Rowman & Littlefield Publishing Group

The Dress Code: The Personal Style of Public Women

By Nichola D. Gutgold

In October former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright unveiled her collection of fashion pins in the Tiffany and Company Gallery of the Museum of Arts and Design in New York City. The pins, she said, helped her to communicate messages to those whom she met as secretary of state. Perhaps most famously, when meeting with then president of Iraq, Saddam Hussein, Secretary Albright wore a snake pin to subtly counter an Iraqi poem that described her as a serpent. She has continued to wear the pins—mostly costume pieces—and notes that they are a fun way to signal a mood for an event. Since what a public woman looks like—most often her hairdos and hemlines—is written about, unfortunately to the negligence of other more important information about her, it seems particularly wise and strategic that if you can’t beat the media you should join them by embedding a message in your style. Hearing about the display of Madeleine Albright’s pins, and her forthcoming book, Read My Pins, I started to think about other public women who have communicated—perhaps quite intentionally—important messages with their style.

The late Margaret Chase Smith, Republican senator from Maine always wore a fresh rose. When I visited The Margaret Chase Smith Library and Museum in Skowhegan, Maine, a worthwhile trip for anyone interested in women’s history, I saw the specially designed miniscule water holder that was rigged up to keep the flower fresh. A timelessly tailored, usually dark colored business suit or dress allowed her to blend into the male bastion of politics, but her touch of the trademark fresh rose, Senator Smith said “allowed me to remain ladylike” noted Angie Stockwell, Senator Smith’s longtime personal secretary and now the collection specialist. At the well appointed museum and extensive library, Ms. Stockwell also serves as a library tour guide, staff photographer, newsletter coordinator, and librarian.

As a senator, presidential candidate and now as Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton consistently wears pantsuits. She wore skirted suits as a first lady, but perhaps as a sign of her relatively new found freedom to speak on her own behalf, not her husband’s administration, she now wears pantsuits. The emergence of the pantsuit into mainstream fashion for women in the 1970s coincided with the upswing of the women’s liberation movement. Is Hillary Clinton telling us that she has finally been liberated? Hillary Clinton even speaks about her pantsuits. After she won a New York senate seat, she recounted, in her victory speech, “Sixty-two counties, sixteen months, three debates, two opponents and six black pantsuits later, because of you, we are here!” And again in her Democratic National Convention speech in 2008, resplendent in a bright orange pantsuit she assuaged the raw nerves of her fervent supporters who were none too happy to see her lose the nomination to Barack Obama. She urged them to "unite as a single party with a single purpose." She appealed to the "sisterhood of the traveling pantsuits" –a nod to the young adult book series, and movie Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants to embrace Barack Obama as their candidate.

First Lady Michelle Obama, unapologetically continues to bare her impressively toned arms, most recently on the cover of October’s Prevention magazine, perhaps in an effort to remind women to be strong, to take care of themselves and to also signal that she isn’t likely to cover up just because some opinion columnists and pundits say she should. In Prevention magazine, Mrs. Obama describes her exercise and fitness routine and encourages women to continue to take care of themselves as they age. Also a style signal from our first lady, this one reminiscent of then vice presidential candidate Richard’s Nixon’s description of his wife, Pat Nixon’s “respectable Republican cloth coat” first Lady Obama frequently dresses in affordable J. Crew clothing, communicating, perhaps that in lean economic times, we all need to find places to save money. Like many first ladies before her, the fashion preferences of Mrs. Obama are being closely watched. CNN reports that there is a blog that tracks the first lady’s daily fashion choices.

The personal style of our public women has always been a fascination to the press and the public and some astute public women seem to be putting their messages where they’ll get the most attention. They are wearing them.

Nichola D. Gutgold is is Asssociate Professor Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus and author of the following books: Paving the Way for Madam President, Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News, and Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008.

Excerpt from “A (Cautionary) Lion’s Tale” posted on tomkrattenmaker.com

By Tom Krattenmaker

It might seem a distant memory. But just two years ago, in the fall of 2007, the [Detroit] Lions, who had been one of pro football’s most forlorn franchises, won six of their first eight games and created a surge of media interest around the country.

