On Context and Prejudice in Political Campaigns
I am forever amazed at how frustrated I get in regards to the McCain/Palin campaign. Shouldn't I be used to their bullshit by now?
One of the top advisors referred to this week's SNL sketch (with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler as Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Hillary Clinton, respectively) as sexist and went on to say that it was a form of sexism for them to portray Sarah Palin as lacking substance. Of course, the only other character in the sketch was Hillary Clinton, so I'm not sure if that statement was a pure stupidity, pure stubbornness, pure desperation or a shot at Hillary Clinton's womanhood.*
To her credit, Sarah Palin has said she thought the sketch was funny because she once dressed up like Tina Fey for Halloween.** I don't know why that makes this sketch funny, but at least Palin seems to be able to identify good humor. The sketch was very very funny. It's probably the best satire SNL has done since...well, since Tina Fey's "bitches get things done" segment the last time she appeared on the show.
The strange thing is that if anyone should be offended by this sketch (which they shouldn't have been and, apparently, weren't), it should've been Hillary Clinton. Amy Poehler, as Clinton, made the point that looking into someone's background was not sexist and implored that media to "grow a pair. Or if you can't, you can borrow mine." See, if the sketch wasn't done by women, that might be viewed as quite sexist. Much like the section of Mel Brooks' "History of the World, Part 1" that turns the Spanish Inquisition into a musical might be viewed as anti-semitic if Mel Brooks wasn't Jewish. Much like Richard Pryor's use of the N-word would be viewed as racist if he wasn't African-American.
So, Ms. Carly Fiorina of the McCain/Palin campaign, I highly recommend you grow a sense of context. Or, if you can't, borrow mine. Or Hillary Clinton's. Or Sarah Palin's. Or Amy Poehler's. But don't borrow Tina Fey's, she needs it to write 30 Rock which is one of the best shows on TV.
Oh, and, for the record, remember all the furor over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment? He was addressing a policy, not a person. Much in the same way Sen. John McCain was when he used the EXACT SAME PHRASE in regards to a proposal made by Sen. Hillary Clinton a number of months ago.
Furthermore, it's still not sexist to examine the history of and beliefs held by a vice-presidential candidate. It's also not sexist to examine how the nomination process evaluated this candidate. As a matter of fact, the press did the same for Sen. Joe Biden. It just wasn't a big story because Obama's selection and process was easily understood. McCain's choice of a candidate with virtually no time in Washington and less than two years' experience as governor was a surprise. The unexpected: that's a story. Had the press given Palin's selection unquestioned would have been bad journalism. Had the media assumed that Palin would be unable to bear the scrutiny and, thus, not examined her as thoroughly, that would've been sexist. And I'd bet that the GOP wouldn't be complaining about that form of sexism.
In fact, by crying "sexism" at every juncture, the McCain/Palin campaign diminishes the impact and awareness of actual gender prejudice. People look at these abuses of alarm and then the next one and the next one. And by the time real prejudice rears its ugly head, people have begun to distrust the outcry. It's a lesson simple enough to teach a kindergartener. You know "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'?" Same lesson. If a 5 year-old can grasp this and respect the lesson it teaches, why can't the McCain/Palin campaign?
*which would, of course, make this advisor's criticism sexist. By ignoring the fact that the other character is a woman, Carly Fiorina is implying that the traits of Sen. Clinton are not womanly and, therefore, inferring that a woman cannot hold and express strong, informed opinions...if they are contrary to her own. Fiorina went on to say, "just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance." Of course, what SNL was lampooning was Palin's lack of national experience. So, since Clinton has a lot more experience, a longer list of accomplishments and more time in both the political and national spotlights, and since most of what the McCain campaign, the news outlets (including right-wing blowhards, FOX News) and Sarah Palin herself have addressed regarding the GOP VP candidate has been personal rather than political or policy-related, then I'd say that, yes, Clinton is a more substantial politician than Sarah Palin. And please note that gender has never entered this argument on substance.
** this story is like the 50th time I've heard that logic from Palin's camp. It's beginning to sound like a stump speech. You know, a prepared statement. If she really did like the sketch, she should stop talking about it. Or at least stop giving this as the reason she found the sketch funny.
