Posts Tagged ‘Hillary Clinton’

Keep Your Eye on Jenny Sanford

Sunday, January 31st, 2010

Jenny Sanford, soon-to-be ex-wife of Governor Mark Sanford, is a person to watch. She’s an interesting character, emerging from the shadows as a traditional political wife only after her husband publicly destroyed their marriage.

Politico covered an event where Sanford urged conservative women in South Carolina to run for office:

“Women understand the conservative issues as well as any man. We run our households and our families, and we don’t live beyond our means,” Sanford said to a room full of the state’s most powerful Republican women, according to the first lady’s notes of the speech, which were obtained by POLITICO.

“We balance our checkbooks as we seek balance in our lives. We care about our security, health and well-being, quality education for our children and hope for their future,” she added. “We need more women and more true conservatives involved in all levels of government to bring common sense and efficiency to our big, bureaucratic government.”

Now if Sanford does take a more public role, it will be interesting to see how the media and left-wing women react. Will she be Palinized? By all accounts, she seems genuinely conservative. However, she had a successful career in investment banking and went to Georgetown. The “she’s a stupid beauty queen” line won’t work on her.

She endorsed Nikki Haley, a very conservative candidate for governor that Red State supports. She didn’t take the Hillary Clinton approach of standing by her man to jump start her political career, yet she’s garnered a tremendous amount of praise from both sides. Much like another conservative woman from Alaska, she was profiled in Vogue.  Right now, the media has labeled her as the good guy in the marriage debacle. Will the love affair with Sanford end when they realize she’s a conservative endorsing pro-life candidates? The media loves to build up a person and then tear him or her down. Is Sanford a future victim?

Her new book comes out this week. That looks to be an interesting read. Keep your eye on Jenny Sanford. She’s planning something.

You Betcha Palin’s Admired

Wednesday, December 30th, 2009

And now more completely unsurprising news about Sarah Palin…

She’s the second-most admired woman in the country after Hillary Clinton. Per Politico:

When Gallup asked 1,025 adults nationwide to name the woman they admire most, 16 percent picked Clinton. Palin was the only other woman to be mentioned by at least 10 percent, being selected by 15 percent of those surveyed.

Clinton has been in the public eye for nearly 20 years now, whereas Palin a little over one. Given Palin’s grassroots following, no. 1 book, and unbelievably successful booktour, this is not a big surprise. Honestly, this poll is probably more of an indicator of who’s been in the news the most. Top of the Ticket notes that Clinton has been ranked since 1993, the year she moved into the White House:

Clinton first headed the list in 1993 as the new first lady in the White House.

And she remained highly admired as first lady throughout the public and private turmoils of her husband’s two terms, then as a senator from New York and now as the nation’s 67th secretary of State, only the third woman to hold the post.

All this despite  — or actually perhaps because of — her brutal, toe-to-toe, sometimes bitter Democratic presidential primary contests against Barack Obama in 2008.

What is surprising is the nose dive that Oprah and Michelle Obama took. Oprah got 8% and the FLOTUS just 7%. Oprah topped the poll in 2007 with 16% of the poll. Is the era of Oprah is finally ending?

Oprah hasn’t been in the news as much as Clinton or Palin, but Mrs. O has. Is the FLOTUS could be seeing a reaction to the over-the-top coverage and lavish lifestyle she’s enjoyed this year. By my count, she’s graced the cover of around different magazines this year, everything from Vogue to Prevention.  She’s certainly been in the public eye, yet Rasmussen reported this week that her approval ratings are down from a high of 67% to 55% (via Top of the Ticket).

Now approval polls for a First Lady are largely pointless since she doesn’t run for office, but they do reflect how the Americans feel about the “heart” of the presidency. The role of the First Lady has been dramatically different over the years. Eleanor Roosevelt and Hillary Clinton took on higher profile roles than Laura Bush or Nancy Reagan. Michelle Obama seems to be striking a balance between Hillary Clinton and Laura Bush.

