The scrutiny of the candidates’ spouses is a traditional sideshow in the summer of a US election, but this time it has added spice, because the discussion of what kind of woman the country would prefer to stand beside the guy taking the oath of office occurs after a campaign that rejected the most plausible female candidate for presidency there has ever been.
Four election cycles since she traded cookie recipes with Barbara Bush in an attempt to deflect fears about her feminism, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is forced to watch Michelle Obama going through the same process simply to gain a non-elected job that becomes available only through an accident of marriage.
The Democratic candidate’s wife appeared on The View, a US talkshow with an all-female panel, in what looked like an attempt by her husband’s media strategists to soften her image and correct an impression of black, leftwing militancy that has been spread on the web and picked up in other media.
We have come to accept that presidential candidates will have to address “character issues,” but to watch their partners being spun — and, in this case, specifically home-spun — induces fresh levels of depression with the political process.
Commendably, though, Michelle Obama went sufficiently off-message to suggest that she believes Clinton to have suffered from sexism. Well, she should know: The same prejudice led to the need for her to make this appearance.
The sexual politics will become even more noxious if Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama opts for a woman running mate. Sharing the ticket with Clinton seems unlikely, but Kansas Governor Katherine Sebelius is a possibility. If the job were offered, though, the governor might want to think hard about whether politics is ready for a gender shift, even in this secondary position. Has there been any progress in the quarter-century since Geraldine Ferraro made history as the first female vice presidential nominee, but failed partly because of suspicion over her marital finances?
Clinton didn’t lose the Democratic nomination because she was a woman: It was her misfortune that her run coincided with the offer of an even more progressive and historic candidate. But it’s clear from the campaign that, even now, non-male contenders have to face pressures that are never suffered by men: an antiquated, muttering sub-debate over how they dress, speak, feel and whether they provoke castration complexes in the male population.
US broadcaster Katie Couric, the first full-time female anchor of a nightly news bulletin, this week posted an angry video blog suggesting Clinton lost partly because of “the continued and accepted role of sexism in America — particularly in the media.”
Clearly, there was a testy empathy in Couric’s words, as she may attribute her low ratings at CBS to the possibility that a section of the population not only doesn’t want a woman in charge of the country but won’t even tolerate a woman reading out the facts about what the men who run the nation are doing.
Even so, only a redneck who’s had too many beers could seriously argue with Couric’s central point. There was chortling reporting of placards at Clinton rallies reading “Iron My Shirt,” and novelty Clinton nutcrackers on sale at airports. Yet public expression of similar prejudice toward Barack Obama — signs, perhaps, reading “Shine My Shoes” or keyrings with simulation shackles — would, quite properly, lead to front-page outrage and criminal investigation.
Racism is no longer publicly acceptable, although Barack Obama’s polling performance in November may show if it remains privately an issue in the US. But sexism is permitted to thrive both overground and underground. The sad spectacle of a Democratic candidate’s wife having to “reposition” herself on TV in case she threatens his electoral chances, shows us that US politics still has a problem that is not being addressed.
The fundamental unfairness is that visible political wives are accused of stridency and interference, while invisible ones are criticized for failure to stand by their men.
In Britain, comparison between the administrations of former prime minister John Major and Prime Minister Gordon Brown, has become standard — house price crisis, record poll lows, turning to jelly on the telly — but there is another similarity. Their wives Norma Major and Sarah Brown are private people.
Norma Major, though, despite what we later learned to be tension in their marriage, was eventually forced to hover at John’s elbow for photo-ops and give interviews supporting him. And, intriguingly, the Downing Street press machine enthusiastically spread the news recently that a banquet for US President George W. Bush had been largely organized by Sarah Brown, who was credited with selecting the menu.
So Sarah Brown is good with food and Michelle Obama is not a “femi-nazi.”
The fact that such reassurances are still thought necessary is far from reassuring.
There is much evidence that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is sending soldiers from the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) to support Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — and is learning lessons for a future war against Taiwan. Until now, the CCP has claimed that they have not sent PLA personnel to support Russian aggression. On 18 April, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelinskiy announced that the CCP is supplying war supplies such as gunpowder, artillery, and weapons subcomponents to Russia. When Zelinskiy announced on 9 April that the Ukrainian Army had captured two Chinese nationals fighting with Russians on the front line with details
On a quiet lane in Taipei’s central Daan District (大安), an otherwise unremarkable high-rise is marked by a police guard and a tawdry A4 printout from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs indicating an “embassy area.” Keen observers would see the emblem of the Holy See, one of Taiwan’s 12 so-called “diplomatic allies.” Unlike Taipei’s other embassies and quasi-consulates, no national flag flies there, nor is there a plaque indicating what country’s embassy this is. Visitors hoping to sign a condolence book for the late Pope Francis would instead have to visit the Italian Trade Office, adjacent to Taipei 101. The death of
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT), joined by the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), held a protest on Saturday on Ketagalan Boulevard in Taipei. They were essentially standing for the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), which is anxious about the mass recall campaign against KMT legislators. President William Lai (賴清德) said that if the opposition parties truly wanted to fight dictatorship, they should do so in Tiananmen Square — and at the very least, refrain from groveling to Chinese officials during their visits to China, alluding to meetings between KMT members and Chinese authorities. Now that China has been defined as a foreign hostile force,
On April 19, former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) gave a public speech, his first in about 17 years. During the address at the Ketagalan Institute in Taipei, Chen’s words were vague and his tone was sour. He said that democracy should not be used as an echo chamber for a single politician, that people must be tolerant of other views, that the president should not act as a dictator and that the judiciary should not get involved in politics. He then went on to say that others with different opinions should not be criticized as “XX fellow travelers,” in reference to
RSS