The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

Bush, Palin, What’s the Difference? Part II

Anne, Marjorie, and Hanna:

Thanks to you all for your considered responses to the question I posed earlier—about whether there's any discernible difference between Palin's ability to lead the country and Bush's. Initially, I argued that there isn't, and that's why it's perplexing that so many conservatives are denouncing McCain's veep pick when they didn't say boo about Bush.

You've all mentioned, in one way or another, the fact that Bush belongs to a political family, whereas Palin does not. The logic is that Bush must've picked up something or other at the dinner table, and then at Andover, Yale, and Harvard—that he was assigned important books, even if he never read them, and that makes all the difference. All Palin's done is run a tiny little town and then govern a state that's so oil rich it doesn't need much governing. She's never heard of the books that Bush didn't bother to read.

So here's my follow-up: Bush may have a better, more reassuring pedigree, but he panders to the same contingent as Palin. And, in my opinion, you are who you pander to. Bush, inauthentically, cast himself as a dude from the heartland unspoiled by D.C. like the tree-hugging Al Gore or the French-speaking Kerry. He sold himself to America as an anti-intellectual who governs from the gut. Palin is doing the exact same thing, only authentically.

Hanna, you say the difference in authenticity is what's freaking out the conservative press corp—that Christopher Buckley et al. could tolerate fake anti-elitism, but not real anti-elitism. You may be right, but that doesn't make complete sense to me. Bush pandered to people who have a (let's face it) nearly blood-thirsty anger against people who read books, and so he governed like a person with a nearly blood-thirsty anger against people who read books. Shi'ite, Sunni, what's the difference? Who cares? Let's just get in there! The military can muddle through. Stem-cell research? Fuhget about it. Torture? I'll let my veep figure that one out.

I give credit to the conservatives who are leaving the sinking ship that is the GOP—but I think they should've acted eight years ago.

We'll Miss George

Juliet,

I think this is going to turn out to be a real crisis moment for the conservative movement. The difference between Palin and Bush is: He was just pretending to be regular folk from the heartland, whereas she actually is. Bush was perfect for the conservative movement. (As was Reagan, in a different way.) Bush could masterfully pull off the act of being a struck-by-the-light evangelical from Texas. But the Buckleys and the Frums and the Brooks of the world all knew that actually, he was safe--an Ivy Leaguer from the landed gentry who was just playing a necessary role.

Palin, on the other hand, really tests this faux populism the party leaders have been peddling for so long. Now, the elder Buckley's test--faculty of Harvard or first 2,000 names in the Boston phone book--is real. Palin comes from the latter category, and it ain't looking pretty.    

Before his column today, Brooks told a luncheon crowd that Palin was a fatal cancer on the Republican Party. A week earlier, he'd praised her debate performance as fluid, confident, energetic--piled on the compliments. Either he is just hoping for the best and can't make up his mind. Or he said at a private luncheon what he really believes. Either way it seems the movement is headed for a brain freeze, as all its best thinkers desert.

IQ Challenge

I hate to be in the position of defending President Bush, especially when it comes to his level of intelligence, but I have to say I disagree that he and Sarah Palin are cut from the same aptitude cloth. As you noted, Bush does have more executive experience, (He actually came into office after having been governor of Texas for two consecutive four-year terms.) but beyond experience I think the two have other fundamental differences. Despite his narrow-mindedness, his inability to admit mistakes, his mangling of the English language, and his not always being able to communicate effectively to the public, Bush can on occasion string together coherent sentences. I also get the sense that he does understand complex policy issues even if he's not good at articulating or managing them. I know he was a C student (and so was John McCain, by the way), but the man did go to Harvard and Yale, even if it was by way of a legacy acceptance. And even if he spent most of his time in college boozing and cheerleading, he had to have learned something at these institutions even if it was through osmosis/diffusion by being around all those great minds.

