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.

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.

Jennifer’s Body and the American Devil

By W. Scott Poole

There are plenty of horror fanboys, and a lot of fan girls, who’ve been anxiously waiting to take a peek at Jennifer’s Body. The film’s combination of Megan Fox’s sex appeal and Diablo Cody’s signature dialogue (made famous in Juno and the United States of Tara) offers a feast for two disparate and usually incompatible groups: adolescent boys and those who like to like to see the conventions of the horror subverted with a bit of clever irony.

Fox plays Jennifer Check, head of the cheerleading squad who is deeply and sincerely lusted after by every raging hormone in her high school. In a nod to the evangelical paranoia of the 1980s, a “satanic rock band” (who in this 21st century update is an emo band called “Low Shoulder”) attempts to use Jennifer as a virginal sacrifice to Satan. Bad things happen, we learn, when you try to sacrifice a non-virgin to the Devil. Jennifer becomes an avatar of the Evil One and begins killing, and eating, every boy she can seduce while playing out a drama of toxic friendship with her best female friend, aptly named “Needy.”

Horror films, even the schlocky ones, draw on a host of cultural and religious anxieties. Panic over both female and male teenage sexuality, and its alleged dangers is certainly not a new theme in American culture. In 1734, Puritan divine Jonathan Edwards complained, with a thinly veiled metaphor, that the teens of his parish spent too much time in “company keeping.”

But Cody taps into an even more powerful stream of American religion and popular culture that I explore in my new book Satan in America: The Devil We Know. Jennifer is not the first woman to find her body becoming an instrument of Satan in the popular imagination. One woman accused of witchcraft in Puritan New England appeared to her victim floating above his bed and wearing a red bodice. Late nineteenth century discourses about contraception and abortion regularly made a connection between female sexuality and demonic influence (an image in the book from the National Police Gazette shows a young woman with scaly demon emerging from her vagina with a caption that reads “The Female Abortionist”). In the early twentieth century, silent film gave us “vamps” like Adele Farrington who, in a pre-code romp called The Devil’s Bondwoman (1916), portrayed a woman whose sexual appetites were so insatiable that she attracted Satan himself. By the 1940s, a comic book entitled Madame Satan told adolescents a similar story of a seductive woman who, using Satan’s supernatural power, attempted to lead men to destruction.

Cody has tried to turn the horror convention of the female victim of male violence on its head. Unfortunately, she may have simply replicated another, darker convention of women as source of evil. At the end of the day, Jennifer’s Body may have evoked more demons than it exorcised.

W. Scott Poole is associate professor in history at the College of Charleston. He is the author of the forthcoming Satan in America: The Devil We Know.

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).

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.

Mentoring Women Up the Ivory Ladder

By Mary Landon Darden

Women’s struggle for equity is far from over. In fact, it is slowing down. The number of women who are university of college presidents is clearly an example of this. Women represented a tiny percentage of the higher education presidencies (9.5%) in 1985 and which increased to 21.5% in 2002. But seven year later, that number has only moved to 23%. This is a clear indicator that – even after four decades – we need to do more.

At one time, it could be argued that the low numbers actually represented the population of the academy, however, women now fill more than 40% of the faculty and administrative positions in the academy, yet their numbers are far from representative at the upper levels of that ivory ladder.

In a study I conducted several years ago of 18 women college presidents, virtually all had influential mentors who helped them to climb their respective institutional ladders. Some of the mentors were women and some were men. Most of these presidents had multiple mentors on their journey, but all had mentors. Many of these presidents expressed gratitude for, and attributed much of their success to, that mentorship. Mentorship must play a key role in solving the persistent problem of inequity. Yet, there are still some women who do not reach out to other women down the ladder. Whoever is not part of the solution is part of the problem.

It will be interesting to see if the speed of change resumes as the number of women graduating with various degrees continues to exceed the number of men earning those same degrees in an increasing number of areas. In the meantime, women who have achieved the higher rung, have a greater duty and challenge to reach back down that ladder and extend a hand to as many as possible of the promising women below them. Because they are fewer, the responsibility of those women at the top is greater.

Additionally, we all must work harder to close the salary gaps. Women with professional degrees have the greatest stretch as they only receive 40% of the salaries as their male counterparts with equal education and experience.

Along with the lower salaries, women in the academy typically have a shorter tenure in administrative positions, as well. For this, we must all work toward bringing about true equity. Men have a responsibility, as well, to assist in reaching true equity and fairness in the academy. If we do not have true equity in the academy, how can we possibly expect to see it in society? We must all redouble our efforts to change the culture, to create real and unbiased opportunity for all. In a world where less than 2% of the Fortune 500 companies have women CEOs, we obviously have a strong cultural current that must be redirected.

I challenge all women higher education administrators at the chair level and higher to identify at least two promising women on lesser rungs of their ivory ladder and make a commitment to help them to develop their careers and support them in their climb. And, if men in administration do the same, perhaps we might achieve true equity within the academy within our lifetime and, hopefully, inspire all of society to move deliberately toward the same goal.

