Blogs and Stories
Palin's Smart Move
Melissa Golden / Rapport Press
Sarah Palin’s shocking choice for the Alaska Supreme Court has some asking if she’s pandering for 2012. Elaine Lafferty, former editor of Ms. magazine, on why we’re underestimating her once again.
Back in October, I visited these pages to offer what I thought was a rather modest posit —the notion that Gov. Sarah Palin was not a complete moron. I suggested, further, that my sister feminists might consider the possibility that the woman was being treated rather harshly by the media in displays of unmistakable sexism, and that we might defend the woman even as we disagreed with her. (And oh the glee when it is a woman who hurts another woman! Brava Katie Couric! Hail Tina Fey!)
What did this mean? Was Palin now pro-choice? Or becoming cynically centrist as she plotted her path for 2012?
This wee proposition earned me—predictably—excommunication from segments of the Feminist Synod, cries of “traitor,” heartfelt suggestions from the blogosphere that were inarguably and imaginatively anatomical and—less predictably—furtive sotto voce communications from some feminists who said, in essence, “You go girl!” (To be fair, there was a smattering of reasoned and friendly disagreement… if two emails constitute a smattering.)
So yesterday morning the BlackBerry started insistently vibrating across the nightstand, and this time it wasn’t the usual overnight Wall Street Journal alert that the Asian markets were collapsing. No, this was bigger. Gov. Sarah Palin had appointed Morgan Christen, a 47-year-old female judge, to the Alaska Supreme Court, only the second woman to be named to such a position in the 50 years of Alaska’s statehood. But wait! Ms. Christen’s appointment had been opposed by the right wing, opposed by the state’s social conservatives, because Christen was a liberal who had served on the board of Planned Parenthood. The Alaska Daily News headline was “Palin Bucks Pressure in Supreme Court Appointment.”
What did this mean? Was Palin now pro-choice? Or becoming cynically centrist as she plotted her path for 2012? I loved hearing from writer Katha Pollitt, “Cynical and opportunistic is better than a die-hard religious fanatic who sticks to her guns no matter what.”) Or Gloria Feldt, former president of Planned Parenthood, who wondered if we might be “witnessing the education of Sarah Palin” even as she doubted it.
So, of course Sarah Palin is not pro-choice. But she is now, as governor of Alaska, what she was before the presidential campaign: a pragmatic conservative politician who largely governs from the center. She is opposed to abortion, but it does not inform every decision she makes. Done with playing the good soldier for McCain’s right wing on the campaign trail, she is back to being who she is.
Here is the question then: Why do we demonize or worship certain charismatic female politicians, projecting either our most unrealistic hopes on them or our worst fears? Palin got caught in this, and the McCain campaign was clueless even as they watched it happen. This “love her or hate her” business isn’t good for women. It sidelines them as the now-familiar “polarizing figures.” If Hillary Clinton hadn’t had to focus so much on simply not being “polarizing” while she was trying to get her message out, she might be president today.
Gov. Sarah Palin appointed Morgan Christen to the Alaska Supreme Court because she believed Christen was the best person for the job. Feminists should be happy. Next month, Palin will probably do something we don’t like. Either way, she isn’t our nightmare any more than she is our dream come true.
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
John Talks Joe
Lloyd Grove is editor at large for The Daily Beast. He is also a frequent contributor to New York magazine and was a contributing editor for Condé Nast Portfolio. He wrote a gossip column for the New York Daily News from 2003 to 2006. Prior to that, he wrote the Reliable Source column for the Washington Post, where he spent 23 years covering politics, the media, and other subjects.
Why America Must Learn to Bow
Martin Jacques is the cofounder of the UK think tank Demos, writes a regular column for The Guardian, and is a visiting research fellow at the London School of Economics Asia Research Centre. His new book, When China Rules the World, is available now.
Going Rogue: The Index
Christopher Buckley's books include Supreme Courtship, The White House Mess, Thank You for Smoking, Little Green Men, and Florence of Arabia. He was chief speechwriter for Vice President George H.W. Bush, and is editor-at-large of ForbesLife magazine. His new book is Losing Mum and Pup, a memoir. Buckley's Daily Beast column is the winner of an Online Journalism Award in the category of Online Commentary.
