Caroline Kennedy is a lazy, rich socialite who gave up her career to be a mommy, and it’s not sexist at all to make note of this fact
January 4, 2009
by Sheryl Lee
Elizabeth Wurtzel writes on The Daily Beast about the difference between criticisms of Sarah Palin and Caroline Kennedy. According to Wurtzel, the objections to Palin were sort of sexist; the objections to Kennedy are not.
I dunno—I read the following comment about Caroline Kennedy on a feminist blog recently:
I think her new interest in elective office is because she will soon be an empty-nester.
Why couldn’t she just become a real estate agent like so many women of privilege of a certain age who find themselves in need of a hobby or a vocation and don’t necessarily want a real career?
That seems pretty sexist to me. Wurtzel doesn’t demean women who return to work later on in life, but she does attribute the career inequities between men and women to women leaving the workforce to have kids:
All women who take time off to mother their children face similar sticker-shock when they decide to work again. Not only have they lost their qualifications by remaining dormant for a stretch, they also find that their earning power is much less than it was when they went into labor. In fact, studies show that there is salary penalty on motherhood: A woman with children will typically earn 10 percent less than any man doing the same job. In the meantime, a man with a stay-at-home wife gets a nice premium—he will usually earn 30 percent more than the husband of a working wife because he has “zero-drag” at home. Just the same, a woman who works a 40-hour week still spends about 86 percent as much time with her children as a nonworking mom—not much of a difference at all—and she is still the primary parent, delegating tasks to the father, who needs a list of instructions before he doles out child care.
Many women decide it’s not worth it to pull the mommy/careerist double shift, and this is why, Wurtzel says,
women are only 16 percent of the corporate executives in this country, 17 percent of the big-firm law partners, and in all, we hold only 8 percent of the white-collar managerial positions. It is, simply, impossible to take a timeout to raise kids and still compete in a man’s world.
So women should stop letting kids sidetrack their careers, and if they do, it’s their own fault, just like Caroline Kennedy, and they ought to be real estate agents and not try to opt back in to high-powered careers in business or politics, because men don’t do that, and what do we expect?
Nope. There’s no sexism here. Nosiree.
I dunno, either, Sheryl. First, you’ve drawn portions from the opinions of two people to craft your argument, which appears to be that taking 20 years off to raise children shouldn’t be an obstacle for Caroline Kennedy in her quest to be APPOINTED to the US Senate.
First, I would have wanted to see the “feminist blogger’s” comments in context. If she was suggesting Caroline Kennedy should forego politics entirely and for the rest of her life because she took time off to have and raise kids, then I would agree that’s a poor argument. But one poor argument on the part of one anonymous blogger doesn’t make a case for Caroline Kennedy’s appointment to the Senate,either.
Obviously, being a mom shouldn’t exclude a woman from politics; however, in this case there are more qualified candidates than Caroline Kennedy. Do voters elect moms to public office? Yes, “voters” do, but the special election to replace Hillary Clinton won’t be until 2010. In the meantime, Governor Paterson is expected to use his professionally informed understanding and expertise to select an interim replacement. Within that framework, the more substantive resumes of the other candidates do matter.
How does he justify the selection of the least qualified candidate on his list? How does he dismiss the more substantive qualifications of Gillebrand, Weingarten, and Maloney as though they don’t even exist? We’ve heard a case for CK being built around her potential as a fundraiser, but the position of senator is a representative position, and in CK’s case it wasn’t only about having and raising kids, it was about holding the public at a distance. She spent her entire adult life (even before children) avoiding the public she now seeks to serve. Even now she refuses to disclose her finances unless and until she’s appointed.
Determining who will be the next Senator of New York isn’t only about what’s fair to Caroline Kennedy. It’s about the people of New York, and so far, in the portions of other opinions you’ve chosen to share, and in your own writing, I don’t see the interests of the people of New York mentioned even once.
Yes, it’s true this is a support organization for women, but now we have a blog entry that even further minimizes other, more qualified women candidates by ignoring them in favor of giving CK even more exposure by defending her against sexist rhetoric from an anonymous blogger.
Not only that. The people of New York elected Hillary Clinton to the US Senate. She was also their overwhelming choice for president. Out of all the women available to fill this vacant senate seat, we’re going to defend the least qualified one, who also happens to be the one who stuck a shiv in the presidential campaign of the woman she seeks to replace? Should CK be able to support her candidates of choice. Sure, but where was she when the media was trampling Hillary Clinton? Did her partisanship for Obama preclude her from “calling out” a sexist media?
Maybe when Caroline Kennedy steps up to defend women in politics I’ll care more about what some anonymous blogger said about her. But for now, I’m “calling it out” on a poorly qualified candidate who did nothing to stand against sexism in 2008.
Clearly and blatantly sexist IMO.
But, I still do not support Kennedy’s appointment to the Senate. For many reasons. The least of which is I don’t think she can fend off Rudy Guliani in the next actual election.
Unless she walks on water in the meantime, that is.
I see the sexism in the comments left on the feminist blog but how is Wurtzel sexist here?
I don’t know that she is saying that ALL of the reasons for unequal pay come down to women and their parenting roles. Just that it is one factor. Is that sexist?
“Ditto / KayJL”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Myself & other concerned NYers have been working on getting a “Qualified / Ready on Day One” woman to replace the irreplaceable,
Senator Clinton. The names you brought up are on our list as well. I fear all the oxygen CK is generating on this will make it easier for him to appoint a male instead of a woman.
However, the whole “you know’s” stuff was making me uncomfortable.
She should be “rejected” because of the entitlement factor & not the female factor.
Please anyone willing to help go to:
http://www.dailypuma.com
You’ll see some of our efforts high-lighted.
Feel Free to jump in. The protest letter is a “respectful” one dealing with qualifications only.
