Progress in Politics Forum

I'm sitting in the Butler Board Room at AU waiting for the "Progress in Politics Forum" to begin. The forum is sponsored by Women's Initiative and Students for Hillary and will feature 3 AU professor panelists: Sarah Brewer, Allan Lichtman, and Barbara Palmer. According to the AU Student Government Web site, the forum "will examine and discuss the past, present and future of women in American politics from a historical, political and feminist perspective."
These issues are important to expanding the diversity of political debate in America today. The increasing influence of women on the political process has the opportunity to transform political dialogue. This is especially relevant in light of Nancy Pelosi's recent election to Speaker of the House and Hillary Clinton's bid for the oval office in 2008.

The panel is beginning without Allen Lichtman, who failed to show up.
Director of Women & Politics Institute Karen O'Connor is moderating the discussion.

While the panel covered a broad range of topics from the first congresswoman (Jeanette Rankin, first elected in 1916) to the term of former supreme court justice Sandra Day O'Connor, I'd like to focus mainly on the panel's discussion of Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, and the challenges facing women running for national office today.

Palmer discussed whether we, as a country, have gotten past referring to Pelosi as "Nancy Pelosi, the first female speaker of the house," and now think of her only as "Speaker Pelosi." Palmer said when a journalist recently asked her this question, she was inclined to say yes, we have gotten past it, but then she recalled an instance this past summer when the media had a ball covering Clinton's cleavage. Often, the media will cover female politicians' clothes and families far more than they will for male politicians.

I find this appalling, and really, really annoying. Focusing on personal matters and fashion choices obscures the real issues at hand. Though Brewer said in the panel that Clinton does not get as much of this because she has been on the national political stage for so long. However, women's professional dress is a lot less standard than men's (I guess a blue suit and red tie wouldn't fly with Hillary. I know it wouldn't with me!), so we have a lot more room to be creative. Of course, this can create a distinctive look that some wayward journalist might actually think is newsworthy

Back on Pelosi, Brewer said that it is her duality of female stereotypes that contributed to her success.
"She's not the iron lady, but she's not just the grandma that everybody likes," Brewer said, citing Pelosi's traditionally masculine approach to leadership.
"Don't get me wrong, the fact that she's a grandmother of five is the reason she can get away with this.... shes a great transitional person in my mind," Brewer added.

After the panel, I asked Brewer and Palmer whether they thought a single, childless woman could succeed in politics without appearing too masculine. To me, it seems to be a lose-lose situation set up by gender scripts. Either you are weak and nurturing, unable to stand up in a political battle, or too hard and career driven, with no family values. In that case, you probably must be a lesbian too.
Brewer and Palmer cited two examples of young, childless women who have put their political careers first and are meeting with early success: Congresswoman Hilda Soliz of California, and Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth of South Dakota.
However, whether these women or others like them will be able to overcome these hurdles in campaigning for higher offices remains to be seen.

Finally, one interesting point the specifically applies to the topic of presidential debate is how a female candidate can appear strong and tell the American people what they want to hear. Many people seem to have doubts about how a woman would behave in the role of commander in chief. Palmer discussed a question asked at one of the earlier democratic primary debates. The moderator asked what each candidate would do if terrorists carried out 9/11 style attacks on major U.S. cities during their term. Obama and Edwards both said they would investigate who really committed the attacks before responding and would discuss options with foreign allies. Bush, Palmer added, would probably have said the same thing if he had been asked. However, Palmer said Hillary responded that she would bomb them off the face of the planet.
"I don't know if thats what she'd really do, but that was the answer that people wanted, and she got it right," Palmer said.

Does being a woman mean you have to give up what you may really believe in order to appear stronger, less "womanly?" Do women have to give up more to run a successful campaign than men?

Interactivity

"Renewing" political debate...
I've tried to always stay on track with my blogs, and not wander too far from our class blog's actual mission. Inspired by the words of Newt Gingrich, my posts have concentrated on either debate topics, or on actual political involvement. How responsive the 2008 presidential candidates are with their constituents, how they interact with the media (whether they use it to their advantage or not), and how they embrace technology.
Consider this post my "midterm blog." It'll focus on the involvement of the candidates. Before this semester I had never blogged, or even spent a notable amount of time at someone else's blog. Now I recognize that it is a useful tool in the ever-growing technological age. This post is going to demonstrate (hopefully) all that I have learned about blogging this semester (labeling, adding pictures, etc...)
...
I wanted to get the attention of the people that this blog is actually about - the presidential candidates. I figure the best way to contact them is in an informal way, one in which they are likely to respond. Now, I know that the candidates themselves may not be the ones checking their MySpace accounts everyday, but I went out and friended 16 of them anyway.
As for the democratic candidates, I checked the profiles, and requested friendship with democratic candidates Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Christopher Dodd, John Edwards, Mike Gravel, Dennis Kucinich, and Bill Richardson. For republican candidates, I friended Sam Brownback, Rudy Giuliani, Duncan Hunter, John McCain, Ron Paul, Mitt Romney, Tom Tancredo, and Fred Thompson.
Once they confirm the friend requests, I'll be able to post on their walls, and send them messages...this is where I'll send them a link to our blogs and ask them to take a look, and maybe even write a quick response to some of their favorite posts.
It's encouraging to know the candidates have learned where to find the young voters, and are now trying to reach us at OUR level. They have accepted the fact that they must come to us, and the Internet is the easiest way to reach the Y generation.
Their participation in the YouTube debates (YouChoose '08) is only one example of their efforts to reach a wider array of voters; the fact that almost every presidential candidate has a MySpace profile is another.
The candidates whose names are linked above, were chosen because I felt their MySpace profiles were the best of the 16 that I checked out. They (or someone working for them) took the time to make their profile as user-friendly and interactive as possible. The three I linked were chosen based on several criteria: the last time they checked/updated their profile, how long their "wall" was, the personal information they included, and how much interactive/informational "stuff" they had in their profiles.
Actually as I'm blogging right now, Dennis Kucinich is online.
So, if the candidates are going online for the sake of our generation - we'd better meet them there. I've learned that it's possible to make my voice heard, and intend to do just that when I contact the candidates. I don't expect them to respond after just one post on their "Wall," which is why I'll try to contact them through their homepages, and maybe if I get brave enough.. I'll post a video on YouTube.. Who knows..

When I Grow Up, I'm Going to Be the President of the United States

Today, when I sat down to relentlessly scour through the internet in search of political fuss, I decided to start at the most obvious place – The Washington Post. To my delight, I stumbled upon a handful of interesting clips from several Democratic Presidential Candidate debates (and by “interesting” I mean they were sub par as far as entertainment goes). The clips were, however, very informative, and it is always fascinating to me how candidates interact with each other during a debate. Sometimes, you could cut the tension with a knife. And when they disagree with each other, or discuss the way their plan of action severely deviates from that of the person to their right, I can’t help but laugh. They are forced with the awareness of onlookers to go about doing it ever so politely, almost through gritted teeth.
What I found most interesting about the debates that I watched, and something that I hadn’t noticed before, was each and every candidate’s tendency to discuss their future in the White House as if it was a definite. Using phrases like “when I am in office” and “when I am inaugurated in January of 2009,” they each made it seem as if they had already been elected. At one point in one of the videos, the candidates were discussing their intended approach for exiting Iraq if elected, former Senator John Edwards began to say “if I am elected in 2009” but quickly corrected himself and stated “when” instead. Is this some sort of strategy that I’m missing the point of? One could argue that they’re attempting to exude confidence, but honestly, I think it’s rather distracting when I’m trying to learn about their objectives for my nation’s future. Give the self-assurance a rest and focus on trying to convince me that you deserve my vote.

Commissioning the Presidential Debate

For years, presidential debates were sponsored by the networks and the League of Women Voters. However, for every debate since 1988, including the upcoming 2008 debates, the Commission on Presidential Debates has had control of the debates.
The Commission, formed of bipartisan members, gets to decide who can debate, where the debates will be held, and who will moderate them.
According to Common Dreams, the Commission has a history of advocating for an even stronger, more defined, two-party system. When Ross Perot joined Clinton and Bush the First in the 1992, the networks experienced record-breaking audiences. While this increase in viewers is likely due to the novelty of a three party debate, at least it got more people to pay attention.
Maybe a little more novelty is what we need. The presidential debates today are boring to everyone who isn’t a political geek, and most of them already know the candidates’ positions.
Why not allow the candidates to ask each other questions, to rebut each others’ assertions, to discuss topics at length? And why not – get your tasers ready – let the audience participate? Would it be a little disorganized? Sure, but debate should be disorganized, and no important issue fits neatly into a nice, 30-second box.
Of course, this would require the Commission, so invested in maintaining the status quo, to either open its mind or step off. A number of citizen’s groups have advocated just that. Check out the Citizen’s Debate Commission (http://citizensdebate.org), which proposes a new way to run the debates.
Need more reasons why this system needs to change? NPR commentator Connie Rice has 10.

WhoseTube Debates

A few months after the Democratic YouTube debate and a few months before the Republican, now is as good a time as any to reflect on what exactly is the point of these Web 2.0 inspired debates. Are they really holding the candidates accountable to the voters, or are they merely a hip charade?
According to YouTube, "This is your country, and your presidential debate." However, the YouChoose '08 site goes on to say that the CNN political team chooses which videos will air, a method out of line with the Web 2.0 modus operandi. Why not decide by votes? Comments? Clicks?
Perhaps CNN and YouTube are trying to assuage the fears of candidates such as Mitt Romney, who said, “"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman" (see the WaPo campaign blog The Trail on Aug. 12). Romney was referring to a global warming question asked by a snowman at the Democratic YouTube debate.
Does Romney really have any reason to be afraid? After all, what difference it make if a kid with MacBook asks the questions instead of an experienced moderator if the candidates still respond with the same boiler plate talking points and are never held to their words?