Media Message: Judge a Woman by the Height of Her Shoes, not the Height of her Character

With the Olympics in full swing, one author at the Boston's Metro.us posited an intriguing question, what if all Olympics sports were photographed like women's beach volleyball? The author noted that he had performed  a Getty image search for women's beach volleyball. He found that overwhelming, the photos were of the women's rear ends, not an action shot of a player making a dig or block. He then posted a photo essay of similarly cropped photos of male athletes---gymnasts' rear ends and divers' torsos--noting the awkwardness of those photos (See here). The female athletes were photographed to highlight their physical appearance and sex appeal, not their athletic ability.

Similarly, there seems to be a difference in the way both that female politicians are photographed and written about as well. It begs the question, what if male politicians were photographed and written about the same way that female politicians are?  Too often female politicians' physical traits are highlighted while their policy positions and experience are minimized. In 2007, then Senator Hillary Clinton famously spoke on the Senate floor and her blouse revealed a little bit of cleavage:

That incident provided not only late night fodder, but the basis an entire article the Washington Post. about Senator Clinton's cleavage and overall style. The article was 12 paragraphs long, and only one sentence even touched on the policy issue she was discussing.

Late last year, Congressman Barney Frank spoke on a the House floor wearing a not-so-flattering shirt:

To be sure, this incident became fodder for the political blogosphere, but it certainly didn't become mainstream media frenzy that Hillary Clinton's cleavage appearance did.

In 2008, much ado was made about vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin's appearance--her glasses, her clothes, her shoes. In fact, this photo of her shoes in the foreground and a young male supporter in the background accompanied was an image captured by both AP and Reuters photographers:

What if multiple photographers decided to make Vice President Joe Biden's legs and shoes the subject of their shot?:

Of course, this image was not the subject of a photographer. It was an image that I had to crop myself, and it was difficult to even find an image that wasn't a head shot of the vice president or from the torso up. There certainly weren't any photos of the Vice President's legs in the foreground and a young woman in the background.

Earlier this election season, Congresswoman Michele Bachmann appeared on the cover of Newsweek with this bizarre, wide-eyed expression (not to mention biased, sexist title):

For photo shoots, many pictures are taken and with today's technology can be immediately checked digitally for closed eyes and other imperfections. Why was this photo chosen of likely the dozens that were taken? Certainly a photo like the one below of President Obama never made its way onto a major news magazine:

Pictures are often with a thousand words. They speak volumes about how the photographer, writer, or editor is trying to portray a politician--as a competent leader, a sex object, a crazy person, etc. However, focusing on a women's style over her substance isn't limited to photos.  Washington Post writer Diana Reese  used her platform at the Post's "She the People" feature to criticize Sarah Palin's clothes at a recent campaign rally/BBQ for Missouri Senatorial candidate Sarah Steelman:

When Palin took to the makeshift stage in the middle of a Missouri farm field, she was dressed more for the part of Hollywood celebrity than serious politician. I know someone’s going to remind me that just last week, I said it was sexist to focus on the wardrobes of women in politics. 

But it was hard for me to take Palin seriously dressed as she was. 

First, her shoes: Five-inch wedges. Her black capris weren’t quite skin-tight but tight enough, and her t-shirt with its Superman logo (a Steelman campaign shirt emblazoned with “Our freedom. Our fight.”) emphasized her figure. She never once removed her oversized sunglasses. 

I’m sorry, but I’d like my minister, my doctor and yes, my politicians, to look and dress for their parts.

Palin stumped for Steelman at an event that took place at a blueberry farm, and she delivered her speech from a trailer that can be attached to a truck. It wasn't a flashy event, and Governor Palin is known for her down home appeal. The candidate herself, Sarah Steelman, was dressed in jeans and boot . It was a very Midwestern, down-to-earth event. It wasn't a big dollar fundraiser at a fancy location. Palin wore one of the campaign's t-shirts-- standing in solidarity with the Steelman campaign workers who were also wearing "Superman" ( man of steel--Steelman, get it?) shirts. Additionally, it was a hot, sunny evening, and Palin usually wears glasses. Was Palin supposed to wear her normal glasses the whole time and squint or take her prescription sunglasses off and not be able to see? Governor Palin gave a very solid stump speech focusing on Steelman's plans if she was elected and noting her reformer credentials. All of these were apparently lost on Reese. She decided, as she notes in this piece, that she should call out sexism about the cost of a female political figure's clothes if it's Michelle Obama, but also apply a different standard to Palin by criticizing Palin's choice of clothing at a low key, Midwestern campaign event.