As much of the coverage stressed, the Lions were not only hot on the field, but on fire for the Lord. From secular outlets like ESPN and Sports Illustrated, to religious media including the Christian Broadcasting Network, the resurgent Lions were portrayed as the sports version of a faith-based organization.

There was the evangelizing quarterback and team leader Jon Kitna, who claimed a miracle following his return from a concussion in the Week Two win over the Vikings, and who preached salvation as frequently and naturally as breathing. There were reports of rampant conversions...And there was the message from faith promoters that the Lions’ competitive resurgence was fueled by their devotion to Jesus. Here, we were told, was compelling evidence for the wonder-working powers of Christian faith. As sports journalist Jemele Hill wrote at the time, “It’s hard not to note the impact spirituality has had on the team’s incredible resurgence.”

You know what happened next: The Lions lost seven of their eight games over the second half of that once-promising 2007 season, and that was just a grim prelude to the winless 2008 campaign. And therein lies a cautionary tale for the promoters and admirers of the Christian religiosity that has become such a conspicuous part of big-time sports in this generation: Pinning the validity of faith to sports success can appear mighty tempting, but when God’s team or player falls–as will inevitably happen–someone’s going to end up with egg on his (or His) face.

Since the formation of the Christianity-in-sports movement several decades ago, sports ministry organizations have been hard at work to leverage the popularity of big-time spectator sports to reach the public with their evangelistic message. And in doing so, groups like Athletes in Action have consciously attempted to meet Americans on their turf–their love of sports, and their love of competitive success.

Cynics, of course, had a field day with the religion that the Lions were wearing on their sleeve back in 2007, especially when they collapsed and Kitna began piling up the sacks, interceptions, and incomplete passes. The snarky “Deadspin” sports website put it this way in one hilarious headline: “Jon Kitna was sacked for your sins!”

As it turns out, those close to the Lions that season will tell you that Kitna and his Christian teammates remained committed to their faith and one another, even as mounting losses disproved the notion that the team that prays the best plays the best. Kitna would later testify before a local church congregation that the riches-to-rags season deepened his understanding of what it means to be a Christian. In a sense, he and his faithful teammates found Jesus– in the loss column.

But by then, the religion promoters had moved on, in search of the next hot team with a cadre of Christians. As it happened, the playoffs found the Green Bay Packers just one win away from the Super Bowl, and like virtually every team in pro football, the Packers had their share of pious players. One could see the CBN headline coming from a mile away: “Super Faith Taking Packers to Super Bowl?”

The Packers, alas, lost the game.

Any embarrassment in such situations obviously belongs not to God, who is quite above that human frailty according to religious teaching, but to those who would hold up something as fleeting as sports success as evidence for Christianity’s validity. Faith has much to recommend it. But as the Lions’ story attests, a team’s win total is no place to rest your case for religion.

Tom Krattenmaker is a Portland, Oregon-based writer specializing in religion in public life and a member of the USA Today Board of Contributors. He is the author of Onward Christian Athletes: Turning Ballparks into Pulpits and Players into Preachers.

Feeling the Pain?: The Media's Recent Coverage of Violence Against Women

By Jody Santos

The MSNBC.com headline reads, “Pageant contestant accused of killing ex-actress.” The first three paragraphs don’t even mention the victim, Felicia Lee, by name. She is simply the “ex-adult movie actress” choked to death by Brian Lee Randone, a self-proclaimed preacher who appeared on the Fox special “The Sexiest Bachelor in America.” As I hurriedly scanned the headline last week, I marveled at how the news media still could be so insensitive. Lee was an afterthought in most of their accounts, and their lurid descriptions of her brutal murder sounded like a plot from “Realty TV Stars Gone Wild.” The press apparently felt no compassion for Lee – no sense of outrage over the fact that Randone allegedly had tortured her for hours prior to finally killing her.

In another recent incident of domestic violence, reporters speculated as to why reality show contestant Ryan Jenkins had murdered model Jasmine Fiore. I’m sure the news media felt like they were being objective and presenting both sides of the story when they mentioned that Fiore had been communicating with an ex-boyfriend prior to her murder – and that Jenkins had been jealous. But is the press really being objective in presenting violence as spurred by something the victim did? In reporting “both sides” of these two stories, the news media failed to put the violence in any kind of social context, instead giving us a he said/she said type of account that minimized this devastating epidemic.

