ABSTRACT
Why did Sarah Palin touch such a nerve in American politics? Few responded to her candidacy and persona ambivalently, and she remains a prominent and controversial figure in American political and popular culture. The answer lies in the narratives with which Palin was framed as a candidate in 2008, and in how those narratives continue to resonate with the American electorate. In particular, the gendered frames surrounding Palin are grounded in provocative debates about and among women. The hockey mom frame cuts to the heart of what constitutes a good mother, and the degree to which women can be good mothers if they are also seriously committed to career ambition and performance. The beauty queen frame elicits questions of whether women can or should be “pretty” or “hot” in traditionally feminine ways in order to be taken seriously. Are we past the days when powerful women were advised to adopt more masculine traits or dress, empowering women to run for political office “as women” wearing heels and carrying babies? Have women candidates simply added another retrograde requirement to running for office—now they have to be beautiful (and maternal) as well as smart? Or are women candidates who come after Sarah Palin more likely to be dismissed as lightweights because this attractive woman was seen as pretty but not prepared, reinforcing stereotypes of women as flighty? Sarah Palin's self-framing also raised the question of whether or not conservative women can justly claim the label “feminist.” Is that word being reclaimed and redefined from the Right? Finally, has Palin expanded our conceptions of women candidates, creating space for more diverse female candidates in terms of ideology? Are extreme conservative social positions best expressed by traditionally feminine and pretty faces? These are each highly contested themes, all elicited in reaction to the framing of Sarah Palin.