Bush also comes from a political family and understands politics on a much more sophisticated level than Palin. Judging from news reports about Palin's administration, she is clearly a lightweight with a very small town mentality who, instead of surrounding herself with people smarter than herself (which would have been the intelligent thing to do), surrounded herself with friends who are--how shall we say it delicately?--just as dumb as her. (Think of Palin's agriculture secretary who said her love of cows qualified her for the job.) Bush's team was dangerously ideological, wrongheaded on so many issues, and not good for the country, but no one can argue that they weren't smart and well-educated. I don't get the sense that Palin can grasp complex policy issues. I think Bush understands full well what's happening with the economy; I don't think Palin does.

Though I may disagree with Bush's worldview, at least he has a worldview. He understood immigration coming into the White House, he knew a bit about Latino culture, he tried to learn a little Spanish. He knows a handful of people of color and even put some of them in his Cabinet. What gives me pause about Palin is not her limited executive experience, it's her limited education (six colleges before she finally got a degree), her almost absent worldview, the fact that she has not traveled anywhere (gassing up in Ireland notwithstanding), and has not been around a whole lot of people different from herself. For god sakes last weekend she spoke of "our neighboring country of Afghanistan." And just because she can deliver prepared zingers at debates and rallies like a pro, I don't believe for a minute that her dismal interview performances were isolated events. What's worse is that she believes the Republican hype about herself and that is the ultimate example her lack of self-awareness. I think part of being intelligent is knowing your shortcomings and limitations, and being able to admit what you don't know, and what you're not qualified to do. Palin doesn't have a clue.

We in the "liberal media" are always accused of condescending to the conservatives and smearing them for being all of one mind, I'm actually glad to see that some of them have not drank the Kool-Aid and are thinking out of the box and, dare we say it, acting on principle instead of politics.

Déjà Vu

Seems to me, Juliet, that it's not just sexism that is driving conservatives away from Sarah Palin in droves. It's déjà vu. I write here as one who heard President Bush speak a few times during his first trip to Europe in the summer of 2001 and was impressed: He didn't sound as stupid as one had been led to believe; he seemed to have a feel for history; one was inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt—and what a mistake that was.

I was also inclined to give Palin the benefit of the doubt for a few days—until she opened her mouth and started babbling about Putin coming into our airspace. This time I'm not giving her an extra year to get her talking points straight. Once burned, twice shy: Personally, I've had it with politicians from "the heartland" who haven't ever thought much about foreign countries or national issues. I don't care how good their "instincts" are or how "authentic" their political experience: If that experience doesn't include a large dose of foreign travel and a long acquaintance with the history of health care and Social Security reform, then they aren't qualified for the White House.   

Besides, a few years spent writing about Congress taught me to be wary of allegedly "conservative" politicians who talk very loudly about "getting the government off our backs" but scramble for subsidies on behalf of their constituents at every opportunity. There is some evidence that Palin falls into this subgroup as well, or has at times. Haven't we been there, done that, already, too?

Breaking News: Same-Sex Marriage in Connecticut!

It's official: Same-sex couples can now enter legally recognized marriages in three American states—Massachusetts, California, and Connecticut. (Countries include Belgium, Canada, the Netherlands, South Africa, and Spain ... I don't think I've missed any nations, but a Scandinavian country might have snuck in while I wasn't paying attention. All the other developed countries, except for the United States, have some kind of partner recognition for same-sex pairs, roughly equivalent to Vermont's and New Jersey's civil unions, as do a handful of Latin American countries' provinces or states.)

Connecticut's Supreme Court issued its decision about an hour ago. I haven't had a chance to read it, but I wanted to congratulate the 3.5 million residents of the state directly to my south on joining my state in treating its lesbian and gay couples as fully and honorably equal. (More info about the decision will be appearing here.)

I do hope that the voters of California—who will have a chance on Nov. 4 to either undo or uphold their state's gender-neutral marriages—will take heart from being joined by another New England state. California's anti-marriage forces have been lying in their television ads, saying that California's marriage code will force churches to marry same-sex couples even if that's against their religious beliefs. That's just false. Nobody's hurt when the state recognizes that two women or two men can and do promise to care for each other for life—and need the legal tools to fulfill the obligations they make in those vows.