Women can't expect their counterparts in the media--be they writers, editors, or photographers--to stop being sexist in their portrayal of female politicians when they themselves focus more on the height of a political figure's shoes than the height of her character or the weight of her words. As depicted above, the media's sexist portrayal of women is bipartisan. In order to counter that, it would behoove all women to make sure the voice against sexism is a bipartisan one as well.

Crossposted from The New Agenda.

The Molly Pitchers of the Healthcare Reform Battle

The Supreme Court's decision on Obamacare will come down on the 234th anniversary of the Battle of Monmouth, which took place during the Revolutionary War. The Battle of Monmouth  was fought in Monmouth, New Jersey on June 28, 1778. The result of the battle was essentially a draw. However, the battle showed the essentially untrained Americans were able to hold their own with the trained British soldiers. Most famously, perhaps, was that this battle is where the legacy of Molly Pitcher was born. As you can probably tell by my " pen name", I'm a big "fan" of Molly Pitcher. I played her in a play in elementary school and have been intrigued by her legacy ever since. For a little bit of background on her, here's an excerpt from a post a wrote a couple years ago:

One of the earliest prominent woman in American history is Molly Pitcher. Historians have debated whether or not such a woman ever existed or if she was merely a woman of myths--a persona attributed to all women who fought or assisted in the War of Independence in some way. Some historians, however, believe that Molly Pitcher is really Mary Ludwig Hays, wife of John Hays. She enlisted in the Pennsylvania artillery in 1778, 2 years after her husband enlisted . During the heat soaked Battle of Monmouth on June 28, 1778, Mary tirelessly provided water to the fighting soldiers, earning her the nickname Molly Pitcher. When her husband could no longer fight due to heat stroke, Mary (Molly) took his place at the cannon.[As a correction, it was not her husband who fell, but another man] This battle proved to be a strategical victory for the Continental army as it showed that the informal trained Continental army could hold their ground against the British army and was the last major battle in the northern theater. Two places at this battle site have since been deemed "Molly Pitcher Spring". She would later receive recognition from General George Washington.

Much like the weather we're seeing throughout the country this week, that day in 1778 was extremely hot as well. Mary Hays was simply doing what she felt she could to refresh the soldiers fighting that day. However, when the need presented itself, she took to engaging in the fight herself--to be a part of the fight for independence and against tyranny.

Fast forward to today. To be sure, there have been both men and women who have fought the fight against the government overreach present in the healthcare reform bill. However, it was women who have taken to engaging to the fight most passionately. Governor Palin, of course, was one of the leading voices against greater government involvement in healthcare during that healthcare reform battle in 2009; it was something she had already fought for as the governor of Alaska. She wrote against the bureaucratization of healthcare. She called for tort reform in healthcare.Of course, this was never discussed by Democrats who receive far more campaign contributions from lawyers than Republicans. She provided testimony in the New York legislature against financially incentivized  "end of life" counseling. Most famously, she spoke out against rationing of healthcare by "death panels". Two words that send the media and the Left in a tizzy to this day. However, in this "death panels" post, Governor Palin linked a video of another women, Congresswoman Bachmann, who was fighting against the rationing and warped view of bioethics present in the Obama administration:



It wasn't just politicians who spoke out against this legislation. It was everyday American men and women. They organized Tea Party rallies and made phone calls and sent emails to their representatives. When legislators went home to their districts to have townhall meetings, people let their leaders have it. This video clip from a small business owner in California went viral when she called for government leaders to respect their constituents and implement common sense reforms:

   

We will find out shortly what the Supreme Court rules on the healthcare reform bill. If they rule the entire bill unconstitutional, a victory for the Constitution will be won, and those reform minded conservatives will continue to fight for greater individual freedom and and smaller government. If parts of the bill are ruled constitutional, those women and men who fought for greater freedom and smaller government will continue to do so.  Governor Palin has already re-iterated the call for repeal if the Supreme Court upholds the law. Much like Molly Pitcher did in her day, these women saw a particular role they could play in the battle for freedom, and they did so. Lord willing, in all cases the ultimate victory lies in the Constitution.


Crossposted here and here.

Governor Palin and the Return of Jacksonian Foreign Policy

In May, Governor Palin gave a speech at a “Tribute to the Troops” event at Colorado Christian University. As part of this speech, Governor Palin outlined a clear vision of American military policy, which has now become known as the Palin doctrine by many:

There’s a lesson here then for the effective use of force, as opposed to sending our troops on missions that are ill-defined. And it can be argued that our involvement elsewhere, say in Libya, is an example of a lack of clarity. See, these are deadly serious questions that we must ask ourselves when we contemplate sending Americans into harm’s way. Our men and women in uniform deserve a clear understanding of U.S. positions on such a crucial decision. I believe our criteria before we send our young men and women—America’s finest—into harm’s way should be spelled out clearly when it comes to the use of our military force. I can tell you what I believe that criteria should be in five points.

