I’m counting down til the debate. For pre-game commentary, check out Salon (“The Big Veep Sweepstakes”), feministing (on sexism and generations), and, well, everywhere! Addendum: These bits just in from the ladies over at the WMC:

In The Washington Post, political reporter Anne Kornblut, who has covered the Obama camp since the start of the election cycle and has also covered Hillary Clinton for the New York Times, shares her thoughts on media bias, her experience as a female journalist working in a mostly male press corps and her expectations for Thursday’s vice presidential debate.

Over at Politico, women ex-governors sound off. Among Sarah Palin’s class of trailblazing female governors, Palin is not universally embraced for her accomplishments. In interviews with the former governors who agreed to speak on the record, the subject of Palin tended to draw mixed emotions, with opinions sharply divided along partisan lines.

A Time poll shows Obama making headway with women. Propelled by concerns over the financial crisis and a return of support from female voters, Barack Obama has opened a formidable 7-point lead over John McCain, reaching the 50% threshold among likely voters for the first time in the general campaign for President, according to a new TIME poll.

Over at CBS, news anchor Katie Couric asked Biden and Palin some “Vice Presidential Questions.” This installment tackles Roe v. Wade and Supreme Court decisions.

The LA Times reports that John McCain’s running mate still appeals to many on a personal level, but other voters have grown wary of her experience.

Seen anything else particularly worth sharing? Feel free to post links in comments.

Yesterday Courtney Martin and I had a little convo about Robin Morgan’s latest piece over at the Women’s Media Center, in comments. Thought I’d share snippets here:

CM: Did you really think she was at her best D? You know I love me some WMC, and I thought it was chock full of interesting details, but I’m not sure this is a terribly effective way to communicate. Seems like a terribly effective way to alienate. And make the converted chuckle.

DS: Ok Court, you made me read it very closely again. I found objectionable parts. Like, “Bottom line: Obama’s book title: Dreams from My Father. McCain’s book title: Faith of My Fathers. Patriarchy? You think? Neither one gets it. BUT. One doesn’t not get it much more than the other.” I think of it differently. And I also think this line is a bit of doublespeak: “HRC campaigned intrepidly. But her campaign was unworthy of her—and that’s her fault.” If it’s her fault, then it’s her fault. Just own it. And lastly, this line: “We must never again collaborate in our own invisibility.” Not sure I agree with Morgan that that’s what happened in the primaries.

But other than that, I did think the piece–full of vitriol, yes, and sure to p** off the nonconverted–was effective in terms of pulling together a lot of what I’ve been thinking about the Palin-McCain ticket and hence in rallying a base. I do think outrage is called for in the face of McPalin. And I agree it’s not exactly a bridge-building kind of piece. But tell me more C — what specifically turned you off? The tone? The format? The content? I wanna know.

CM: You pointed out lots of the things that irritated me, but even more than that, I just find Morgan’s overall tone so alienating. It’s like, and I feel bad writing this but it’s really how I feel, a feminist Dowd…too clever and snarky and sarcastic to really communicate from the heart. Maybe I’m just cheesy, but my favorite writers get at the HEART of politics. I feel like she’s missing heart. (I’m also, totally admittedly, still angry at the way she characterized young feminists in her last controversial piece.)

It all got me thinking a lot about feminist messages and communication styles. Got thoughts on this? I’m curious to hear!

Check out this new poll about gender and power released last week by the Pew Research Center about who makes decisions at home. It got play in media outlets including USA Today, Today Show, ABC World News, and The Washington Post. Among the findings:

• In 43% of all couples it’s the woman who makes decisions in more areas than the man.
• By contrast, men make more of the decisions in only about a quarter (26%) of all couples.
• About three-in-ten couples (31%) split decision-making responsibilities equally.

From Pew’s website comes this zinger: “They say it’s a man’s world. But in the typical American family, it’s the woman who wears the pantsuit.”

We’ve known this for a while now, but there is much in the study that also looks new. For instance, on a totally different topic related to gender and power, the survey asked whether people are more comfortable dealing with a man or with a woman in a variety of positions of authority – doctor, banker, lawyer, police officer, airline pilot, school teacher and surgeon. The answer? Well, public attitudes are mixed. Read all about it here.