In the most recent issue of Columbia Journalism Review, Brent Cunningham offers a unique prescription for what ails the news media – take a stand and don’t simply amplify the agendas of the rich and powerful. If the mainstream press wants to regain its relevance, Cunningham says, it must assume a leadership role in public discourse. This is particularly true of domestic violence. I believe that some media biases are good – like one that takes a definitive stand against the torture and killing of innocent victims.

Jody Santos is an award-winning journalist and documentary filmmaker, who teaches at Assumption College in Worcester, Massachusetts, and she is the author of Daring to Feel: Violence, the News Media, and Their Emotions, which will be out in December.

Two out of Three Anchors are Women, but the Searing Question Is: “ What Took So Long”?

By Nichola D. Gutgold

It is indeed, a step forward to say that two of the three anchors of the evening news in the United States are now women. That is, if an audience will even be tuning in to see such an historic moment. Katie Couric became the sole anchor of the CBS Evening News in 2006 and now Diane Sawyer will occupy the most powerful seat at CBS. I think it is important to note, however, that women have made it to the top just in time to realize that the top isn’t the top any more. With the proliferation of 24-hour news on cable and on the Web, the ratings for all three evening newscasts continue to decline. As The New York Times points out: “The combined newscasts now struggle to reach 20 million viewers some nights. During the last week of August, the “NBC Nightly News With Brian Williams” averaged 7.9 million viewers, about 800,000 more than Mr. Gibson’s “World News.” Ms. Couric’s “CBS Evening News” remained a distant third with 5.4 million viewers.” Many of us don’t turn on the television in the evening to get the news. We have computers, I-phones, Blackberrys and we receive Facebook and Twitter news feeds all day long.

Diane Sawyer takes her place at the helm at age 63—looking no more than 50—while her male counterpart retires—at a mere three years older-- at 66. Like most women in television news, Sawyer has had to work longer and harder to reach the top than any male counterpart, and like every woman in the spotlight on television, she has had to look younger, despite the natural aging process. Women in news have had to meet what I call in my book, Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (Lexington Books, 2008) a television beauty qualification (TBQ), and men simply have not.

And in another nod to fairness, Diane Sawyer isn’t the first woman to solely anchor the ABC Evening News, Elizabeth Vargas is. Teamed with Bob Woodruff to anchor the CBS Evening News in 2006, she was the first de facto solo woman evening news anchor, since after Bob Woodruff’s life-threatening war injury she anchored almost every broadcast alone, albeit for a brief period she co-anchored the news with either Charlie Gibson or Diane Sawyer.

I don’t mean to take any glory or enthusiasm away from Diane Sawyer, ABC News and the progress of women in television news. But the road to the top (that isn’t the top anymore) has been filled with biases and still is. I’m sure the many women who entered the world of broadcasting after World War II and the few standouts who made it into the homes of viewers, such as NBC’s Pauline Frederick (who learned of her retirement from The New York Times) and Nancy Dickerson who became the first women to cover the White House for television on a regular basis, would be pleased to know of the historic appointment of Diane Sawyer. And like all good journalists, they would want to know the most important question:

What took so long?

Nichola D. Gutgold is is Asssociate Professor Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus and author of the following books: Paving the Way for Madam President (2006), Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (2008), and Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008 (July 2009).

Hillary Clinton is Exercising a Full Range of Rhetorical Roles

By Nichola D. Gutgold

That Secretary of State Hillary Clinton went to the Congo is the big media story of her visit, but the negative press over her response to a student got more attention. As Secretary of State her rhetorical agility is noteworthy.

“Hill-ar-ree, Hill-ar-ree!” sang the South African men and women as they met Secretary of State Hillary Clinton during her visit aimed at restoring relations with South Africa. As Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton has displayed many of the rhetorical skills evident during her first lady tenure, campaigns for senate and notable presidential bid. Only now, these skills are seen as universally positive attributes as she travels the globe in her effort to improve global relations. Jeffrey Gettleman of The New York Times writes: “Mrs. Clinton, who seems uncannily resistant to jet lag, visited two community housing projects and danced with children, lugged some rocks into a wheelbarrow, planted flowers, planted a tree…” Indeed, her stamina is now being appreciated.