Mazel tov to Connecticut! Considering the catastrophic financial headlines lately, how lovely to get some good news!

But Is Palin Really Worse Than Bush?

First it was David Frum; then George Will followed by David Brooks; then Frum's colleague at the National Review, Kathleen Parker; today, William F. Buckley's son, Christopher jumped on the band wagon. Conservatives everywhere are denouncing McCain's veep pick because, essentially, they think she isn't smart enough to lead the country. True, they focus on the experience or rather the inexperience question, but it's transparent enough that what's sent conservatives into a tizzy is that Palin can't speak let alone process complex ideas. As Parker put it, she's just "Clearly Out Of Her League." I couldn't agree more. But here's what I don't get—since when do conservatives care about smarts? Or, rather, why didn't they care about smarts in 2000 and 2004?

Watching Sarah Palin talk to Katie Couric, and then watching her at the debate (where, admittedly, she did better than expected) gave me déjà vu. She's really very similar to Bush, and it's not at all obvious to me that she's any worse than he is, or was in 2000 and 2004. Maybe Bush isn't stupid, exactly, just lazy. And Palin's not stupid, exactly, either—just supremely uninformed. But ultimately, what's the difference? Either of these qualities should disqualify someone from running the country.

As Leopold Bloom put it (or thought it), "a defect is 10 times worse in a woman." He meant physical defects, but I wonder if this charming bit of sexism applies to mental defects, too. Why is Sarah Palin pushing Christopher Buckley over the edge—he's voting for Obama!—when Bush didn't?

Sarah Palin Isn’t a Cover Girl

On Wednesday, Fox News aired a segment in which it berated Newsweek for not retouching a photo of Sarah Palin that ran on its Oct. 13 cover. (You can see a good close-up here.)

The photo is clearly untouched: stray eyebrow hair, large pores, and wrinkles are all visible on her face. The headline reads "She's One of The Folks (And that's the problem)." But the outrage isn't about the headline at all; it's about the photo. When did untouched become "unfair," as a Republican media consultant claims during the segment? And when did it become a requirement to retouch photos in news magazines rather than fashion ones?

The consultant went on to claim that the photo was "mortifying." Maybe the photo is a little unflattering--who can expect to look great that close up--but mortifying? It's also ridiculous that the three women on the segment prefaced their statements by some form of "Sarah Palin is a beautiful woman." We get it.

If I were Palin, I would upset. Not at the magazine, but at these women who can only talk about her as a "beautiful woman."

And this isn't sexist treatment?

This is Divisive?

Adolescence Is Tough Enough

I know being chosen is supposed to be a great honor, but I feel oddly protective of

Strike a Pose

Back to basics for a second here. We are getting rather divisive on "XX Factor" itself. True, I do not get Rachael's politics. I consider her a friend and a colleague and I admire her competence and her smarts, but on politics, she and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum. I don't get it.

But I want to.

I wish I could wake up one day with a conservative brain and see the world as Rachael sees it and see how the things she believes can make sense to her. I wish someone made conservative-colored glasses that I could try on. Oddly, I come from a family of conservatives, and I still don't get it.

I also feel bad that Rachael is surrounded by liberals. I imagine it's a bit how I'd feel if I worked at Fox News (don't overthink that comparison, please). And I feel bad that McCain and Palin are the candidates that Rachael is being put in a position to defend when their behavior is at times indefensible. I think we all agree that it is absolutely great to have Rachael's intelligent voice on XX Factor, especially since we don't all agree on the many topics we discuss here, and having her here leads to some lively debate, and hopefully some understanding.

But.

I think we are forgetting something. Obama, McCain, Biden, and Palin are first and foremost politicians. Palin is not of the heartland; she does not even feel of the heartland to me. Look at her wardrobe for one. I don't know anyone of the heartland who has a wardrobe like that. In fact, I live in New York City. I have freelanced at Vogue magazine. Even the people who work at Vogue don't have wardrobes like hers. She is wealthy. She is a celebrity. She is a politician. She is not like you and me. Her claims to the heartland are a pose meant to appeal to the Republican fantasy of the average American.

