Times' Judith Warner recently correctly noted, there are plenty of Americans "who respect intelligence and good grammar." They also believe their president and vice president should be smarter, better-informed, and more versed in international affairs than the average American. This does not make them elitists; it makes them pragmatists. I still believe that Palin was woefully unqualified for the job and apparently so did millions of other voters who rejected the McCain-Palin ticket because they were insulted that McCain tried to pass her off as his, and Obama's, intellectual equal. I'm pretty well-informed and well-educated—and I can even speak in full sentences—but I still don't believe I'm qualified to be vice president or president. Knowing one's limitations is a sign of intelligence. That's honesty, not elitism.

I, for one, am very glad to see Palin leave the national stage, at least for now, and heartened that the voting public saw through her fake heartland authenticity. Apparently, I'm not alone. Check out this ode to Sarah.

Only Nicolle Knows for Sure ...

Do you mean, Maureen, that women in politics may have to be nine times nuttier and more narcissistic than even your average hey-look-at-me male of the species, just to get elected? Not sure I'm with you on that, having known some really menschy women officeholders. (And I know you're not saying there aren't any.) But maybe I would be with you if I'd had the job you had and seen all you have, right? What your post did make me think: We have no idea whether these stories about Sarah Palin throwing fits and clueless about whole continents are true; we weren't there. I've had two batshit bananas bosses in my life, one a he and one a she, and I almost never talk about either one of them—not because I am so nice, but because it's such crazyola stuff I don't think anyone would believe it. (Plus, even I don't want to hear it.) So maybe that's what Palin's aide Nicolle Wallace, or whoever the source was for this stuff, is learning, too: Sometimes, even the truth can splash back quite nastily. But if that were the case, it would certainly be an ironic coda to a deeply dishonest campaign.

Update: Sarah speaks, denies divadom. "I never asked for anything more than maybe a Diet Dr Pepper once in a while," she told reporters. She also disputed tales that she didn't know Africa was a continent and couldn't name the signatories of NAFTA: "That's cruel. It's mean-spirited. It's immature. It's unprofessional and those guys are jerks if they came away with it, taking things out of context [from debate prep], and then tried to spread something on national news. It's not fair and it's not right."

Is It Sexist, or Calling a Spade a Spade?

Going back to the discussion of yesterday, and at the risk of sounding like a sexist myself, I'm wondering if we can find a diva equivalent of Sarah Palin in a male politician. Palin is not alone in this type of tantrum/staff abuse behavior among female politicians (nor is it confined to her side of the aisle). While I haven't heard first-hand of female elected officials throwing things, it wouldn't surprise me at all. I once worked for a high-level woman who famously asked another staffer, on the way to a fundraiser, what dressing would be on the salad at the dinner. (And let me tell you, when you're fundraising, that's the last detail you're struggling to keep track of—and the last one she needs to be concerned about.) A friend worked for a high-level female politician who used to insist that her event information be presented in a specific-color folder, or there was definitely hell to pay. In neither instance is the rejoinder "I'm not sure" or "I can't guarantee that" something you'd counter with if you intended to stick around long.

So Sarah Palin is not the only diva out there. I'm not saying this is acceptable political behavior, and I certainly do expect the runner-up leader of the free world to know that Africa is a continent. But I'm wondering if all this diva-labeling is truly sexist, or are we just calling a spade a spade? I wonder if female politicians act out in ways that are particularly feminine and unpleasant. And I'm hard-pressed to think of a story of a male politician behaving this way from friends who've worked for high-profile ones, these kind of grande dame demands that make the average Jane think, "What??" I'm just wondering: Do we not hear about men throwing things in a rage because there's a sexist tendency to point such ticks out only among women or because women are the only ones who indulge in such extreme behavior?

I do think that anyone running for public office—male or female—has to be massively overconfident to be able to stand up to thousands or millions and say, "Vote for me; I know what's right for you." It's the nature of the beast. And I think women, since they still have to work harder than men to get as far in politics, have to be even more overconfident, to the point of being a little nuts. So maybe, sexist or not, we shouldn't excuse such diva behavior, but we shouldn't blame them either. How else would these women do a job that requires brass balls if they weren't a little imperious themselves?