I really dislike the idea of Caroline inheriting a senate seat like we live in a monarchy. But I’ve resisted the urge to criticize her lack of qualifications. What’s the problem, she wasn’t a community organizer?
Look at Bush, look at Obama, of you want a genuine level playing field for women, then Caroline is more than qualified to compete in this pitiful gene pool. Sad but true.
Men are often given positions not based on their qualifications, but based on who they know. Sometimes simply based on their gender. It is sexist that women who stop earning a paycheck to raise children find themselves behind when returning to the workforce. Did their qualifications go away? Of course not, but there is a double standard at work. Women are expected to climb the ladder, to earn every step they take. And it is sexism that says no matter how qualified, how experienced, it is never quite going to be good enough. “Qualifed woman” becomes an oxymoron. Look at the gender inbalence in the cabinet, in congress.
In the labor force, men can go away to drug treatment, to long hospital stays, even to jail, and return to the workforce often with no loss of earnings. They can go off to war, to serve their country in the Nat’l Guard, and their absence is not held against them career wise. For the most part, anyway. It is only when raising children that workforce experience is subtracted. Mommy years don’t count as experience, in a Twilight zone twist, they actually subtract from your qualifications.
“In the labor force, men can go away to drug treatment, to long hospital stays, even to jail, and return to the workforce often with no loss of earnings.”
Not only that they can tack on a value-added component to their career: motivational talks about how they suffered, fell down, got up again and again, and made it fly.
Too many people still think being a mother means you don’t do anything, don’t learn, don’t apply what you learn. It’s a vacuum, to be got through, and when you go out again, you start where you were 17 years before.
I think New Yorkers should put forth Silda. Can she be appointed to/run for (unsure how this works) this office? Or would she be a sure loser because she’d have to wear the albatross of her husband’s reputation “she should have” all the way?
This piece is too many degrees of seperation from the original source(s) for me to wrap my brain around it in a solid way.
KayJL – I appreciate your perspective greatly on all points.
yttik – You raise a great point regarding the double standard of essentially having no standard! I’m not supporting lowering the bar, but it’s true that wherever the bar is set, women shouldn’t be held to a different standard. (That said, I think the bar needs to be raised significantly for our elected officials.)
Sis – Agree completely about the way women who work at home are seen as not really working and as if their lives are in a vacuum, returning to the work force frozen in time from before they had children. In my view, raising a child is the hardest job in the world. If men were the primary caretakers of children, no doubt, this would be front and center.
The reason for the outrage over Caroline Kennedy being APPOINTED to Hillary Clinton’s position is the Kennedy’s actively campaigned against Hillary Clinton during the presidential primaries, and now they want a reward, Hillary Clinton’s seat!
Have the Kennedy’s no class but to ask for the very thing they should not get under any circumstance, the seat of the person they attempted to topple?
Not only is Blago not going to be found guilty of anything, but what is going on in New York is worse than what happened in Chicago. In Chicago, no money changed hands.
Barack Obama has a mile long list of people who were promised something for helping to topple the best candidate during the primaries.
The Kennedy’s are a part of that very long and very sleazy list.
http://www.DailyPUMA.com
The irony is, if Caroline Kennedy had just asked for something smaller, there probably would not have been an uproar at all. But actually expecting to land the very seat of the person the Kennedy’s helped topple is classless and exposes the latent arrogance that is the core of the Barack Obama agenda.
Your our HERO Allesandro!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THANKS!!!
Allesandro – Great post, and I’ll raise you one: It was Ted Kennedy (along with John Kerry) who were the original kingmakers behind Obama’s rise to power, per an article in the NYT about a year ago. They were so brazen and self -confident as to announce that part of the strategy involved his short tenure in Congress and therefore he would have little voting record to vet. That, plus as Kerry often announced on the campaign trail, Obama’s black. They saw an opportunity where they had a pawn to use, a cult of personality was created, the timing was right, the media were in the bad, everyone was tripping over themselves to avoid appearing racist while having no apparent concern for being brutally sexist, and so it went. The Kennedy’s indeed!
media were in the bag, not bad (Freudian slip!)
I have heard women’s groups complaining that there are far more qualified women who could be taking this appointment to the Senate for New York. Well here is the thing, you are unlikely to have these more qualified women even considered for the job. Yes Caroline Kennedy is getting the job based on who her grandfather, father, uncle and to some extant mother were. She is upper class, she hasn’t performed for the people in an elected position before. But if you don’t get Caroline what you are going to get is the male version of Caroline, an elitist with family connections who is appointed as a political favor with no though of how this affects the people of New York. So you might as well go with Caroline. In Washington state we have two female Senators and a female Governor who were elected on their own credentials and money. The East coast is the most back ward part of the country and the people back there are not ready for a woman in politics unless it is a wife of a politician or daughter provided there are no eligible sons, male cousins or even male cousins three times removed.
“Constance”
I thought that’s what “we” have been trying to fight against.
http://www.dailypuma.com
has been wonderful in helping some of “US” NYers do just that. We are working hard trying to get a “Qualified on Day One” woman selected. I personally have spoken to various public officials office staff & they seem just as confused as we are in what’s happening.
**********************************************************************
Please go to the “link” & give “us” a hand. You’ll see some choices,
High-Lighted. Anything would be appreciated.
tpt/ny : Well I am all for helping with the goal of more qualified women in government. But don’t miss this chance to get a woman in office by going against Caroline. All that will cause is for you to get another male Caroline installed. My point is East Coast politics is so sexist and corrupt that for now I think you need to be looking at getting any women in anywhere. Meanwhile work on cleaning up your entire political spectrum, lean on Caroline to be something other than a token woman (which she could have the potential to be) clean up NY media which is spreading sexism throughout the world and push your bench of women candidates hard and daily in the media and when the corporate media doesn’t respond make obvious moves to destroy them. Meanwhile I would invite all East coast women to think about a move to the west, south or even to the dreaded “flyover zone”. I am not kidding people out here consider the sexism that is apparently common place in the north east jaw droopingly backward . The only thing I find more unbelievable than the pervasive sexism in the East coast is the total confidence east coast people have that they are the most advanced people on earth regarding women’s roles. Many of these people are so backward that it is a waste of time to try to change them, I think you all need to step over them (or on them).
