Image by jurvetson via Flickr

The Chicago loss is actually a win? I know. It’s hard to wrap your head around it. I got a sense of this as I test-drove my counter-intuitive (yet brilliant) theory by my baffled and distracted husband over the weekend.   I figured he’d surely see the logic. After all, he’s now a spin doctor himself–Communications Director for VP Biden. Any silver-lining would immediately be picked up by his political radar, I thought. But all I got was a flicker of confusion in his eyes, and then the top of his head again as he returned to the Blackberry trenches.

So. Pay attention. I’ll move with caution.

Obama had to go. Imagine if he hadn’t gone, and we’d lost the bid. Can’t you hear the bellicose rhetoric about how “out of touch” and “unpatriotic” he is? It would have been take two on that campaign trail talk of an aloof and elitist guy who just doesn’t get what most Americans care about.  “Did he dis the Olympics? The event that brings us together as a nation?”

I’d also argue he’d have gotten much the same treatment if he’d stayed home and we won the bid. “We got the Olympics, but no thanks to our clueless President,” it would have gone. And even worse, the win would have pissed off his critics, and increased their roiling, beneath the surface rage about his good luck. But more on that later.

Ok. Still with me? Here’s where real twists start.  Sure, sure. It would have been great had he come home a winner. Great for all of us. But maybe not so much for him. Why? Because then he would have then really irked his critics. They’re already secretly and not so secretly peeved that he’s been voted the world’s prom king. Another victory would have just started a wave of dangerous, uncontrollable seething. You remember high school, right? We want that good-looking, popular quarterback to drop the ball sometimes. It makes us feel better about ourselves.

Now you see where I’m headed? That’s why I argue this loss is good for him. For him to put his reputation and ego on the line, head over there, and get humiliated–I say is the best thing that could happen for him–and maybe the administration. He’s come down a few notches in the eyes of the world, and that’s a good thing–he’s human. The world can relate.

It’s an especially good thing because it punctures his detractors ballooning and  poisonous envy.  Opponents, gleeful about their rivals’ embarrasement, become a bit less hazardous.  In the meantime, everyone else can empathize, which sometimes makes the heart grow–more sympathetic. “I remember when I tried to make that pitch to the paper clip company, and they turned me down flat. Hmph. I guess it happens to all of us.”

Ok. Maybe we’re not all that empathetic. And I know, I know–everyone loves a winner. But the loss might make humility–not arrogance–the administration buzzword for a while.   Learning to be a good loser is critical. That’s what I keep telling my kids, anyway. And having a larger than life role model–for trying one’s best, nodding to a deserving winner, and then moving on with grace–is invaluable.

It’s also true that losses test character. With so many truly meaningful battles ahead, maybe it was critical for this administration to be reminded it won’t win every time–but that it is important to truly engage in the fight.  And then move on to the next one.

That’s crazy. Mrs del Bousada could have been 39 and still gotten sick, been run over by a bus or died in countless other ways. What shocks me most about the story is how on earth she could have wanted babies at 66. Having just flown across the Atlantic with 3 of my 4 I realize I’m exhausted by the demands of motherhood (and my kids have behaved impeccable all journey, but it’s still tiring) at 44. I don’t see how anyone could think they’d have the energy for newborns, and twins, to boot, in their mid 60s.

Yet, I’m conflicted. Lots of men have second or late marriages and have children later in in life and few people throw their arms up in horror. Which leads us back to the original, politically incorrect conclusion that men and women, moms and dads are different. By and large, the demands made on us by our children are greater than those they make on their dads and, I suspect, most of us wouldn’t have it any other way. We love the intimacy that goes from being Mom and are happy to pay the eye-bag price that comes with it.

That said those twins are now without a mother, father or any other obvious form of parental input. Mrs del Bousada’s siblings were themselves elderly. Which leaves little Christian and Pau with bleak prospects. That she should have thought of.

Katty

Judge Sotomayor is sworn in during her confirmation hearing at the Senate Judiciary Committee today (Alex Wong/Getty)

As Washington gears up for its standard three ring circus that is a Supreme Court confirmation hearing, there is one subject that will no doubt come up, but will also, no doubt, be tip-toed around in the name of PC politics: is Sotomayor going to rule on issues differently because she is a woman, and a Latina woman?