As Americans seek, either by choice or necessity to work well into their seventies and eighties, preserving and promoting stamina are key goals that will promote success. Women in particular have had to maintain stamina as they are often unable to pursue or realize a full range of success until past child-bearing years. The following skills are useful to women as they attempt to build careers in male-dominated fields. They are three of the elements of Hillary Clinton’s rhetoric I identified in my study of her and they include:

Rhetorical Elasticity

As first lady of Arkansas she used her rhetorical skills to lead a task force to reform the Arkansas education system. As America’s first lady she stretched the rhetorical constraints of the role, becoming as important an actor in her husband’s administration as the president. She went on to run and win elective office as senator from the state of New York, and she became the first front-runner woman candidate for the presidency of the United States. All the while she had to stretch not only her own skills, but those viewing her were forced to stretch their perceptions of what a first lady could do. For women attempting to move out of the realm of traditional roles into new roles, they must have rhetorical elasticity to, for example, both dance with school children and argue international relations. Getting out of your comfort zone is a rhetorical imperative.

Media Savvy

Anyone running a political campaign must have a way with the press, or they are dead in the water. While we may not be waging a national campaign, we must be comfortable in the 24/7 world of news, ubiquitous nature of Facebook and Twitter and be willing to work in the world of media to create an image that is in keeping with modern media times. Hillary Clinton both used and was used by the media. We could all take a lesson from that. Being willing to put ourselves out there means that we may not always like what the media say about us. But knowing that we can’t beat them (media) so we might as well join them is a good credo.

Stamina

I believe that stamina rises from a sense of mission. Hillary Clinton was ridiculed, embarrassed, called to drop out of the presidential race, but she kept going. Her stamina must rise from a sense of importance of mission that goes beyond immediate discomfort. To be successful and to maintain stamina, we must find what it is that gives us a sense of mission and pursue it. Leaders lead. What inspires you to lead?

Hillary Clinton’s rhetorical journey and the lessons we may derive from it, are still unfolding. These are three lessons that anyone who wants to move in a direction yet unexplored should heed.

Nichola D. Gutgold is is Asssociate Professor Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus and author of the following books: Paving the Way for Madam President (2006), Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (2008), and Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008 (July 2009).

Sotomayor's Confirmation Opens a New Battle in the "Confirmation Wars"

By Benjamin Wittes

First Latina Picked for Supreme Court,” read the Washington Post’s banner headline announcing Sonia Sotomayor’s nomination to the high court. “GOP Faces Delicate Task in Opposition.”

It is worth pausing a moment over the second half of this formulation. Only a few years ago, a Supreme Court nominee like Judge Sotomayor could expect quick, nearly unanimous confirmation. She is, after all, a long-serving appellate court judge who has also served on the federal district court bench, as a prosecutor, and as a private sector attorney; she has a stellar academic background. She is, in brief, qualified for the high court in every formal sense. The degradation of the judicial confirmation process has seen many watersheds—most recently, the refusal of most Democratic Senators to support conservative nominees of sterling credentials on the suspicion that the senators would disagree with their future votes. The Post’s headline, with its assumption that Republican opposition to a qualified Democratic nominee is simply a given, represents a recognition on the part of the press that the rules have fundamentally changed.

In the past, first-day headlines concerning a qualified nominee reflected the assumption that confirmation would almost surely follow. “In Pursuit of Conservative Stamp, President Nominates Roberts,” a typical New York Times headline read as late as 2005. “Judge Ruth Ginsburg Named to High Court; Clinton's Unexpected Choice Is Women's Rights Pioneer,” the Post reported in 1993. Even the battle royal over Clarence Thomas began with a whimper from the Post’s headline writers: “Bush Picks Thomas for Supreme Court.” To be sure, headline writers would sometimes note looming ideological fights when the editors saw one coming, as the Post did with Justice Samuel Alito and newspapers did with Judge Robert Bork. But this was not the norm. And they never simply presumed that the opposition party would inevitably oppose a president’s nominee and used a first-day headline to highlight the complexity of the project of opposition.