Constance”
I have to respectfully disagree. Caroline’s possible “selection” would be in no way an advancement for women.
It will however be a VICTORY for “Politics as usual & Obama & crew.
I have no problem ,as Gloria Steinam said in the NY Post; Caroline should go for the position left vacant by a Carolyn Maloney or some other “Qualified on Day One” appointee.
Just like I rejected a “Democrat” at any cost with Obama; so too do I reject Caroline Kennedy.
Don’t forget she was part of the “VP” selection group that “did not even consider Senator Clinton” there by “Totally Rejecting a Unity Ticket”.
Personally I’m happier with the Sec. of State appointment.
It’s just the point that many did want it.
Thanks again for you interest & feedback
Yes, the woman who gets ahead by throwing other women under the bus. This is what Caroline would be.
I’m agnostic on Caroline Kennedy’s suitability for the NY Senate seat, but I think these criticisms of her bear a strong resemblance to criticisms of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin: motherhood is an issue, the way they talk is an issue, their financial status is an issue, their social status is an issue.
These are topics we almost never hear about when male candidates’ viability is assessed. I can’t imagine that John John would get anything like this kind of scrutiny if her were alive and being appointed under similar circumstances. Men’s suitability is not questioned in the same manner.
I think it’s perfectly valid to say that Caroline Kennedy betrayed your candidate and you can’t support her on that basis, or that it’s cronyism and you can’t support that, or that she has no knowledge of constitutional law (does she?), and is therefore unsuitable. But to bring up motherhood or daughterhood or wifehood in order to discredit her is just more of the same crap we’ve been hearing for a couple of years now.
Better any woman (even CK) than any man (even Bill Clinton)? That’s the problem with anything like a quota system, especially for women. The powers that be can easily find someone with female anatomy who supports their own policies and agenda, rather than supporting women’s rights and issues.
CK’s backstabbing of Hillary for Obama, shows her a … FINO? Feminist in Name Only? Female in Name Only? She is certainly someone who does not deserve feminist support; just the opposite.
What is the point in supporting a ‘woman’ who will use whatever power she’s given, to backstab other women?
Sheryl – Greatly appreciate the points you raised in your 9:15 pm post. (Also enjoyed your wit at the beginning!)
fsteele – Greatly appreciated your post at 9:57 pm.
Love the caliber of ideas that are shared on this site. They are inspiring, challenging, and thought-provoking.
Anna–wholeheartedly agree this is no time to be lowering the bar. with our country at war on two fronts, our economy tanking, and an election year that showed women to be at a level of political disadvantage that’s completely unacceptable, we should be raising our standards, not compromising them.
for myself, if I were to accept Constance’s position that opposing the selection of an elitist woman would only result in the selection of an elitist man, and that Gillebrand, Weingarten, and Maloney haven’t stood a chance from the get-go, then I’d prefer the selection of Andrew Cuomo to the selection of Caroline Kennedy. yes, he’s political royalty, but through a lifetime of public service he’s demonstrated not only compassion for the poor and homeless, but from a very young age has taken initiative to alleviate their suffering, plus he’s been tough on crime, most particularly corporate crime, at a time in our history where corporate crime and irresponsibility has been putting our entire country at risk.
I say this because while I support every and all effort to achieve a balance for women in politics, at the end of the day this is about our country, and about what kind of country our children will inherit. US Senate seats are not entailed property, they are not dukedoms or earldoms, but if the current powers that be are still going to treat them as such, then give me the earl with the solid resume and a servant’s heart over a princess who’s got the relative qualifications of a pea.
Sheryl, I continue to disagree that Caroline Kennedy’s motherhood is under sexist attack. You yourself have said you don’t consider Wurtzel’s article to be demeaning to women who’ve put their careers on hold to raise a family, so as your article stands, your premise is wholly reliant on a selected quote from one anonymous blogger. Ironically, the need to reach into the anonymity of the blogosphere to make that case supports Wurtzel’s position that there’s been no objection to CK’s Senate bid from either mainstream media or any other prominent public figure that would qualify as sexist.
Why is it alright to many minds here to oppose CK because she supported Obama, but not alright to select which women to support based on their views on the issues (and yes, for me, that includes Choice, Pay Equity, and several other major things).
Either it’s okay to choose based on philosophy and other non-gender-specific issues or it’s not. I don’t see how we can cherry-pick. This is the danger of the totally gender-centric philosophy. Nobody is really willing to go through with it if the woman in question is opposed to them on THEIR hot-button issue. Here, the litmus test is support for Hillary in the primaries instead of Choice, but there is still a litmus test. This is still dividing women.
As for those who blast the CK resume, didn’t Hillary turn out to be a great Senator despite the fact she had never held elective office before?
“Nancy”
And all the others on this site that have so openly engaged in dialog
on this subject.
Go to http://www.dailypuma.com
You will see efforts to STOP her appointment on a “Non-Gender” basis.
I often used the term as “Qualified on Day One”.
That is because this must be someone who has NO LEARNING CURVE. They must jump in right away and start working for this country.
I think Hillary’s vacant Senate seat should be filled with the prettiest woman in New York – I mean what the hell does ability and experience have to do with it anymore? Appearance counts more than substance, obviously. We are seeing the 1st wave of sleeeeze coming from the Obama Administration and its cult followers.
tpt/ny,
IL and CO have already filled their vacant seats with men (qualified ones?). About the last thing we want to see is for Gov. Paterson to give Hillary’s vacant seat to a man and we go backwards from 17% to 16%.
