Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Conversation | 11/07/2008 5:00 am

Post-Election Postmortem: Did the Election Help or Hurt Women in Politics?

JOAN:  I think it will dismember it; she appeals to the majority of the base. The base is 28 percent of the American electorate. And that means all the intellectuals in the Republican party who have already turned on her will not support her. I think it would be cataclysmic for that party, but I don’t think it will happen. She may try, but my bet is she would not make it. And, of course, four years is a lifetime in politics. We have no idea what … who the country would see as a potential leader by then.

JANE: I don’t think she will last. I think she’ll fade. Or she’ll go back to Alaska. Maybe if she does something stunning there. But she does have charisma. And when I first saw her, I thought she was like Jean Arthur in topsy-turvy versions of her movies, didn’t you? I mean, she seemed to have charm. And her speech, I thought, was so well delivered that I thought she was a star.

MARLO: She is a star.

JANE: She is a star. Exactly.

MARLO: And she’s funny. And she’s brave and she’s bold.

JANE: She is brave. I know.

MARLO: She’s very brave and bold and she seems fearless.

JANE: We want that from a woman.

JOAN: She’s also ignorant and maybe stupid. I mean, many people who know her don’t think she’s terribly smart. She’s quick. She’s a quick study.

JOAN: She has no depth of interest in anything.

JANE: And I think her ambition is what made us turn on her. Her ambition to take this kind of job or to take this kind of position, knowing that she’s not prepared for it, or not right for it. 

MARLO: What about Dan Quayle? I mean, he wasn’t qualified or right. I wonder if anybody has the guts to say, “No, I’m not qualified.” Dan Quayle didn’t think he was.

JOAN: He had two terms in the Senate. I don’t think he saw himself as unqualified. He knew the issues a whole lot better than Sarah Palin. He had no presence.

JANE: He couldn’t spell potato and he couldn’t think on his feet

MARLO: But I don’t think he was an overly intelligent fellow. I kind of see them as the same, in terms of the grasp of the issues and ability … well, actually she’s a better speaker.

JOAN: She has a lot more presence. He was never a star. She’s a real star.

JANE: Do you think she tarnishes, enhances or has any long-standing impact on the idea of a woman as a president or vice president? I don’t think she’s helped the cause.

MARLO: I think in the wake of Hillary, Palin’s a non-issue. I just think that Hillary is such a qualified human being, whether you want her for president or not, whether you’re a Republican or Democrat, but she’s a very qualified human being, and held her own on that stage with all those guys, all those men, in all those debates. Sarah Palin could never do that.

JOAN: Yeah, but I think she has moved the needle, as Hillary did. I think it will be far more common, in the future, to have a woman on the ticket if the man is a candidate; that will not be as rare as it has been. And I think both Hillary and Sarah in particular, oddly enough, because she came out of nowhere, whereas we all knew Hillary. She wasn’t exactly the woman candidate. She was “Hillary Clinton.”

