Legalities
Life, Politics and the Law From ABC News Correspondent Jan Crawford Greenburg
Jan Crawford Greenburg is a correspondent for ABC News' bureau in Washington DC. She covers politics, the Supreme Court and provides legal analysis for ABC News. She is a graduate of the University of Chicago's law school and is a member of the New York bar.
RECENT POSTS
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Previous | Main | Next »
Girltalk
September 09, 2008 5:46 PM
After I got out of law school and was back in my old newspaper job, the Supreme Court beat opened up. It was a dream job, and I made a pitch for it to one of the paper’s top editors, excitedly outlining how I would cover the nation’s highest Court.
This editor—the oldest of the old school, a man who cut his teeth in journalism in the days when women were limited to writing for the society pages--sat there and listened quietly while I talked about my ideas. And when I was done, he had one question.
“Yeah, that’s what the last one said. And she went off and got pregnant,” he told me. “If I send you to Washington, you’re not going to go off and get pregnant are you?”
Uh….no, I said. So 14 years ago this month, I got the job covering the Supreme Court in spite of my gender.
Later, when I was pregnant with the first of my four children, a peerless (and fearless) Pulitzer-prize winning female journalist was running the paper. That woman, Ann Marie Lipinski, would shape my career (and my life). She gave me six months off, and after my second child was born, she concluded I could handle the Court beat working part-time.
I kept my job in spite of my gender. But at the same time, because of a seismic shift in the workplace from a generation ago, I was able to make choices about how to balance it all. I was a beneficiary of the work of all those women before me. Women who were denied opportunities because of their gender and fought for change.
And women who got historic opportunities because of their gender and then showed the world what women could do.
Just last month, 27 years after the Supreme Court got its first woman justice, Sarah Palin became another historic first--the first woman Republican VP nominee--and reignited a fierce debate over sexism and the role of women.
But it’s a debate in 2008 that’s both complicated and loaded, because Palin’s nomination, and the campaign’s defense of it, mixes old norms from a generation ago with the new ones of today.
Palin appears to have been selected, in no small part, precisely because she’s a woman. Yet instead of acknowledging that as a real strength, the McCain campaign is acting like gender had little or nothing to do with it. Campaign officials instead have been angrily portraying questions about her qualifications as nothing more than old-fashioned sexism, and then trying to put a protective shield around her.
They’re treating Gov. Sarah Palin—a ground-breaking woman by anyone’s account—like a girl.
As a result, for many, the campaign’s defense of Palin smacks of the tokenism and paternalism of a past generation, things women who’ve fought for equal footing want to believe we’ve moved beyond. At the same time, it seems devoid of the honesty that the first women of firsts—women like Sandra Day O’Connor—brought to the debate. Those women unapologetically said they knew why they were picked, and that it was a good thing for women and for society.
For more than a week now, we’ve heard how Palin’s treatment is sexist. How the questions she’s endured—about her experience, her qualifications and her life—would never have been asked of a man. We’ve seen the McCain campaign say this pit bull of a hockey mom would not talk to the press until she was shown “deference.”
Just this afternoon, we have the Republican National Committee accusing Democratic VP nominee Joe Biden of making “appalling and arrogant statements” about Palin. The RNC said those statements “are better suited for the back rooms of his old boys’ club.”
Good heavens, I thought. What did Biden say? Turns out, he was responding to a reporter’s question about whether Palin as VP would be a step forward for women. Here’s Biden’s response:
“Well, look, I think the issue is what does Sarah Palin think, what does she believe. I assume she thinks and agrees with the same policies that…George Bush and John McCain think. And that's obviously a backward step for women."
Appalling and arrogant? Better suited for the back rooms of his old boys’ club?
All of this talk, in 2008, diminishes women and one woman in particular: Sarah Palin, who, based on her experience and accomplishments, strikes me as someone pretty capable of speaking for herself, both honestly and bluntly. And it diminishes all the women who paved the way for her nomination—women who sacrificed so she could have the choice to work or stay home or do both.
Palin chose both. As a politician in Alaska, she appears to have balanced work and motherhood—even bringing her newborn with her to meetings in her Governor’s office and across the state. She succeeded despite her gender, and despite all her responsibilities at home.
Then along comes John McCain, and taps her as his running mate—a decision driven in no small part because of her gender. And that’s what makes this debate so complex. Even though gender clearly factored into McCain’s thinking, we’re seeing campaign officials and surrogates defend Palin by playing the gender card on everyone else. Even questions about her experience as mayor have been called “sexist.”
I spent much of the past week reporting just how Palin suddenly skyrocketed to the top of McCain’s list. Multiple sources confirm:
Sarah Palin edged out the other contenders because she is a woman. She likely would not have been selected if another woman—Hillary Clinton—had ended up on the Democratic ticket. Of all the women who paved the way for Palin, the most immediate is Clinton.