The majority of TNA members prefer Gillibrand or Maloney and when asked by Gov. Paterson’s office, we did report that. That said, prioirty one has to be getting a woman into that seat!
TNA is planning to put together a questionnaire on women’s issues (our goals) that we will submit to candidates under consideration by Gov. Paterson over the next couple of weeks. It is very important to know where these candidates stand. We’ll keep you all posted.
Nancy,
I do see a difference in kind between, say, supporting Sarah Palin in spite of some of her views — and opposing CK because she backstabbed Hillary.
The point of supporting women candidates is that they will presumably support other women candidates. CK has proved herself not to belong in that category.
One might say there are three positions:
1. support CK because she is (biologically) female
2. oppose her because she backstabbed Hillary
3. remain neutral because she does not deserve #1
What I object to, is #1 — retroactively giving CK the sisterhood support that she denied to Hillary.
Gillibrand and Maloney are my choices. But I’d take Cuomo over Kennedy any day. I don’t think it helps women to vouch for women who aren’t qualified on paper. The Palin comparison makes no sense; as Wurtzel points out, agree with her positions or not, Palin paid her dues. Twenty years off isn’t about motherhood per se, it’s about someone who thinks she’s going to get a shortcut.
Additionally, the JFK Jr example is an unlikely one. John Jr turned down opportunities he felt unqualified for – for example, he was offered a good job in the Clinton Justice Dept and declined. He didn’t kid himself about his qualifications or toot his horn. He worked as a paralegal for the Manatt, Phelps law firm in LA the summer of 1988, during which the Democratic Convention happened in Atlanta. A friend of mine who was practicing at Manatt at the time told me he ran into John in the men’s room and asked him what he did that weekend. John said he was hanging out in Atlanta. It was only later that my friend discovered he’d been speaking at the convention there.
John won all of his cases as an ADA in NY in the late 80s/early 90s but told friends he didn’t like all the media attention on him and wasn’t passionate about what he was doing. It’s very unlikely he would have sought a Senate seat.
I think the Palin comparison is apt. What is the evidence that Palin would support other women? Where does she stand on issues that are important to women? Would Palin have ever supported Hillary?
What I’m hearing from some here is that past grudges trump stands on the issues. That’s looking back, not forward.
What about this organization? Are the millions of women who voted for Obama not welcome? How do we grow if a litmus test like that is applied?
Nancy, I don’t know if you are referring to me in “some here” but I didn’t say anything about a litmus test screening out Obama supporters. On the contrary, I do feel Obama supporters are welcome. I mentioned a litmus test screening out people who have no political experience, whether men or women.
Octagalore, I agree: better Cuomo than CK.
Nancy, Palin’s job this fall was to campaign for McCain, especially to rally conservatives. So what did she do? In her very first speech — at the convention — she praised Hillary and Ferraro, whom the conservatives had long fought. She asked women to come together as women to break the glass ceiling. Throughout the campaign, whenever the press tried to start a catfight, she said very good things about Hillary. Palin repeatedly spoke of women having equal opportunity, and she was clearly deliberately being a role model of motherhood IN the executive office (and ftm fof high heels and big hair in the executive office).
I’d have to do some research as to Palin’s record with women’s issues and other women office seekers in Alaska. However we have a clear example of CK’s record with another woman: Hillary. And, for that matter, CK’s behavior with two other women: Maloney and Gillibrand. The fact that they’ve paid their dues means nothing to CK. She wants to float in ahead of them — just as she helped Obama float in ahead of Hillary.
Nancy Byrnes,
Anyone who wants to work to support other women is welcome here. Read our FAQ and Goals and see what you think.
As to the Palin issue, I feel there is no comparison because she started at the bottom and worked her way up. That makes a huge difference to me personally. fsteele is right also in that she never took the “catfight bait” and I respect that. You can disagree with someone on issues and still treat them respectfully and I like that about her as well. We will have an article up soon about Palin that will discuss the issues you brought up.
Speaking personally, I would like to see a woman take Hillary’s seat but I would prefer one who had “paid her dues” as they say.
Nancy
I very much appreciate the points you have raised and they touch upon some of my concerns as well regarding what I perceive as conveniently creating a litmus test when we want to, and then ignoring it. And, when I say litmus test, I mean it in the broadest sense of the word (which is how I think you mean it as well if I understand you correctly), i.e. having ANY standard or requirement. Either we do (in which case, then it needs to be defined) or we don’t. And if we dont, then we don’t, period. But, we can’t waffle in and out of caveats. At least in my view.
fsteele
As always, you manage to cause me to question my own argument cause you are so good at making yours!
And, on a final note, I think fsteele said (sorry if it was someone else) something others have posted on other threads regarding the presumption that women will support other women. That is a huge presumption and if ever we had an election year to disprove the security of that thinking it was 2008. So, I would be very careful of basing a strategy on a presumption of this, or any nature for that matter.
Nancy,
Of course Obama supporters are welcome here. I can’t speak on behalf of the New Agenda, but as someone who has watched and been supportive of TNA from the beginning, my guess would be that any of the millions of women who voted for Obama and continue to be supportive of Obama can still critique his flaws in terms of how they apply to women’s issues and representation. If you can critique Obama regarding Favreau, Rick Warren, the cabinet count, Summers, etc. I think you’d fit in here.
You can also be an Obama supporter who points out his successes in regard to women’s issues and representation. The New Agenda actually has given Obama kudos when earned, for example his appointment of Hillary Clinton, Mary L. Schapiro and Hilda Solis.
Check out the archives. Is there really so much that you disagree with here? In regard to Palin, the New Agenda doesn’t ask that you agree with her policy (much of which has been unfairly and inaccurately portrayed by the media). However, they do point out the sexist treatment she has received which affects on some level all women, democrat and republican alike.
