Biden vs. Palin: Where was half the population?
Astonishing. Women are more than half the population. Yet the vice-presidential debate, which featured a woman running for the VP, and moderated by a respected female journalist, barely even mentioned any of the issues that concern female voters.
Amazingly, it was Sarah Palin who uttered the words "women's rights" as part of her robotic explanation as to why the world doesn't like the United States. Sen. Joseph Biden, who authored the Violence Against Women Act, hardly took the time to stress the significance of what he had achieved.
And though Biden briefly mentioned the Supreme Court and Roe v. Wade, which made abortion legal in the U.S. in 1973, the moderator, PBS's Gwen Ifill, never asked these two candidates their views on women's rights to make their own reproductive choices.
Palin, as everyone knows, is against women's right to make those choices. Yet Ifill spared her public moment of having to tell the American people that she supports anti-abortion policies.
Of course Palin was spared much, much more. But for this very brief piece, I simply want to register my astonishment that no questions were asked about abortion, women's reproductive health care, equal pay for women, child care or family friendly policies.
Yes, there's an economic collapse. Yes, we're mired in two disastrous wars. But not every woman is a hockey mom. Most women, including mothers, however, are genuinely worried about the minimum wage, keeping their jobs, finding child care and many other issues that daily affect their lives.
Both parties know that in the end, it is women who will swing this election. Might be a good moment to start speaking to them.
I like Palin's glasses but not those Naughty Monkey Double Dare Pumps.
I'm voting for Obama.
October 3, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
I may have been a bit hasty. Last night's pumps were an improvement.
I'm reconsidering.
October 3, 2008 4:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is not a topic without more serious merit, I think. It harkens back to Pat Nixon's "good Republican cloth" coats, but the theme has been reversed. Can you think of any Dem women who wear the dominatrix spikes during important political events? Remember the todo about Condi Rice's spike heel boots? Think Palin's dressers have that in mind?
October 3, 2008 7:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Suit was a bit frumpy, at least for your average, every day run-of-the-mill dominatrix, don't you think?
October 3, 2008 11:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh I put that one as run-of-the-mill Margaret Thatcher dominatrix. And mho, it doesn't fit/sit well. Doesn't fit with down-home just folks persona. Taken as a whole package, there's none of the "Margaret Thatcher: gay icon" there, which Condi also has. You know, looking back on the debate, throw it all together, makes me start thinking the Sarah Barracuda nickname is all pretend dress up (which beauty queens, like drag queens, train themselves to do,) and not all that accurate.
October 4, 2008 12:23 AM | Reply | Permalink
P.S. Before Ruth Rosen and others get too steamed about our little sub-thread, let me say that I don't find the topic frivolous at all. It interests me along these lines. And I believe it interests campaign teams just as much, ala the infamous suggestion that candidate Al Gore should wear more earth tones.
October 4, 2008 12:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
Taken as a whole package
Did you see the editor of the National Review Rich Lowry's reaction to Palin's whole package.
He's smitten. :-)
October 4, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with the general point, but Biden did describe his Violence Against Women act in some detail (at least 20 sec worth or so). I also think he briefly mentioned McCain's vote against equal pay for women (or that he was against the Ledbetter decision, don't recall his exact words). Palin's only mention was generic ("hockey moms", talking with soccer moms about the economy). I'm surprised "social issues" (e.g. abortion) did not get much attention since that's where the tickets differ sharply, even if they are not high in importance this year (thankfully).
October 3, 2008 4:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I simply want to register my astonishment that no questions were asked about abortion, women's reproductive health care, equal pay for women, child care or family friendly policies."
The full on specular gynecological assault on Palin the second she was nominated had me crossing my legs and covering my private parts. It made me want to go crawl in a hole. I'm glad Ifil didn't conjure it back up.
I think we need a much broader definition of what women are supposed to be interested in.
October 3, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is funny. The day after the debate we get posts on TPMCafe by a veteran's advocate who wants to know why the candidates were ignoring veterans and now we get Ruth Rosen on the candidates ignoring women.
I want to know why the candidates haven't dealt with bloggers who have Ric Flair avatars! We're people too, you know and we vote.
And by we I mean me.
October 3, 2008 5:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
I have to be honest and object to the idea that little or nothing in the debate last night was of sepcific concern to women. Seems to me it all was of interest to women and men alike. Additionally, the ghettoizing of a set of issues as "women's" issues is offensive to me. It is particularly offensive to me when it comes to issues having to do with families as though families are the exclusive or somehow "proper" concern of women as opposed to me and that men have little or no concern for such things. That's hogwash that patronizes both women and men IMHO. Like men don't care about or aren't concerned with the very same issues are concerned about when it comes to the care of their small children while they work? Every family is concerned about that, not just the women in them.
It's true that the issues that a subset of liberals have clung to and claimed as "women's issues" was not the hard focus of the debate last night, but so what? Despite it's importance, many citizens are tired of having to obsess about the abortion issue and of having to make every election a test on that issue. We all know where we stand on that. Nobody is going to change their minds on the issue. Other "reproductive" issues too, are not only not the exclusive concern of women, but they are also mostly the kinds of issues that some people love to focus on but that few people are undedicded about. Everyone who is truly interested in those isssues is well versed on where the candidates stand on those issues and nobody is going to be changing their minds on them.
Everyone has their own point of view based on their own demographic characteristics including gender, but the issues dominating this election and the minds of all voters are a great deal broader this time and I think all for the better. Whining that because those or similar issues weren't the focus and thus women as a group of voters were somehow ignored (or more accurately were not sufficiently pandered to)is silly.
October 3, 2008 6:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
I felt the same way. The mere mention of the "VAWA" by Biden reminded me of why I cannot vote for a ticket that includes Biden. My 401K is evaporating and I will be working into the grave as a result, but I must also be reminded of federal legislation built on the stereotype of men as nothing but perpetrators? No thanks! I was unaware that McCain had voted against this offensive legislation until Biden told us the other night - makes me reconsider my decision to go third party!
October 4, 2008 4:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
Your beef is with Gwen Ifill, she chose the questions.
October 3, 2008 7:47 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was going to post that. Ifill was awful.
I would have preferred Margaret Warner. She tends to more substance and less horserace/power stuff than Ifill on PBS. Not that it would have made that much difference given one of the terms of the debate was no follow up questions. OTOH she would have probably blinked at some of the answers as much as Katie Couric which would have been sort of entertaining.
October 4, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Emma,
re:
given one of the terms of the debate was no follow up questions
I hated that, too. First, it naturally takes away from an idea of a debate, and is just an invitation to speechify. It was like any old interview by Gwen Ifill, but even limiting her to no follow-up. Which of course was fully taken advantage of by Palin's trainers--they taught her some speeches on every possible topic they could think of and clearly told her to use those anyways if they didn't apply to the question. Joe Biden did a magnificent job in that situation, the best possible in a very bad situation, of countering her when she did that with disinfo included, and then squeezing in an answer to the actual question as well. (It was particularly amazing for him, because he loves speechifying, so he showed that he can really apply discipline to himself if the stakes are high.) But what all of that produced is a lousy debate for the viewer.
October 4, 2008 11:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was hoping Ifill would ask them if they thought vasectomies should be illegal. My position is that no man should be allowed to get a vasectomy, except in cases of incipient rape. I had hoped to see a vigorous debate on this topic, but, alas, it didn't happen.
October 4, 2008 12:44 PM | Reply | Permalink