McCain considered other women. After it became evident Barack Obama would not tap Clinton, McCain’s allies in Washington pushed the idea of nominating Texas Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison. A woman nominee, they believed, could appeal to those disenchanted Clinton voters who could well decide the election.
But there was a problem. Hutchison wasn’t interested. She was on McCain’s original list of about 40 possible contenders, but when the campaign cut the list down to 20, she declined to fill out the 70-question questionnaire. And there weren’t a lot of other women to choose from—a problem President Bush also had when he was trying to find a woman to replace O’Connor on the Supreme Court.
Meg Whitman, the founder of E-bay, was one. But she had no national exposure and no political experience. Palin was another, and although she had political experience, it was less than some other prospects.
When McCain cut down his list to the first five contenders who would be intensively vetted, with interviews and requests for documents, the group was all-male: Joe Lieberman, Tom Ridge, Minn. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, former Mass. Gov. Mitt Romney and Fla. Gov. Charlie Crist. Other prospects—New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and La. Gov. Bobby Jindal—said they, like Hutchison, did not want to be considered, sources say.
Washington lawyer A.B. Culvahouse began his intensive vetting, and largely finished it by mid-August. At that point, Palin still was on the periphery—she had not gone through that intensive vetting, but she had not been ruled out either, sources say.
Two weeks ago, when McCain had to make his pick, this was clear: The pro-choice Lieberman or Ridge would enrage his base. If Lieberman were the nominee, conservatives would revolt, with up to six state delegations walking out of the convention. McCain concluded he couldn’t do it.
Another thing was clear: Obama’s decision to tap Joe Biden, not Hillary Clinton, had opened up the GOP ticket for a woman.
So a mere five days before he would announce his nominee, McCain triggered the final, intensive vetting of Palin. He wanted to reinforce his maverick image, but also appeal to those Clinton voters. Four days later in Arizona, the two spoke at length for the first time, and McCain offered her the nomination.
The next morning, McCain made his “courtesy” calls to the other contenders. Charlie Crist, the popular governor of a battleground state that overwhelmingly supported Clinton in the Democratic primary, was the last contender to get the word, according to a source with knowledge of the conversation.
The consolation message that Crist's supporters walked away with was this: Had Hillary Clinton been Obama’s pick, it all would have been different. Crist could have been McCain’s guy.
It was just 27 years ago that Ronald Reagan nominated an independent woman from the West to the Supreme Court, tapping her over a list of more experienced men and giving her an opportunity to show what women could accomplish.
Sandra Day O’Connor had battled sexism her entire life. Fifty years ago, sexism meant not getting a single job offer at a law firm, despite graduating near the top of your class at Stanford Law School. It meant being passed over for top jobs in government. It meant being asked to take a typing test before a law firm would entertain the idea of hiring you as a secretary—even though you were third in your class at Stanford, as O’Connor was.
O’Connor kept fighting. She eventually became a prosecutor (after working for free) and then started her own law firm. She had a career in politics---becoming majority leader of the Arizona Senate before going on the state court bench. And despite all her experience, she knew just why she was picked.
“It had nothing to do with me,” O’Connor told me once. “He was hoping to get votes from women, I assume, and rightly so.”
The Palin nomination, 25 years later, is similar—but it’s without O’Connor’s bluntness about what motivated it.
Instead, when asked if Palin would have been selected if she were a man, a spokesman says, “absolutely.” But then they treat Palin like she’s a woman from the olden days who needs protecting—not the modern-day leader she is. Just this weekend, we saw McCain’s campaign manager Rick Davis say on Fox News that Palin would not answer questions until the media started treating her with more “deference.”
Can you imagine O’Connor—who grew up branding cattle with the boys--putting up with that kind of paternalism?
And will Palin? I know I’m not alone in saying I can’t wait to see her start speaking for herself and answering these questions on her own—beginning with ABC’s Charles Gibson. So far, she seems a far better advocate for herself than John McCain is, as many concluded from their respective convention speeches last week.
It will be interesting to see if she follows O’Connor’s playbook: Honest talk and straight answers. Regardless of why she was picked and how extensively she was vetted, what can she bring to the job? Why is important to have a woman on the ticket? (O’Connor likes to talk about why her nomination was so important to women.) How does she define “sexism?” Has she ever experienced it? What does it say about women today that we have these choices? Should women be asked these questions about our choices? If not, why not?
Palin could lead that discussion, and that would be real progress for women. That kind of conversation gets us back to 2008 and moves the discussion forward, for our daughters and sons.
She has a real opportunity. Soon we’ll see what she does with O’Connor’s legacy, because too much has come before--and remains ahead.