Anna and perhaps others,
I’m not sure what is meant by ‘we’ in ” Either we do (in which case, then it needs to be defined) or we don’t. And if we dont, then we don’t, period. But, we can’t waffle in and out of caveats. At least in my view.”
For a group, TNA or larger, to somehow make a ruling that X, Y, and Z are the ONLY exceptions allowed — would lead to fractures.
For the group to say that NO exceptions are allowed might lead to wide media coverage — and wide ridicule and wide rejection of the idea. (Imagine the glee of Maureen Down, Campbell Brown, Taylor Marsh….)
For the project to recognize that each voter will make exceptions of her own choice, from one ballot to another, waffling in and out of caveats as guided by her own values, feelings and intutions — is realistic and might work.
fsteele-
Every member’s vote is his or her own. We would never be so presumptuous. Having a place like The New Agenda to share opinions and perspectives will hopefully help encourage women to support each other and share ideas. (men too)
Ali on January 6th, 2009 12:32 am
Great post Ali!
I believe this is an important discussion. To my mind the question is not which women deserve our support, and why, or whether loyalty within a sisterhood is a valid litmus test, but rather what our long and short term goals are.
Do we want more women in government because that all by itself will help us achieve feminism’s aims? Or do we want particular individuals in over other individuals because they possess traits that are important to us?
I’ve said that I’ll never vote for a man again. The usual challenge I hear when I say that is, would I support Ann Coulter over Bill Clinton?
And the answer is, even someone as despicable as Ann Coulter serves my long term goals for women in a particular way that Bill Clinton does not, and cannot.
Could I vote for Ann over Bill? No. Who could? But I probably wouldn’t have to make that choice. Other choices are not so easy.
Sheryl,
I will be voting for women. Period. But, there is also a larger issue that your scenario brings to mind. Look at what happened in the last election. Even women who weren’t sure they could ever vote for Sarah Palin were moved by the rampant sexism to defend her. The same went for Hillary Clinton. That should be a line we can all draw in the sand. At the end of the day only you can decide what to do with your vote, but we should all be able to speak out for any woman who is treated the way they were, with one united voice. NO MORE SEXISM OR MISOGYNY. I could bring myself to do that even for Ann Coulter.
What good would it do us to get a majority of ‘women’ legislators — if they were people like Pelosi, Sibelius, McCaskill, Boxer, CK…? My impression is that too many women now high in the pipeline, got that far by not being identified as women. Hillary and Palin seem exceptions, and not well supported by their high-level female colleagues.
It seems to me that a majority made up of Pelosi types, would do us much more harm than good, in many ways.
fsteele,
I’m curious, on which issues do you agree with Palin’s positions more closely than Pelosi’s? Were you a Hillary supporter? Because Pelosi and Hillary are infinitely closer in their stands on virtually every substantive issue than Hillary and Palin. In fact, I can’t think of two people more radically different besides both being women.
Also, Palin’s “respectful” treatment of Hillary was part of the GOP strategy to court her voters. Nothing more. I saw an interview with her before she was picked where Palin accused Hillary of “whining” about sexism. There’s a big difference between being personally ambitious and being a true supporter of other women.
Anna,
Thanks for your comments. I think this is an important discussion to have. I think it is important to apply standards to women candidates. I just think they should mainly be issue based. That’s my personal standard. I realize other’s feel differently, which I respect, though I disagree.
Somewhere upthread there’s a comment questioning Hillary’s qualifications at the time she was elected to the senate. Her qualifications were decided by the voters of New York, who elected her after she proved herself worthy of the opportunity by campaigning in every county in the state, participating in debates, and sitting for interviews with all the major news shows and publications.
the two situations don’t compare–one candidate was elected, the other wants an appointment.
this has nothing to do with Obama, either. he can choose whoever he wants to vet vice presidential candidates. but the US Senate is a position directly responsible to the people, and as of today the people of New York are letting it be known via the polls that CK is not their candidate of choice.
this whole situation is a shame, and I agree with the person who said candidates like CK hurt women more than they help. CK is a male politician’s version of a woman candidate–she’s surrounded and supported by boys who think it’s great she’s got a lot of money and a pedigree–just listen to her male supporters as they talk about her, money and connections are essentially their reasons. when you think about it not a whole lot different than the guy who marries a wife for her money and connections.
Her idea of supporting women in politics apparently amounts to giving a Profiles in Courage Award to Jennifer Brunner, who distinguished herself in 2008 by filing lawsuits supporting the efforts of ACORN in Ohio. Not that you’ll see the A-word anywhere on Kennedy’s glowing description of her on the PIC award site, but do the homework and you’ll find that every time ACORN registrations were being challenged, Jennifer Brunner was right there filing a lawsuit to protect them.
anybody here think voters should be allowed to list park benches as their addresses on voter registration forms? or that groups like ACORN (whose own ground workers were kicked out of Ohio for illegally registering to vote, and for registering people to vote multiple times under celebrity names) are good for America’s election process and deserving of legal support from Ohio’s SOS?
yeah. I’ll bet the voters of New York will be equally thrilled when it becomes common knowledge that Jennifer Brunner is CK’s idea of a profile in courage. Not Clinton. Not Palin. Jennifer Brunner. I’d also be willing to bet Rudy Giuliani will be salivating over that one, because whether he runs against Kennedy or Paterson, because no matter which office he chooses to seek, Giuliani will be able to tie in ACORN to his criticism of either CK or of the guy who appointed her.
for all these reasons I now agree women may lose this senate seat, but if that happens it will be because CK tried to jump the line ahead of more qualified women and sucked all the air out of the media coverage that would have helped them further their candidacies. In less than a year after her emergence from the ivory tower we can rack up three or more women (from her own party, no less!) that CK’s now knocked out of contention for higher elected office–Clinton, Maloney, Gillibrand, possibly Weingarten, possibly others. If four qualified women have to be elbowed aside to get one unproven woman into office, how is that good for women’s interests in the long run, and how do those numbers add up to increased representation in Washington?
if we’re going to get parity in Congress, women candidates have to meet a bar that’s higher than being biologically female. if nothing else, CK is proving that, and for sparking this dialogue in the early stages of NA, maybe we should be grateful to her. but that’s the only reason.
