Playing the “Female”

by Ryan on October 15, 2007

in Culture,Election 2008,Politics

According to She Who Must Not Be Named’s campaign, “…she is not running as a woman candidate.” 

Too easy. 

Of course, that was not the true point of the memo.  Rather, it was to infer that one should vote for her on the issues and her positions, rather than because she’s a female, but SWMNBN has been playing that angle up lately.  For instance, she has repeatedly told varying accounts of the same story:  on the campaign trail she sees old, frail women who remember the days before women could vote and are just pining to live for the moment America finally elects a woman President.  Of course, SWMNBN sets herself up as just that female President. 

Let her bask in the light of a civil rights first: the first viable female nominee of a major political party.  She will buck historical trends too.  According to one-year-out Gallup polls going back 14 elections, the Republican leader right before the primaries has become the nominee; that’s the old “it’s your turn” phenomenon the Republicans need to break away from.  Yet, the Democrats tend to dump the polling leader for someone else:  George McGovern, Jimmah Carter, Michael Dukakis, Bill, and John Kerry were all trailing in the polls before the primaries yet won the nominations.  SWMNBN will win the nomination despite her massive lead at this time, partially because of her female status.  I hate to think that there are some people who will only show up to vote in order to vote for a woman, despite who she is, just like I’d hate to think one would not vote for a woman because of her gender– which was the sentiment of the campaign memo.  But SWMNBN is certainly exploiting all the angles, including her female status (which her campaign seems to question!).

AP photo/Evan Vucci

{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }

rightonoz October 15, 2007 at 11:43 pm

another country, another election. We may have possibly the strongest economy going but the likelyhood is the Rudd, the left wing Labor leader, controlled by the Trade Unions will win and squander our huge surpluses.

He will certainly do nothing for the vast number of the population above the average wage, focusing solely on his union constituencey. At least Howard plans to spread the benefit everywhere.

A few snippets from Howards initial election promises.

They also promised that over five years, the top marginal tax rate, currently 45 per cent, would be cut to 40 per cent, and the current 40 per cent rate would drop to 35 per cent.

The effective tax-free threshold would rise from $11,000 to $14,000 next July and at least $20,000 in 2012. The 30 per cent threshold would rise from $30,001 to $34,001 next July, and to $37,001 in 2010. The 40 per cent threshold would rise to $80,001 next July.

“These are the results that can be delivered from strong economic growth,” Mr Costello (Howards Treasurer and Heir apparent) said. More people in work meant more revenue, enabling further cuts and greater incentive to work: “This is producing a virtuous cycle.”

Mr Howard said unemployment could be cut from 4.2 per cent to 3.5 per cent by these measures, and said two-thirds of women who have children and work part-time would pay no more than 15 per cent tax by 2010.

The tax cuts, the first of several big spending measures planned by the Government, were made possible by the release of the mid-year update of the May budget. This found the Government is awash with money, having an extra $59 billion at its disposal over the next four financial years.

The surplus for this financial year was upgraded from $10.6 billion to $14.8 billion, and forecast economic growth raised from 3.75 per cent to 4.25 per cent – largely thanks to the mining boom, increased employment and a surge in tax receipts.

The early release of the tax policy was designed to highlight the Government’s economic strength and blindside Labor, which plans to release its tax policy closer to the November 24 election.

I live in fear of Labor government and a return to the 20% interest rates we had last time they were in power. Trouble is, Rudd is such a smarmy slime that the vast uneducated will likely vote for him.


Ryan October 16, 2007 at 4:50 pm

Sometimes I like to think that the American people are more savvy than the tuned-in Americans tend to believe. Maybe the Aussies will see through this Rudd fellow, but one can’t take that for granted. She Who Must Not Be Named is obviously a socialist shill and an emotionless tyrant-in-training, but many Americans will think “Clinton” and associate the pre-War on Terror 1990s, and see that she occasionally appears as to be a woman and think “female”. Now, I associate “Clinton” and “female” with stained dresses and sexual harassment lawsuits, but I fear the American people may think “woman President who has a name we know.” It’s scary, but I think there’s hope that the Americans will see passed that.

I like Howard, though most of what I know about him I’ve read from you. He seems to have “balls”, a sense of humor, and a decent agenda. Rudd sounds like Charles Schumer, a Democrat from New York who is the epitome of smarm (as I can picture “smarmy”!). He demagogues and skeeves people out, but he sounds like he believes what he is saying and plays the lawyerly game outside of the court and in front of the camera.

It seems like Labour and the Democrat Party have something in common: a simple populist agenda that sounds like nice people should vote for it, but would ruin things if actually implemented. If Howard’s government is as inept as the Republicans have been in the states, then your November 24th elections could be a scary affair.


Mike October 16, 2007 at 9:25 pm

Hi Oz:

I can tell you’re not a fan of Kevin Rudd. I don’t think I would be either. Is he downplaying policy positions or is the Australian media just not covering them? Our lefties tend to do best when they hide what they really believe. Is it the same down there?


Mike October 16, 2007 at 9:30 pm

The only time she will discuss an issue is when she states her goal (“I support a good economy” but no mention of the tax increases that would make that unlikely) or when she is discussing a side issue and whines about how she would rather discuss issues without actually discussing one.

Of course she wants to focus on the (alleged) fact that she is a female. It’s a better strategy than highlighting her socialized medicine scheme or her six positions on Iraq.


Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Previous post:

Next post: