As all writers, I keep a list of long-term post ideas. And on my list (really, I swear) was one about how Democratic women need a Sarah Palin of our own if we want to give our national political aspirations a good jump start!  Not a Sarah Palin who isn’t sure what newspapers she reads or the Sarah Palin who can’t keep three key points in her head at a time, but the Sarah Palin who seems to excite the women of her political party beyond any logical explanation.

Unfortunately, Rebecca Traister and Anna Holmes beat me to the punch. Of course, because of who they are (Traister has a new book coming out that I can’t wait to read and interview her about), they were able to get an op-ed placed in the New York Times entitled A Palin of Our Own, so their take on it obviously is going to get more traction than if little ol’ PunditMom called up those big time editors!  But their point deserves a little more discussion.

The reason I hadn’t written about this theory yet is because I was still thinking about who our Sarah Palin should be.  Would identifying a Democratic woman as our Sarah Palin be an insult? Or would it serve as a notice to Democratic women that, for better or worse, it’s not a bad thing to combine some folksy, down-home soundbites and good, old-fashioned girl connections as a way to connect with voters on a more visceral level?

There are plenty of Democratic women who are well-known and well-respected, even by their conservative opponents, like U.S. Senator Amy Klobuchar from Minnesota, U.S. Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz of Florida and U.S. Senator Kirsten Gillibrand from New York, just to name a few. These are amazingly talented, intelligent and insightful politicians. And there are plenty of us wonky types who have political girl crushes on all of them!  But, sadly, I don’t think any of them have that elusive Sarah Palin quality that makes the screaming masses go wild when she walks on stage at a speech or a rally.

One thing Klobuchar, Wasserman Schultz and Gillibrand share with Sarah Palin is that they are all mothers.  And Palin has played the mother card for all it’s worth for reaching out to her loyal minions.  But it’s not just her motherhood experience that has made the former Alaska governor the popular phenomenon that she’s become.

Palin is a combination of things that many women aren’t — she works that “I’m just a woman of the little people” angle like nobody’s business, she enjoys playing the victim in the childhood haves vs. have-nots debates, she proudly wears her opportunism on her sleeve and she isn’t afraid to get out there and sell her persona and political messages at some of the off-the-radar events.  And, somehow, that approach has successfully tapped into some voters’ personal issues in a way that makes many see Palin as a woman of the people, regardless of whether she really understands anything about how the economy works, the history of the Middle East or nuclear disarmament.

Perhaps even more importantly, Palin has become a symbol to so many Republican women who’ve been fighting for a place at the political table, but never quite seem to be able to elbow their way in. Regardless of how she comes across in terms of experience or intellect, for many GOP women, Palin was, and remains, a long drink of cool water in the desert of national Republican political involvement.

While women are still the vast minority in Congress, Republican women are the minority of that minority.  All women have a long way to go on the national political stage, but at least Democratic women have seen a couple of examples before Palin made her way out of the Alaska frontier to know that it’s possible for women to break through.  Republican women, not so much.

Traister and Holmes conclude that the left-wing is overlooking the appetite for female leadership in this country.  I learned from the research on my Mothers of Intention book (I hope I can send Traister a copy!) that they hit the nail on the head — but it’s really both major political parties that aren’t seeing it, not just the Democrats.  Another equally important factor that the Democratic leadership is ignoring is this — there are plenty of women who don’t care whether the next woman who runs for the White House is a Democrat or a Republican.  If there’s a woman candidate on the Presidential ticket, they’ll vote for her (even if it’s Sarah Palin) regardless of whether there’s a (D) or (R) after her name.

I spoke those words to room full of serious politicos at the Netroots Nation conference this summer and received a round of shouts as if I’d just said I would vote for Palin myself.  I understand that reaction, but if we ignore the reality that women have reached the end of their ropes about a lack of high-level female leadership in both parties, we Democrats will deserve what we get next time around.

I’m not saying I want any of my favorite women politicians to turn into slightly less annoying versions of Sarah Palin.  I don’t need to see any of them fishing for salmon, hunting for moose or getting all defensive about their reading material.  But for more Democratic women to move up in the ranks of leadership, we  need a woman who somehow finds a way to resonate with people in the way that Palin does, and in the way that Bill Clinton and George W. Bush did for their respective fans.