“KayJL, fsteele & all the others”
This LI/NYer says:
“THANK YOU”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Signs seem to be pointing away from CK for the Senate position.
Maybe then they will hear our pleas for a:
“Qualified on Day One Woman”.
The point I made earlier about Caroline being on Obama’s “VP” selection committee was that although “many” (not me personally) wanted a “Unity Ticket”; that committee rejected it. As I said before I’m thrilled with the Sec. of State position; but that was not part of the dialogue when people were trying to bring the party together.
KayJL,
We are in agreement that we shouldn’t be giving a rubber-stamp to any woman candidate just for being a woman. That’s really the point I’ve been trying to make. Some standards must apply. And you seem to agree with me that in some cases it’s better to vote for a man than the wrong woman.
But It’s outrageous what a good job the GOP, with it’s outrageous history of voter suppression, has done of demonizing efforts to register poor people to vote.
ACORN paid people by the registration. Any time you do that, you’re going to get a certain percentage falsified by workers who want to get the money without putting in the real effort. That happens to petition gathering organizations too. In fact, I’d like to see a comparison of the percentage of fabricated signatures submitted to ACORN by it’s workers, compared to the norms in professional signature gathering. I’ll bet they’re not too far off, though probably higher because they hired the poor to register the poor.
False registrations only damage the electoral process if they are turned into false VOTES. So far there is NO evidence that these bad registrations, which were identified by ACORN, were turned into any false votes.
The bad workers didn’t rip off the citizens or the integrity of the final results. They merely ripped off ACORN and it’s financial sponsors. And if that is the price paid to increase participation among the disadvantaged, I think it’s worth it.
Do you really think ACORN was trying to steal the election by registering Mickey Mouse to vote? How much do you want to bet that Mickey, Minnie, and Pluto never showed up at the polls?
Nancy,
first of all, I’m not the GOP. I’m a registered independent who votes Democrat, Republican, or third party depending on the candidates and issues facing our country at election time.
neither does anything I wrote qualify me as being opposed to voting rights for the poor, though I do believe addresses on voter registration forms need to be verifiable, which can’t be accomplished when the voters being registered may decide to move from one park bench to another at any given moment.
I can’t agree with an argument of “no harm, no foul”. whether fallacious registrations translate into illegal votes or not, these voting registration practices bog down the system and cost taxpayer dollars in legal battles.
but this conversation isn’t about ACORN or the voting rights of the poor–my overall point regarding ACORN is that Caroline Kennedy made an award selection that makes her vulnerable as a candidate–Governor Paterson as well if he appoints her.
my other point regarding her award selection relates to women and the best way to advance women in politics and increase our representation in Washington. in CK we don’t see any evidence of a woman candidate who would advance women’s interests. what we do know from her selection of Jennifer Bruner for a PIC award over Clinton and Palin is that CK’s concerns about sexism against women in politics fall somewhere below her concerns about securing and protecting voter registration rights for vagrants.
You spoke my mind AGAIN “KayJL”!
I too am a Registered Independent & have started working towards “strengthening” that party.
Hi Nancy,
I don’t think you are being fair here when you write: “Also, Palin’s “respectful” treatment of Hillary was part of the GOP strategy to court her voters. Nothing more. I saw an interview with her before she was picked where Palin accused Hillary of “whining” about sexism. There’s a big difference between being personally ambitious and being a true supporter of other women.”
Here’s the clip of her talking about the Hillary sexism and Hillary’s response:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F9Y8FKAsxmk
She did not accuse Hillary of whining. Rather, she is talking about strategies for dealing with sexism. She alludes to the media who time and time again did exactly that – convict Hillary Clinton for “whining” about sexism. Of course, Sarah Palin’s “work harder” and “don’t talk about it” strategy didn’t work here, either. Sexism devoured both candidates despite their different approaches.
Ali,
I think what devoured Palin were her terrible interviews. She had very high favorables, mostly among men, before she sat down with Couric and embarrassed herself. After that, the ridicule began, and her numbers dropped like a rock (mainly among women).
I think we do Hillary a disservice to equate what happened to her to what happened to Palin. Hillary was always extremely intelligent, informed, and articulate. Palin, not so much. Not at all. Compare her debate performance to Hillary’s. Not even close.
And I must respectfully disagree if you don’t think courting Hillary voters was a big part of the GOP strategy. They admitted as much. So of course Palin was complimentary of her. But I believe it was an insincere manipulation.
fsteele @ 12:53 am
By “we” I was meaning TNA and all of their supporters in that I was making the assumption (perhaps erroneously) that as an organization it is/was striving to take a position on the issue of voting for women irrrespective of any other considerations (per Cynthia’s most recent piece) or for looking to support female candidates, but with some requirements. But, I may be wrong. Perhaps TNA has simply posted some threads to create a context for dialgoue on this issue and nothing more. Of course, every person will make up their own mind as to how they will approach this issue at the voting booth. I was more addressing whether TNA was aiming to develop a policy, as it were, about it as an org.
fsteele @ 3:49 am
I agree.
Nancy
Re: Palin and the GOP and the idea of them manipulating the issue with Hillary and sexism toward their own gain, my feeling is that 1) it’s one of those things that’s impossible to know, 2) it seems a reasonable assumption given politics, and 3) perhaps in Palin’s case it’s one of those things where the truth lies somethere in the middle of what we believe and what she presented.
BTW, I so appreciate your very thoughtful posts. I think you articulate your point of view very clearly and I appreciate your willingness to swim upstream if need be. Integrity is becoming a rare commodity and I appreciate yours.