September 9, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (22)
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.
shes a sham so she wont lead any discussion
shell just lie and fib and pretend and give women a bad name
boring
Posted by: bhrandon | Sep 9, 2008 6:11:53 PM
I have been reading and watching Jan Crawford Greenburg for quite a few years and find her reporting and writing to be thoughtful and unbiased. She would have been my choice for VP on either ticket.
Posted by: Ken Brooks | Sep 9, 2008 6:19:10 PM
I am so happy that someone actually has said this. I am a little sick of the gender card being played by the McCain campaign and I can't wait for the media to get a little fed up with it as well.
I mean...really? Old Boy's Club? That's a bit much and they should be ashamed of doing it. I have been impressed by what she's actually been able to say so far and I think they're just making it worse by shrouding her in some media-free world. That's not practical and will not last...
Posted by: What.Say.Me... | Sep 9, 2008 6:23:51 PM
Good ole double standards - we have ours and we'll tell you yours. If McSame had half a brain he would allow her to speak on her own behalf - instead he is using her like a puppet, much like Cheney has used Bush.
I am tired of the rich (wealthy) white men who have run this country into the ground. If she would stand up for herself - I would listen. But so far she has shown me nothing other than she can bend the rules to make it play well for her - saying everyone else is sexist - but she is no different than John and his good ole boys running his campaign - the elite Washington crowd that has brought us to where we are today. Hillary wasn't my choice because the decade of Bush/Clinton/Bush politics had to end - she had the opportunity to make a difference but blew it saying she had the actual experince ((i.e. - since my fathers a doctor does that make me one too?)(because I live in the same house as he does)
To be put on the ticket (as a woman) just to get women to vote is at best a sorry excuse for any campaign to do - and the sad fact is that women are buying this fish (hook,line and sinker) but being that the GOP'ers have done it because Obama did not simply speaks volumes of what they will do to win this election. Our politics have gotten as crooked as other countries we read about - the biggest shame is that the American people don't realize it.
Posted by: jozy | Sep 9, 2008 6:24:01 PM
So far, it seems as if Palin wants her cake and wants to eat it too. Why is she allowing herself to be sheltered and protected? Sarah Barracuda should be telling everyone to back off, that she can take care of herself. She should make clear that there should be no "perceived whine" about sexism.
Deference has nothing to do with it. Palin has been in McCain's policy "boot camp". His advisors, Joe Lieberman chief among them, are trying to teach her everything she needs to know. Like conservative economist Ben Stein said, and I'm paraphrasing here, "Like the baby Superman, they need to pour all of the knowledge of the world in her head. She needs Henry Kissinger for a babysitter". Sad, that.
Truly, we are being lied to and manipulated. Some people actually seem to like that. Also sad, that.
Posted by: fragan4 | Sep 9, 2008 6:45:34 PM
I find it an insult to women that he pulled a stunt like picking Palin.Shows me McCain would do anything to win the White House. There are a lot more women more qualified than Caribou Barbie.
Posted by: J | Sep 9, 2008 7:13:50 PM
I second Ken Brooks.
Posted by: francofou | Sep 9, 2008 7:41:43 PM
The cry of "sexism" is bogus and the Republicans know it. It is a ruse they're using to keep the questions at bay until they fill her head with the information a vice presidential candidate should have - knowledge she lacks.
She just got a passport last year -- they're trying to teach her geography, geopolitics, history. Once they have poured enough in, they will unleash the pit bull again.
It's sexism that she can be mean, hateful, and evil -- but the men can't call her on it because she's a woman.
Critics in Alaska say she has bitten every hand that ever helped her in her ruthless climb to the top.
John McCain will rue the day he selected Sarah Barracuda.
Posted by: Victoria | Sep 9, 2008 7:55:25 PM
He certainly picked the wrong woman in Palin.
Sure, he got an initial big splash, but will the American Public really buy her conservative, ultra-religious rightwing politics -- especially after eight years of Dubya and Cheney?
I hope not. I'd like to hold a higher opinion of my fellow citizens!
Obama/Biden 08
Posted by: jackt51 | Sep 9, 2008 7:58:18 PM
I think Jan Greenburg will be disappointed in Palin's answers about women in society and women in the professions.
Palin is an ideologue. She saw the truth when she took Jesus into her life, she do not figure out the truth on her own.
Greenburg went to Chicago, Palin went to five colleges ending up at Idaho, studying communications. (It would be so easy for you to decide I am a snob but I'm just adding up one and one. I hope I'm wrong.)
Palin effectively moved the Govenor's office to Wasilla and took a per diem and travel expense reimbursement for herself and her kids as if she were on the road - entirely legal - just a little unsightly for a state Gov. Salary $125, reimbursement check $16K. The rest of the government operated in Juneau. Leadership? not so much.