Mary Landon Darden is the author of Beyond 2020: Envisioning the Future of Universities in America published by the American Council on Education and Rowman and Littlefield Education. Additional information can be found at her website.

What’s good for a first lady isn’t as good for a first lady president

By Nichola D. Gutgold

First Lady Michelle Obama will appear on the March cover of Vogue, the country’s premiere mainstream fashion magazine. This is only the second time a first lady has graced the cover. In December, 1998, Hillary Clinton was the first first lady to appear on the cover of the celebrated magazine. Starting with Lou Hoover, first ladies have been regularly featured inside the magazine because a focus on fashion for our first ladies has always been an element of their role. The fashion image of first lady Martha Washington is still being discussed and her silk and sequin wedding shoes are currently on display at Mount Vernon.

But what happens to the press coverage when the spouse becomes the candidate? Hillary Clinton received a lot of press coverage, however, the coverage she received often focused on negative aspects of her, including her laugh (called the Clinton cackle), her tendency to clap her hands, and even once, her hint of cleavage. While the press went into “auto pilot” and forcefully criticized the former first lady, the press was less comfortable about taking the first African American front runner to task for almost anything. Communication scholar Robert Watson notes, “When women do receive media coverage, it is often through a feminine lens. For example, the media focuses more on her clothing, hair style, family, and other “soft” matters for female candidates than for male candidates. This not only does little to make a woman appear to be commander-in-chief material, but makes it even more difficult for her to get her message across.” Political communication scholar Dianne Bystrom notes that “women forging new political ground often struggle to receive media coverage and legitimacy in the eyes of the media and, subsequently, the public.” Hillary Clinton knew about the special constraints women political candidates face in the media. Vogue Editor Anna Wintour lamented Hillary Clinton’s cancellation in her editor's letter in the February issue of Vogue. She said, “Imagine my amazement, then, when I learned that Hillary Clinton, our only female presidential hopeful, had decided to steer clear of our pages at this point in her campaign for fear of looking too feminine. The notion that a contemporary woman must look mannish in order to be taken seriously as a seeker of power is frankly dismaying. How has our culture come to this? How is it that The Washington Post recoils from the slightest hint of cleavage on a senator? This is America, not Saudi Arabia. It's also 2008: [former British Prime Minister] Margaret Thatcher may have looked terrific in a blue power suit, but that was 20 years ago. I do think Americans have moved on from the power-suit mentality, which served as a bridge for a generation of women to reach boardrooms filled with men. Political campaigns that do not recognize this are making a serious misjudgment.” While Hillary Clinton shied away from appearing on Vogue, in an effort to not appear too feminine, her rival, Barack Obama, not only appeared on the unprecedented number of Time magazine covers, (almost 50% in 2008) but also on the cover of Men’s Vogue, Gentlemen’s Quarterly, People, Vanity Fair, Rolling Stone, Ebony and Vibe magazines. It was difficult to go to a magazine stand without seeing Barack Obama peering out from multiple covers, or to tune in to television during his trip to Hawaii and not catch a glance at a shirtless Barack Obama on the beach.

When it comes to the physical image of our women candidates, what is good for a first lady is still not good for a first lady president. There is a disconnect between what women have accomplished politically and old stereotypes perpetrated by the media.

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 the author of an upcoming book on Hillary Clinton’s presidential race.

More Women Leaders are Part of the Change in Government

By Nichola D. Gutgold

On January 20, 2009 when a man is sworn in as President of the United States for the 44th time, it is important to remember the victories that women have made in politics.

Hillary Clinton’s near victorious Democratic nomination and Sarah Palin’s memorable vice presidential bid are still fresh in the minds of people around the world.
And in addition to the two most famous women of 2008 politics, a record number of women will take office and shape how government operates. 1,784 women will serve in legislatures throughout the country, an increase of 35 over last year. There are 17 women in the senate, which is an increase of one, and the 425 member House has 75 women, up from the last record of 71. Of President-elect Barack Obama's twenty-one announced Cabinet-level posts, five went to women: Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano as homeland security secretary, Senator Hillary Clinton as secretary of state, Representative Hilda Solis as labor secretary, Susan Rice as United Nations ambassador and Lisa Jackson as Environmental Protection Agency chief. It would be better if the numbers were closer to ten, but the appointment of these five women is significant.

In a focus group of ten girls, age 11-14, the subject of a woman president was discussed. Participants noted that “the only reason there hasn’t been a woman president yet is because not enough women have tried to be President.” “Only Hillary Clinton has run” said several participants. When they were shown examples of other women presidential candidates, such as Shirley Chisholm and Elizabeth Dole, none of the girls had heard of those women or had read about them in newspapers or in history books. Asked if they thought that they could be president, the girls said, “yes” and “if I got better grades” and tried really hard. Several girls noted that “women would make better presidents because they are smarter and they know how to do more things.” When asked how they know this, girls said, “because our mothers are able to do a lot.”