We don’t have to make ourselves out to be “mama grizzlies,” but if women want more places at the political table, we need to accept the fact that whether we agree with Palin’s politics or not, we might be able to take advantage of her populist playbook to take our rightful places at the table of political leadership.

Photo courtesy of Jezebel blog

The media love to mock women in the political world by using sexist terms that demean us and make us out to be something not worthy of serious consideration.   We saw that time and time again during the 2008 presidential election as talking heads not-so-subtly suggested that Hillary Clinton was only a viable candidate for national office because we felt sorry for her after Bill cheated on her. And instead of focusing on Sarah Palin’s qualifications, or lack thereof, as John McCain’s running mate, the media focused on her looks and questioned whether a mother of five with young children still at home was up to playing with the big boys.

There’s still plenty of that when it comes to powerful women — one of the most recent examples is an article in the Washington Post about Elizabeth Warren, where they question whether she is a “zealot” because of her passion to help middle class families in these horrible economic times.  When I see things like that, it’s hard not to wonder whether a man in that position would have been described differently — I’m betting a male counterpart would be described more positively as something like a “devoted advocate” rather than a “zealot,” which has such a negative inference.  (Not to mention the fact that the article was, yet again, another story about a politically powerful woman that got placed in the Style section.  But that’s another post for another day.)

Another increasingly common phenomenon I’ve been noticing is that some news outlets just act like we don’t exist, implying through omission that it’s just the big ol’ menfolk who are out there trying to make change, with hardly a woman to be found!

The most recent outrageous example is a Politico article entitled, More Bloggers Throwing Hats in Ring.

The article explores the “phenomenon” of political bloggers deciding to take their voices beyond the bloggy world and actually try to get elected to office.  When I learned that the piece was being written, I was excited because I know several women bloggers who are doing just that!

When I saw a call for information about the piece from someone I now know was involved in the research for the article, I e-mailed him with several names — my friend Jill Miller Zimon of Writes Like She Talks who ran and was elected to her city council last year in Pepper Pike, Ohio; my former D.C. Metro Mom blog colleague Aimee Olivo who is running for School Board in Prince George’s County, Maryland; and Ariana Kelly of MomsRising blog who has tossed her hat in the ring for a seat in the Maryland State House of Delegates.

11 men got included in the article, but only two women were mentioned, even though the reporter had at least three more names, and I’d have to bet he had more.   So I have to ask — how does that choice get made and why?  One of the men highlighted in the article is Judd Legum, who is a blogger running for the Maryland State House of Delegates.  He’s talked up in the article as a big money raiser and his head shot is prominently featured just under the headline. Yet Ariana Kelly, who is also running for that same elective body and writes for a very prominent blog and organization that has over one million members is found nowhere in the article.

If one is truly interested in writing an article that fairly represents the growing movement of bloggers running for elective office, why leave out the numerous women and pen an article that implicitly suggests it’s mostly a guy thing?  I certainly hope it’s not because these three women are moms.  Because that would tick me off even more.

When the article does get around to tossing us gals a little bone, it’s with a tone of dismissal with its offhanded reference to the recent BlogHer conference half-day session with The White House Project, that may as well have said, “Oh, isn’t it cute that those lady bloggers are starting to think about running!”

So, other than beating our heads against our computers as it becomes clear that even when we try to step up to the plate with the boys, what do we do to combat the fact that they’re just ignoring us?   I guess we keep fighting — fighting the likes of Politico, who also doesn’t seem to recognize just how many of us women pundits are out here, fighting the Sunday talk shows, fighting NPR, fighting the Washington Post and the media in general that refuses to see political women where they are.

Maybe I should send the writer and his editor each one of these hats as a little reminder?

Or I could just send them an advance copy of this little baby! As the Politico piece said in its opening line, “The blog might be the new on ramp to American politics.”  Politico is right on that one — but we “powerful blogger ladies” will try our best not to run over the menz as we accelerate past them onto the political highway!

Image of MOMocrats at BlogHer ‘10 courtesy of Stephanie Himel-Nelson

]]> http://www.punditmom.com/2010/08/whats-worse-when-the-media-mock-political-women-or-ignore-them/feed 5 http://www.punditmom.com/2010/07/sarah-palin-isnt-the-only-new-shakespeare http://www.punditmom.com/2010/07/sarah-palin-isnt-the-only-new-shakespeare#comments Tue, 20 Jul 2010 16:02:53 +0000 PunditMom http://www.punditmom.com/?p=5524 I’m not trying to make this the ‘all Sarah Palin, all the time” blog, but if Palin can have a little fun with the English language, then I guess it’s okay if we do, too!

