Shelly Mandell, president of Los Angeles chapter of the National Organization for Women: “I am outraged by the new ad put out by Barack Obama. It is sexist and demeaning to women. These tactics started with Hillary Clinton and continue, growing even more disgusting with Gov. Palin. I was a Hillstar for Hillary and an avid supporter. Trashing two women clearly in a sexist manner in one election is an outrage and must be identified and stopped. There must be consequences. Let female Obama supporters take a good look at this and still believe their candidate supports women’s rights and women’s dignity.” This is just one of the prominent women in the Democratic Party whose outrage is expressed on the ABC blog I found this on.
(read comments and watch the ad here)
We talked a lot in our class about whether or not the media (be it comedic skits such as Tina Fey on SNL or news coverage) and the campaigns’ treatment of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin could be considered sexist. One of the things we discussed is the intent behind the statement/attack and whether or not this matters. Another element we talked about was that regardless of intent, whether or not it offends the person/group it targets matters. I don’t think this ad was sexist, because if they showed a man winking at the camera it would have the same point: the candidate appears flippant and empty-headed. I think their claim is legitimate; they are making a meaningful point (although the context of the ad makes it seem like a low blow.)
The problem with these short political advertisements is that they rely on a single image to carry an entire message. The image of Sarah Palin winking at the camera carries the message the Obama campaign is trying to relay: the complex problems of government are out of the Republican VP candidate’s depth. Instead of giving reasonable talking points questioning her readiness for office, they relied on one image to say it all. I don’t think the attack has anything to do with sex, because the attack does not hinge on the gender of the candidate: it is not saying she is empty-headed because she is a woman; it is simply making the point that there are questions to her fluency in complex issues. Yes, the intent is somewhat malicious but it is not intending to be sexist. However the fact that so many women, Democrat supporters to boot, are outraged does point to some legitimacy of the claim of foul play.
What surprises me the most about this ad is the balls of the Obama campaign. They must be feeling extremely confident to OK running this advertisement, for they had to have expected this type of reaction from women.
I certainly get your point, but here’s a question. There is an Obama ad that criticizes McCain and uses several of his unusual facial expressions taken from the third debate to punctuate some of the attacks. It is, as you know from class, sort of a standard that negative advertising typically uses unflattering images of the candidate being attacked. So, are you saying that any use of unflattering images of the attacked candidates should be off limit? Is using an unflattering picture of McCain age-ist?
I definitely see you point, but I feel like Palin should have known she would have it coming when she winked during the VP debate. Already people had highly criticized her for her image of being a pretty face with a lack of experience and ability to serve as vice president. Doing something like winking during a debate where millions are tuning in to see if you can handle yourself in a serious setting was poor judgment.
I think that if the Obama campaign had taken footage of McCain making a funny face, we wouldn’t have even thought twice about it, but because Palin is a woman, we dismiss it as sexist.
Dear Professor Morello,
Not at all! I don’t think it should necessarily be off limits - as I said it may seem like a low blow but single images such as these unflattering pictures speak a thousand words, and are a quick effective way of conveying the criticism of the candidate.
Ironically, Tyler and Ben’s presentation today showed an ad - the Dan Quayle attack ad - which had almost exactly the same message of incompetence of a selected VP candidate and same structure of message delivery (both also don’t provide evidence.) The only difference between these two ads was the image provided of the candidate, so I think it is safe to isolate the use of the “wink” as the “sexist” element. This is silly, because of exactly the point you raise: pictures of candidates with unflattering facial expressions are frequently used in campaign ads (and media reports) but this isn’t considered to be foul play, just not “elevated discourse.
Quayle was attacked for being a buffoon. People attack GW Bush for being too folksy with his language and making silly mannerisms. People have attacked Bill Clinton for being a pig. Guess what? Attacking people is part of politics. !
Crying foul on attack on Sarah Palin winking just furthers the belief that women should be treated differently. They should not! Change the ad around and put Joe Biden in the ad with his goofy smirk. It’s still a good attack. It still paints a candidate that looks pompous not presidential.
Now analyzing the ad further it takes great care to attack McCain’s choice of Palin not her directly. I believe this shows a fear on the Obama campaign to attack her. In the end though I believe it is more than fair to call into question her predardiness just like it is to question whether Obama is ready.