(Thanks to NCRW and CCF for the heads up.)

So as part of my participation in the Women’s Media Center’s new Progressive Women’s Voices Project, I’ve been reading up on polls and found something* very interesting to share. Did you know that more men may think our nation is ready for a woman president than women do?

Historically, women and men have felt almost the same about their willingness to vote for a woman from their party if she were qualified for the job. Acccording to survey data from the years between 1958 and 1969, both women and men said they would consider voting for a such a gal, but the men were actually more positive: 50-53 percent of women and 55-60 percent of men answered “YES” when asked whether they would vote for a woman if she were their party’s nominee. Today, of course, post-women’s movement, those numbers have spiked. According to a CBS/New York Times Poll in January 2006, 92 percent of respondents said they would vote for a woman from their party if she were qualified for the job.

But now get this: That same year, 2006, when asked about the U.S. public’s readiness to elect a woman head of state, much smaller percentages said they thought the country was ready (92 percent versus 55 percent in the CBS News/New York Times Poll). And when you analyze these responses by gender, the men come out on top: 60 percent of men versus 51 percent of women think the country is ready for a female Commander in Chief.

So, ladies, what gives? I asked Ruth Mandel, Director of the Center for American Women in Politics, this question. Her answer was telling. Apparently, the same holds true for African Americans (though I have yet to see the actual data). The group that is historically on the outside of the presidency feels less sanguine than the in-group about the public’s readiness to see a member of the out-group at the helm.

Is this some form of internalized oppression, to use a word from back in the day? Or are the out-groups’ intuitions right on? Psychology is deep. And so are women’s–and African Americans’–feelings about the readiness of this country to elect someone other than Another White Male.

But I’d love to know if these percentages have changed now that we’ve been through a few primaries and have seen that, on the Dem side at least, some states have proved themselves ready to put a Hillary or a Barack in office. Anyone seen any more recent data on “readiness perception”? Thoughts?

*Data drawn from a book chapter, “She’s the Candidate!”, by Ruth Mandel, published in Women and Leadership: The State of Play and Strategies for Change, edited by Barbara Kellerman and Deborah L. Rhode (Jossey-Bass, 2007). Full chapter available here.

Yesterday I went to a panel on working across generations, sponsored by the National Council for Research on Women’s Corporate Circle. Entering Weil Gotshal’s shiny headquarters at the bottom of Central Park, I had one of those many moments where I wonder why I went academic instead of corporate. Oh those lunches (seared tuna and roasted vegetables).  And oh the fact that some of these firms are really talking about generational differences and have programs like “Reverse Mentoring”. (That would be Merrill Lynch.) There are those here who are genuinely trying to reframe workplace flexibility from employee benefit to something that managers can’t afford not to have. If all of corporate America looked like this particular panel, I’d jump ship in a heartbeat and come join their team. In fact, hmmm…But I digress.

Ellen Galinsky of Families & Work Institute was on the panel and served up a number of interesting tidbits from an earlier study called Generation and Gender in the Workplace, such as:

-Boomers are more likely to be work-centric than other generations, and Gens X and Y more dual-centric (meaning, they place the same priority on their job and family) or family-centric
-younger men are spending more time with their children
-men report more work/life conflict than in the past
-dual-centric and family-centric workers are actually LESS stressed than work-centric worker bees

And my personal favorite:

-if there are tensions in the workplace, they’re NOT primarily between women with kids and women without, as the media loves to overblow; the REAL tensions are between people in high-status jobs vs. those in low-status jobs – which means, I take it, that the real collisions have to do class and generation

And speaking of, I came across an interesting book the other day: When Generations Collide: Who They Are, Why They Clash, and How to Solve the Generational Puzzle at Work. Along with Kara Jesella’s Sassy book, this should be great airplane reading for tomorrow. I’m off to sweet home Chicago for the Council on Contemporary Families Anniversary conference, where I’m on a panel with the divine Miss Virginia Rutter. We’ll be talking to researchers and clinicians about pitching and translating research. Off to make my handouts…