This doesn’t mean that the office of the First Lady isn’t powerful. The issues she champions recieve a tremendous amount of media attention. However, is she championing the right issues or is she using the right methods to raise awareness? Her efforts to get Americans to eat healthier and get more exercise are admirable, but growing an organic garden comes across as elitist to many. “Organic”, “renewable” and “green” are very charged words, and I write this a Crunchy Conservative who supports those efforts.  Staging a hula-hooping photo-op makes her look silly regardless of the cause or situation. She’s also had a number of fashion faux pas that I’ve covered here that Laura Bush never encountered.

Another Day. Another Liberal Hypocrisy

Tuesday, December 15th, 2009

Every so often, I’m reminded of the hypocrisy of the left. For example in 2007, Condoleeza Rice was attacked for not having children. One year later, feminists questioned if motherhood hampered Palin’s abilities to govern.

Palin was also attacked for using a ghost writer for Going Rogue when Hillary Clinton had one for It Takes a Village, and no one on the left complained.

Anyone else confused?

Today, I ran across an editoral by Daved McGrath attacking Palin’s use of the feminist label. While I have my own issues with that movement, try to notice the glaring hypocrisy:

As usual, she talks a different game. In her vice-presidential debate with Joe Biden in the fall of 2008, she identified herself as a feminist, asserting she supports equal rights for women. She pointed to her own experience to prove women can “do it all.”

In reality, women in American have been “doing it all” long before Sarah Palin was born. As early as 1960, 40 percent of women with school-aged children were keeping a house while also working outside the home. The figure is 70 percent today.

This is interesting. According to all women’s movement lore, women did not experience liberation until 1963 when Betty Friedan published The Feminine Mystique. In 1960, three years before publication, women were still toiling away in their suburban living rooms feeling oppressed. Hmmm…. Perhaps McGrath and the feminists need to get on the same page.

Also note that women “doing it all” is still a very intense debate. Google “Mommywars” if you want a taste. When Palin invoked those words, she showed that she’s like most other American women who are struggling to find balance in their lives.

McGrath continues:

Frontiers for rights for women, as articulated by the National Organization of Women, have extended to abortion and reproductive rights, economic justice, lesbian rights, bringing an end to sexual discrimination, promoting diversity and ending racism, stopping violence against women, immigration reform, and public health care.

Palin is anathema to nearly all these goals…

So “frontiers” for women’s rights also happen to mirror the agenda of the Democratic Party? Coincidence?

What happened to other “frontiers?” I thought “frontiers” meant achievements and recognitions of women’s progress not the current progressive platform. What about all the firsts from Republican women? Reagan appointed the first woman to the Supreme Court. Condoleeza Rice was the first female National Security Advisor. Palin was the first female governor of Alaska and the first woman on the ticket for the GOP. Jeannette Rankin, a Republican, was the first woman in Congress starting in 1917. Early Suffragists Lucy Stone and Mary Livermore were also Republicans. The Republican Party was also the first party to support the equal rights of women.

When are feminists and the larger left going to get it. You either have it one way or the other. Women were either oppressed by their suburban houses in 1960 or working. When it’s convenient, these issues are rallying cries for more laws to be passed. When conservatives and Republicans (not necessarily the same thing) are actually doing something productive, these are suddenly non-issues.

When did frontiers for women mean gay rights, multiculturalism, immigration and socialized health care? All of those are liberal issues, not just women’s issues.

The Fragmentation of Women’s Politics

Saturday, November 28th, 2009

After finishing Going Rogue, I immediately delved into You’ve Come A Long Way, Maybe by Leslie Sanchez. After reading a few critical reviews of her book on feminist blogs, I was intrigued.

Bottom line, this is a definite read. Sanchez takes a much more nauanced view of feminism and modern electoral politics. As a Republican Latina and DC insider, she has a unique take on the role of women in politics and examines the quest for getting a woman in the White House. Unlike many other conservative books, she doesn’t waste half of it continuing the “feminists are the cause of all that is evil in this world” mantra. Instead,  she analyzes Hillary Clinton’s campaign, the effect of Sarah Palin and compares Michelle Obama to other First Ladies. She also asks key questions that I’ve been wondering, such as why do feminists hate conservative women like Palin who represent views such as mine and what will it take to get a woman elected POTUS?

