Posts
While I'm sure many of you have already read the news -- I figured it wouldn't hurt to share some of the results from yesterdays elections across the country on our blog.
I linked an NPR Blog post in the title that summarizes many of the results. One great quote from the blog is:
"If there's any theme that came out of yesterday, it was not a Bad Day For Incumbents. It was, instead, a Super Tuesday For Women. "
I also chose to link this article because the author includes a reflection in the last paragraph that is relevant to the theme of Congresswoman Maloney's book. The author, Ken Rudin, describes that his first on air piece was about a "Super Tuesday for Women" back in 1986 -- he adds:
"Twenty-four years later, I still remember that day, and that piece.
This year's "Super Tuesday" seems far more impressive."
Wednesday, June 9, 2010
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
6 comments:
I also thought it was interesting that the media's coverage kept stressing how successful women were in last night's elections. (Obviously they should be seen merely as candidates and for their platform before their gender is noted - no one would ever stress that the "man" won, but I'll refrain from 'going there').
In this article, Blanche Lincoln's surprising victory is noted - but not without saying that credit should be given to Bill Clinton for his recent visit to Arkansas. I, of course, appreciate the connection that he has with the state and the Lincoln family. Yet still, this situation paints a picture in my head of a man (Clinton) protecting a damsel (Lincoln) in distress from the other man (Halter). If a woman came in as a surrogate for a male candidate, I'm sure the media would make news out of it - using the situation to reflect on his manliness, or lack thereof. Off the top of my head, I can't think of Palin or H. Clinton stumping for men - although I don't doubt that it's happened - if so, do you know how it was received by the media? Did it create waves?
There are a variety of interesting issues surrounding the SC gubernatorial race. Relating to our blog posts and classroom conversations, here is a situation where a woman has been accused of adultery (we discussed how there have been many more cases of male indiscretions amongst our elected officials). There has not been concrete evidence. She's even stated that she would pull out of the race/resign if any evidence surfaced. I wonder who/why such an allegation was made in the beginning if there was no substantial backing for the claim...any ideas? I have not been following this particular race much, so I'm interested if others know more about Haley - as it relates to this "scandal."
Alex,
I'm so happy that you posted about this.
On this topic- I found a great video compilation that showcases how last night's wins were portrayed.
Take a look...
http://www.politico.com/largevideobox.html?bcpid=15202024001&bclid=1201016315&bctid=90914227001
Jena- Another interesting point about Haley. While I don't know why the point was raised- I wonder what "proof" was used to make the story sticky. Something made the allegations stick- you can't just throw something like that out there without a grain of truth. I am curious to see how this unfolds, and whether or not there is a bit of truth hidden in there.
Jena,
Really great point about Senator Lincoln and the kind of boost (and media coverage) that Bill Clinton's visit gave her campaign.
I'm sure we will talk about this point later on in the class when we discuss Hillary Clinton's run for President -- but I think the general refrain from her campaign was that Bill was much less of a helping hand and much more of a hindrance. Obviously it is a different situation when you are married to the person campaigning than when your main relationship to the candidate is Former President and "Arkansas'favorite son."
Like Sabrina, I am also very interested to hear how this potential Haley "scandal" plays out -- even though a large part of me wants to say "who cares?".
Tuesday's primary elections are a hot topic. There were two articles that caught my attention. The first one appeared in The Washington Post edition dated June 10, 2010 and is titled "In primaries, female candidates didn't make gender an issue." The article points out that the candidates made minimal appeals to some traditional women's issues. Further, it states that the candidates' gender never became a big issue. Author Anne E. Kornblut explains that "Tuesday's elections put on display the increasing diversity of female candidates, as well as their growing resilience." To check out the entire article, please visit http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/06/09/AR2010060905118.html.
The second interesting article was posted on MSNBC.com on June 9, 2010. The article is titled "Year of the political woman redux? Despite their strides, politics remains a man's world." This piece includes some considerable stats such as 17 women are in the Senate, 75 in the House. Most importantly, the article states that "politics remains a man's world." It serves as a reminder that although prominent women everywhere are making significant advances in politics, we still have a long way to go. According to AP writer Liz Sidoti, "Again it's a change election - and women represent change. Two years ago, Sarah Palin was the first woman on a Republican presidential ticket and Hillary Rodham Clinton came tantalizingly close to winning the Democratic presidential nomination. Today, two women sit on the Supreme Court and a third, Elena Kagan, is likely to join them." To view the full article, see link below. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/37591574
Jena -
On this comment: "Off the top of my head, I can't think of Palin or H. Clinton stumping for men - although I don't doubt that it's happened - if so, do you know how it was received by the media? Did it create waves?"
Sarah Palin has definitely been stumping a lot this election season and of course whereever she goes, so goes the media. Here are a few examples: http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2010/03/sarah_palin_stumping_for_john.html and http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/07/12/palin-plans-stay-politics-stump-republicans-democrats/ It's hard to compare her to anyone else though because of her unique ability to attract media attention. She's sort of a lightening rod right now.
For Hillary, I wish we could see more about those examples but I suppose since she's in a government service position now, she can't enter into the political discussion as easily as she used to.
I think however that the real test would have to be in comparing a former female president to a former male president - unfortunately the closest test we have are those examples of Palin (above). And frankly, because women in presidential politics is so rare, I doubt any comparison between the two would be useful until being a woman in politics wasn't half the "story" already.
On a related note, I remember Geraldine Ferraro being a blessing and a curse at some times on the Clinton campaign. She was obviously a trailblazer for women in national/presidential politics, but often her ideas on gender roles and politics (which probably would be welcomed in a class such as ours!) were actually a hindrance as well. Just a thought...
Rep. Gresham Barrett, who is in the run-off with Nikki Haley in SC, just released this campaign ad:
While I understand that he is trying to relay that he's a conservative who is going to instill conservative values on the state, I can't help but wonder if the general appearance of this ad appears overly masculine...? Would he run the same ad if he were running against a man? Always using the word 'man'..."military man who makes tough decisions...Christian family man who won't embarrass us." What do you think?
P.S. I think that the fact that they are attacking Haley's family values is particularly interesting since the winner of this race will replace Gov. Sanford...
Post a Comment