The lack of women role models in history books is a considerable problem for girls who are studying politics in school. That Hillary Clinton’s close race for the Democratic nomination for president should be recorded in history books is crucial to how Hillary Clinton’s presidential race, and the girls’ visions of themselves as leaders, is perceived. With so many glass ceilings shattered, we take for granted that little girls know they can grow up to be whatever they want. But according to a study in Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, one in four children believes it is illegal for women and minorities to hold the office of president. And one in three attribute the lack of female, African-American and Latino presidents to racial and gender bias among voters. The same study also found that girls who attributed the lack of female presidents to discrimination were more likely to report that they could not really become president, even if they were interested in doing so." [Children] have seen [the Presidents] all over the media, on posters, in classroom history books," said author of the study Rebecca Bigler, "yet no one ever explains to them why they have all been white men. There is never a conversation about that so children start to come up with their own explanations."

That more women are in office than ever and that women are running the country as cabinet members is important to celebrate, even though the top job went, once again, to a man.

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.

Does Sarah Palin’s Speech Stand the Test of Time?

By Nichola D. Gutgold

Sarah Palin made quite a national speech debut at the Republican National Convention. No hurricane could compete with the force of Sarah Palin. Forty million people tuned in to see the relatively unknown governor of Alaska, or as Cindy McCain described her: “a reform-minded, hockey-momming, basketball-shooting, moose-hunting, salmon-fishing, pistol- packing mother of five” John McCain chose as his running mate. How will history look back on Sarah Palin’s speech? While it was widely watched, will it enter the ranks of those epic speeches that we count among America’s best? Speeches such as: Martin Luther King’s “I have a Dream” and the speech of Barbara Jordan, who at the 1976 Democratic national Convention passionately reminded us: “There is something special about tonight. What is different? What is special? I, Barbara Jordan, am a keynote speaker.”

Raptly we viewed Sarah Palin’s speech, yet it will not likely go down as one of the most important speeches in American political history. Instead of the snarky sarcasm laced throughout, which doesn’t enhance anyone’s ethos, Sarah Palin should have spoken earnestly about the nobility of small town America. Technically, however, Ms. Palin and the speechwriters did the most they could with that unique rhetorical situation. It is highly unusual for a vice presidential nominee to generate more excitement and interest than the presidential nominee, and Sarah Palin did just that. She also had a lot going for her that contributed to her star turn at the Republican National Convention. Most Americans hadn’t heard her speak and were very curious. She has charisma, is a natural politician, knows how to read a teleprompter and had great one-liners. Inside the convention hall she was speaking to a loving, Republican audience. She also utilized a powerful rhetorical weapon: motherhood. The Democratic Party has been deemed “The Mommy Party” but the Republicans are proud mamas, too. I think it is safe to say that in this election, mamas are hot! (I mean, popular). Think of the role Mrs. Roberta McCain, the 96 year old sharp tongued matriarch of the McCain family. As soon as it was certain that John McCain would be the nominee, Mrs. McCain said of her son: “Yes, I think holding their nose they're [the Republicans] are going to have to take him" (Thanks, Mom!). At the convention, John McCain noted: “Roberta McCain gave us her love of life, her deep interest in the world, her strength, and her belief we are all meant to use our opportunities to make ourselves useful to our country. I wouldn't be here tonight but for the strength of her character.”


And for all of Cindy McCain’s glamour and million-dollar wardrobe, she glowed when she introduced the McCain brood at the convention. As she walked on stage she said, “Before I begin, I would like to introduce you to the seven reasons that John and I are so happy as a family. Starting on this end, this is Meghan McCain, Andy McCain, Jimmy McCain, Jack McCain, Bridget McCain, Doug McCain, and Sidney McCain. Thank you. John and I are so pleased and so happy to have them here with us tonight. Nothing has made me happier or more fulfilled in my life than being a mother.”


But let’s get back to the mother of the moment: Sarah Palin. In her speech at the convention she spoke in a way that reminded viewers of their own no-nonsense mother: she was very charming and warm, she knew what was better for you than you did and the reason you should listen to her is not necessarily because anything she said made sense in the long run, but because she was the one saying it. You could almost hear her saying, “Vote for John McCain because I said so, that’s why.” She enacted the role of motherhood in a way that endeared her—if momentarily—to many people who were craving something completely unexpected from the usual completely expected world of presidential politics.


I predict that when the roar of the crowd fades away, when the stadium lights go out, and Sarah Palin becomes better known, what exactly will we remember about Sarah Palin’s speech? Not too much, since it doesn’t have the quality of a speech that will last the test of time. But for the moment, Sarah Palin reminds us that it’s hard to argue with your mother.


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 and Seen and Heard the Women of Television News She is at work on a book about the presidential bid of Hillary Clinton.