First, we should only commit our forces when clear and vital American interests are at stake. Period.

Second, if we have to fight, we fight to win. To do that, we use overwhelming force. We only send our troops into war with the objective to defeat the enemy as quickly as possible. We do not stretch out our military with open-ended and ill-defined missions. Nation building is a nice idea in theory, but it is not the main purpose of our armed forces. We use our military to win wars.

Third, we must have clearly defined goals and objectives before sending troops into harm’s way. If you can’t explain the mission to the American people clearly and concisely, then our sons and daughters should not be sent into battle. Period.

Fourth, American soldiers must never be put under foreign command. We will fight side by side with our allies, but American soldiers must remain under the care and the command of American officers.

Fifth, sending in our armed forces should be the last resort. We don’t go looking for dragons to slay. However, we will encourage the forces of freedom around the world who are sincerely fighting for the empowerment of the individual. When it makes sense, when it’s appropriate, we will provide them with material support to help them win their own freedom.

Today, in her Facebook post, Governor Palin offered her thoughts on the recent activity in Libya, evaluating the situation realistically and cautiously and highlighting how the “Palin Doctrine” would be applied in practice. She cautioned against “triumphalism” and warned of co-opting of Libyan liberation and the future Libyan government by radical Muslim groups like Islamic Libyan Fighting Group and al Qaeda, as is being done in Syria. Much in the same way, she had warned against the takeover of Egyptian government by the Muslim Brotherhood after the ousting of President Mubarak in February. She also warned against committing troops to being involved in missions in Libya that would not be in America’s best interest, much in the same way that she blasted President Obama in April when she questioned President Obama’s lack of clarity on Libya and his decision to place US troops under foreign command. Her statement today was a weaving of multiple points of her military doctrine into a clear vision of what America’s role should be in Libya following the defeat of Gaddafi.

This once again allows Governor Palin to create a contrast between herself and the declared presidential candidates. Governor Romney made a short statement calling for the new Libyan government to allow extradition of the Lockerbie bomber to the US to bring about justice for the Pan Am terrorism from 1986. To be sure, justice is a worthy and necessary goal, but Romney’s vision is myopic. He does not offer any solutions for the larger problem of the instability in Libya. Governors Perry and Huntsman recognized the need for cautious celebration, but do not seem to grasp the gravity of the threats of who may occupy the new Libyan government. Congresswoman Bachmann continued to express her non-support for Libyan involvement and hoped for a speedy removal of US troops, but did not offer solutions for how this should be done. Leadership, though, is not about vague statements or solutions with no game plan. Governor Palin clearly outlined the problems and warnings while providing specificity, not lip service to foreign policy solutions.

This post allowed for further expansion of Governor Palin’s Jacksonian approach to foreign policy. Too often, pundits create a false dichotomy between neoconservatism and isolationism, but Governor Palin espouses neither. Her foreign policy vision is along the lines of Presidents Jackson and Reagan—“robust internationalism” as Caroline Glick characterized it in a piece at Real Clear Politics last week. Glick’s piece provides concise and clear distinctions between neoconservatism, isolationism and robust internationalism. Neoconservatives,as Glick notes, have too often (and wrongly) lumped those who take a more Jacksonian view of foreign policy with isolationists:

Neoconservative writers have castigated opponents of US military involvement in Libya as isolationists. In so doing, they placed Republican politicians like presidential candidate Rep. Michele Bachmann and former Alaska governor Sarah Palin in the same pile as presidential candidate Rep. Ron Paul and Pat Buchanan.

The very notion that robust internationalists like Bachmann and Palin could be thrown in with ardent isolationists like Paul and Buchanan is appalling. But it is of a piece with the prevailing, false notion being argued by dominant voices in neoconservative circles that, "You're either with us or you're with the Buchanaites."

Glick later notes that this foreign policy approach is like that first espoused by President Jackson and later by President Reagan, as seen by the way Reagan dealt with the Soviet Union. He did so with great strength—because America’ s interests were at stake. Glick provides a good description of this foreign policy platform, and it is right in line with the “Palin doctrine”:

According to Mead, the Jacksonian foreign policy model involves a few basic ideas. The US is different from the rest of the world and therefore the US should not try to remake the world in its own image by claiming that everyone is basically the same. The US must ensure its honor abroad by abiding by its commitments and standing with its allies. The US must take action to defend its interests. The US must fight to win or not fight at all. The US should only respect those foes that fight by the same rules as the US does.

Glick later notes that America needs a President that espouses this Jacksonian approach to foreign policy and rejects the false choice between isolationism and neoconservatism:

Still, it would be a real tragedy if at the end of the primary season, due to neoconservative intellectual bullying the Republican presidential nominee was forced to choose between neoconservativism and isolationism. A rich, successful and popular American foreign policy tradition of Jacksonianism awaits the right candidate.

Governor Palin is the one who best captures this approach to foreign policy. Although Glick characterizes Congresswoman Bachmann as Jacksonian, Governor Palin offers more specificity and fewer platitudes. She also provides more pointed solutions and a more detailed understanding of the situation in Libya than the responses of Governors Perry and Romney, thus displaying yet again the difference between responsive leadership of Governor Palin and reactionary politics of the rest.

Crossposted here.

The 2012 GOP Nomination: Only One Woman Need Apply

During an interview this weekend, Governor Romney was asked," Jon Huntsman is considering a race for the White House. Like you, he is a moderate, Mormon, former Governor who believes in anthropogenic global warming. Is there room in the race for both you?" Of course, that question was never asked. Ron Paul and Gary Johnson aren't asked if there is room for two libertarian Republicans in the race. Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich are not asked if there is room in the race for two Catholic men who spent time in the House during the 1990s. None of the male candidates are asked if there is room in the race for other candidates who are perceived to be similar.

However, today on FoxNews Sunday, Governor Palin was asked such a question:

Chris Wallace: You would seem to be closest politically of all the candidates to Michele Bachmann, Congresswoman Bachmann. You're both Tea Party activists. You're both social conservatives. Is there the room in the race for the two of you, or would you split the same base of voters?

Governor Palin: No, we have differences too. I have many years of executive experience too, and she has her strengths that she will add to the race. There's certainly room.The more, the merrier. The more competition, the better.

To be sure, Chris Wallace asked several substantive questions on subjects ranging from the debt ceiling to Libya to Medicare reform. However, those strong policy focused issues become diluted when interviewers and journalists bring up such topics. Congresswoman Bachmann herself was questioned similarly, and said that she and Governor Palin were not "interchangeable".

Journalists, pundits, and political opponents like to cast Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann as political clones and that there is not room for them both. Just as Chris Wallace did to Governor Palin, ABC reporter, Jon Karl, recently framed a question to Congresswoman Bachmann in such a way the two women "occupy the same space". Michael Reagan suggested yesterday that Congresswoman Bachmann should step in the race and Governor Palin out of the race, and Charles Krauthammer claimed it was Bachmann's turn, as if there was some kind of gender quota. As Nicole wrote recently, Romney aides desire for both women to get into the race so that Romney can juxtapose himself against the "crazy women". An aide to one of the male candidates recently stated about Congresswoman Bachmann, " [s]he basically is Sarah Palin. In terms of her appeal to a specific part of the electorate, the two are about as similar as any two candidates get."

Governor Palin has consistently stated that she welcomes competition in the race. It is best for the voters to see the character, experience, and policy stances of all who throw their hats into the ring. While Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann indeed are both women who have Tea Party appeal, their political experience differ. Congresswoman Bachmann has experience in the state and national legislatures. Governor Palin has an executive record at the local and state levels. Those with executive experience have to make sole decisions, approve or veto spending, manage staff, appoint officials, etc. In Governor Palin's case, as governor of Alaska, she held the second most powerful executive state office in the country based upon budgetary and appointment authority, veto power, and other factors. She had the power of line item veto that could only be overridden by a vote of 75% of the legislature, and she could appoint people to offices like the attorney general, which is an elected office in many other states. Additionally, it has been a hundred and thirty years since a Republican was elected President whose highest elected office was in Congress . Whether it be executive political office or executive military experience, the electorate tends to prefer Republicans with executive experience.

There are no doubt some similarities between Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann, as there are similarities amongst all of the candidates. However, to imply that only one of these women should run for President is not only absurd and sexist, it disrespects the electorate's ability to make a choice for themselves and distinguish among the candidates. Additionally, the Democrats laughably claims the GOP is "anti-women", yet this election season represents the first time two women from a major party would compete for their party's presidential nomination. What say you, libs? As Governor Palin has said, "the more, the merrier". Let these women decide their intentions, and let the voters determine their fates.

Crossposted here, here, and here.

