THE CONTINUING SIGNIFICANCE OF RACE, CLASS AND GENDER IN
PRESIDENTIAL POLITICS
Abstract
The most recent series of presidential elections made history as minority candidates jumped
leaps forward in national politics. But while rightfully a cause for celebration, my analysis of
the elections reveals that as in past electoral contests, the raced, classed and gendered identities
of the candidates played a central role in the politics of the last election and thus continue to
define the democratic landscape of the nation.
There is no question Americans witnessed great strides made by traditionally oppressed social
groups in the 2008 presidential elections. Not only did America elect its first nonwhite
president, but the election also saw two women crack the glass ceiling as Hilary Clinton came
close to winning her party’s nomination and Sarah Palin ran as only the second ever female vice
presidential candidate. But while the symbolic steps forward during the last election are
rightfully celebrated for the diversity they bring to our democracy, with midterms looming it is
also time to take advantage of hindsight and assess the election to better understand how race,
class and gender as intersecting and interlocking systems of oppression and privilege (Collins,
2000) continue to define the electoral process that is the cornerstone of our republic. In this essay
I analyze the news media’s and the campaigns’ framing of the 2008 presidential candidates, and
find the raced, classed and gendered identities of candidates played a primary and salient,
although somewhat unnoticed role in this historic presidential election.
GENDER
Perhaps there is no better exemplification of the American patriarchy than the tiny amount of
women elected to office at the national level. While the 2006 election brought record numbers
of female representatives to congress and promoted Nancy Pelosi to the first woman speaker of
The House, currently in the 111th congress only 77 of the 435 representatives are women, and
The Senate is just over a third female. Both governing bodies fall well short of the fifty-percent
female expected if these bodies were truly representative of population at large.
One theoretical explanation for the over-abundance of male leaders comes from the examination
of gender inequality through masculinity. According to R.W. Connell (1995), all men regardless
of their race or class are socially pressured to embrace an ideal definition of manhood called
hegemonic masculinity that prescribes men be dominant, powerful, rational, and competitive.
When men contradict these traits in their individual practices they are subject to social sanctions
from others, including an undermining of their ‘manliness’ and accusations of homosexuality.
Thus, most men embrace these practices and in doing such are rewarded by acquiring resources
and authority as hegemonic masculine traits overlap with what people expect in their strong and
in-charge leaders. This ultimately means there is an implicit cultural assumption that men should
be in command, while women should be submissive as the cultural ideal female identity
prescribes that women be passive and complacent to male authority (Connell, 1987).
Given societal expectations about the way men and women ought to act, politics becomes a
tricky realm for females as women politicians and leaders confront what Jamieson (1995) calls a
double-bind. When women embrace masculine leadership traits they violate culturally
prescribed gendered behaviors and are judged as overly harsh, or even “bitchy.” Reversely
female leaders and politicians are criticized as weak when they act in-line with femininity. In
electoral politics the double-bind is detrimental as it is almost impossible for females to negotiate
the gendered minefield and present the woman self as not just an effective leader, but also
personally likable.
Over 15 years ago, Jameson (1995) argued Hilary Clinton exemplified the double-bind for
women in politics, and the events of the former first lady’s career throughout the last decade only
serve to reinforce this hypothesis. When playing hardball, political offense throughout many
fierce political battles as both First Lady and Junior Senator from New York, Clinton
contradicted the passive character type expected of women and subsequently her personality was
framed negatively. Because of this personal aversion, when Clinton was perceived as the early
front-runner for the Democratic nomination the media discourse focused almost entirely on the
problems she would have in the general election because of her “lack of likability.” For instance,
a pre-primary USA Today (Lawrence, 2007) article highlights how her hard work and dedication
could be used against her as she is perceived as harsh, aversive, and would need to be warmer
and friendlier to reduce her high levels of disapproval—critiques that would sound out of place if
directed at hard-working, goal-oriented, politically successful males. Also, Clinton (along with
Sarah Palin later in the campaign) was often described as polarizing because of her forward
personality, an adjective seldom if ever directed at male politicians. On the contrary,, if Clinton
had embraced a feminine leadership style, the national discourse would have likely questioned
her leadership abilities.