But neither are the others like you and me. They are all wealthy, educated (or, if you prefer: elitist) politicians. They are all posing.

Often it comes down to whose pose you believe in more, whose pose feels more authentic. Bill Clinton was a great poser.

Palin's "regular gal" pose feels particularly transparent. McCain is posing as a dyed-in-the-wool pro-life Republican (I remember I used to like him before he became a candidate in this election and was being himself more). Biden is posing as someone who would be happy in the No. 2 spot and agrees 100 percent with Obama's positions. And Obama is posing as ... I'm not sure what, exactly ... the candidate who cares?

I remember listening to a speech of his several months ago, and a line from a Joni Mitchell song popped into my head, "Pretty lies, when you gonna realize they're only pretty lies ..."

I love what Obama talks about. I want to believe. Please don't let him be telling us pretty lies. But this is what all politicians do, don't they? They make campaign promises—that they have no intention of keeping or that they are incapable of enacting once in office.

But I like what Obama is saying. He is at least saying the right things. McCain is not. In my humble opinion. And Palin is definitely not. She jumped right on the lying bandwagon so quickly, it makes me a little sick. Maybe she's a Washington outsider, but she has learned to be sleazy in record time. My sense is that she doesn't even know McCain that well, and yet she is willing to say whatever she has to—morals, ethics, common decency be damned.

I was particularly impressed with Obama when after Bristol Palin's pregnancy became known and a reporter asked him what he thought, he said that the families of candidates are off-limits, particularly the children. That's class. I can only imagine how the Republicans would have buried him if he'd had a pregnant daughter who was Bristol's age.

I don't think that even McCain believes what he's saying. "My friends," is a stall so he can think of his next talking point, the talking points devised by the party to get him elected.

But, back to the point. Let us not be so entrenched behind our candidates of choice that we cannot be critical of all of them. They are, after all, just politicians. Even Obama, whose pose is so convincing that I really hope it's not a pose at all.

Divided We Fall

Rachael: I have been on the road, but I didn’t want to leave your very smart post unanswered. You and I are in complete agreement that American political discourse has taken a turn for the despicable in recent weeks, and that we are ill-served by the ugliness. But I am going to stand by my claim that campaigns send a message to their supporters about the legitimacy of hating, and that Sarah Palin and John McCain have not just condoned but encouraged it as their campaign has faltered in recent weeks. Americans who are explicitly charged to rage against the press will—as Dana Milbank reported yesterday—happily attack them (racial epithets evidently optional). Americans told that Obama pals around with domestic terrorists may just holler “kill him” in response. Americans repeatedly instructed—as Marjorie wrote yesterday—to view Obama as “not like us” or “not a man who sees America the way you and I see America” cannot be faulted for believing that racism and xenophobia are legitimate modes of political conversation. And I am glad you brought up Obama’s guns and bitterness statement because it highlights the difference between Obama and Palin: Obama’s San Francisco statement was not an attack on gun owners. It was an admittedly artless effort to understand and explain why people in small towns might become single-issue voters. You can call his remarks elitist; they were. But it would be wildly unfair to suggest he was saying those voters are un-American, or irrelevant or unworthy of being engaged. Nobody listening to Obama’s words about small-town voters that day would have responded with “kill them” or “sit down, boy!” These are not small rhetorical differences. Palin is a desperate candidate who seeks to stir up regional and racial hatred and should be held accountable for the way her supporters respond. You and I both agree that the name-calling is cheap and coarsening. I will go one further and say that anyone who believes that some Americans are irrelevant because of their skin color, religion, or hometown is leading her followers right into the abyss we both deplore.