The most cutting edge research suggests that she will indeed operate differently on both of those things, but that that fact may well be a good thing. In the Washington Post this weekend we wrote an op-ed about much of this research, that suggests, among other things, that having more women in the senior ranks of corporations is good for profits, and the economy. Precisely because women bring something different to the table–a different perspective and a different management style. We tend to build consensus instead of competing, and tend toward caution, instead of risk.  But there is one bit of research that I find particularly compelling. An economist at the University of Michigan has come up with a mathematical model, something he calls a diversity theorem. He’s used it to study corporate decision making, and especially complicated corporate decision making. What he’s found is that the diverse group, when given a tough decision to make, always reaches a better conclusion. Even if the homogeneous group happens to be “better qualified,” the diverse group makes a better judgment.

That got me thinking about the mix on the Supreme Court. Can we extrapolate? Isn’t it therefore arguable that diversity will benefit that group as well? Moreover, won’t the different management and judicial style that Sotomayor might bring also be helpful in moving decisions along toward more broadly-supported rulings?

It struck me as odd, during uproar about wise Latina comments, (which were overstated on her part, I admit,) that suddenly we all had to retreat to the standard notion that good judges do everything in exactly the same way. Of course that is nonsense. But maybe politics just isn’t ready yet for the revolutionary thought that differences exist–and, in fact, can be beneficial?

Image via Wikipedia

Katty and I prescribe a novel solution in the Outlook section of the Washington Post: women could be the answer to our economic ailments. There’s a hefty batch of research that shows the more senior women a company employees, the more money it makes. And a lot of evidence that women manage differently–we are more cautious and inclusive, while men are more competitive and prone to risk-taking. Nick Kristof discussed some of this a few months ago, but we take it one step further by suggesting that the only way women will get to the top is in a more flexible workplace. Let us know what you think.

Image via Wikipedia

Every now and again I get a call from a friend in Europe asking me to translate America. For much of the Bush administration, and in particular after his reelection in 2004, the question dripped disdain and even anger. “How could you even live there?” my husband’s Scottish relatives would moan, with that particular brand of barely disguised sanctimony only dour Scots are capable of. It was as if I was somehow personally responsible for the election of GW, the bombing of Afghan civilians, the invasion of Iraq and the atrocities of Abu Ghraib all in one neat package.

Those years of war induced anti-Americanism were the low point of my thirteen years here.

So in contrast, the question I got from home the other day, “Katty, tell me they think Palin’s crazy,” seems a relative breeze. Except it isn’t. Because I don’t know how to answer. Defending the right, even the need, of objective foreign journalists to live and work through the doctrine of preemptive action was frankly simple compared to explaining the puzzle that is the Palin effect.

Yes, clearly a lot of Americans I meet do indeed think the soon to be former Governor of Alaska is not only deranged but dangerous (see Al Franken on the subject.) But I live in Washington DC and have begun to wonder whether my political true north isn’t better found by assuming that on this subject the views of most people I meet are simply the diametric opposite of those in much of the rest of the country. How else can I account for her high approval ratings? And how else to make sense of  moves which the political establishment assume amount to political suicide but her supporters tell me amount to political genius. In all my years here I have never encountered a figure more fascinating, more divisive and more indicative of this bi-polar country. It is not even so much that Palin is enigmatic (although I’m still waiting for someone to tell me what she really meant in that resignation ramble) it is the enigma she reveals in American society that is so hard to put my finger on.

It is testimony to the degree of international interest in Sarah Palin that I was asked last week by editors in London to do a  5 minute piece on her (an epic in TV terms) and the request had come before she even announced her resignation.  During the course of interviews for the piece one thing friend and foe alike could agree on is that there is nothing traditional about this politician. She operates according to her own agenda often defying all political norms. Whether she can get to the White House without at some stage becoming a more conventional politician is a different question, but certainly this singularity makes both her and her impact even harder to read.

Was that speech in her back yard on Friday inspired in its break-out-of-the-Beltway unconventionality or was it the bizarre wild gamble it seemed? In other words, is she crazy, or are we?