Don't Write Women—or That Woman—Off Yet

Emily, I'm with you. This campaign was about the right leader at the right time: It's really only been since we went to the polls that breaking the racial barrier has become the euphoric narrative of the election. Exit polls and popular discourse suggested that most people checked the "content of his character" box, not the "color of his skin" box, after all. And that's just how Obama geared his campaign. Race was not a major topic during this infinite run, except for when our next president could no longer avoid it after the Wright sinkhole opened. (Obama addressed race full-on in that landmark speech back in March and basically never returned to the topic.) If we had a woman candidate who so captured the public and seemed to represent a new direction that the country craved, this might be a different historic first. Identity politics only rules this election in hindsight. The issue with Hillary was never her sex. Unlike Obama, she simply wasn't the right leader at the right time, and that's what it takes.

But then there's the question of right leader to whom? Forty-eight percent of the country went for the white guy who had rebranded himself a social conservative for the sake of the campaign. (Though I suspect that many of those people have risen to the historic occasion: Even Murdoch's NYPost was capable of seeing the bigger picture on Election Day.) With that population in mind, Dana, I wouldn't pack up our designer Palin bags yet, I'm sorry to say. It remains to be seen just how the GOP will define itself after these years of splintering and self-immolation. Palin was included on the ticket not just for her sex but for her appeal to the Evangelical base. And while plenty of people thought that young Christians would go Obama in great numbers, or older ones might merely sit this one out, in fact, they voted the same way they did last time. Evangelicals couldn't swing the vote this time because of record turnout in other demographics. But should apathy return to our nation in the challenging years ahead, that still-organized and still-tenacious base may outlast this moment. And should Republicans decide Evangelicals butter their GOP bread best, instead of going, say, the Romney route, you betcha we'll be returning to our regularly scheduled culture wars—likely with Palin in a starring role, no matter how the campaign may be damning her today.

Forgetting Sarah Palin

Thank God our country now has bigger and better things to think about than calculating the precise degree of Sarah Palin’s venality, ignorance, and greed. Did she bilk the RNC of $150,000 in her shopping sprees, or was it tens of thousands more? (The paper trail will eventually emerge on that one, now that lawyers are descending on Alaska to confiscate the gladrags.) Is she so dim she doesn’t know Africa is a continent, or only so dim she can’t name a single newspaper or magazine she’s ever read? Did she violate ethics laws in pursuing the firing of her ex-brother-in-law, or did her petty, nepotistic despotism remain within perfectly legal bounds? Guess what: We no longer have to care! To paraphrase Jon Stewart talking about Karl Rove the other night: Sarah Palin can’t hurt me anymore.

Unless … can’t you see Palin emerging as the leader of a splinter hard-right group, possibly even a third party? A perverse part of me—the part that enjoyed this endless campaign’s operatic grotesquerie–sort of wishes she would run in ’12, because if she did manage to get the nomination (which, as Anne observes, good friggin’ luck), she would have to debate Barack Obama, which would make for one of the most entertaining spectacles American politics has ever seen.

Africa, the Country

Blaming Palin Is the Easy Way Out

Thank you, Melinda and Lauren, for saying what I wanted to say but was avoiding since I've largely been our lone Sarah Palin defender. Saying that Palin doesn't know that Africa is a continent sounds like something you'd say about your ex after a bitter breakup (which is perhaps what this is). It sounds far more sarcastic and bitter than serious, and it says more about the speaker than the target.  

John McCain might not have been able to win even if he'd put God himself on the ticket, given the standing of the Republican Party right now. And Palin surely didn't help him pull in as many women as he'd hoped. But still, as Chris Beam points out in Slate, he didn't have a lot of good choices (or rather, left himself with few good choices because of his rumored stubborn insistence on Joe Lieberman). I kind of wish in hindsight that it had been Mitt Romney, because he'd have brought credibility on the economic front. But the narrative would have been about their contentious primary. And I liked Tim Pawlenty, once I'd heard of him, but Chris is right that you would have been able to hear crickets chirping at rallies. And Joe Lieberman? Worse than crickets. The networks would have had to find a way to silence the echoes in the convention center during the acceptance speeches while the conventioneers were out at bars drowning their sorrows. Heck, I would have voted for Obama if he picked Lieberman. (No offense, Joe.) So, it seems a little unfair for all the blame to fall on Sarah Palin. McCain was trailing, he threw a Hail Mary, and it fell short. It's not like he was leading by 10 points and then she brought down the whole campaign.

