How the Palin candidacy proves equal is not always better

Lately I've been mulling over thoughts about sexism, women's progression in politics, and whether or not women are fairly treated in national political campaigns. Most specifically I wondered, is John McCainJohn McCain's running mate, Sarah PalinSarah Palin, really being treated unfairly by mainstream media? By fair I don't mean is she being treated equally, but is she being equitably treated by the media, and if not, why?

First, in order to determine whether men and women are treated fairly we should consider the difference between being treated equally and being treated equitably; the distinction between these two terms is quite significant.

A political science mentor of mine once explained the difference in this way:

If, for example, every United States citizen made $40,000 a year in income, that would be income equality. Income equity, on the other hand, would be each and every citizen having the opportunity to make as much money as they were capable of making in a year. Although the income levels of all Americans are not the same, because every American (theoretically) has the same opportunity for income generation, that is income equity.

Given this premise is it fair to assume that Palin has been equitably judged by the media? Let's look at a few examples to find out.

First, criticism has been raised that Palin came off as unprepared for the office of vice president, and that she had a shallow understanding of foreign policy and national affairs. For Palin to be treated equitably in this matter, the media would have to question all other candidates on their "preparedness" for the office they seek, and to essentially question all other candidates on their knowledge, or lack thereof.

Given this criteria it can be argued that John McCain, having several years as a well-known politician, and a 2000 presidential race under his belt, has been given more of a free pass than any candidate. The press has often referred to McCain as "knowledgeable" and a "hero" and ultra patriot. Is it fair for the media to assume that McCain has the experience necessary for the job of President?

Additionally, until the Palin pick was made public, the media hammered Barack ObamaBarack Obama on his lack of experience, leaving the Obama campaign scrambling to provide reasons why the first-time Senator was qualified. Joe BidenJoe Biden could be considered in the same camp as John McCain - he is so well-known in the mainstream media world, that his "qualifications" rarely come into question.

In the criticism of qualifications, then, it appears the media has treated Palin
equitably. Because Palin falls far shorter than the other candidates in being able to express her abilities in this regard is no fault of the media - in fact, what other materials were they suppose to use? A lack of exposure of VP candidate Palin would likely have raised just as much dander from Republicans as did the exposure she has received in this regard.

Additionally, if Palin had been treated equally in these matters, she clearly would have been dropped from the ticket weeks ago. In terms of knowledge of national and international affairs, she has one of the weakest resumes seen in a national political candidate for decades. Even Ronald Regan, a former actor and radio announcer, had eight years as a Governor under his belt before making the move to the White House and as the televised debates show, his knowledge far rivaled those of Sarah Palin on most any issue.

If anything, Palin has been treated far less harshly than any male counterpart who would have undertaken the same objective with the same experiences as Palin. If discussions surrounding Palin have appeared shallow, it is only because there has been so little to know of the candidate in the few weeks of vetting that occurred just before the Republican National Convention.

Next, Palin purports to be a Washington "outsider". As a result of these assertions, the media has dug further, only to find out that Palin has clearly used her ties to Washington "insiders" to propel her bid for higher office. As a proclaimed "maverick" is it fair game for the media to investigate her assertions and to find proof of her "maverickness"? Or, should the media just take a candidates word for it?

Again, with so little information on the candidate before the announcement at the RNC, the media has had little to work with. And what they have had has been expressed as assumed truth by the candidate and supporters themselves. Is it no longer the job of the media to question the words of candidates running for public office?

Lastly, Palin proclaims herself an "average hockey mom". As a result, when Politico broke the news that the Republican National Committee spent $150,000 on clothing for her and her family, should the media not question her assertions of "averageness"? If Cindy McCainCindy McCain came out and said "I spend about $1,000 a week on average for my clothing" I would have said "of course she does, she's a millionaire! If I had that kind of money, I would too". No one is questioning Palin's "right" to wear expensive designer clothing. What
should be questioned, however, is her assertions that she is "just like me", when clearly that is the furthest thing from the truth.

Is it sexist to even be discussing these issues? I think it would be sexist NOT to discuss these issues - it would be like saying "women candidates are special and shouldn't be questioned on their frivolous spending habits because they are women and were born to shop and spend money". To ignore the purchases because she is a woman is just as bad as ignoring statements made about Pakistan invasions and whether or not she would, as president, raise taxes on the wealthiest, or the poorest, taxpayers.

These are only a few of the examples in which Palin and Republican supporters have tried to argue that Palin is being treated unfairly by the media - that she has been asked "gotcha" questions (including legitimate questions any national politician should know), and has been treated unfairly by showcasing proof of a hypocrisy that she created ($150k shopping sprees as an "average hockey mom").

In the end, these probes, and the questions that have been raised in the media, have been equitable. They have pertained to the "Palin story" and questioned things that have come up specifically related to her - as a mother, as a family member, as someone with a special needs baby, and as a woman who professes to be "just like you and me".

So why all the fuss? Well the fact is, women have never had a national politician say "I'm just like you". Sure, men politicians express their ability to relate to "average families" but it is not the same as a woman standing up and saying "I'm a woman and I'm just like you".

Hillary ClintonHillary Clinton wasn't running an "I'm a woman just like you" campaign - if she had, she wouldn't have come as close in the primary as she did. Clinton ran the only kind of national campaign women have known how to run - she tried to run as an "equal" to her male counterparts.

If nothing else becomes clear for women as a result of this election, at least one thing should stick - women will not win national elections by trying to run an "equal" campaign. Instead, women need to find the balance between what is equitable and what is equal.

Palin has proven that the media can be equitable, but women must also recognize that they have to come closer to being equal not to men, but to the job they are applying for.

Equal in intellect, equal in knowledge, and equal in the common sense and analytical thinking required for a successful leader. That's not to say that men shouldn't be held to these same standards - if anything I believe the opposite is true. What is for certain, however, is that women cannot compete pretend to be men in a game that has, for centuries, been dominated by men.

Somehow instead, women need to find that middle-ground that allows them to express the benefits of being a woman - compassion, understanding, and a strong belief in compromise and consideration for all - while meeting the high standards that men have brought to the job - intelligence, experience, and iron grit. Palin falls very short of any of these measures, if you consider her qualifications in equal terms to other candidates who could have run in her stead (Condoleezza RiceCondoleezza Rice, for example).

If there is anything I would give the 2008 McCain campaign credit for, it is for showing us the difference between a woman running a man's campaign (Clinton) and a woman trying to run a woman's campaign. Because Palin was not able to rise to the occasion does not take away from the fact that women should now see the differences.

What Palin has also done is proven that in today's world, the mainstream media, though biased for their own benefit and purpose, does behave equitably. Because a political campaign feels slighted when the news is not good for them does not take away from that fact.