So when that question came through from Britain, I was stumped. At the risk of sounding Clintonian, it depends of course on the definition of “they.” Which is where Europeans so often fall down in their understanding of this huge country. They simply assume there is one national response and that there is a united “they” to talk about.  They are wrong, of course. But help me out, and I’ll send back a more coherent reply, do you think she’s crazy?

Katty

Todd and Sarah Palin with daughters Piper and Willow at a St. Louis Blues game in October 2008 (Whitney Curtis /Getty)

I have no idea why she quit. Maybe the investigations were about to shake loose something really ugly. Maybe she does believe it will be easier to pursue higher office unencumbered by the job of governor. Maybe she really is just tired of the scrutiny and stress, and is worried about her family.

I certainly find it plausible that she quit for personal and family reasons. But if she did, she made a really bad choice. It’s exactly the wrong lesson to teach her children. They may, may, get to see more of her now. But what have they learned? That when things get tough, you quit? That when you don’t like the way something is going, you can just pull out?

As a mother who struggles with kids who want to drop out of soccer camp after one day, or abandon mother-son piano camp because it’s boring (it was, and I was dying to quit too), it’s clear that kids learn enormously from our example. They watch our actions, more than listening to our words.

And this was not just an ordinary job. Or a tough volunteer PTA gig that suddenly seems overwhelming. She’d made a commitment to the citizens of Alaska. It would seem that there had to have been a middle-ground solution. If her family really was her concern, couldn’t she have started to curtail her national travel, talk to them about the challenge of the rest of the term, and how they could best get through it as a family? It would have been an invaluable lesson about the importance of public service.

I spent quite a bit of time and ink a few days ago suggesting that the media and political establishment were out of bounds in their treatment of Palin. (Pre-resignation) Rick Ungar made a compelling case that she needed to earn respect to get respect. I still believe she deserved and deserves better treatment than she’s been getting. After all, where would we be if we all decided the bad behavior of others freed us to behave the same way.

But I have to admit I’ve now lost considerable respect for Palin. Walking away hardly ever makes sense, and again, if she really is concerned about her family, she’s done exactly the wrong thing. And if her reasons for stepping down are different, then she’s damaged her credibility.

Claire

Image via Wikipedia

From trouble at home (with Alaska voters, that is), to the David Letterman insult and imbroglio, to the new and fascinating VF expose that reveals an underbelly to her Vice-Presidential  bid even seamier and more desperate housewifey than we ever could have imagined—it has not been an easy few months for Sarah Palin.

There does seem to be something about Sarah…….something that leaves her ripe for and vulnerable to any and all fun-making. That seems to give license to all forms of below-the-belt humor and leaks and innuendo. Right? She’s fair game because she’s so…so…well…Sarah. At least that’s what we all tell ourselves.

I think we’ve got to come to our collective senses. Should a governor be our public punching bag? (Obvious exception–if said Governor has abandoned state, for a foreign country, in the name of love, ridicule not only justified, but mandatory.) Do we assume, simply because Palin seems tough enough to nail us from 40 feet with either one of those tight-lipped Alaskan zingers, or the back end of her high-heel, and keep on moving, that she is a woman without feelings?

Todd Purdam managed to unleash a Republican holy war with his compelling account, and it now feels   sort of like we’re having a really pointed and insulting conversation in our living room with our nutty relatives about our crazy aunt. One of those awkward conversations where nobody realizes the subject is actually in the room. SHE’S SITTING RIGHT THERE PEOPLE!

I was still in the “big deal, it’s just Sarah” camp, until I read the bit about her detractors suggesting she may have been operating with postpartum depression last fall. What I particularly like is that her supporters seem think it helps her out to trumpet this accusation far and wide.  Hmm.  Which side likes her again?

In any event. ARE YOU KIDDING ME? Postpartum depression is a serious illness, and hardly one you can put on the back burner while you give a killer convention speech, and then knock the socks off of enthusiastic crowds for weeks on end with your own, um, enthusiasm and exuberance.  So….maybe….just maybe….wild guess here….the depression stuff was male code for ….irrational and difficult female?

She may have had her moments, behind the scenes, but I’m willing to bet our male prima donna politicians could match Sarah move for move. Is there any chance we could forget the clothes (I really could care less what suits she or anybody else bought), the rumored hysteria, the family craziness, and just focus on what Sarah Palin has done in her state, what she’s trying to do, and what sort of candidate she might really be? I mean–that’s why–we’re told–the republicans are in such a lather about Palin and the leaks and innuendo right now. Many still see her as a serious contender down the road. Let’s focus on whether that makes sense. And on treating her with a bit of respect? I think we’ll all feel better about ourselves in the morning.