On Twitter, Palin took to…

I’m not trying to make this the ‘all Sarah Palin, all the time” blog, but if Palin can have a little fun with the English language, then I guess it’s okay if we do, too!

On Twitter, Palin took to making a little fun of herself from an earlier tweet that’s already been deleted, saying:

“Refudiate,” “misunderestimate,” “wee-wee’d up.” English is a living language. Shakespeare liked to coin new words too. Got to celebrate it!

Now I certainly understand that one never wants to “misunderestimate” anyone for having a slip of the tongue, but even Palin supporters have to admit that comparing oneself to the Bard is over-the-top egotism, even for Miss Sarah!

But if this is the way to become more like William Shakespeare, then why not go for it!  So I put a call out on Twitter and Facebook for some new political malapropisms.  Here are few for your midweek pleasure!

My absolute favorite is from Suebob at Red Stapler blog.  She coined the term “bundit” — a political gadfly who talks out his or her butt! (I know I can always count on Suebob for things like this!)

The lovely Jessica Gottlieb likes “spier” — the act of using binoculars to guard Alaska from those pesky Canadians!

Nicurnmama on Twitter offers “STRAMAS” – the combination of stress and drama that defines our political world today.

And some contributions from Facebook include “politibunk” –  what comes out of Sarah Palin’s mouth most of the time.  And “twitwaffle” — I’m not sure what the definition of that one would be, but I think we could have some fun with it!

Move over Taegan Goddard-- this could be the start of a whole new political dictionary!

Image courtesy of Photobucket

]]>

So that left me wondering why almost all the women in Sarah Palin’s recent ‘embrace your inner mama grizzly’ video are white?

I hadn’t focused on it the first time I watched Palin’s self-promotional commercial.  I hate to give it more attention than it’s worth — apparently it’s not getting much traction (thankfully) in the blogosphere, so it doesn’t look like it’s going viral anytime soon.  But if a picture is worth a thousand words, is Palin trying to tell us that “common sense conservative” women are mostly Caucasian?  Or that you can’t have a “mom awakening” unless your skin tone really is pink like her lady elephants?  I haven’t scanned the video frame by frame, but I only caught one quick glimpse of a face that looked brown to me.

Even if Palin isn’t prepared to include mothers across either the political or color spectrum in her efforts, I’d think that as the highest profile representative of a political movement that’s fighting against claims that it’s got racist members would be a smidge more sensitive to how this rally-the-moms effort looks when we’re watching in technicolor.

If she wants to continue down this road, Palin needs to re-brand and adopt a “mama polar bear” theme, that is,  unless she’s ready to reach out to mothers of all skin tones who want to embrace their inner political wonks.

Photo courtesy Flickr/xinem photostream

I beg to differ.

“Sister” Sarah, I hate to break it to you, but nothing could be further from the truth. Can you say “Mothers of Intention?” Or MOMocrats? Or MomsRising?

And there are plenty of fabulous non-grizzly moms running for office, like my friend Aimee Olivo who’s running for her local school board.  And my friend Jill Miller Zimon who ran for and won a seat on her town council.  And Congressional candidate Krystal Ball, a Democratic mom of a toddler trying to make some headway in a really red part of Virginia.  And Ariana Kelly, who’s running for a seat in the Maryland House of Delegates.

You get the idea.

Sure, I’m glad that women, especially mothers, of all political persuasions are finding and exercising their political voices, especially the ones who realize they can do it without demonizing the opposition.  That’s why I’m so excited that over 50 amazing mothers of various political stripes agreed to be featured in my Mothers of Intention book that will be coming out late this fall thanks to the amazing people (especially Lucy Chambers!) at Bright Sky Press. In addition to great essays, the book explores the political revolution women and mothers are building online and through social media.

So I have to take exception to Palin trying to horn in on the political mom territory by implying through her rhetoric and advertising that her right-wing supporters are the ones who created this.   They didn’t.  We were out here shaking things up when she was still visiting the Beehive Beauty Shop to have her hair done in her pre-governor days.

As for the whole “mama grizzly” analogy?  Sure, mothers get riled up and all protective about things that impact their children, but we’re usually able to manage without rearing up and taking a swipe at someone.  After all, blood stains are just extra work when we’re doing the laundry! For the most part, moms are actually able to use their brains and verbal skills to get most things accomplished, including their “political” agendas.

Sarah, maybe if you tried to have an actual conversation with women about taking part in the process and engaging all mothers, not just the ones you think are like you in that ‘pioneer-woman-of-politics’ kind of way, you’d know that.  But I should stop there.  I don’t want to give you too many hints about reaching mothers who want in on changing the world.

Pondering Sarah Palin’s claim that she’s the face of the “new” feminism at my weekly column, Speaker of the House.

Trying to get my head around the fact that two-thirds of third- and fourth graders in my community are seriously lagging in their reading skills.

Hanging with my photography peeps.

And my MOMocrat pals.

Playing with my new favorite iPhone app.

And resisting the temptation to take a match to all the unfiled paperwork on my desk! 

And Sarah Palin might become President if she was actually Tina Fey …

Now how can I persuade Tina Fey to become a full time pundit?

************************************************************************************************

Sarah Palin got dissed by fellow Republicans at a recent RNC fundraiser. Meghan McCain takes heat for not toeing the GOP party line on gay marriage and for criticizing Ann Coulter. And while Sonia Sotomayor isn’t a Republican, she’s hardly the most liberal judge out there and is being attacked as if she was the next incarnation of Jerry Brown. With all these women on the short end of the conservative’s stick these days, I’m beginning to wonder if the GOP likes girls.

Sure, they have a big love-fest with Ann Coulter and Liz Cheney, two women who are adept at channeling the darkest side of Republican politics, but it seems like the GOP increasingly has a problem with women unless they agree that our country is “importing terrorists” or unless they’re willing to be mean to small children. In addition to questioning people’s political bona fides, I sense a sudden surge in resorting to petty juvenile ugliness if political women don’t agree with what are becoming lockstep GOP positions.

Conservative darling Laura Ingraham (one woman the GOP does seem to like) took her disdain of Meghan McCain to the mean girl level of suggesting that her views should be discounted because Ingraham thinks McCain is fat and talks funny. To her spunky credit, McCain finally announced that anyone who wants to mock her size can kiss her fat a$$! Sarah Palin was the next big thing for the GOP when she was John McCain’s running mate, but today the not-so-subtle inferences that she’s incapable of anything other than advocating for abstinence only sex education are hard to escape.

There seems to be a purposeful blind spot when it comes to processing anyone, especially women, who doesn’t gratefully accept the GOP wisdom that men have laid down before them and who decide that perhaps they can — *GASP* — think for themselves. Sure, it could just be that right-wingers don’t like these three women — but there’s a pattern that’s becoming disturbingly common in how some Republicans talk about women they disagree with. There is a marked increase in resorting to personal insults, mockery and language my third-grade daughter and her classmates know better than to use. Sotomayor is too judicial to say what she’d probably like to about Republican (and media) attacks that her temperament is suspect because she criticizes lawyers who’ve come before her if they were ill-prepared or disorganized when they were in her courtroom! I hate to break it to the GOP leadership, but if that’s a disqualifier, then every judge I’ve ever practiced before would be out on their bums!!

Seriously, isn’t it clear? Lots of men and some women in the GOP seem to be afraid of those who deviate from the approved party line. It’s sort of like the political equivalent of the old Saturday Night Live skit where every theater-goer, who seems to have been hypnotized, describes the bad magic show in the same words –“It was as good as Cats. I could see it again and again.” Wander from the Rush Limbaugh-approved script and you’re smacked down as a critical, short-tempered, unqualified, plus-size diva.

Maybe I shouldn’t raise the issue. If the Republican party isn’t careful with its continued slams against women who think outside the small conservative party box, it will find itself with no women other than the current handful who seem to enjoy playing the inflammatory games of Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich. As a Democrat, that’s OK with me — but I know there are plenty of moderate Republican women who are looking for a reason to stay in the party and feel like that’s becoming more difficult. If the way the party is set up now doesn’t change, all those bullies will find themselves without women voters. The good old boys are going to need those votes — unless they’re planning on cloning themselves in time for November 2012. 

Is there really anything else to say?