The change in journalistic expectations regarding nominations is not a creature of media bias or press sensationalism. It reflects reality. Based on recent trends in Supreme Court nominations, Sotomayor can probably expect a minimum of 30 votes against her, maybe more like 40; if she gets fewer, her good fortune will say more about Republican fears of alienating Hispanic voters than about a renewed outbreak of comity in judicial confirmations. She can expect, as well, highly contentious questions about everything she has ever written or said. She can expect a team of operatives to spend the next few months digging up dirt on her. And she can expect insinuations of perjury before the Senate Judiciary Committee to the extent that there is any tension between her voluminous judicial work and the words she speaks in the careful dance in which she will engage with the committee.

To put the matter simply, our system has gone from one in which people like Sotomayor, Chief Justice John Roberts and Alito are shoe-ins for confirmation to a system in which they are shoe-ins for confirmation confrontations.

I wrote Confirmation Wars three years ago because I was struggling with the question of why and how this change took place and what exactly America gets in exchange for the new presumptions we have collectively adopted, other than political battles that serve to energize both political bases. I remain convinced that the trade has been a bad one, one that offers only the crudest sort of check on executive appointments to the judiciary and that, along the way, puts nominees in the most untenable and unfair situations.

In the recent past, this argument has largely moved conservatives, for a Republican president was naming judges and Democrats in Congress and their affiliated interest groups were opposing them, deploying procedural tricks—some of them novel, some of them pioneered by Republicans during the prior administration—to block fair and timely consideration of nominees. Now, however, the tables are turned. A popular Democratic president with a strong Senate majority is naming judges, and Republicans are openly contemplating the adoption of tactics they only recently decried as unconstitutional. They will surely also adopt the premise that underlies the use of those tactics: That senators should aggressively question nominees for their views on contested legal questions and condition their votes to confirm the nominees on the answers they receive. The change in party control will, of course, produce comical hypocrisy among liberals too. They will suddenly discover a newfound appreciation for deference to presidential selections and for the obligation of nominees to remain silent in the face of precisely the sort of extortionate questioning they did so much to establish as standard fare.

In this environment, I suspect that one of the basic theses I advanced in Confirmation Wars will become once again evident: the change in the judicial confirmation process American has been experiencing over the past several decades is not fundamentally partisan in nature—an evil wrought by Democrats and liberals on the one hand or by Republicans and conservatives on the other. It is, rather, an institutional shift, a change in the Senate’s bipartisan and cross-ideological posture towards the executive and the judicial branches over time.

The current moment is a delicate one—one in which we will consummate the institutionalization of confirmation wars as a permanent feature of our political culture if we do not deliberately and self-consciously push back against it. We have to look ourselves in the mirror and ask some uncomfortable questions: Do we really want a political and legal culture in which the Washington Post quite reasonably regards it as so self-evident a reality that a highly qualified nominee will trigger the out-party’s opposition that it belongs in the first-day headline? Do we really want judges who, as a rule, take office having been roughed up by the political party opposite the president’s? Do we really prefer a confirmation environment in which neither President Bush nor President Clinton could place the highly-qualified judges of his choice on the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals to one in which that court would be enriched by the talented people of both parties to whom the Senate denied a vote? Do we really want to conduct an inquisition into the contents of a person’s soul before confirming that person to the bench? And do we really want to require that person to cooperate with the inquisition as a condition of consideration?

It is not inevitable that we do these things. We came to them through a series of unfortunate choices that altered—sometimes deliberately, sometimes unwittingly—a set of substantive and procedural confirmation norms that existed to protect the independence of America’s court system. While one can easily understand how growing judicial power over recent decades put enormous pressure on those norms, our modern confirmation process was a most unfortunate outcome. It offers dangerous opportunities for members of the Senate to pressure would-be judges for substantive outcomes once on the bench, and if offers dangerous temptations for nominees to yield to such pressure.

And eventually, a nominee will yield. Judge Sotomayor’s nomination takes place in the presence of a Democratic Senate majority strong enough that the pressure on her will be largely rhetorical; it will probably never threaten her ultimate confirmation. But sometime, probably sometime soon, a nominee will confront an opposition party capable, either by outright vote or by filibuster, of rejecting her and demanding reassurance on some substantive issue: abortion, same-sex marriage, executive power, affirmative action, or something else. And this nominee, after squirming and wriggling in the weird under-oath dance the Judiciary Committee now compels, will take the fateful step of addressing the questions directly and saying more than she should about how she thinks about contested legal questions.