The Woman Who Should Have Won Obama's Nobel
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Why White Guys Are Doomed
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Is Sotomayor Getting Palin-ed?
Elaine Lafferty is a former staff correspondent at Time magazine and the Irish Times, features editor at More magazine, and editor in chief of Ms. magazine. She is co-author of My Turn at the Bully Pulpit with Greta Van Susteren.
Ok I agree.
Palin isn't a COMPLETE moron.
Wow. I think I experienced a moment of not completely loathing Sarah Palin.
If Sarah Palin tries to run in 2012, I don't eve think she will make it through the Republican primaries, much less win. She attracted to much controversy in the election of 2008 to have a chance. Maybe if she had waited, and gained more experience, she could have stood a chance in 2012. And if anyone enjoys blogging check out asol.org. It's a great website.
This is what I never understood about fellow feminists. If they had bothered to really explore who Palin was they would have seen a more centrist figure. Instead they jumped on the bandwagon to destroy her b/c she dared to not abort Trig.
This comment has been removed by The Daily Beast's editors.
"Gov. Sarah Palin appointed Morgan Christen to the Alaska Supreme Court because she believed Christen was the best person for the job."
Ms. Lafferty,
Oh, please. This appointment had
e v e r y t h i n g to do with Ms. Palin's image as a "hard-core-joe-six-pack" stalwart member of the Republican Party which was thrashed and is now in shambles. She will do
a n y t h i n g that pushes that image to the left.
Underestimating Palin! Now that's rich. She helped lose the election for McCain. How is it that you seem to think she is some powerhouse in American politics? Her unfavorable ratings are higher then her favorables.
Do you have any evidence whatsoever to back up your bare assertion that Palin (or any politician) appointed Christen (or any nominee) "because she (or he) believed [that individual] was the best person for the job"? Is there any reason to believe that is not a pure rhetorical flourish in this particular case? Some facts (beyond gender and attitude toward abortion) might help.
Thin, very thin.
But I am grateful for small favors, whatever their motivation.
--The Wise Bard
And Lafferty, why do you omit the fact that you worked for McCain in this article???????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? ??????????????????????????
After reading this I...nope, still loathe her.
Is criticizing Sarah Palin akin to sexism? Please tell me how the criticism of her was unfair?
If anything I felt the criticism of her was too nice. Case in point: her interviews with Katie Couric. Never once was there criticism levied in those interviews. She was simply asked questions and she couldn't answer them in a clear, concise or even intelligible way. She's not stupid but she sure sounded stupid given her "word spray" talking technique.
thank you for this information. very interesting!
Either way she's scary. You act as if pandering to the right-wing base is acceptable behavior in a national election . . . that we shouldn't take her stated positions seriously. Sorry, I do, and it has nothing to do with her being a woman. She was frighteningly uninformed and the hubris she exhibited in accepting the nomination . . . in believing she was ready to lead the nation . . . revealed fatal character flaw. I really hope the nation doesn't forget this and write off the wave of revulsion to misogyny.
sarah palin/paul ryan 2010
palin / eric cantor 2010
I still disagree that we underestimated Palin. No one doubts that she is a hard worker--an unbelievably hard worker. No one doubts that she is a decision maker. We know this about her.
But what troubled me then, and what will take a long time to change my mind probably, is that she knew anything about what the needs of this country actually were, or anything about foreign policy. Let's be honest about that.
I am a woman who dislikes Sarah Palin as a politician. It is not just because I disagree with her on policy. It is because she was snarky and rude about things in which she is uninformed. She said things that were dumb and dangerous. She said a large number of things that exposed exactly how superficial her understanding of And I do not forgive her for that, and I will not forget that. (Just as I am that way with men who do the same thing.)
As to why she would appoint this judge--maybe it was for reasons that had nothing to do with the abortion debate. Has anyone ever considered that?