The framing of Clinton evolved after Barack Obama won the Iowa caucuses and she was forced
to change from offensive to defensive politics. Whenever Clinton defended herself, media
pundits often framed her counter attacks in gendered ways. For instance, after Clinton
rationalized a weak debate performance by claiming the other candidates “piled on,” a February
CNN (2008) report on the Situation Room entitled “The Woman Card” argued “some feminists
claim if Clinton wants to play with the big boys she ought to act like one consistently. They say
one minute she’s the strong woman willing to read, the next she’s under attack, a victim.” After
accusing the campaign of exploiting sexism to “play” to its mostly female base, MSNBC’s
Tucker Carlson (2008) says: “Unbelievable. She is essentially saying what she has implicitly
implied for a long time; if you criticize me, you criticize all women and that seems unfair to me,”
which he follows with an accusation Clinton is pandering to female voters. Jonah Goldberg from
the Nation then reinforces Tucker’s opinions by replying, “It’s this wanting to get credit for the
victimization thing, and then taking a step back and saying “I’m no victim.” Because of the
cultural assumption men are competitive and therefore have a right to defend themselves, it
would be difficult to imagine a male politician’s defenses being interpreted as claiming
victimization, nor would the initial attack ever be perceived as an assault on all men.
Furthermore, while a male politician’s self-defense is most likely in part an attempt to garner
support from male voters, it seems unimaginable these political defenses would ever be framed
as ‘pandering’ by men .
Insight into the gendered nature of campaigns is also illuminated by comparing the end phases of
the 2008 Republican primary to the winding down of the Democratic Party race. Towards the
closing of the primary when Clinton was perceived as having almost no chance of beating
Obama, pundits claimed her refusal to concede was dividing the party and could hurt Obama in
the general election (Parker & O'Keefe, 2008; NBC News, 2008). In comparison, late in the
Republican primary, Mike Huckabee’s refusal to concede until mathematically eliminated was
perceived as ‘keeping McCain honest,’ a strategy to position himself for the 2012 primary, or to
market himself for a possible career in television or radio punditry (Eston, 2008). Thus, these
discussions are framed with a gendered expectation Clinton submit to the benefit the party and
male nominee, whereas it was considered perfectly acceptable for Huckabee to maintain a
presence in the race even if he was doing so to further his own career.
Sarah Palin Enters the Race
When John McCain selected Alaskan governor Sarah Palin as his running mate, the national
discourse about the influence of gender on politics completely transformed. After a series of
interviews with Charles Gibson and Katie Couric that many perceived as illuminating the
governors’ lack of understanding of national issues, Palin was assigned the overly-effeminate
double-bind for women in positions of leadership. She might best be described as being ascribed
the role of ‘trophy wife’ for the republican ticket. Perhaps because of the framing of Palin as
‘less than serious,’ she was never given the severe scrutiny Hillary Clinton was subject to. The
news media, especially conservative cable channels and talk radio, exaggerated their watch-dog
role into a paternalism that shielded and protected the Alaska governor and her family from
sexist treatment. The discourse was so sensitive even Obama’s innocent use of the phrase
“lipstick on a pig” resulted in days of discussion about whether or not the barnyard animal label
was a direct slur at Palin herself (Zeleny, 2008). Paternalistic media vigilantism was even
directed at the McCain campaign as sexist accusations arose after shielding Palin from the press
(Seelye K. Q., 2008). Perhaps nowhere else is the paternalism more apparent than in the Daily
Show’s skit “Sarah Palin Gender Card” which compares the sexist statements conservative
pundits made about Hillary Clinton with their defenses of Sarah Palin because of the sexist
treatment they thought she was subject to (Comedy Central, 2008). For example, this skit shows
how Dick Morris of Fox News thought Clinton should quit “hiding behind her apron strings,” but
then claims the vetting of Palin is indicative of “the deep sexism that runs through our society,”
while arguing “a man never would have never have had to go through this.” Thus, while the
media likely perceived itself the vanguard of a sensitive issue, in comparison to Hillary Clinton
who was surrounded by a discourse she was strong and capable of leadership and therefore
unlikable and unelectable; the over-protection of Palin on the opposite side of the double-bind
ultimately reinforces women as helpless victims who must be protected.
