What salience, if any, that has in Ms. Palin’s self-branding is anybody’s guess.

If they wanted to attaract Democratic Women, I think they missed the boat.

*On Charlie Rose she said she was not apposed to war with Russia.
*She believes Roe vs. Wade should be overturned. Her daughter had the right to choose to keep her baby or abortion but the rest of us (women) can’t think for ourselves and should be denied that right.
*She wants to rape Anwar Alaska for Oil, when we don’t need more oil production. The big oil companies stopped refining oil to jack-up the prices. Read the Report: It’s Not About Supply, Stupid – It’s About Regulating the Profiteers, by David Sirota
*She believes God sent us to war in Iraq. PALIN says HOCKEY MOM, I say NEO-CON.

“There’s nothing cute or quaint about a human pit bull” he writes. These hockey pit bull Moms have resulted in a “zero tolerance policy” for teams, coaches, parents and refs. Implemented by USA Hockey, the governing body of the sport. This basically means no swearing, taunting or throwing any objects .

“Referring to oneself as a pit-bull parent is juvenile… . The mentality of pit bulls, which parts every crowd into sharply cut rows of either friends or mortal enemies, has never been good for youth athletics. Neither is it good for a divided country where a lack of civility in discourse is degrading our society. The metaphors we invoke to describe ourselves to the world speak a lot about how we see ourselves” . I wonder if John McCain approved her message.

Thanks to George Bush, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld (lest we forget), the U.S. has a very real branding problem that affects our image on the world stage as well as markets. It’s a serious problem.

If you think word choice isn’t important, in this election or elsewhere, you’ve got much to learn about marketing. The way these candidates brand themselves — especially in Palin’s case, because she’s left us nothing to consider other than her own makeshift branding — is in fact a very important issue.

Of course there are more important issues to discuss. But neither John McCain nor Sarah Palin is discussing them. And when they do, as was the case when Charles Gibson interviewed Palin the other night, they’re a disaster (e.g., “We don’t need another Cold War” but we “should include Georgia in NATO” even if that means “going to war” with Russia). For crying out loud, she bragged about being able to see Russia from parts of Alaska as proof of her foreign policy experience!

But alas, this isn’t a political blog, it’s a marketing blog — hence the analysis on all these little non-issues like Hockey Momdom.

I also find it intriguing that while she’s supposed to be such a tough “maverick” woman – they have yet to let her out by herself. And, are leery of allowing the press access until the McCain campaign can be sure the press will be “respectful.” Puts her right back into the “little woman” category with all those big brave men protecting her.

And, we all know that if the Democrats had referred to her as a pitbull with lipstick, the screaming could have been heard from here to Alaska and back.

So, yes, it’s fascinating – and ain’t it amazin’ how the GOP all became feminists overnight! (as a commenter on another blog noted.)

I think Pam has it right in suggesting that “hockey mom” has a blue-collar feel (as does hunting for many people). Part of the Republican party’s strategy is to portray Obama as an elitist. Buy marketing Palin as blue-collar, they subtly position Obama as not being blue-collar.

Will it work? I think it will for some segments of the population, especially those voters who already have a negative opinion of Obama. The point of a VP nomination is to energize the base. Palin’s selection, her speech, and the ensuing political commentary have certainly done that.

Also worth considering is the belief expressed by many political analysts that men will make the difference in this year’s election. In recent years, it has been suggested that Women were the deciding factor in who won/lost. Hockey (and hunting) certainly fit the male stereotype (true or not), particularly in states where Hockey is a popular sport, such as the Northeast and Midwest, which account for a significant percentage of electoral votes.

Her statement gives credence to the point about hockey moms being nothing more than reactionary, mean pit bulls with lipstick. If that’s the image “hockey mom” projects, the US is screwed if McCain/Palin get into office. Palin is too macho for her own good.

It’s a nice slogan, but doesn’t translate for me into anything positive about how it will play out in national and world arenas. It’s just more of the shallow-minded, aggressive meanness that we have seen in action for the past eight miserable years.

Is there such a thing as a hockey mom that will partner with community workers rather than bruise them?

I will follow your lead and not wander into political waters. This is my perception of the term ‘hockey mom’

First, it’s colored by the frame of reference of ’soccer mom’. so some of the same stereotypes carry over for me with ‘hockey mom’. That said, I perceive the differences which i think are very purposeful on the part the mccain/pallin marketing machine with the choice of ‘hockey’. The differences I perceive include; tough, independant, aggressive. I think these difference come from my different perceptions of soccer vs. hockey.

To me, soccer is very athletic but not particularly “tough” and physical like football or hockey.

Moms are moms, so my perceptions and/or stereotypes of mom are the same for both terms.

It also comes off as very authentic. She really is a hockey mom and can probably back it up with experiences, stories or missing teeth. I think a lot of women (especially in politics) tried to label themselves as authentic ’soccer moms’ in order to endear themselves to a certain segment, even if it wasn’t true.

Jason

Great points, though!

http://www.cafepress.com/punditmama

My hockey mom can beat up your community organizer

-white
-rural
-evangelical
-xenophobic
-snarky
-willfully ignorant of foreign affairs
-a maverick (because you’re brave enough to support the party in power and “take on the oil companies” by pandering to them)
-anti-intellectual
-a polar bear hater
-a pit bull with lipstick (no comment)

Yesterday, the morning after Palin spoke, I noticed a new contingent identifying themselves on the major newspaper websites and blogs: “Soccer Moms for Obama”. And let’s not forget the fact that Palin’s speech flooded the Obama/Biden campaign with $8 million in a single day. Perhaps not all “hockey moms” feel the same — or perhaps being a “hockey moms” says nothing other than

On the other end of the spectrum, I’m not sure John Edwards shares much in common with the “jet skiing sons of mill workers”, that John Kerry represents the “windsurfers for truth” contingent, or that Barack Obama represents the “multi-ethnic basketball players raised by single moms”.

The “hockey mom” ploy works with the holier-than-thou family values crowd because Palin’s spontaneously inventing what it means. In a very real sense, Palin owes her self-styled brand to The Soccer Mom Myth that Holly describes in her book — which is exactly why Palin should read it!

Women — even suburban and rural white women, believe it or not — are more complex than these absurd demographics suggest. On the other hand, if you or someone you know are dumb enough to be pandered to for being a fellow “hockey mom”, you’re dumb enough to do just about anything, including voting for Sarah Palin.