Posted by: Neil | Sep 9, 2008 10:08:39 PM
Excellent post with great insights. Thoroughly enjoyed reading this!
Posted by: Ron | Sep 9, 2008 11:17:15 PM
Love Jan's writing but I am increasingly seeing liberal bias in her writing. Sad.
Posted by: Fan | Sep 9, 2008 11:49:11 PM
To think that I bought Jan's book on the Supreme Court and then to find out she's a liberal.
Posted by: Liberal hater | Sep 10, 2008 12:48:53 AM
While I think that this article is balanced for the most part, I can't agree that the talk in the campaign about Palin is diminishing women. Or Sarah Palin. And I believe that Mrs. Palin will get numerous chances to express herself extemporaneously in the next weeks. It's too early to moan about the fact that she has only given prepared speeches, or is being handled too carefully. This is a political campaign, and a popularity contest to boot. So far Mrs. Palin hasn't stepped into deep holes, and that can only be considered a plus at this stage. Also perhaps Sandra Day O'Connor should be invited to express her opinion about Palin.
Posted by: fgmorley | Sep 10, 2008 4:12:23 AM
It seems oddly naive of you not to understand that it is a central part of a VP candidate's job to assist in implementing the campaign's plan to manage the press. Especially when such a brilliant example is unfolding right before your eyes.
There is nothing wrong with Palin buying into the plan to bait the press for a while via limited availability and a series of jabs at press behavior delivered by others - these are political tactics and, as we now see, damned effective ones.
Should she continue being an effective team member on her way to a historic electoral success or should she, as you apparently prefer, stand apart and strike a pose as some sort of an ideal independent woman candidate, taking down as she does so the entire ticket to defeat?
I and many others would prefer to see her continue to tweak the press and her opponents, keeping them off balance and for the most part in hysterical opposition mode. In so doing she is both deploying her very real political skills and showing how a woman can be fully effective as a senior partner in the campaign team. This, plus a victory in December, is the behavior likely to be remembered for a long time, and best benefit those who come after her.
Posted by: Nomenklatura | Sep 10, 2008 5:38:16 AM
I am enjoying this debate immensely!
McCain/Palin are not playing the gender card to avoid the issues or protect Mrs. Palin. She certainly is capable of defending herself effectively.
They are playing the gender card to expose and highlight hypocrisy from their opponents.
The Left has no rules and no boundaries, but the squeal like stuck pigs when some boundary is crossed by the right. When similar issues were brought up around Ginsburg, O'Connor, Ferraro and HRC, the left used words like "sexist" and "neanderthal". But these concerns somehow become legit when the left wants to use them.
That is the point I imagine it is too subtle for the left.
Posted by: tomjedrz | Sep 12, 2008 12:17:39 PM
I have been blessed with 2 daughters and 3 granddaughters, and was searching on a different subject when this blog stopped me.
To those that fault the Republican Party for walking the walk vs just talking the talk, have you noticed:
Senators Kennedy, Kerry, McGovern(retired), Biden and Edwards, who each failed in their quest for becoming president, early on supported a junior senator, with very little experience, over Hillary, who at least earned her stripes. What, these Ivy Leaguers did not feel SHE was cut out to be a good ole BOY?
Let's see...the Rep. VP is a woman and the Rep. party is sexist, but you haven't balanced the equation by looking at the DNP that said...
Hillary, anybody but;
Obama, no matter what!
Lets's see...Obama's VP-man is a very, very, very experienced senator, to shore up Obama's lack thereof; when the Dem. ask Palin what she will do if thrust into the presidency, and she says she will pick a VP that is very, very, very, experienced, how will you non-sexist news coverers react?
Ms. Greenberg shows how hard it is to discuss a subject without personal bias.
Billy Bob, Florida where Obama said our votes coundn't count before he said our votes can now count--What a guy!
PS I am not a Clinton fan-just the facts mama.
Posted by: Billy Bob | Sep 12, 2008 2:30:55 PM
I liked when you actually covered legal topics in "Legalities" instead of campaigning for Obama.
Posted by: Oz | Sep 23, 2008 11:48:56 AM
Jan's writing and style is all her own -I respect it and the coverage she provides. I'm just glad she blogs at all.
Palin is a true "Mr. Smith goes to Washington" and I hope to see her career continue to grow. What I hate to see is the nation voting for a candidate based on race or gender alone.
Posted by: BD | Sep 30, 2008 11:45:19 AM
Sen.Obama likes to play the race card, so is so unfair for the McCain camp to play the sexist card? Sometimes you have to fight fire with fire.
Posted by: Ratfinkrus | Sep 30, 2008 5:04:55 PM
Post a comment