Both sides of the double-bind are readily apparent in Saturday Night Live’s now famous, or
infamous parodies of both Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, and of all the skits shown the
fictitious bringing together of these two politicians to talk about sexism is especially revealing
(NBC Saturday Night Live, 2008). Tina Fey’s Grammy winning depiction of Sarah Palin is an
exaggeration of the candidate’s emphasized femininity, presenting the then Alaska governor as
confusing her current status of elected official and politician with her beauty queen past. She
gives pageant like answers to political questions, and in this particular skit after the actor playing
Clinton speaks out against the Bush Doctrine, Fey as Palin claims “I don’t know what that is.”
Clinton says “I believe diplomacy should be the cornerstone of any foreign policy,” and to that
Fey as Palin responds “and I can see Russia from my house.” While we can interpret the
portrayal of Palin as reflecting the overly-effeminate perceptions of women politicians that leads
many to judge females as incapable of leadership, the framing of Hilary Clinton in this skit
illuminates the other extreme of the double-bind dilemma opens up powerful women to character
attacks. In the SNL skit, Palin tells political pundits to quit using words “that diminish us like
pretty, attractive, beautiful …” which Clinton interrupts, “harpy, shrew, boner-shrinker.” In selfdescribing her “road to the White House,” Clinton says “I scratched, and I clawed,”—words with
negative connotations that would not be used to describe a man’s competitiveness and ambition.
With women politicians, however, these adjectives illuminate how females in, or striving for
positions of leadership are open to personal attacks and ridicule for not acting feminine—as
illustrated in the closing line the SNL skit where Clinton proclaims, “I invite the media to grow a
pair, and if you can’t, I will lend you mine.”
We can see from the 2008 election the double-bind for women in leadership means when
females act like leaders their character is scrutinized as unfeminine but when they act feminine
they are criticized as lacking leadership qualities. Because of the male-equals-leader
presumption embedded in American culture, it seems out of the realm of possibilities that a man
would be accused of “playing a man card,” or using his gender as an asset to compel voters to
support him. However, given the cultural assumptions that automatically lead many to assume
any man has leadership abilities until shown otherwise, can a man avoid using his gender to his
advantage during a campaign even if his doing such remains unstated and perhaps even
unnoticed? In fact, how can anyone argue with the simple premise that a man’s biological sex is
his greatest asset as a politician? Perhaps this presumed and unnoticed fact was best articulated
by Gloria Steinem (2008) who in a New York Times editorial points out how absurd it would be
if a woman ran for president after having only limited experience in a State Legislature and half
a term as a U.S. Senator.
CLASS
For most national leaders, being of high socio-economic origins often equates with political
success to such a great degree that some sociologists argue the American class structure still
retains elements of its aristocratic past and perpetuates the power of a ruling class (Mills, 1956).
And while this holds true for the congress and most state elections, in national politics the
exception to the rule of electing individuals from a modern aristocracy comes with the
presidency. While most elected and appointed national leaders have privileged backgrounds,
with the exception of Kennedy and the Bushes most presidents of the last century come from
modest means. Jimmy Carter was a farmer, Ronald Reagan was an actor, Bill Clinton’s stepfather sold used cars, and Barack Obama’s biography is a ‘fairy-tale-like’ version of the
American dream, the climb up the SES hierarchy, from the son of an immigrant and a mother on
government assistance to president.
Because Americans tend to elect those who exemplify the American dream as opposed to those
born to privilege, many presidential campaigns undertake great efforts to construct their
candidate as ‘in touch with regular people’ or ‘folksy’ while framing their opponent as an elitist,
‘out of touch snob.’ Even George W. Bush, born to one of the most powerful families in the
country, distanced himself from his privileged socio-economic status by presenting an unintellectual, ‘Texas cowboy’ identity. The strategy was revamped four years later by the
republican campaign as John McCain appeared at stock car races (Rother, McCAin Appears at
NASCAR event, 2008) and a South Dakota motorcycle rally (Giordana, 2008)—where he
mistakenly nominated his wife as a contestant for a nude beauty contest (Phillips, 2008) thereby
perpetuating the gendered ‘trophy wife’ role of many first ladies.