Confirmation Wars was my effort to account for the road to this point—a road down which we have already driven far but along which, with a concerted bipartisan political effort, we could still begin to retreat.

Benjamin Wittes, senior fellow in Governance Studies at The Brookings Institution, and author of Confirmation Wars: Preserving Independent Courts in Angry Times, Updated 2009. His writings have appeared in a wide range of journals and magazines including Slate, The New Republic, The Wilson Quarterly, and The Weekly Standard.

Why Sarah Palin’s Unorthodox Road Will NOT Lead Her to the White House

By Nichola D. Gutgold

When Sarah Palin surprised the press and public by stepping down as Alaska’s governor, she said, “I’m not a quitter, I’m a fighter.” Though the timing of her announcement caused some observers to question if there was another motive, the stigma of quitting is more damaging to her than the unorthodox risk-taking she is describing as her choice. If she “never believed that I, nor anyone else, needs a title to do this - to make a difference... to HELP people” then why did she seek the office in the first place?

In my study of women and the American presidency two factors that significantly increase the chance of a woman president are perseverance and being governor.

Perseverance is one of the reasons that Hillary Clinton’s presidential bid is so important to the trajectory of women and the American presidency. She was not a symbolic candidate and she persevered in the face of horrible ridicule and terrible odds. That she didn’t drop out of the race when the going got tough won her respect from even the staunchest Hillary Clinton detractors. When she spoke at the Democratic National Convention she quoted Harriet Tubman, the anti-slavery activist who risked her own life to save others. She said, “If you hear the dogs, keep going. If you see the torches in the woods, keep going. If they’re shouting after you, keep going. Don’t ever stop. Keep going. If you want a taste of freedom, keep going.” No doubt it was at least partly due to her tenacity that made President Obama believe she would excel as Secretary of State.

Secondly, the governorship is an important title, especially for an aspiring politician who is a woman. Though her circuitous and folksy style of speaking belied her title as governor, it was that very title, that distinguished her as a vice presidential candidate. It was a position that none of the three men in the top ticket positions (Obama, Biden and McCain) could claim. And it is governors who are most likely to become presidents—especially true for women because they need more credentials, not less to break through the glass ceiling. Barbara Lee, president of the Barbara Lee Foundation even created a guide, Keys to the Governor’s Office to help women running for governor. At first her interest was focused on women and the presidency, but she noted that “as I understood more about the paths to power, it was clear that electing a woman president would become a reality only after we unraveled voters’ complex reactions to a woman seeking full executive authority. Brenda DeVore Marshall and Molly A. Mayhead, editors of Navigating the Boundaries: The Rhetoric of Women Governors, note, “the increasing importance of the state governor throughout the history of the country, coupled with women’s steadily expanding the role in that office, demonstrates that the face of the governorship has changed. Research on women political leaders has revealed that examining women who are governors in America is a good place to start when identifying women most likely to make successful bids for the presidency. By quitting the most viable launching pad she had, Sarah Palin has taken herself off the path to the United States presidency.

Nichola D. Gutgold is is Asssociate Professor Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus and author of the following books: Paving the Way for Madam President (2006), Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (2008), and the forthcoming Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008 (July 2009). She specializes in examining the communication skills of women in male dominated fields.

The Addition of Sonia Sotomayor Adds Long Overdue Diversity to the Supreme Court

By Nichola D. Gutgold

In 1790 the United States Supreme Court convened for the first time. It isn’t surprising that all its members were men, since almost one hundred years later Myra Bradwell, who passed the Illinois bar exam in 1869 and applied for her license to practice law was rejected because she was not only a woman, but a wife, too. Furthermore, in 1873, the Court rejected her appeal and Associate Justice Joseph P. Bradley noted that as a married woman, she was not competent to make contracts or do other legal work for her clients because of her legal, social and natural defined dependence on her husband in all matters. It was not until the 1970s that the Supreme Court began to use the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to challenge state laws that discriminated against women in the workplace and employment in general. Backed by the Equal Pay Act passed by Congress in 1963 and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Court held up in 1971 that employers could not discriminate in hiring against women who had young children.