Like Anne says, whether Palin is that dumb or not, this says something bad about the McCain campaign. The candidate himself gave a gracious concession speech Tuesday night. It's too bad his staffers don't have the same amount of class.

Palin in '12

Sounds like those McCain aides are fast-tracking their guy's return to pariah—I mean, maverick—status by alienating every last conservative who voted for him with their mean, sexist, and derriere-covering hooey about Sarah Palin. I'm sorry, but I do not for one second believe that she did not know Africa was a continent. If she threw those poor foot soldiers for democracy into a panic by appearing at her hotel-room door "essentially ... wrapped in a bathrobe''—grow up, people; it's not the first time a candidate has finished dressing on the run. And from what I saw of the crack McCain-Palin organization, somebody needed to engage in the dreaded "throwing of paperwork and things of that nature.'' I see this as the jump-start of her rehab with women voters: diva, shopaholic, temptress, hmmm. Keep up the women-hating insults, McCainiacs, and it'll be Palin in '12.

Toweling off

I, too, am fascinated by all of this postgame revelation, Anne and Emily. I'm having a hard time believing, though, that Palin—the governor of an American state surrounded by Canada—did not know what NAFTA was, nor that Africa wasn't a country. She's literate; her parents were teachers. It sounds to me like a sarcastic comment was taken as fact. That said, it's insane that we can even be discussing this; crazier still how O'Reilly leapt to her defense. As if the campaign didn't feel like satire to begin with.

Dahlia, while the diva-branding is surely sexist (like the c-word, there's no male equivalent), I'm not sure that the towel talk is, too. The fact that, as Newsweek has reported, when McCain's top strategists arrived at her hotel room to brief her for for the convention, she appeared wrapped only in a towel—well, that's pretty revelatory about how this woman uses her sex appeal as power in the most egregiously inappropriate circumstances.  I admit that I love the idea of such palling around with major governmental figures—if, say, we learned that Angela Merkel hangs with longtime advisers in her bathrobe, I'd feel giddy fondness. But this is another story, and if we're going to looking at a future in which Palin continues to sear our consciousness, I want to know how she plays her game.

It's All ... Who's Fault?

Sarah Palin Ignorance Update

For those who haven’t seen it yet, this clip of Fox News political correspondent Carl Cameron talking to Bill O'Reilly is rather extraordinary, and not only for what it reveals about Sarah Palin. Cameron reports that McCain campaign insiders have told him that Palin was unaware that Africa is a continent, not a single country; that she could not name the three signatories of the North American Free Trade Agreement; and that she had refused point-blank to prepare for those infamous Katie Couric interviews. 

But O’Reilly’s reaction is even more gripping than these revelations. Even as Cameron—a Fox reporter!—is talking, he keeps grasping wildly at the “all-criticism-of-Palin-is-snobbery” narrative. “She could be tutored!” he says at one point and gets Cameron agree that the real problem with the Couric interviews was the way the elite liberal media spun them afterward. My prediction: If the Republican Party and its pundits sticks to this interpretation of Palin’s performance, they’ll be out of the White House for the next decade, if not longer.

Tina Fey Is Right: Palin's Not Going Anywhere

Hanna,

Thanks for your post on Sarah Palin. It's funny: I was at the polls today, doing my mundane but important civic duty, coloring in all the circles completely like a student taking a standardized test and reading the language of all the amendments and issues carefully to make sure a "yes" was a yes and a "no" was a no. But as I was going over my ballot (before feeding it into a box that looked mysteriously like a paper shredder), I paused on Sarah Palin's name right there under John McCain's, and just a bit of emotion welled up in me. There was a spring in my step as I walked back to my car. After all my doubts and confusion, I was excited and a little proud to be voting for her.

