Recently on an interview with Charles Gibson, he asked some very broad questions. When she asked for more detail in areas of those questions, the political analyst shredded her. Some in the media are asking very general questions, and expecting very "black and white" answers. It's not that simple. And furthermore, when asking "hypothetical" questions, how can one really give an absolute answer without the details of the situation? This seems ridiculous.
As a woman, I cannot but wonder if there is a deep under current of gender issues at the core of these questions. Is the media reflecting an unspoken belief system that still may remain in some of our culture? Beyond politics. Historically, even women were the last citizens given the privilege to vote. And yes, I do have to wonder what the treatment of Hillary would be if Bill Clinton had not been her husband. I would be interested to hear what Hillary would have to say regarding this matter. And, I won't be surprised if Palin is thrown into the water to see if she can swim.
2 comments:
I think that you make a good point about the difference in treatment between Sarah and Hillary. A huge factor that can explain this kind of difference is the way America was introduced to each individual. Hillary had Bill and in essence she was first introduced as the first lady and then a politician. Hillary sticking by Bill's side gave her more supporters than she probably assumed. Sarah on the other hand was a rippling effect in that no one outside of Alaska really knew about who she was and what qualified her more as McCain's running mate versus the other former presidential candidates. Given that it seems as if though the infatuation with Sarah has kind of died down. Once people knew a little more about her they assumed that they can throw her under the bus. She's in a position that would cause her to be trampled on the question though is how she will respond.
As far as there being a deep under current of gender issues at the core of those questions the possibility is yes. People had imagined Hillary being the first woman in the White House who wasn't a first lady yet they weren't quite ready for that transition. Palin coming out from the left outfield as a vice presidential candidate definitely gave some people jitters. I think that the media is reflecting an unspoken belief system that is in the process of changing. However that change may not be welcomed. Eventually I think that the current train of thought for women being potential presidential and vice presidential candidates is leaving the station and heading into the future.
Un regards to Palin asking for clarification on certain questions...There was a clip of her being asked about whether or not she agreed with the Bush Doctrine. Palin asked for clarification which immediately created a frenzy that she lacked the knowledge to be the VP candidate. As one female analyst commented..."You are looking for a "gotcha" moment." This is so true. Doctor's of political science and International Law experts can not agree on the true nature of the Bush Doctrine. There are professionals within the field who can not even clearly define their points of disagreement. Is it so wrong for her to ask for clarification? If anything, that should be viewed as a sign of rationality and reasoning. Instead of giving a "knee jerk" response, she wanted to understand what was asked. But, the media continues to look for a moment of failure.
Plus, many are saying that if Obama had chosen Hillary, Palin would not even be an issue. Maybe, but the sexism would still be a factos (although slightly more covert).
Finally, Rolan Martin had a fashion expert on one of his panels to address the issue of sex and the election. Really? Should the appearance of the candidate be a point of analyzation? Did that same expert comment on McCain, Obama, or Biden? No, but she did offer her "insight" on Michelle, Cindy, Hillary, and Palin.
There is a brain behind the lipstick people.
Post a Comment