Palin vs. Edwards

[Anonymous]

But OP, you're still not getting it - it is not indicative of double standards or sexism to suggest that Palin is less experienced than Edwards was in 2004. It's not about talk shows. There is a qualitative difference between X years' experience in the Senate and X years' experience as an elected official in a tiny town. I say this as someone from a tiny town. Edwards was taken more seriously - though not as seriously as someone with a lengthier track record - precisely b/c he had dealt with the critical issues of our time, to paraphrase Charles Krauthammer's column today, during his six years in the Senate. He served on two important committees - Intelligence and Judiciary, introduced legislation and dealt with everything from internet security to Iraq war to immigration. Palin oversaw a town of about 5,000 at the time of her mayoralty, which is about twice the size of most of the public high schools in this area. The two experiences are NOT equivalent. I am not (and was not) an Edwards fan -- I think he was a lightweight then and a liar now -- but I think you are wrong to interpret the criticisms of Palin on grounds of her lack of experience as sexist.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:But OP, you're still not getting it - it is not indicative of double standards or sexism to suggest that Palin is less experienced than Edwards was in 2004. It's not about talk shows. There is a qualitative difference between X years' experience in the Senate and X years' experience as an elected official in a tiny town. I say this as someone from a tiny town. Edwards was taken more seriously - though not as seriously as someone with a lengthier track record - precisely b/c he had dealt with the critical issues of our time, to paraphrase Charles Krauthammer's column today, during his six years in the Senate. He served on two important committees - Intelligence and Judiciary, introduced legislation and dealt with everything from internet security to Iraq war to immigration. Palin oversaw a town of about 5,000 at the time of her mayoralty, which is about twice the size of most of the public high schools in this area. The two experiences are NOT equivalent. I am not (and was not) an Edwards fan -- I think he was a lightweight then and a liar now -- but I think you are wrong to interpret the criticisms of Palin on grounds of her lack of experience as sexist.

Okey doke. Seems to me like the bar on DCUM, at least, is higher for a far-right Republican woman than for John Edwards, but it may be that I just don't get it. Perhaps ideology and sexism have nothing to do with it. Or perhaps the actuality is a more subtle blend of influences and truths than you're willing to acknowledge. I usually think it's important to examine our knee-jerk reactions to anyone, whether a politician or the parent of another kid in our child's school, to determine what we bring to the interaction. A little self-reflection can add a lot to our political discourse.

BTW, Joe Biden hit every major talk show yesterday to to say that Palin is being subjected to sexism.

[Anonymous]

How about comparing her to Carter or Clinton, who were also governors of mostly rural states? There was a time when governors and generals were far more likely to get nominations, but Kennedy seemed to set a new precedent that has taken hold to the point that the vast majority of candidates are now from Washington.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:How about comparing her to Carter or Clinton, who were also governors of mostly rural states? There was a time when governors and generals were far more likely to get nominations, but Kennedy seemed to set a new precedent that has taken hold to the point that the vast majority of candidates are now from Washington.

OP here. Certainly the arguments that applied to Carter and Clinton are legitimately applied to Palin; the key argument against them was that they lacked experience in foreign affairs. Of course, those two were running for president, while Palin is running for vice president.

I don't know the history exactly, but I think governors or former governors are often more successful in reaching the presidency than senators are. Anyone know the count on that?

[Anonymous]

Seems to me like the bar on DCUM, at least, is higher for a far-right Republican woman than for John Edwards, but it may be that I just don't get it. Perhaps ideology and sexism have nothing to do with it. Or perhaps the actuality is a more subtle blend of influences and truths than you're willing to acknowledge. I usually think it's important to examine our knee-jerk reactions

Or maybe you are just determined to see sexism as paramount, for reasons I don't understand?? No one is arguing that sexism isn't playing a role in the coverage writ large -- certainly the discussions about her looks are hugely sexist -- but as with your earlier post trying (unsuccessfully) to equate her credentials to those of Bobby Jindal, you are really stretching it here. In terms of preparation for the second highest position in this country, Palin's service as mayor of a town of 5,000 people is simply not the equivalent to serving in the US Senate. You can try to argue that experience is irrelevant (after all, there is the Cheney example), but it is objectively a weak point to her candidacy -- as many Republicans have already acknowledged. Moreover, to suggest that Palin should be insulated from any criticism on substantive grounds, including that of her lack of experience, is patronizing and demeaning to all those of us who want to be treated as equals.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Seems to me like the bar on DCUM, at least, is higher for a far-right Republican woman than for John Edwards, but it may be that I just don't get it. Perhaps ideology and sexism have nothing to do with it. Or perhaps the actuality is a more subtle blend of influences and truths than you're willing to acknowledge. I usually think it's important to examine our knee-jerk reactions

Or maybe you are just determined to see sexism as paramount, for reasons I don't understand?? No one is arguing that sexism isn't playing a role in the coverage writ large -- certainly the discussions about her looks are hugely sexist -- but as with your earlier post trying (unsuccessfully) to equate her credentials to those of Bobby Jindal, you are really stretching it here. In terms of preparation for the second highest position in this country, Palin's service as mayor of a town of 5,000 people is simply not the equivalent to serving in the US Senate. You can try to argue that experience is irrelevant (after all, there is the Cheney example), but it is objectively a weak point to her candidacy -- as many Republicans have already acknowledged. Moreover, to suggest that Palin should be insulated from any criticism on substantive grounds, including that of her lack of experience, is patronizing and demeaning to all those of us who want to be treated as equals.

Good heavens. I don't see sexism as paramount. I asked about Jindal because I was unfamiliar with his full background. I could have googled him instead, but I was interested in perceptions as well as facts. I also made clear the fact that I don't consider serving in the Senate to be equivalent to service as mayor of a town of 5000 (or of 9,000, which is the actual population of Palin's hometown). Of course her lack of experience is, objectively, a weak point of her candidacy. I also happen to think Edwards also lacked experience, except in the "perceived experience" sense that Jeff defined. I have never suggested that Palin be insulated from criticism on substantive grounds. I have suggested that her daughter's pregnancy is not substantive grounds.

Maybe in your professional field women are always treated as equals. In mine, which is academe, empirical studies clearly indicate that women with children are not treated as equals in the sense that they are significantly less likely to receive tenure than men with children who have equivalent credentials. I'd love to be treated as an equal, believe me. I imagine in your field you haven't been asked in interviews how many children you have and if you intend to have more. At least in my corner of the working world, sexism persists. If that's not true in yours, more power to you.

[Anonymous]

I didn't argue that women are treated equally in every/any profession or that the world is perfect -- just that defending Palin by calling every criticism sexist is both inaccurate and unhelpful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I didn't argue that women are treated equally in every/any profession or that the world is perfect -- just that defending Palin by calling every criticism sexist is both inaccurate and unhelpful.

OP here. I have not once suggested that "every criticism" of Palin is sexist. On the other hand, you seem to be saying that none of the criticisms of Palin are sexist. When we ask questions of Palin that we would not ask of a man, that's sexist. If we have different standards for women than for men, that's sexist. If we criticize women in ways that are related to their sex rather than to their actual qualifications, that's sexist. When the media decide that Palin's daughter's pregnancy or an unfounded rumor about her son's maternity are news that should actually have an influence on voters' decisionmaking, but John Edwards' lying about and financially covering up an affair while running for president are not news, that's sexist.

If you see absolutely no sexism in the media coverage of Palin, you're not paying attention.