Related articles by Zemanta

• Bristol Palin: abstinence not realistic (inquisitr.com)

Image via Wikipedia

Check out Sue Shellenbarger’s column on Womenomics. I’ve admired her take and research on this subject for a long time. Terrific to get a mention there!

And look at her column today. Great research–information that all of us control freak moms know in our guts–that we need to leave the dads alone to parent as they want.  What a father’s day present. It’s not easy to do–as you watch your little one fly through the air in a clearly unstable grip–or wonder whether that wipe has really done its job–or notice that none of the food on the plate went into those little tummies. But there’s no question that relaxing, and embracing the idea that another style of parenting, will be healthy for your child, and your marriage.

We actually write a bit about that in Womenomics–and also the idea that you also can’t judge your spouse for not wanting to spend as much time at home as you do. That was a tough one for me—but once I realized that even if my husband were a full-time dad, I’d still want the same time with my kids–it became easier to let go of that red herring. And same with obsessing. I can’t expect him to obsess like I do about all things kid-related. That’s my turf–and if I want to spend time there–fine. But I can’t burden him with that.

A lot of people have asked us on our book tour about whether part of the solution involves some sort of equality on the home front. What do you think? Is that possible? Does it even make sense?

Supporters of Mir Hossen Mousavi protst in Tehran on June 17 (Getty)

Claire and I have been in San Francisco for our Womenomics book tour and I feel very far away from the events in Tehran but I can’t stop thinking about those pictures out of Iran. It’s not just the crowds, and the thrill of people demanding their democratic rights, it’s who’s in those crowds – it’s the thousands of women taking part that amaze and excite me.

I know, many are dressed head to foot in black covering and, to a Western eye, that makes them look repressed and inaccessible. It’s easy to write off a society that forces it’s women to dress like that as backward and hopelessly sexist – and there is some truth to that argument – but that makes the fact that these women are out on the streets, womaning the baricades, as it were, even more extraordinary.

I grew up in the Middle East, in the mostly sunni countries of the Persian Gulf. In Saudi Arabia, my mother was banned from driving. She sometimes disguised herself in a man’s checkered headdress and drove anyway. But it could get us into hairy scrapes. I vividly remember sitting in the back of my parent’s car as a 12 year old, driving from Jeddah up  the steep mountain escarpment to Taif, and another car trying to force us over the edge of the cliff because the driver had realized the “man” at our wheel was not all he seemed to be. Despite that narrow escape my mother still insisted on driving, out on the flat, unpopulated desert tracks, just to feel the independence of being at the wheel again.

Mum worked as a journalist in Jeddah for the Arab news and would sometimes turn up for interviews in government ministries only to be told that she was the first woman ever to have set foot in the office – even the cleaners were all men.

If life was tough for my educated, career minded mother, it was much tougher for her female Arab friends. They were often confined to a life of seclusion at home, surrounded by children and other women but with almost no contact with the outside, male world. In Saudi Arabia, women still can’t even travel in a car that isn’t driven by a male family member.

So, to see all those women, taking part in this mass demonstration of power and freedom of expression, even if they are dressed in black covering, is remarkable. In fact all the more remarkable because of the constraints those coverings can imply. I have my doubts about Mousavi’s real reformist credentials, but the sight of his wife standing by his side on the car in the middle of the demonstration yesterday suggested that at least in the field of gender equality, his heart is in the right place. And she has been a strong supporter of his campaign. So, don’t get sidetracked by what these women are wearing (and many after all are in simple headscarves, pushed back in that sassy Iranian fashion to allow as much hair uncovered as the religious authorities will tolerate), just seeing them out there, marching alongside men in this protest, is a huge step and suggests a culture very different from that of other nations in the region.

We always hear that Iran has one of the most pro Western populations in the Middle East. When I see the picture on the frontpage of T/S today – that is all the evidence I need.

Womenomics translated into Farsi – coming next!

Katty

- What is Womenomics?

- Where to see us on our Book Tour

- Womenomics in the News