272 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

James the Game
I don’t know who transcribed the interview, but it should’ve read “Bay” Buchanan, not Babe Buchanan. Ha! In my opinion, Sarah Palin would be wise to wait eight years to run for president. That would give her a ton more experience, whether as Alaska’s governor, or, perhaps, as a U.S. Representative or Senator. The experience factor is the 800-pound gorilla in the room, whether she’d be running against an incumbent president (Obama), a former First Lady/U.S. Senator (Clinton) or just about anyone else. If she runs in 2016, Palin could very well win. But I give her no shot whatsoever in 2012, if she runs. However, she could run with an experienced Republican in 2012 as a running mate, and have a much better shot than she did this year. In other words, by 2012 Palin will have more experience, and, if the economy’s still bad and so forth, whoever heads the Republican ticket (Romney, e.g.) would have a better chance against the Democatic nominee (probably Obama). That’s only if Obama’s approval ratings drop drastically by 2012.
By James the Game on 11/07/2008 1:59 pm
Emcye Edwards
But it reminds me of the story of Pocahantus and John Smith. With all her promise as a symbol of ‘conversion’, she intervenes to save his life. He thanks her with a gift of blankets, infested with smallpox. Kills most of the tribe. Churchill called it ‘intentional infection.’ Thanks for the blankets, John.
By Emcye Edwards on 11/07/2008 2:04 pm
Wine Warrior
Terrific metaphor, Emcye….so right.
By Wine Warrior on 11/07/2008 2:44 pm
Star Lawrence
Golly, I surely hope this isn’t “it” for another African-American to be president once the socks come off your hero’s feet of clay.
By Star Lawrence on 11/07/2008 2:32 pm
starry Nite
Golly, I surely hope this isn’t “it” for another African-American to be president once the socks come off your hero’s feet of clay. By Star Lawrence on 11/07/2008 3:32 pm We keep electing white men who have feet of clay- why should it be any different for African-American ?
By starry Nite on 11/07/2008 10:38 pm
Maurine H
Star - you have such a good mind and quick wit, and I wish you’d just get beyond your bitterness and contribute something positive. Obama has been elected President, whether you like it or not. Can’t you accept that fact and move on?
By Maurine H on 11/07/2008 11:09 pm
Star Lawrence
Obviously he has been elected. But your suggestions aside, as I said earlier, I am the loyal opposition and won’t let up for a minute. Have you seen the YouTube clip of the Newsweek editors admitting they don’t know this man at all and he is “creepily manipulative.” I cancelled my Newsweek after 40 years of subscribing for the very reason that they promoted him totally way beyond the bounds of decent journalism. Same for MSNBC, as we have discussed—Matthews said it was his JOB to make this man succeed. His job! Well, it’s not jis job and my job isn’t to fade into the wallpaper because this man has been elected. Whether I continue to come here or not, I don’t know—maybe occasionally—but I think I can find more productive venues for my findings as time goes on.
By Star Lawrence on 11/08/2008 10:25 am
Maurine H
OK, Star, we will always be on opposite sides politically, I know. But if you invest all your energy in going after Barack Obama (and to what avail? You want him impeached before he even takes office?), you’ll miss an opportunity to be an effective voice for the opposition. I just can’t figure out what your goal is. Look around. This is a country in deep trouble, economically, psychologically, spiritually. President-elect Obama has given people some hope and belief that we can get through this period in history, difficult as it may be. Check out the reaction from the rest of the world. People are encouraged by this election. None of that would have happened had John McCain been elected. I took the time to write to you because I know you are smart (and I’m notoriously intolerant of stupidity) and your opposition can be constructive. But if it’s entirely focused on a personal dislike, almost to the point of hatred, for the President, you’ll be spinning your wheels and after awhile people won’t listen to you.
By Maurine H on 11/08/2008 11:21 am
Star Lawrence
Obviously I feel otherwise as do hundreds of people I know. We consider it our duty as Americans to take up where the press has failed and will do so with gusto. As I said, I think this man is a phony, I have said all along someone is behind this (where is Gov Dean these days? Hmmm), and I intend to investigate, oppose and speak until I am hauled off to Camp x-ray or someplace. But—-I wil try to spare this list—many of you are not critical of this situation. It’s OK—some of us are.
By Star Lawrence on 11/08/2008 2:26 pm
Marjorie C.
Star: Newsweek editors admitting they don’t know this man at all and he is “creepily manipulative.” Meacham, Evan Thomas and Charlie Rose, all nodding heads in agreement and finding it all so amazing. The day Charlie Rose falls off the bandwagon will be the day I start watching him again. When I receive my copy of TIME, I toss it unread. That’s a subscription I’ll not renew. The can all go belly-up with the NY Times.
By Marjorie C. on 11/08/2008 11:57 am
Star Lawrence
Washington Post was down 85% in thge last quarter! I have mixed feelings as a reporter. I love newspapers. Always have. The whole mess is sad…
By Star Lawrence on 11/08/2008 2:30 pm
Cynthia Schultz
We understand that the women of integrity, preparedness and ethic who have led the way are our models for our future in any capacity. I believe that Palin’s candidacy will have helped future elections in the respect that any future candidates will be more prepared. Particularly women. It is going to be the case for a long time that women will be scrutinized and bias will be made against, on topics men sail through. It is reality that has subtlety in our society to this day. Its an easy one to miss, but is reflected in the basics like pay, no matter the genesis or reason behind it. My guess is that anyone male or female looking toward a future in public office is looking at updating skills as we muse about it simply because the intense scrutiny will follow them for a long time. Memory is funny though, it will be interesting to re read these conversations when she or another like her makes an appearance on the world stage again. I loved the comment made by Gloria Steinem wondering whether Palin questions why she was used in such a way-but don’t we teach people how to treat us? Maybe trivializing, but true none the less.
By Cynthia Schultz on 11/07/2008 2:32 pm
iris odonata
It neither hurt nor helped. It both hurt and helped. It gives us the opportunity to learn from the event. Obviously, The United States is willing to be ready to have a woman as candidate for presidency. Right now, there are women all over this country who will be dissecting the brilliance of the Obama campaign for pointers, just as his team used Rovian tactics (the good ones) this time. We demonstrated that we clearly want maturity of bearing and vision in our elected officials. We want to participate and share in moving this ideal forward. Only we, can choose to be hurt or helped by this. Was I at first disappointed that it wasn’t Hillary? Yep, yet one trained missed doesn’t mean another one’s not coming.
By iris odonata on 11/07/2008 2:51 pm
iris odonata
Oops: that should read, one train missed. Forgive my Sarah Palin moment.
By iris odonata on 11/07/2008 2:54 pm
Wine Warrior
Forgive my Sarah Palin moment.” LOL
By Wine Warrior on 11/07/2008 3:21 pm