McCain vs. "That One,'' the Opera

From what I could tell, however, the candidates were as rude as their hecklers, proclaiming the questions excellent and then ignoring them. (I did not think McCain calling Obama "that one'' was so insulting, though; I could be wrong, but I thought he meant to do it jokingly —sort of like Tina Fey and Amy Poehler always calling each other "this one''—and didn't quite pull it off.) Their mutual refusal to stray from their stump speeches is what offended me; we're in a crisis here, as we all agree, yet most of what they had to say last night was a remix of the same old musty talking points they've been spouting for months. And with McCain pacing around behind Obama, with all the glassy-eyed steadiness of that New York mafia don who used to pad around in his bedroom slippers pretending to be out of it while secretly still running the whole operation, I at one point thought they might burst into song, call it a comic opera, and basta. McCain's "cut taxes and earmarks" aria really was ridiculous, mate, and Obama's "the middle class needs a rescue package'' refrain so vague that it really was "nothing new, nothing new.'' Sadly, I'm not sure the rest of us who were leaning forward so expectantly missed a single thing we hadn't heard before.  

CNN's Unilluminating Gender Gap

During the vice-presidential debate, I had to keep tearing my gaze away from the CNN ticker with the reactions of undecided voters, which was tracking men separately from women. The sexual politics of politics—how could it not be riveting? Except that, after about five minutes, it wasn't. All it led me to was the basic and obvious observation that women seemed to be higher on the + scale than men, over and over again. They also seemed to dislike hearing the Republican line on the Iraq war more.

Tonight the male/female split tracker was back. And again, women seemed more positive, more excited, more supportive of Barack Obama. And they seemed to twist the dial harder toward disapproval when the topic was the Bush administration's record. Men, meanwhile, seemed to stick closer to the middle of the dial. Because they were more cautious? Less excitable? More bored? Less interested?

Who knows. And maybe I missed some moments in which women thrilled to John McCain, or men did, because I confess that I myself was close to flatlining. But I've decided that I think this men/women ticker is merely reductionist. There's no context, no way of understanding what the differences mean. The separate lines are presented as if they have significance without any way of discerning what that significance could be. Men are from campaign Mars, and Women are from electoral Venus, with no insight about what it's like on either planet.

You, Don't Send Me Flowers

Hating on Homes With Aboveground Swimming Pools

Authentically Fake

Dahlia,

I also agree with you about Sarah Palin being a divider not a uniter. Over the last few days she has been going after Obama in racially coded language in her attempts to link him to '60s-era radical Bill Ayers. I find this dismaying and dangerous. When she says Obama "is not like us," or that he doesn't "share our values," she is signaling to her mostly white audiences that they should be worried and fearful of this guy, who is not only black but also a closet Muslim who hangs out with domestic terrorists. (Read: unpatriotic black militant.) For someone who can't speak with any intelligence, or in a coherent sentence, on the substantive issues, she sure is well-versed in the politics of personal destruction.

As for Rachael's view that Palin's experience might not scream "heartland," but her personality does, I must say I'm doubtful her down home, aw-shucks personality is real. It screams shtick and feels forced. It reminds me of someone who is faking authenticity. I was also amused by how she cited soccer moms like herself worrying about the economy and feeling "fear regarding the few investment that some of us have in the stock market," making it sound as if she is of modest means. And the next day we learn that she and the first dude are worth $1.5 million. Real authenticity does not need to be announced and showcased at every turn. Palin is wearing a flashing neon light saying: "I'm authentic! I'm authentic!"   

As for her now suddenly remembering that golly gee, jiminy cricket she does actually read newspapers, specifically the New York Times, Wall Street Journal, and the Economist,  I guess that would explain her wide-ranging expertise on foreign policy issues.  

Palin and Uniters and Dividers

You're absolutely right, of course, to say that Sarah Palin has been a divider, not a uniter. I didn't see it because I wasn't looking for it. Even though I'm in a bit of a unique situation—I'm geographically planted in Ohio while spending my days virtually on the East Coast—at the end of the day, I'm one of those average folks in Middle America to whom Palin is speaking.