The last sentence of this article says it all " Either way, she isn't our nightmare any more than she is our dream come true." I agree. She's insignificant. Why write an article about her then? I wish women like Lafferty would stop trying to defend Palin, or make her into something important. She doesn't deserve any special consideration just because she's a woman. We need highly qualified people in politics. Stop comparing her to Hillary.
The misogynistic element never flew for me as regards Palin. I'll grant that she had some unfair attention given to her looks - but so did Obama.
I don't like the woman. I think she's conniving, not intelligent enough to think on her feet (something all politicians, much less presidential candidates, sorely need), vicious in her career-climbing, and too blinded by religion to seek out any real data to back up her spurious moral opinions.
Those traits would be equally objectionable in a man. And they would be terrible traits for a presidential candidate. Why must everyone insist that I don't like Palin because she's a woman? I don't like Palin because I find her repugnant. If you could program a man to do all of her talking and acting for her, I'd find that man repugnant too.
One more thing: why do people keep insisting that the left (feminists re: cuppajo's comment) judged Palin harshly because she didn't abort her baby? There were a couple of blogs that put that stupid cr*p up, but I think most of us couldn't have cared less.
That was a story line cited by the right constantly to make the left look like monsters. It just doesn't fly.
Most feminists were upset because they felt Palin would restrict access to abortion for other women, not because of Palin's own personal choice.
My problem with Palin simply stems from the gleeful ignorance she displayed. The joy in confronting befuddling questions with folksy "Golly! I'll have to git back to ya on that!"
Couric did not harm her, didn't even ask her anything hard. Fey did what SNL does to everyone, skewered them. To call them to fault for treating Palin like everyone else shows how specially and delicately you really thing women should be treated. As for her SC appointment, politics as usual. It hold dome kind of advantage for Palin. It's the only reaon she does anything. She is power-hungry.
Brava, Palin! Actually, I think Palin was always pro-choice in the truest sense of the word - she just personally chooses not to have abortions no matter what the circumstances. I never believed she was out to make abortion illegal. Not like most Republicans.
Here is a person trying hard (so hard!) to believe that her party is has not become the haven very only white male frat boys and all that brings along. It is strange that what starts with spot on analysis (Palin, with an eye on 2012 picks a centrist -and a woman!- for the state supreme court) dithers to the pick being 'the best choice' and that Palin isn't anymore 'our nightmare'. Now Morgan Christen, Palin's pick, may be the best, but who would know from this whimpy piece? Finally, the biggest problem Republicans have is that Dems do not underestimate Palin's political savvy. Of course, Bush was also politically savvy, but see where someone who's too ignorant to know what they don't know got us? This is the uphill battle the GOP faces with Palin as top choice. Palin is a moron, just not in politics.
I think by the time 2012 rolls around we will not be concerned about a religious fanatic who shoots animals from helicopters (as a choice for president). We will probably be wondering which republican should be next to be sent to prison for making us stand in line at the soup kitchens.
I think Palin/Limbaugh would do well in the next election and bring in a majority of Independents and most likely a slew of Democrat's.
I'm guessing they could probably pry away quite a few black voters since their rhetoric is so appealing to African Americans.
Ms. Lafferty lost me at this:
" (And oh the glee when it is a woman who hurts another woman! Brava Katie Couric! Hail Tina Fey!)"
To blame these two women for hurting Sarah Palin (like Ms. Palin was in no way responsible for her own inarticulateness) suggests Ms.Lafferty is a typical GOP shill, and nothing more.
No need to read the rest of the article.
Palin's embrance of Joe (not) the Plummer, her repeated accusations of Obama's "paling around with terrorists," her expertise on Russian affairs because she could see Russia from her window, her inability to cite a single newspaper or magazine she read to keep up on current affairs, her total lack of knowledge of Supreme Court decisions, and on and on ad nauseaum. PLEASE. Don't try to blame women for rejecting Palin's bid to become a world leader! Put the blame where it belongs. On Palin herself and also on McCain who somehow thought she was ready for the job.
Thank you.
As a first time user, your comment has been submitted for review. It can take anywhere from a few hours to a day or two for your comment to be reviewed, depending on the time of week and the volume of comments we receive.
Please log in to leave comments.