In addition to constructing their own selves as regular, everyday Americans in both of the 2008
campaigns used a strategy of framing their opponents as elitist and therefore out of touch with
the general population. Both the McCain-Palin and Clinton tickets framed their democratic
opponent as snobby, most readily apparent in their attacks that focus on Obama’s comments
caught on tape where he claims people from small towns in the rust belt who have been
economically decimated by globalization and outsourcing “get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy toward people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or antitrade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations.” In a speech the same day these comments
broke Clinton described them as “elitist and out of touch,” on Meet the Press, strategists on both
sides of the political divide critique Obama for acting as an over-educated, elitist ‘sociologist in
chief (NBC, 2008),’ while Time magazine describes Palin and McCain’s using of these
comments in the general election as strategic “reigniting the culture war” (Clift, 2008). As a
counter-strategy, the Obama campaign framed McCain’s comments to a Florida audiences on
‘Black Monday’ that “the fundamentals of the economy are strong” as indicative of his
indifference for those suffering through the economic meltdown that ultimately came to define
the 2008 general election (Florida Times-Union, 2008).
America’s electing of the status underdog for president is social-psychologically explained as a
presumed preference for not always the most qualified president, but for a leader whom they
“would enjoy having a beer with.” And while imaginary bar stool friendships are important in
democratic elections that inevitably involve some degree of personality contest, the incorporation
of these class politics is entangled with the politics of masculinity—especially, the ways men of
different classes and also races substantiate their manhood by affirming themselves powerful and
dominant. For example, upper and middle class men often validate their individual power
through their jobs that are economically rewarding and allot a standing over less powerful men—
an authority that goes against American individualism and can cost a politician votes. This is
because middle and working class men who typically lack resources and power take masculine
pride in the physicality and the dexterity of their jobs while stereotyping their white-collar
superiors as being weak and sometimes even effeminate ‘pencil pushers’ because they sit behind
a desk all day. Thus, in accounting for the intersection of gender and class, it is in a politician’s
interest to present himself not as just an everyday person, but an everyday man by distancing
himself from the masculinity of upper class men while guising attacks of his opponents’
manhood and therefore leadership ability in a façade of ‘snobbish elitism.’
Double-edged political attacks frame opponents as both lacking masculine power because they
are upper-class, while claiming a high status makes a candidate problematically different from
the ‘everyday man’ has been a mainstay of recent presidential elections. Kerry’s masculinity and
leadership was undermined through attacks on his war record and the promulgation of photos of
him engaging in the upper-class sport of windsurfing. In 2000, Gore was constructed as an overeducated, computer hacking nerd. Dukakis’s weakness as a man and therefore as a leader was
confirmed during an awkward tank ride. However, one of the most memorable strategies of the
2008 campaign was John McCain’s recruiting of ‘Joe the Plumber,’ a man who first asked
Obama a tax question about a small business he was going to start and later became a central
subject in the presidential debate that followed 3 evenings later (Rother, 2008). Throughout the
remainder of the campaign, McCain and Plain used Joe as a symbolic icon against Obama’s
more progressive tax policy—but of course the symbolism was in large part about showing the
Republican Party’s unity with white, working class men and American individualism.
RACE
While class and gender played a crucial role in the 2008 president elections, the first Black man
winning the presidential race was also a central factor in the unfolding of the campaigns and the
discourse surrounding the election. Using race in presidential politics is a long standing
American tradition. Ronald Reagan perpetuated myths about urban minorities in his comments
that claimed women on welfare drive Cadillac cars, and the elder President Bush played on racial
fears in what are now known as the ‘The Willie Horton ads” that told the story of a convicted
murder who raped a white woman after being released from prison through a program created by
Governor Dukakis (Walton, 1989).
With the first ever minority candidate at the head of a major party’s ticket, race was a constant
topic of discussion throughout both the primary and general election. During a debate in South
Carolina, Obama was asked if Bill Clinton was “America’s first Black president,” and after
speaking highly of what President Clinton did for African Americans while in office declared he
would have to “investigate Bill’s dancing abilities.” After Hillary Clinton lost the South
Carolina primary, Bill Clinton re-entered the racial politics of the primary when he commented
“Jesse Jackson” had won the state twice, thereby implying Obama was a fringe candidate only
capable of gaining votes from Blacks (Seelve, 2008). Of course a double standard exists in this
framing that attributes Obama’s victory to skin color while ignoring the benefits a paler
complexion could have with other voters. For example, when Hillary Clinton later won postindustrial, rust-belt states with large segments of working class white voters, it was attributed not
to her skin color (which likely played a key role for many voters), but her effective “populist
message” (MSNBC, 2008).”