Nancy,
Yes, I agree. Courting Hillary supporters was absolutely part of the GOP strategy. It was your interpretation of Palin’s “whining” comment that I thought was unfair.
In the interview Palin talks about the “perceived whining” – perceived by the media. She did not mock Clinton for whining about sexism, as you suggested. Rather, she discussed an alternative strategy, which also failed, as I stated above.
In regard to Palin’s “terrible” interviews, there’s a lot already written here about that in the archives and I don’t want to be redundant. But I disagree with your assessment.
Ali,
The archive you speak of…
http://thenewagenda.net/2008/1.....ally-said/
fsteele,
Thank you for your kind words, and the willingness to consider a viewpoint which is sometimes a little out of step with the majority here. I truly appreciate it. I think respectful debate of these issues is very healthy.
Ali,
I think you make a good point that I probably mischaracterized that particular statement by Palin. I stand corrected. But I still feel that Palin’s kind treatment of Hillary was strategic. If her role had been to be an attack dog against Hillary, I think she would have jumped into that role with relish. But fsteele is absolutely right that we can never know for sure.
As for Palin’s interview performance, I can only use my own personal reaction as a guide. Notwithstanding bias in the characterizations by the media, when I saw those segments live, my jaw dropped. My reaction, unfiltered by anything later in the press, was that she came across as incredibly unsophisticated, uninformed, and inarticulate at the very least (and I’m being kind here).
I know others may have watched it and had a very different assessment, but that was my honest reaction in the moment. I think many other felt the same way, and I think it especially hurt her among women, for the same reason so many here are against CK. She came across as unprepared for the position she was seeking.
Now, I have to admit a bias here. I’m a person who leans to the progressive side. And to be honest, I don’t truly believe there is any such thing as a right wing, traditionally religious feminist.
Palin is not a moderate conservative. She’s right wing. So I don’t believe she’s a feminist and I don’t trust her to help women. I believe that once she achieved power she would turn into the female version of Clarence Thomas. I could be wrong, but that’s how I perceive her. And just as many here say they would support Cuomo over Kennedy, I would support a progressive man over Palin. We need women in office who will improve the lives of all women.
Ooops!
I just looked and it seems that I owe the thanks for the kind words to Anna. The headers got me a little dizzy. Thanks very much, Anna.
You know what Nancy? She did her best, and in the interviews was being confronted and blatantly being told, in so many words, that she was stupid. How to react, how to react? Put yourself there please do. So if she reeled off the name of six newspapers would the women-haters be happy?
Politicians don’t read newspapers; they read summations and get briefings, especially politicians who are 1.) recovering from just had a baby 2.) breastfeeding 3.) Zipping across the continent and marching energetically across a stage, to 4) cat calls and virtually no support from other ambitious women, even those who call themselves feminists.
I was embarrassed for Couric. She disgraced herself.
Palin played and lost but did so honestly and with courage. Could you, with such short notice, and all her baggage, have done as well?
KayJL, great points about CK being promoted by men because of her male connections. Her passively going along with this (not even bothering to answer questions herself or think of something worth saying for herself in interviews) fits with what her mother was quoted as saying: “In our family, we leave politics to the men.”
Nancy, I agree with almost everything you’re saying, and we’re probably pretty close, ideologically. The one thing I need to disagree with is the idea that only women whom we believe will be good for women — according to our criteria — deserve to be elected to office. If that’s the litmus test, we’ll be waiting for a heck of a long time for 30%, or gender parity.
If women are going to be elected to public office the way men are, we must anticipate that there will be women who’s positions are anathema to us, but to say that they don’t represent women is inaccurate and short-sighted. Those women with whom we differ represent lots of other women. We may not call them feminists, but that is increasingly a moot point — a pink herring — that distracts us from the task at hand: get more women into office.
I can’t imagine anything sweeter than Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin going at each other in a campaign. Those are the conversations I want to see – between two women running for office at the same time.
Nancy, of course Palin and the GOP had a strategy of courting us Pumas. But that does not mean it was insincere! Well, perhaps it was insincere on the part of some GOP, but I believe Palin was quite sincere — whether she agreed with it or even suggested it.
Palin was naive and too nice to Couric and Gibson. See http://www.newsbusters.org/blo.....-interview She should have followed Obama in insisting that an important, hostile interview be carried live, unedited.
Sheryl, I agree with you about supporting women regardless of their positions (eg Sarah). You have a good point about Sarah representing SOME women, if not us former-Democrat women.
But what good is ‘parity’ going to do us if it increases the number of backstabbers, anti-sisters in office: people who act like Pelosi, Sibelius, CK, etc? Imo, ‘women’ who would backstab Hillary for Obama, would probably not be very reliable on ‘women’s issues’ either; they would abandon the issue as soon as it became inconvenient for their chosen male politician. Imo these ‘women’ are tokens, who will fill seats that could be taken by sisters. For example, I’d rather see a man good on issues (Cuomo) in Hillary’s seat till 2010, then an election that Maloney or Gillibrand might win — than CK in the seat likely to be re-elected in 2010 by her family’s money or incumbent strings. Too many low information feminists might think with CK in the seat there was no need to campaign for some other woman for it.
Someone argued that Pelosi’s policies were more favorable — but there we are back to voting by issues instead of by gender.
Thia, good point about defending women from sexism even if we disagree with their ‘agendas’ and vote against them. That’s the position both Sarah and Hillary took about each other.
Sis,
If that was her best, it wasn’t good enough. She’s a professional politician. Most reporters ask questions that are meant to trip up the politician. I’m not referring to the newspapers question. It was the answers to the foreign policy and economy questions that left me stunned.
Frankly, I think you’re making too many excuses for Palin. If she wasn’t prepared for very predictable questions in the interview, it was her fault. If she can’t think on her feet fast enough to joust with a cautious Couric, how is she going to fend off the wolves she’d face in Washington? Not every reporter is going to be Sean Hannity.