Throughout the book, I scribbled and highlighted notes. She provided some perspectives that I’ll be thinking about for a while. She wrote a grownup book that doesn’t take potshots at disagreeing sides. I rarely find books like that. While she does disagree with liberal policies that feminists take, she doesn’t demonize them.

I spend a lot of time attacking feminism on this blog, but this doesn’t mean that I don’t agree with some of their positions or value what they’ve done for women in society. I am thankful that I had an opportunity to play sports in high school, vote, pursue my education and a career, and I don’t fear being a victim of sexual harassment. I’m thankful that I earn the same as my male peers and didn’t find my job under the “female jobs wanted” section. I appreciate that I can sit in a meeting with other men working in politics and my opinions and talents will be respected. Those are the positions of feminism which I agree. What I don’t understand and what I spend so much time writing and Sanchez devotes a significant part of her book questioning, is “why do feminists hate conservative women?”

After examining a number of polls and surveys, interviewing advisers and pundits from all across the spectrum, Sanchez wrote a statement that deserves further study and gets at the essence of the women’s movement problem:

However deep into Clinton’s psyche these voters may have wanted to go, what I am taking away from all the polls and comments is that women want to vote for other women who reflect their own life experience — perhaps a bit chillingly — are suspicious of a woman who has opted to follow a path too far departed from the one they themselves have chosen. And they are particularly unforgiving of a candidate who would go so far as to disparage the lifestyle that they  themselves have chosen: it’s my contention that Clinton has never really been forgiven in some quarters for the “cookie” comment. It lost her the support of women who actually had stayed home and baked cookies –and enjoyed doing it.

(more…)

The Most Hated Group in America

Tuesday, November 3rd, 2009

An interesting post on Alternet calls out a hypocrisy on the left that I’ve often noted: it’s ok to slander conservative women.

From the Playboy article this summer to the recent comments made by Alan Grayson, to the left it’s ok to use profanity when righ-of-center females are in question. Between all of the feminist blogs, books and articles that I read, I get the picture that the most hate group in the country are women who refuse to be liberal. Tana Ganeva writes:

When Alan Grayson called a female corporate lobbyist a “K-Street whore” — and was attacked as crude and sexist at the same time that he was lauded as gutsy and honest — he played a role in a familiar script: hero of the left (MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann, Bill Maher) attacks female villain (Hillary Rodham Clinton, Sarah Palin, Ann Coulter, Michelle Malkin) using sexist language. Progressive feminists soul-search about liberal misogyny. Mainstream media talk about sexism for 5 seconds. Then the media move on, and no one learns a thing. Repeat.

To a certain extent, I get it. The 24/7 news cycle makes ad hominem attacks necessary. When all you have is a :30 second sound bite, do you go for the attack or make a rationale point? The right is just as guilty (albeit without the profanity) as the left. We don’t have time for a lengthy scholarly debate. Civility has never existed in politics, we’re just more aware of it now due to our media-saturated society.

(more…)

CosmoCon Archives
@AdrienneRoyer
Recently @ CosmoCon
  • Blogs Have a Carbon Footprint?
  • What Strange Wedding Traditions Have You Seen?
  • Abortion Insurance?
  • Storm the House on March 16
  • A Reality-Based Women’s Movement
  • CosmoCon Queue: 3/9/10
  • What about these Vols?
  • News of UT’s DegreeGate Spreads
  • Obama’s Bill Still Funds Abortion
  • Interview with the Washingtonian.com
  • Top ten attacks on conservative women…that you never heard about
  • When Political Blogging and Church Collide
  • New Comment Policy
  • Now it’s wrong to cook?
  • UT Just Permanently Lost a Donor
communications