Believe me, I'm someone who abhorred the "PC tokenist ‘90s," and god knows that I would never vote for a woman just because of her gender. I don't know what tonight will bring, and I'm not overly optimistic. But I think that you're exactly right that she's bigger than some of her low moments and bigger than the wardrobe. Maybe even bigger than the campaign. If she and McCain lose tonight, she might take some hits for a while. But there will be a lot of blame to go around, and she won't get all of it. And, like Tina Fey's Sarah Palin said on Saturday Night Live in that QVC skit, "I'm not going anywhere." Speaking of which, where can I get one of those "Palin in 2012" T-shirts?

24 More Years? Not This Time

Ah, the irony of the sexy librarian inquiring whether it's legal to ban books.

What I was initially getting at was less how Sarah Palin defines herself and more how our culture has responded to those definitions. For example, in all the McCain blame-game conversations that are emerging in the press today--like this one by Slate's Christopher Beam--there's a total absence of hand-wringing of the were we ready for a female VP? variety. Of course, had Palin been more prepared for the job, that conversation may be a different one: Her inexperience and incuriousity have been a great leveler. 

I'm happy that the McCain flame-out discussion doesn't imply we wait another 24 years for a female candidate, as we have since Ferraro. Hanna suggests, and I agree, that Palin will gain mastery in the political game--at least as it plays out in mass culture if not in policy discussion. But the specter of a post-Palin America, as Hanna put it, with our most famous Alaskan annointed as the lone figure to be reckoned with? That strikes me as just the sort of future celebrity candidacy Obama unfairly had to shake. Normalizing the concept of women in our highest offices? It's about time. Normalizing Palin as the best shot at female leadership? Thanks but no thanks.

Perhaps before I get all worked up about 2012, I should get through tonight. But it's certainly intriguing to consider what this two-year campaign has laid out for the road ahead. Looking at the ballot in my polling booth this morning, I flashed back to the beginning of this relentless, seemingly endless trip.  Back then I wouldn't have believed the choices we have had the opportunity to make today.

The Next Woman

Posting About Post-ness

Lauren, your post about Palin and Obama got me thinking. As I’ve always understood the concept of “post-race,” it isn’t really about being past race. Race isn’t something you can transcend. But it is something you can bend and complicate—especially if you’re as charismatic and talented as Obama is.

I remember first hearing the term “post-black” in 2001, when Thelma Golden curated Freestyle at the Studio Museum in Harlem, featuring artists who were, in Golden’s words, “adamant about not being labeled ‘black’ artists, though their work was steeped, in fact deeply interested, in redefining complex notions of blackness.” That was the same year that Rolling Stone published the article “To Be Gay at Yale,” in which many of my classmates spoke about how their queer identity had become “backgrounded”—i.e., it was still an important part of how they conceived of themselves, but it was no longer necessarily the most important part. They were, in a word, post-gay.

Ever since then I’ve found the phrase “post-race” to be a useful one, personally. I’m a biracial woman who’s very attached to the immigrant communities I grew up in—someone who thinks about race a lot—but my skin color is not always in the forefront of my mind when I interact with the world.

So to me, Obama is absolutely a post-race candidate. He’s the quintessential post-race candidate, even! Here’s a man with roots in Kenya and Indonesia, in Hawaii and South Side Chicago, and though by all accounts his sense of himself has evolved over time (“struggled with his identity”—ick, I hate that phrase), he now seems totally at ease with his complicated self. Being post-race, to me, means wearing yourself a little more lightly.

So is Sarah Palin post-gender? I’m not entirely sure, but my instinct says no. Too much of her public persona seems to rotate between performances rooted in gender roles—the flirt with the high heels or the über-mom, as you point out, or the Ann Coulter-style mean girl or the sexy Puritan, as other Slate writers have noted. Is it the calculatedness I’m responding to? Her eagerness to put on a show for us? I was going to say that it’s because she was chosen for the ticket simply because she’s a woman, but that’s not quite right since she’s obviously proven to be a charismatic, electrifying politician, as well. I confess I’m stumped.

Did Sarah Palin Become a Post-Gender Candidate?