Governor Palin Endorsees Lead the House Transition to Majority

With the GOP gains in the House last week, Republicans are transitioning into their House majority with a team of representatives facilitating this change. Four of Governor Palin's endorsees have been selected to be a part of this team:

House Republicans have tapped two newly elected congressmen who drew tea party backing in their campaigns to help lead the party's transition to power.

Adam Kinzinger of Illinois and Tim Scott of South Carolina, who won endorsements by Sarah Palin and support from tea party activists, are part of a newly named 22-member team charged with crafting new rules and smoothing the GOP's shift from minority to majority.

...

Two other freshmen, Cory Gardner of Colorado and Martha Roby of Alabama, are also on the roster.

Walden said he didn't choose the team based on whether they had tea party backing, telling reporters last week that he wasn't sure whether those he was recruiting were supported by the conservative-libertarian movement. "It's a nice cross-section of our Republican conference," he said of the group.

But it's clear Republicans are aware that the grass-roots movement that helped propel them to big wins in last week's elections will be an important part of their new House majority and bolstered Senate minority.

Congressman Walden of Oregon is acting as the leader of this team to help the GOP transition to power.While this may be a "cross-section" of Republicans, it cannot be overlooked that the four freshman House members tapped to assist in this transition were all endorsed by Governor Palin, as Gardner and Roby were also endorsed by Governor Palin. Couple this with the fact that Congresswoman Michele Bachmann is throwing her hat in the ring for GOP conference chair, it is obvious that Governor Palin chose to endorse not only strong candidates, but strong leaders. Governor Palin's endorsements made a huge impact on conservative gains in the House last week. Certain members of that House, such as Congressman Bauchus, would do well to take notice of his new colleagues, rather than wrongfully blame her for a Senatorial minority.

Crossposted here and here.

Fire Phil Hare, Hire Bobby Schilling

Bobby Schilling is running against Phil " I don't care about the Constitution" Hare for the 17th Congressional district seat in Illinois. This is another Illinois seat with the potential to flip to the Republicans. This race was highlighted by the Hill today as the "race of the day":

If there's one race that could tell the true size of the expected Republican wave this fall, it may very well be Rep. Phil Hare's reelection bid in Illinois' 17th Congressional District.

To say that Democrats began the year not worrying about Hare's reelection chances would be an understatement. The two-term congressman ran unopposed in 2008 and until earlier this month, Hare hadn't run a TV ad since 2006.

But Republican Bobby Schilling is making a race of it in the 17th and the contest has quickly moved into tossup territory.

Like most Republican challengers this cycle, Schilling has focused on Hare's voting record, tying the incumbent to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and repeatedly hitting Hare's support for cap-and-trade and the recently-enacted healthcare law.

Hare's district is telling since it's a relatively favorable one for Democrats, stretching from Rock Island in the northwestern part of the state down through central Illinois and Springfield, carefully drawn to incorporate more Democratic territory.

But between a deflated Democratic base and the national environment in 2010, the district isn't even close to Democratic enough to let Hare to breathe easy ahead of November.

Schilling hasn't garnered the full attention of national conservatives just yet, but he did win an endorsement from Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.), who said, "It's time to retire Phil Hare," in a videotaped endorsement she recorded for Schilling's campaign.

Read more here.

Here is the ad that Congresswoman Bachmann recorded for Schilling:



Crossposted here.

Michele Bachmann Forms Tea Party Caucus

Michele Bachmann has started a Tea Party caucus in the US House. Bachmann says:

“No, I don’t see it that way,” Bachmann, of Minnesota, told The Daily Caller when asked if she envisioned the caucus offering a conservative counterpoint to the GOP establishment. “I think it’s really just complementary. … Usually the purposes of the caucuses are to promote an idea or issue — whether it’s the shellfish caucus, the potato caucus, the missile defense caucus. It’s members of Congress who are interested in an idea and they want to promote it. Well, this is no different.”

The idea is for the caucus to bring in “real people from various walks of life” to speak to its members about issues resonating within the Tea Party movement. “Usually we invite experts in,” Bachmann said of other caucuses in the House. “Well, these are experts in just being regular Americans,” she said.

The Wall Street Journal reports that Mike Pence, John Carter, Pete Sessions, Todd Tiahart (who Palin is endorsing for Senate), Dan Burton, Paul Broun, and Cliff Sterns have already joined the caucus. Bachmann has also invited Speaker Pelosi to join the caucus, but no word if she has intentions of joining (read with sarcasm). The Daily Caller piece linked above also reports that Palin endorsee, Rand Paul, is planning on starting the same caucus in the Senate if he is elected.

Cross posted here.