With these relatively new cases aimed at gender equality, it isn’t too surprising that representation on the Supreme Court by women has been so sparse. Since 1790, only two women have served on the Supreme Court. In 1981 Sandra Day O’Connor was confirmed and in 1993 Ruth Bader Ginsberg joined her. The third potential justice, Sonia Sotomayor is facing intense scrutiny surrounding the rhetoric of race as she awaits her confirmation.

It should also be of little surprise that Sonia Sotomayor is being ridiculously accused of racism. No doubt in this 24/7 YouTube driven media culture, she is learning that is takes a special communication skill set to manage the tricky terrain of politics, government and the law. The now infamous statement that has been taken out of context and played in a Moebius loop was: "I would hope that a wise Latina woman, with the richness of her experiences, would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life." Though we have heard this often repeated quote again and again in the media, less stressed is Sonia Sotomayor’s impressive record as a federal jurist, as a litigator and as a prosecutor. That she is a two-time Ivy League graduate and did not enter those institutions with a family legacy relates to the majority of Americans who have only their own hard work to propel them forward.

Sonia Sotomayor will likely win confirmation as the third female Supreme Court Justice because she is well qualified and, in the words of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes that President Obama quoted when he nominated her, “The life of the law has not been logic, it has been experience.” It is vitally important that a justice know “how the world works, and how ordinary people live.” As women continue to enter the legal profession, equal representation of men and women on the Supreme Court is crucial. Though both Sandra Day O’Connor and Ruth Bader Ginsberg downplayed their gender and said that “At the end of the day, a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same judgment,” it is indeed, long awaited progress that Sonia Sotomayor will bring her wise Latina woman’s voice to the Supreme Court in order to more accurately reflect the experiences of an ever increasingly diverse America.

Nichola D. Gutgold is co-author of Elizabeth Hanford Dole: Speaking from the Heart and author of the following books with Lexington Books: Paving the Way for Madam President (2006), Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News (2008), and the forthcoming Almost Madam President: Why Hillary Clinton ‘Won’ in 2008 (July 2009). She specializes in examining the communication skills of women in male dominated fields.

Swine Flu Media Pandemic Scare: A Lesson from History?

By Debra E. Blakely

In light of the recent Swine Flu pandemic scare, several important trends emerged that demonstrate we haven’t come as far as the technology used to report it. In other words, while instant news stories popped up on major news wire services, Internet sites and social media outlets around the world, the narrative discourse, arbiters and resulting public health policies resorted to old frames created during the deadly 1918 Spanish Flu Pandemic. Even though the death rate for Swine Flu has been extremely low, and influenza is an expected annual pesky visitor, reportage reflected the same intense public anxiety as was reported when millions were actually dying during the 1918 pandemic.

Media coverage in the USA began around April 22, when Swine Flu was detected in several people in San Diego County, California. Public health officials speculated that since this was a strain that had not been seen recently, and that a vaccine was not available, health officials should be on their guard. A couple of days later, a link was made to a recent Swine Flu epidemic in Mexico, where 60 deaths had occurred, from this report news and Internet stories went viral, with thousands of stories being published, tweeted and blogged around the world. In fact, the media coverage spread faster than the actual flu!

However, Swine Flu reportage was preceded with several reasonably calm stories as early as March 28, 2009. The United News of India reported that a Swine Influenza outbreak in Mexico and the USA had been identified and declared a public health emergency of international concern by the World Health Organization. Given a gap of nearly a month between a real alarm and the media frenzy, one must ask, “How could this happen?” A logical exploration might turn out further investigation by asking: Was it the rampant use of technology that helped to fuel the explosion of Swine Flu reportage? Simply put, the answer would be yes and no. Yes, technology has definitely made it much easier for information, be it rumor or fact, to spread at rapid-viral speeds, (hence the phrase, going viral). However, it wasn’t technology, per se, that fueled the media coverage, but in fact it was the media coverage itself.

With initial media stories focusing their narratives on death rates and a virus with no vaccine, the next wave of influenza stories picked up on the analogy to the Spanish Influenza pandemic of 1918 and the 20 to 50 million deaths it caused worldwide. Stories speculated on infection rates and containment issues, and public health authorities obliged by putting into place quarantine orders and travel advisories. As infections popped up and were reported around the world, schools closed and public health officials scrambled for a vaccine. When Mexico decided to close down to contain their epidemic, the media coverage soared and business continuity plans with essential worker policies began to emerge as a new topic of conversation.