Just as Hillary Clinton was accused of ‘playing the gender’ card when finding herself in political
trouble, Obama’s opponents accused him of ‘playing the race card’ as a means of unjustly
infusing skin color into what was supposed to be a color blind campaign. For example, during
an interview with WHYY radio shortly after the racially charged South Carolina comments Bill
Clinton said “I think that they played the race card on me,”—comments he denied the very next
day when talking to NBC reporters (Phillips, 2008). Still, it would be difficult to imagine the expresident comparing a white candidate poised to beat his wife in a state primary to Jesse Jackson
in order to undermine the victory. A similar ‘race card’ strategy was engaged by Clinton
supporter and pervious vice presidential candidate Geraldine Ferraro, who claims “if Obama was
a white man, he would not be in this position. And if he was a woman of any color, he would not
be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is. And the country is caught up in
the concept (Seelye & Bosman, 2008).” This tactic of undermining others’ accomplishments
because of their skin color is widely engaged both in and outside politics to undermine
minority’s achievements by labeling them ‘affirmative action candidates.’
Throughout the campaign, race and its effects on the primary became a central part of both the
unfolding of the election, and the discourse surrounding it. Hillary Clinton was accused of
exploiting racial fears with her “3 A.M. Phone call add (Bosman, 2008).” While the television
commercial could be interpreted as hyping Clinton’s experience in handling national security
crisis, the accompanying imagery of white, suburban children sleeping comfortably was
interpreted by many as playing on fears of urban Blacks lurking outside in the bushes. Viral
videos of Obama’s pastor, Black liberationist Jeremiah Wright, condemning the United States for
its subjugation of minorities also played an integral role in racializing the democratic primary
campaign as Obama was forced to respond by giving a forceful speech on race in America
entitled ‘A More Perfect Union’ that forced many Americans to confront how the country has yet
to completely put our racial divides behind us.
During the general election the McCain campaign, supported by increasingly influential
conservative media enterprises, framed Obama as an outsider—a status that at symbolically is
reinforced by skin color and Muslim ethnicity. The New York Times describes this ‘not one of
us strategy’ as:
After spending much of the summer searching for an effective line of attack against
Senator Barack Obama, Senator John McCain is beginning a newly aggressive campaign
to define Mr. Obama as arrogant, out of touch and unprepared for the presidency
(Rutenberg, 2008).
To support and reinforce this tactic, the campaign and conservative media highlighted Obama’s
loose affiliation with Bill Ayers, a radical 60s antiwar activist the republicans labeled a terrorist.
Also highlighted was Michelle Obama’s awkwardly phrased statement, “for the first time in my
adult life I am proud of my country” and the couple’s “gang-like, terrorist fist-jab” greeting when
celebrating his victory as the presumptive nominee as a means to frame Obama and his family as
un-American. This framing strategy was so omnipresent, The New Yorker printed a highly
controversial cartoon cover of the Obamas dressed as Muslims and armed as Black Panthers in
the Oval Office to satirically describe what the magazine calls “the politics of fear.” This
strategy was not explicitly racist, but reflects what is called racism without racists (Bonilla-Silva,
2006) as the assumptions guiding this framing were that Obama is different than the superiority
of ‘small-town Americas,’ which is code for the rural, white middle class. Furthermore, if
Obama were white and had an English name the Republican campaign would likely not have
employed these tactics, nor would they have gained traction if they had been used.
In response to this increasingly negative Republican tactic that framed racial others as somehow
different, Obama decried his rival’s implicit racism and told a Missouri audience (Jones, 2008):
So nobody really thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we
face, so what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. “You know, he’s not
patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other
Presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky.
The McCain campaign’s response was identical to Bill Clinton’s attempt to diffuse himself from
his racially charged comments made in the primary: “Obama is playing the race card.” The
McCain campaign makes the argument political fair game to frame Obama as un-American so
long as it is not done in an overtly racialized way, though it seems unlikely that such a strategy
would be targeted at a white candidate given the unlikeness that such a tactic would be effective.
Furthermore, this response could also be seen as couriering political favor from white voters who
perceive minorities as being offered unfair, race-based advantages in their exercising of racism
without racists.