One of the top advisors referred to this week's SNL sketch (with Tina Fey and Amy Poehler as Gov. Sarah Palin and Sen. Hillary Clinton, respectively) as sexist and went on to say that it was a form of sexism for them to portray Sarah Palin as lacking substance. Of course, the only other character in the sketch was Hillary Clinton, so I'm not sure if that statement was a pure stupidity, pure stubbornness, pure desperation or a shot at Hillary Clinton's womanhood.*
To her credit, Sarah Palin has said she thought the sketch was funny because she once dressed up like Tina Fey for Halloween.** I don't know why that makes this sketch funny, but at least Palin seems to be able to identify good humor. The sketch was very very funny. It's probably the best satire SNL has done since...well, since Tina Fey's "bitches get things done" segment the last time she appeared on the show.
The strange thing is that if anyone should be offended by this sketch (which they shouldn't have been and, apparently, weren't), it should've been Hillary Clinton. Amy Poehler, as Clinton, made the point that looking into someone's background was not sexist and implored that media to "grow a pair. Or if you can't, you can borrow mine." See, if the sketch wasn't done by women, that might be viewed as quite sexist. Much like the section of Mel Brooks' "History of the World, Part 1" that turns the Spanish Inquisition into a musical might be viewed as anti-semitic if Mel Brooks wasn't Jewish. Much like Richard Pryor's use of the N-word would be viewed as racist if he wasn't African-American.
So, Ms. Carly Fiorina of the McCain/Palin campaign, I highly recommend you grow a sense of context. Or, if you can't, borrow mine. Or Hillary Clinton's. Or Sarah Palin's. Or Amy Poehler's. But don't borrow Tina Fey's, she needs it to write 30 Rock which is one of the best shows on TV.
Oh, and, for the record, remember all the furor over Obama's "lipstick on a pig" comment? He was addressing a policy, not a person. Much in the same way Sen. John McCain was when he used the EXACT SAME PHRASE in regards to a proposal made by Sen. Hillary Clinton a number of months ago.
Furthermore, it's still not sexist to examine the history of and beliefs held by a vice-presidential candidate. It's also not sexist to examine how the nomination process evaluated this candidate. As a matter of fact, the press did the same for Sen. Joe Biden. It just wasn't a big story because Obama's selection and process was easily understood. McCain's choice of a candidate with virtually no time in Washington and less than two years' experience as governor was a surprise. The unexpected: that's a story. Had the press given Palin's selection unquestioned would have been bad journalism. Had the media assumed that Palin would be unable to bear the scrutiny and, thus, not examined her as thoroughly, that would've been sexist. And I'd bet that the GOP wouldn't be complaining about that form of sexism.
In fact, by crying "sexism" at every juncture, the McCain/Palin campaign diminishes the impact and awareness of actual gender prejudice. People look at these abuses of alarm and then the next one and the next one. And by the time real prejudice rears its ugly head, people have begun to distrust the outcry. It's a lesson simple enough to teach a kindergartener. You know "The Boy Who Cried 'Wolf'?" Same lesson. If a 5 year-old can grasp this and respect the lesson it teaches, why can't the McCain/Palin campaign?
*which would, of course, make this advisor's criticism sexist. By ignoring the fact that the other character is a woman, Carly Fiorina is implying that the traits of Sen. Clinton are not womanly and, therefore, inferring that a woman cannot hold and express strong, informed opinions...if they are contrary to her own. Fiorina went on to say, "just because Sarah Palin has different views than Hillary Clinton does not mean that she lacks substance." Of course, what SNL was lampooning was Palin's lack of national experience. So, since Clinton has a lot more experience, a longer list of accomplishments and more time in both the political and national spotlights, and since most of what the McCain campaign, the news outlets (including right-wing blowhards, FOX News) and Sarah Palin herself have addressed regarding the GOP VP candidate has been personal rather than political or policy-related, then I'd say that, yes, Clinton is a more substantial politician than Sarah Palin. And please note that gender has never entered this argument on substance.
** this story is like the 50th time I've heard that logic from Palin's camp. It's beginning to sound like a stump speech. You know, a prepared statement. If she really did like the sketch, she should stop talking about it. Or at least stop giving this as the reason she found the sketch funny.