Perhaps, if reporters had made the analogical jump to the two subsequent pandemics, (the Asian Flu Pandemic of 1957 and the Hong Kong Flu Pandemic of 1968), they would have drawn more appropriate analogies, such as when deaths rates are low, and a vaccine is not available, one should focus on practical concerns, such as individual health practices and the natural course of nature. In time, and as time has shown, the virus will run its course.

While influenza remains an annual public health threat, and there is a chance that a deadly virus could possibly wreck havoc and destruction, the World Health Organization declared May 8th, that the world was better prepared to deal with an influenza pandemic. Are we, really?

Debra E. Blakely is assistant professor of communication at the University of Houston–Clear Lake and the author of Mass Mediated Disease: A Case Study Analysis of Three Flu Pandemics and Public Health Policy.

Rhetoric Trumps a Record: How Obama Captured the White House

By Nichola D. Gutgold

After Barack Obama made his keynote speech at the 2004 Democratic National Convention, his wife Michelle, known for tempering her husband’s ego, quipped that “one speech” would not transform his political fortunes. This is one time when the erudite Mrs. Obama may have been wrong. This one convention speech by a state political candidate in a You-Tube-24-hour-7-day-a-week news cycle took on a life of its own as the media world reinvented itself in the span of the 2004 convention and the 2008 presidential election. The surly accusation by Hillary Clinton that the neophyte politician Barack Obama was offering “only words” was in part, true. Barack Obama ran more on his rhetoric than record. And when combined with the deft use of media, Barack Obama’s message took on a life of its own and jettisoned the young Illinois senator to the White House.

That the United States of America is a media-dominated society is not new information. How the presidential campaign of Barack Obama seized upon the potential of the newer, multi-media opportunities to promote its candidate, network its volunteers and unify its message, and how the media—and media superstars—assisted in Barack Obama’s effort to capture the White House, is captivating.

In 2004 Barack Obama burst on to the national stage with a speech at the Democratic National Convention. His message of hope was already being shaped. He called for the audience to imagine a country where dreams can come true. He said, “It's the hope of slaves sitting around a fire singing freedom songs; the hope of immigrants setting out for distant shores; the hope of a young naval lieutenant bravely patrolling the Mekong Delta; the hope of a millworker's son who dares to defy the odds; the hope of a skinny kid with a funny name who believes that America has a place for him, too.” As he angled for the White House, his message of hope continued to be the underpinning of his overall campaign theme.

Much of Barack Obama’s political success can be traced to a database listing contact information for millions of people, a tool that has proved invaluable in raising record sums of money and organizing a national volunteer network. His sizeable grassroots network is reached through the campaign's social networking portal, MyBo. His web presence on You Tube, Facebook and MySpace has ignited young voters and complimented the more traditional ground effort of Democratic volunteers.

Saying she felt compelled to support "the man I believe has a new vision for America," in December, 2007, media mogul Oprah Winfrey spoke passionately about Democratic Barack Obama. She said: "I've never taken this kind of risk before nor felt compelled to stand up and speak out before because there wasn't anyone to stand up and speak up for. We need a president who can bring us all together. I know Barack Obama is the one.” In addition to Oprah, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN and MSNBC were devoting more time to the Barack Obama candidacy than any other.

Barack Obama appeared on late night television—making four appearances in all on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart—sitting down with the host of the Rachel Maddow Show as well as participating in interviews with several news programs, galvanizing his unprecedented broadcast ad buy and ‘closing the argument’ in the last weeks of the campaign. His Hollywood-style 30 minute infomercial aired on seven networks and was viewed by 33.5 million. The Barack Obama campaign for presidency a new rhetorical model for future campaigns to emulate.

Nichola D. Gutgold is Asssociate Professor Communication Arts and Sciences at Penn State University, Lehigh Valley Campus. She is author of Paving the Way for Madam President, Seen and Heard: The Women of Television News, and is at work on a book about the presidential bid of Hillary Clinton.