CONCLUSION
The unique strategies of the McCain campaign illustrate the ways the intersection of race, class
and gender guided the unfolding of the last election. Unlike previous campaigns, Republicans
were not framing Obama as something else (with the exception of a few ads claiming Obama
was too ‘celebrity’ to be president) in terms of a feminine elitists. Rather, Obama was subject to
a tactic that attempted to frame him as ‘not one of us,’ meaning not a white, small town, church
going American. Given the pervasiveness and persuasiveness of constructing Democratic
opponents as upper-class effeminates in past presidential contests, one has to wonder if Occam's
razor leads to the conclusion the unique aspect of the 2008 campaign, Obama’s race, led them to
set aside a very effective strategy that has made them the dominate party of the last generation
and instead engage this unique, unproven and ultimately ineffective political discourse that
attempted to frame Obama as a racial outsider as opposed to a man not up to the job because of
his privileged status. While we can never prove a negative through an examination of the last
election, even just a causal survey of the media and campaign discourse of the last presidential
election cycle shows that while great strides have been made by traditionally marginalized
groups’ race, class and gender are still powerful, yet often unnoticed elements in our political
process.
REFERENCES
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2006). Racism Without Racists: Color-Blind Racism and the Persistence of
Racial Inequality in the United States, 2nd edition. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.
Bosman, J. (2008, March 1). Clinton on Experience ... The New York Times .
Clift, E. (2008, October 3). Palin Reignires the Culture War: Her Everwoman Act Plays Well,
and the GOP May Again to Target Obama as Elitist. Newsweek .
CNN. (2008, February). The Woman Card. The Situation Room .
Collins, P. H. (2000). Black feminist thought: Knowledge, consciousness, and the politics of
empowerment. New York: Routledge.
Comedy Central. (2008, September 2008). Sarah Palin Gender Card. The Daily Show with John
Steward .
Connell, R. (1995). Mascunlinities. Berkely, CA: Univesity of California Press.
Connell, R. (1987). Gender & Power. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Eston, L. (2008, March 5). Huckabee Concedes Race. The New York Times .
Florida Times-Union. (2008, September 24). 7 Words that Have us Talking. The Florida Times
Union .
Giordana, M. A. (2008, August 5). McCain Woos Bikers. The New York Times .
Jamieson, K. H. (1995). Beyond the Double Bind: Women and Leadership. Oxford, NY: Oxford
University Press.
Jones, J. K. (2008, July 31). McCain Campaign Says Obama is Playing the 'Race Card'. The New
York Times .
Lawrence, J. (2007, January 22). Why Some Democrats Worry that Clinton Can't Win. USA
Today .
Mills, C. W. (1956). The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
MSNBC. (2008, April 24). Hardball with Chris Matthews.
MSNBC. (2008, February). It's Hard Being a Woman. Tucker .
NBC. (2008, April 13). Meet the Press .
NBC News. (2008, July 4). Clinton Refuses to Concde the Nomination. MSNBC .
NBC Saturday Night Live. (2008). Gov. Palin and Senator Clinton address the nation. Retrieved
Setember 5, 2009, from http://www.nbc.com/Saturday_Night_Live/video/clips/palin-hillaryopen/656281/
Parker, J., & O'Keefe, E. (2008, June 7). Clinton Concedes Nomination as Supporters Debate
Loyalty, Unity. ABC News .
Phillips, K. (2008, April 22). Bill Clinton Irritated by Race-Card Questions. The New York Times
.
Phillips, K. (2008, August 6). COMPETITIONS; Next Up? Cindy McCain . The New York
Times .
Rother, L. (2008, September 14). McCAin Appears at NASCAR event. The New York Times .
Rother, L. (2008, October 15). Plumber from Ohio is Thrust Into Spotlight. The New York Times
.
Rutenberg, J. (2008, July 31). McCain Tries to Define Obama as Out of Touch . The New York
Times .
Seelve, K. Q. (2008, July 31). Racial Issues Return to the Campagn. The New York Times .
Seelye, K. Q. (2008, September 2008). Is Shileding Sarah Palin Sexist? The New York Times .
Seelye, K. Q., & Bosman, J. (2008, March 12). Ferraro’s Obama Remarks Become Talk of
Campaign. The New York Times .
Steinem, G. (2008, January 8). Women are Never Front-Runners. The New York Times .
Walton, A. (1989, August 20). New York Times. The New York Times .
Zeleny, J. (2008, September 10). Obama Responds to 'Phony Outrage.'. The New York Times .