QOTD: Keepsakes

Nearly a week after the election Obama still dominates not just the news, but the news about the news. Today on Romenesko, a Poynter Institute blog, I found links to four more stories about the number of post-election day copies various newspapers sold. While I completely understand the cash-strapped newspaper industry's ecstasy at the windfall these sales represent, I wonder what will happen to these "pieces of history."

Like many Americans, I'm about to downsize. The crisp commemorative paper I stood in line for is lying on top of a pile of things I haven't sorted through yet: birthday gifts, parts from four different cameras, clothes I need to mend, and a dresser full of beads and crafting materials. In my living room I've heaped almost half of the clothes from my closet, all either too small, too big, not quite my color, or no longer remotely in style (bare midriff tank tops anyone?).

(No, I wasn't kidding.)

I still have the rest of two closets, two rooms, a bathroom, and a file cabinet to clean out by Thanksgiving. For someone who moved here with little more than three suitcases four years ago, I've managed to accumulate an impressive mass of "semi-useful" things.

While some of these items easily separate into piles of wheat (unused light bulbs) and chaff (frayed old purses), I stumbled across a box of memories last night that ground my sorting process to an instant halt. Worthless to anyone else, each cheap bauble in this colorful collection of activist buttons, old jewelry, Girl Scout pins, notes, and pictures represents something I don't ever want to give up -- even if I have no idea what I want to do with it.

The door to my new home is hardly the eye of a needle, and I'm sure all the belongings I wish to bring will fit through it when push comes to shove. Maybe. If I get rid of about half of them. But instead of thinking about that, I can't help picturing the new things I want to get, like a big enough frame to allow the triumphant gray paper portrait of Victorious Obama and Family to hang out on the wall next to my boyfriend's Magna Carta of King John... It would be so sad to fold it into yet another box tucked away in the closet, waiting for something unknown.

I'm sure my minimalist boyfriend is laughing as he reads this, but he, too, has his treasured collection of books and random large cooking implements. Everyone has something, right?

If you got a paper on Nov. 5, what are you planning on doing with it? What other things do you keep? And does anyone have any clue where to find a frame that will fit an unfolded newspaper???

Question of the Day: The Role of the Next First Lady

The first in a new series analyzing questions raised by various articles. Photo by Flickr user Barack Obama.

Every so often I come across an article that begs one or more larger questions that the author doesn’t mention. Today in this article in the Washington Post, staff writer Robin Givhan dissected Michelle Obama’s choice of a dress for her husband’s Nov. 4 speech and used the occasion to define what Obama’s role will be as First Lady:

...the eye lingers on Michelle Obama. As the next first lady, she will have no prescribed duties and responsibilities. Instead, she will step into the role of national symbol. She can support a cause and address certain issues. But the essence of a first lady's job is to cheerlead by her presence or to admonish by her absence. She is not required to look especially powerful or intellectual. She is our public face of graciousness, sophistication and nurture.

And, of course, we'd like her to look pretty.

....The White House will have to solve the big problems, but it also must champion American culture, from literature to music to cuisine. The first lady is uniquely suited to celebrate its fashion industry. She is more substantial than a starlet and more pragmatic than a socialite. And with her proven attention to aesthetics -- and a few less cardigans -- her photographs can deliver an articulate and powerful message.

Laying aside the idea that a future First Lady would make a good impression by wearing a sleeveless, low-cut black dress without some sort of a cover-up on a cold November Chicago night (see the photos), this article imposes some hefty cultural dictates on the proper place of a president’s wife.

While Michelle Obama dresses fashionably, she is also an attorney with an impressive resume in public service and academia. She graduated from Princeton University and Harvard Law School and mentored our future president at Sidley Austin when he was just a summer associate. After Sidley Austin she worked in City Hall; became the founding executive director for Public Allies, a nonprofit AmeriCorps program; worked as an associate dean at the University of Chicago; and went on to become a vice president of the University of Chicago Medical Center. On the campaign trail she has shown herself to be a powerful force, a spitfire who can rally a crowd of supporters as easily as she charms them. Charles Ogletree, a former professor for both Michelle and Barack Obama, stated on election night that he had thought Michelle would be the one to run for office instead of her husband.

Michelle Obama is no meek former librarian or flashy former Debutante of the Year.

While the roles of women outside the White House have changed over the last several decades, in some ways it seems that the role of the First Lady inside has remained as steady as the marble exterior. The “public face of graciousness, sophistication and nurture” could also be called the personification of 1950s upper-class femininity, a very “traditional” role of a wife supporting her husband and family.

Senator Hillary Clinton bucked these expectations and eventually ran for president partly on her political experience as First Lady, but her successor Laura Bush seemed to slip quietly back into the conventional mold of gracious hostess and charity dinner-speaker. Some of their disparity in roles is certainly due to their own personalities and ambitions. Some of it is also probably due to the expectations of their spouses, their political teams, their supporters, the press, and the general public.

