Sandra Fluke and Martin Luther King

Anyone else noticing some similarities between the recent Rush Limbaugh attack on Sandra Fluke and the arrest of Martin Luther King, Jr., in 1960? Okay, they're far from perfect analogues -- Fluke was insulted, not jailed, and she wasn't a movement leader or household name until Limbaugh made her one. But there are still some interesting parallels.

In October of 1960, King was arrested as part of a sit-in at Rich's Department Store in Atlanta. John Kennedy, just a few days before the presidential election, made a highly publicized phone call of support to Coretta Scott King, and Robert Kennedy intervened as an attorney to have King freed on bond. Nixon, who had enjoyed a cordial relationship with King, made no public gestures of support at this time, apparently believing it would be inappropriate for him to do so as vice president. These events notably occurred at a time when the African American vote was far less uniformly Democratic than it is today. JFK was making a play for a competitive voting bloc, potentially risking the support of southern whites.

This year, we once again see the presidential candidates seeking the best way to respond to a high-salience political event that could affect the votes of a powerful voting bloc. And the responses are telling. Obama has responded by calling Fluke directly (and publicizing the call). Romney's response has been much more measured, saying simply, "It's not the language I would have used." It's hard to say what Romney really should have said, but given that Limbaugh's own half-hearted apology today went further than Romney did, my guess is that few people will be impressed with Romney's courageous stance.

Now, it should be noted that JFK's stance in 1960 was somewhat gutsier than Obama's today; JFK risked alienating his white southern supporters, without whom Democrats of that time just couldn't win the White House. Conversely, women today (particularly pro-choice women) reliably vote more Democratic than men. Obama hasn't alienated anyone who was likely to vote for him. It's all win for him. But Romney faced a situation similar to that of Nixon and similarly whiffed.

I'll be curious to see if we see this reflected in the polls.

Misplaced nostalgia

An actual tweet:

I LOVE PANAM. WISH I COULD HAVE LIVED BACK THEN AND BECOME A PANAM STEWARDESS. HOW EXCITING !!! #PanAm

This was posted after last night's episode of "Pan Am," in which Christina Ricci's character used a fork to fend off an attempted rape by a drunken passenger only to be hushed by her colleagues (warning her to not jeopardize her job) and ridiculed by a pilot (who tries to mollify the rapist with a scotch). The show doesn't handle the subplot particularly well -- Ricci gets a little you-go-girl moment toward the end of the episode, and I'm assuming that's the last we'll hear of that. And, of course, it's just a minor subplot, not meant to distract from the overall glamor of the show or its basic message, "It was really cool to be a servant." The message apparently got through to the tweeter above.

Compare this attempted rape scene to the portrayal of the rape of Joan by her husband in "Mad Men." It's a truly terrifying scene, even though much of the action occurs off-camera; not only does Joan have no way to stop the assault, but she has no recourse for it afterwards. There was not event a concept of spousal rape for her to report to anyone. It was simply one of those things that some women had to endure in exchange for the security of married life.

"Mad Men" demonstrates the dangers women (even white, educated, relatively successful women) faced fifty years ago by virtue of being women in the United States. "Pan Am" suggests that it was glamorous being a woman then, and that the dangers, while real, could be fended off with utensils and a little pluck.

It's not fair to say that "Pan Am" sucks because it's not as good as "Mad Men" -– few shows are. But it seems to be nostalgic for an era that doesn't necessarily deserve it.

Women for Woody

I saw the above magazine on a coffee table in the historic Byers-Evans House in Denver yesterday. I thought it kind of interesting that the Wilson campaign was reaching out to women in 1912. Only six states, containing less than 10 percent of the American population, had enfranchised women by then. But apparently it was enough. According to Jo Freeman, women were playing a very active role in that election, and the major presidential campaigns, cognizant of the growing power of the suffragette movement, sought to woo women for the first time.

Women Connecting in Connecticut

In last Wednesday's New York Times, Raymond Hernandez noted a recent CNN poll (PDF) on the Connecticut Senate race between Republican Linda McMahon and Democrat Richard Blumenthal.  Hernandez notes the substantial gender gap in the race: there's a 13-point gap between the sexes in their evaluations of the candidates.  Blumenthal is basically tied among men (48 Blumenthal, 47 McMahon), while women overwhelmingly prefer him to McMahon (61-34).  Hernandez's explanation for this: "Many female voters are turned off by her campaign."  She is allegedly failing to "connect" with female voters due to her previous work with professional wrestling and her current tough campaign style.

You know what would have been helpful to mention in this article?  There's a substantial gender gap in virtually all partisan races, regardless of the sex of the candidates.  In fact, there was a 13-point gender gap (identical to the current one!) in Connecticut in the 2008 presidential race.  Indeed, we've had a measurable gender gap in presidential elections since the 60s -- one that seems unaffected by the presence of female vice presidential candidates on the ticket -- and it's been in the 10-point range since the 90s.

Now, one thing that's kind of interesting from 2008 is that the gender gap in Connecticut voting was higher than it was nationally.  Is the gap in the Blumenthal-McMahon race higher than in other races?  That would be useful to know.  But all the Times story provides us with is some sex-based rationalizations for how people probably would have voted anyway.