Like Liz and Ashley, I have long disdained the electoral college, though it's rumored to have a purpose. I believe that purpose is to try to prevent candidates from targeting specific demographics and overlooking others. I do not know enough about political science or campaigns to know whether this is a reasonable assumption. I did, however, find Dr. Hillygus' discussion of the narrowly-targeting mail propaganda to be quite fascinating. My household has been getting propaganda from both campaigns; the fact that my father was, many years ago, registered Republican seems to be causing an influx of letters that identify him as a loyal one. I wonder now whether they know he has 'crossed over', but are using that past knowledge and perhaps a knowledge that he has worked with Republicans in our district (while advising the Democrats that run against them), to try to enact medicare reform, as a basis for sending mail that they hope will sway him to the other side.
On the subject of votes counting, I really do have reason to hope that this year mine matters, as the state of Colorado is so up-in the air. The lecture did, however, give me reason to be nervous, as I was taking solace in the extent of Obama's lead in the polls. However, McCain and the online and televised chatter about his campaign seem to be on a continuous downward spiral, between the lambasting of the money spent on Palin's wardrobe and this week's racially-charged hoax that even Fox News said, before it was revealed as a hoax, could spell the end of McCain's campaign if it was discovered to be such.
Speaking of Palin's wardrobe, anyone have any thoughts on whether this discussion is sexist? She certainly thinks it is, but then again, she only seemed to start thinking media commentary was sexist once applied to her.
Does it matter if the question is less about what she is wearing then the misuse of funds by the RNC to dress her as such? I think it does. But then again, perhaps the fact that they spent so much money to make her appear presidential but attractive is sexist in and of itself. Granted, all presidential and vice-presidential candidates need to put on a certain appearance. But does it reflect negatively on a campaign that's touting it's VP nominee as 'the hot chick' to spend 150K on clothes and pay her make-up artist from Dancing With The Stars the highest salary of anyone on staff?
Granted, I have often thought the media portrayal of female politicians such as Hillary Clinton and Condoleeza Rice have been more than a little bit sexist. At least Palin's being referred to by her last name, a respect that has often been accorded to neither of these other women who, in my estimation, are ten times smarter and more deserving of respect than she. I thought the attention paid to how much cleavage Senator Clinton was shown was outlandishly sexist. So is it my disdain for Palin that makes me less inclined to see this as such? Perhaps, but I really do think that this is something different. In this case, like so many other times since Palin was chosen as McCain's VP-nominee, I feel like the 'sex card' has been thrown out there to try to avoid a real critique of the candidate and her backers--in this case, an outlandish, frivolous use of funds, which should raise eyebrows among donors, as well as an American public caught in the midst of a major economic downswing.
On another, very different note, to supplement the 2 hours I spent on Hank Eng's campaign, I spent 2 hours on the Driscoll Bridge tabling for NARAL (I hope to add another hour or two next week). I was heartened when several women came past and thanked me and my fellow tabler, a similar reaction I got while carrying a No on 48 yard sign to the car about a month ago. I was also heartened by a group of high school boys touring DU who were so pro-choice that they threw our pamphlets back on the table when, in the jumble of trying to explain things to them, they misinterpreted us and thought we were a pro-life/anti-choice group. It's nice to see men, even and especially men that young, taking a stand on women's rights.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Hey Raishel,
Just wanted to compliment you after your blog. I always enjoy reading your opinions. In response to your comment about wardrobe funds,... sheesh! In addition to that, I was completely unaware of the whole make-up artist ordeal... but it figures! That is crazy!
Anyway, I just wanted to note that the other day while talking to my boss at work we were discussing the same ordeal. It is interesting how the media's portrayal and public opinion differ so drastically between various public figures. For example, a while back when John Edwards spent $400 on a haircut everyone was appalled but yet Palin is getting away with such an extravagant new wardrobe and makeover simply based on the ideal that she needs a good image and how she is wanted to represent the party and her supporters. At the same time however I thought it was ironic how my boss, a very strong Obama supporter, came across a picture of him with his feet up on a desk exposing the worn soles of shoes and a comment beneath the picture noting that he has already re-soled them twice. Therefore with all this considered, what is this election boiling down to?
Post a Comment