Have our expectations changed after Clinton’s “eighteen million cracks” in the glass ceiling? Do you think the majority of U.S. citizens still want our female “national symbol” to primarily be the hostess of the White House, a cultural touchstone and visual figurehead with no political agenda or power of her own? If not, what do we want Michelle Obama to be?

What do you want her to be?

Please leave your responses in the comments.

Proposed Interview with Senator Obama

I just completed mediabistro's Interviewing Skills course last night. The last assignment was to think up a difficult question for an interviewee and write out multiple follow up questions to get a better answer. Just for the heck of it I decided to draw up an interview with Senator Barack Obama about the treatment of Senator Clinton during the primary. Here are my questions:

1) Senator Obama, during your primary contest with Senator Clinton many women from both camps raised objections to the way that members of the media covered Senator Clinton. Some of these women cited particular pundits, and others expressed concern with what they saw as a sexist bias in the coverage overall. Here are some of the clips that women have indicated as examples of this bias. [Play Hardball, other clips]

What do you think about these? Do you think that ____(names of pundits in clips)_____ treated Senator Clinton fairly?

Follow up questions:

• Here are some clips of those same pundits talking about you. [Play clips.] Do you think you were given the same treatment as Senator Clinton? Why or why not?
• Do you think sexism had anything to do with the way she was treated?
• [If thinks treatment was same/fair] What would you say, then, to the women who were offended and upset with the coverage?
• [If thinks treatment was not same/fair] Why do you think these pundits reacted the way they did to her?
• Do you think the media’s treatment of Senator Clinton was fair overall?
• [If no] Why do you think this happened? What do you think prompted the unfair coverage?

2) Should anything be done to ensure that the media treats female candidates fairly?

• [If so] What could be done, and who should do it? (The government, individual politicians, the people of this country, the courts, a combination, or some other avenue?) Do you think this could be addressed with education, viewers and others expressing their outrage, regulation, or by some other means?
• [If thinks nothing should be done] I know you’ve recently stated that you oppose the reinstatement of the Fairness Doctrine. Is that why you’re hands off here, or are there other reasons?

3) Do you think this country would benefit from having more women in office?

• Why do you think there are so few women currently elected to national political office in the U.S.?
• As president and leader of your party, what would you do to get more women elected to national political office?

4) In your famous Philadelphia speech, you addressed the state of race in this country right now. What do you think about the state of gender equality?

5) Some women have expressed concerns that the combination of the media’s treatment of Senator Clinton, the lack of outcry from elected Democrats over this treatment, and the fact that this treatment continued even after many women protested indicates that many prominent people think that a woman, any woman, is unfit to be president because of her gender. What do you think about that?

6) Can you name any women now who you think have the potential to be a good president? What about in 8 years, do you see any up-and-comers?

-----

Rationale:

The end of Senator Clinton’s campaign left many women bitter and upset, not just that she lost, but that she was treated disrespectfully by the media because of her gender. Many women have expressed concerns that Senator Obama turned a blind eye to blatant displays of sexism against Senator Clinton, and that the Democratic party similarly did not stand up for her. Due to this lack of response, these women wonder whether Senator Obama and the Democrats will fight for their interests, or whether they simply take their votes for granted and will leave these perceived injustices unaddressed. Some of Senator Obama’s actions, such as calling a reporter “sweetie” and patting his wife on the behind the night he declared victory, have compounded this problem for him.

Senators Obama and McCain are now both attempting to court the “female vote” by talking about how they would support what are viewed as women’s issues, but I have not yet seen either of them actually address the issue of how Senator Clinton was treated.

Asking the above questions of Senator Obama in a nationally broadcast interview would publicly air these concerns and give him an opportunity to lay them to rest. It would be a difficult interview for him because, if women perceive him dodging questions, belittling them, not answering the questions to their satisfaction, or answering incorrectly, he risks losing a substantial number of voters. He could also generate controversy if he agrees that various pundits treated Senator Clinton unfairly, and risk losing those pundits’ support in his fight against Senator McCain.

The interviewer would also need to work carefully because these same women feel that the media has given Senator Obama a pass. Allowing him to get away with not answering the questions completely, or even seeming to agree with him too easily, would risk invalidating the interview in their minds. On the other hand, if the interviewer presses too heavily, Senator Obama could refuse to go back on the network, stop answering questions, or retaliate in other ways.

It would be interesting to do a parallel interview on this same issue with Senator McCain, just to be fair, preferably before Senator Obama’s interview aired. Call it a double blind interview. Neither candidate would know what the other candidate said first, so neither would have the advantage. The network could flip a coin on air to decide which played first, and post both simultaneously online. Of course, who knows if either candidate would consent to that.

What do you think? If you could interview either candidate on a topic, what would it be?