But if we can continue our conversation, I think it's important, while ackowledging the negativity, to ask, what does Sarah Palin have to gain from reaching out to East Coast elites, to the "residents of downtown Seattle" as you write? (And I think we can all agree that no one has ever lost points for running against "Washington insiders," right?) How many votes will that get her? Let's look at the reaction to her nomination. Obama spokesman Bill Burton made fun of the fact she was a small-town mayor (yes, Obama issued his own more tactful statement shortly after). Nancy Pelosi questioned John McCain's judgment. In the days between her debut in Dayton, Ohio, and her convention speech, critics and media members questioned her ability to juggle a campaign and an infant with Down syndrome, made fun of her kids' names, and demanded to see her son Trig's birth certificate. One of my personal favorite reactions came from the day after the speech, when the New York Times' David Carr wrote that before Palin arrived in St. Paul that "there was a lot of sniggering in media rooms and satellite trucks about her beauty queen looks and rustic hobbies, and the suggestion that she was better suited to be a calendar model for a local auto body shop than a holder of the second-highest office in the land" and, later, that "journalists wrinkled their noses in disgust when Piper, Ms. Palin's youngest daughter, was filmed kitty-licking her baby brother's hair into place. But to many Americans—including some I talked to in the convention hall—that looked like family church on Sunday, evidence of good breeding and sibling regard." [Emphasis mine.] I give him credit for his candor and for actually seeking out what ol' Joe and Jane Six-Pack thought of that moment, but what on earth can Sarah Palin do or say to win over people who think it's disgusting when a little girl spit-shines her tiny brother's hair, who chuckle about a governor as a "auto body shop" pinup girl? Since the financial crisis has hit, she has spoken to the concerns of all Americans, pointing out that she and her husband can relate because they've taken a hit in their 401(k) and their savings and because they worry about sending their kids to college. But I know you're looking for more from her. That's fair, and it's something the Republicans might regret if they lose this election.

You are also right that Obama gave an incredible speech at the 2004 convention. (His speech on race during the primaries was excellent, too.) I thought it was refreshing and different. But let's not forget that he also felt compelled to tell his wealthy audience at a San Francisco fundraiser that when people in other parts of the country struggle, "they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them." Let's not forget that he came to Ohio during the primaries and said he opposed NAFTA and criticized Hillary Clinton for supporting it, only to have an economic adviser reassure the Canadians that Obama wasn't about "fundamentally changing" the agreement. Obama talks of hope and change and uniting us all, but when push comes to shove, he can be just like any other politician, saying what he has to say to get elected.

If Obama wins, I hope he can be transformative, that he can make progress in helping Americans set aside their differences. I'm not such a partisan that I want to endure four years of misery just so the Republicans can take back the White House in 2012. If McCain wins and the "pit bull in lipstick" is down the hall in the West Wing, I hope they can accomplish the same thing. But, just like Palin said in her debate with Joe Biden, that in response to he credit crisis Americans need to step up and stop taking on debt that they can't afford and live within their means, the same goes for our discourse. We're not going to get anywhere, regardless of who's president, as long as we're calling one another Dumbocrats and Rethuglicans. If someone wants to convince me that President Bush is the devil, they shouldn't start out by calling him Chimpy McBushitler. Here in the friendly confines of our little blog, we tend to limit ourselves to healthy and respectful debate, but that doesn't happen everywhere.

Palin: It's Us vs. Them

Dahlia, you've put your finger on the reason my initial enthusiasm for Sarah Palin evaporated the minute she opened her mouth; it isn't her conservatism that rankles, but her bile. (Today, for example, she accused Obama of "palling around with terrorists who would target their own country'' because he happened to serve on a charity board on education reform with a '60s radical whose views he has denounced. According to the New York Times story Palin was referencing—and deliberately misrepresenting—"[t]he two men do not appear to have been close. Nor has Mr. Obama ever expressed sympathy for the radical views and actions of [William] Ayers, whom he has called 'somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago, when I was 8.' ")

We could have disagreed on every issue in the multiverse, and I would still have applauded John McCain's choice of a strong, conservative, pro-life feminist—yes!—who actually walked the walk. But Palin's whole up-your-nose-with-a-rubber-hose presentation—it's us-vs.-them on steroids, really—gives the lie to her talk of bipartisanship. She sells herself as a can-do frontierswoman, but also as the poor-me victim of reporters so mean that they dared ask her what she believes. And her overt contempt for difference makes a joke of her promise to bring all Americans together; her loudest shout-out at the debate wasn't to third graders, but to haters. She bragged that she's such a tolerant person that "I have a very diverse family and group of friends and even within that group you would see some who may not agree with me on this issue, some very dear friends who don't agree with me on this issue'' of gay marriage. But people who really are tolerant of other viewpoints are not quite so painfully aware of their own saintly forbearance; that she finds it worth reporting that she has friends who have friends who might be gay—at least, I think that's what she said—in fact suggests a lack of respect. And except for killing her own meat, she has nothing in common with my grandma.

E.J. Graff Sends in This Post

My apologies, all, for being late with this. I'm en route to San Francisco for the wedding of dear friends—two fabulous and widely, deeply loved women—who've been together for 26 years. (It'll be my first Chinese wedding banquet!!) I dearly hope and pray that California voters will on Nov. 4 see fit to approve their marriage rights—and to say yes to recognizing many more such joyous marriages.

And so thank you, Abby, for noting how odiously Palin used the word tolerant in the debate. When Palin used it to talk about gay folks, she tensed up and all but wrinkled her nose, as if smelling something disgusting. In fact, although she briskly announced that she and Biden agreed, her entire way of answering the same-sex marriage questions were in very careful code that made clear how far apart she and Biden actually are.

I don't have a transcript here, but as I remember it, she carefully said that she wouldn't oppose hospital visitation or "private contracts" but that she opposed "redefining" the "traditional definition" of marriage as between one man and one woman. Now, let's leave aside both the tautology and the simple falsity of that statement; marriage has never been one static thing, but has been constantly shifting to suit each era and class, as I discovered when researching my book What Is Marriage For? More important here, though, is that Biden signaled he would support civil unions, domestic partnership, and possibly some now-banned federal recognitions like allowing an American to sponsor her foreign-born female beloved for immigration, say. (Now they'd have to move to Europe or Canada to stay together.) Most of the developed world, and some underdeveloped parts of the world, now have these interim recognitions. The U.S. anti-marriage movement has used state marriage bans to also try to erase these intermediate statuses—saying that any state recognition of a same-sex pair (even sharing health insurance benefits) is a redefinition of "traditional" (by which they mean "recent" or "conventional") marriage.

Biden was announcing, generously and enthusiastically, his support for these ABM (anything but "marriage") measures. Palin was signaling her opposition to any such things that governments might do to allow two people of one sex to honor their bond—and doing it in a way that only very attentive pro-gay and antigay folks would notice. Very smart. And not very nice for my dear California soon-to-be-newlywed long-coupled friends.

Home Is Where the Heartland Is

Rachael, I think you’ve put your finger on Sarah Palin’s “heartland” problem, but perhaps not in a way for which you will thank me. Accepting your premise that Palin deploys the term not in a geographic sense, but to express her “experience, ideology, and personality,” it seems Palin can’t stop herself from using the word in the way she uses so many other regional terms: as a way to rope off the Americans who matter from those who do not.

Palin’s constant use of geographic and class code words—“East coasters,” “media elites,” and “Washington insiders”—reflects just how steeped she is in Ginsu politics: The slicing and dicing of Americans into those who deserve her respect and those who warrant only contempt. As you have eloquently observed, “People are similar wherever you go.” But Gov. Palin just does not seem to share that worldview. I am trying to think of a single sentence she has uttered that has evinced compassion for the residents of downtown Seattle or for the entire East Coast she likes to write off with a wink and a sneer. Whatever you may say about Barack Obama, his 2004 convention speech was transformative in that it renounced the view that some Americans count more than others, based on artificial geographic or religious divisions. Rachael, try as I may, I cannot think of a single compassionate, elevating, or ennobling sentiment Palin has ever expressed toward Americans with which she disagrees—unless you count parroting Ronald Reagan. I can’t think of a single instance in which she has expressed or implied that Americans have more in common than not, and that were she to be elected, she would be respectful of and accountable to all of them, including East Coasters, environmentalists, and community organizers.