And yes, I am absolutely sure that I could have given much better answers to those questions. In fact, since they were very predictable questions, I would have walked in knowing what I would say when they were asked. That was her job. Reports say she refused the briefings that were offered. Horrible error if it’s true. It sure seemed to be.
One more point. It’s been reported that Palin actively sought the VP nod. So once again, why wasn’t she prepared?
Can you even imagine Hillary ever giving rambling answers like that to even the most hostile reporter. No way. Hillary was fully prepared for higher office. Palin, not so much.
Sheryl,
Thanks for considering my arguments, and I just want to speak to our one point of disagreement.
I think gender parity would be great. But if it comes without real gains in the lives of women, it’s meaningless. We could put 50
Phyllis Schafleys in the U.S. Senate with Palin as President, and watch them pass laws that leave women more enslaved and with less freedom and equity than in decades. Parity Without Progress is meaningless, in my opinion. I realize that puts me out of step.
Nancy, I agree that Parity alone is meaningless, and might leave us worse off than we are now. (You fear a majority of Schafley’s, I fear a majority of Pelosi’s.) If there develops a bloc of women who will vote identity politics as reliably as the Blacks did, then the bad guys will quickly run token women to serve their own interests (as Pelosi served them). And replacing those tokens with sincere sisters (right or left) will be much harder than replacing men in those offices.
I do keep trying to salvage something out of the idea of gender voting — “other things being equal” or “when possible” according to each voter’s judgment of the moment. Especially for younger candidates or those new to politics.
Nancy Byrnes on January 6th, 2009 9:50 pm
“And to be honest, I don’t truly believe there is any such thing as a right wing, traditionally religious feminist.”
Gee thanks
So Pelosi, Sibelius or Kennedy supporting Obama over Clinton is a betrayal of sisterhood (for which the ought to lose the support of women, despite whatever qualifications they possess), but voting for Cuomo over Kennedy does not betray sisterhood, and therefore supports it?
I think feminists have to learn to be more forgiving. I don’t envision a Senate with 50 Phyllis Schafleys, but I imagine a few of them would make it in. I think Caroline Kennedy would do things for women that a man couldn’t or wouldn’t do, not the least of which is provide a role model of one more female human in government, which is not something I can lightly dismiss.
I can’t get over the feminists who declared Hillary Clinton not feminist enough, while other women declared her too feminist. Who can win with those criteria? I don’t know a single woman whom I consider “feminist enough” by my own standards who would stand a snowball’s chance in hell of getting elected. I’m not even feminist enough, by my own standards.
It’s a no-win situation for women: feminists won’t support you if you’re not a feminist. Other women won’t support you if you’re too much of a feminist. The truth is, it’s really, really hard to get women to support women. There won’t be another Hillary Clinton along for a long time. We need to get more women in office, period.
So I’m willing to take a chance on the Caroline Kennedys of the world. If that’s the choice, I’ll take her (easy for me to say when I don’t have to live with her).
I’d be interested to find out which candidates Nancy, Thia, fsteele and I would all agree to support. It can’t be only Hillary, or only women who’ve done right by Hillary. We won’t get very far with that.
Sheryl, the hope I see for the gender vote idea, is that we don’t all have to agree on the same candidate, or the same criteria for exceptions. To invent a fantasy ballot, if I support Palin but not Pelosi, and someone else supports Pelosi but not Palin … but at the bottom of the ballot is little Susie Nobody running for County Clerk against Charlie Nobody, we can all vote for Susie. So there’s one more woman coming up the pipeline — without the pressures that turned Pelosi away from sisterhood.
This is when Susie and Charlie are people I know little or nothing about one way or the other; when in doubt, assume the best of the woman and default to her.
She was never going to be VP, whether she had all the answers or not. So why get upset about that, this time, especially considering the context I outlined. Next time and she’s still there, get upset.
Another candidate may have all the answers, but not be as likeable. Palin is likeable. I think she’ll come along farther with that, than a woman who has all the answers but pisses people off.
To look at it a different way, without thinking about defaulting to one side or the other. I don’t really use numbers, but I do look at something like assigning ‘points’ to the candidates I’m choosing between.
Cuomo and CK and Maloney get equal points for being liberal Democrats (sfaik).
Cuomo and Maloney get points for experience in pubic office (Maloney gets more for legislative and longer). Also for having the good judgment to support Hillary.
CK and Maloney get points for looking like women role models to children and to voters who watch tv with the sound off.
Maloney gets sisterhood points for feminist issues in her record and for supporting Hillary. CK does not get those points.
Lacey Davenport gets sisterhood points just for being a woman who has never sfaik backstabbed another woman.
CK might get some points for her interest in education and presumably other ‘women’s issues’ — except that I wouldn’t trust her because of her behavior in the primaries. Because of that and the way she is being ‘handled’ by men, I think as a legislator she would be a tool of those same men (TK and BO etc), rather than actually applying a ‘woman’s judgment.
Now if Maloney were out of it and I knew something really bad about Cuomo (character, issues, whatever), that might outweigh all these other points and I might accept CK as a lesser evil.
Nancy,
No I can’t imagine Clinton giving rambling answers like Palin did. But I can imagine Biden or Obama doing the same. I mean, I’ve seen that! And that is even without a hatchet editing job!
I don’t think Palin is perfect. But I do think she has had an impressive political career as Governor of Alaska and should have been treated with respect. Couric’s magazine question was totally condescending and I understand the way Palin answered that one. She was angry and emphasized to Katie – yes, we do have magazines in Alaska! But the public preferred to see that as proof that she was an idiot. A bimbo beauty queen.
What’s wrong with the media and public response to Palin is the double standard. Obama is a newbie – no problem. Obama hides from the media for a while or doesn’t want to answer some questions – no problem. Obama takes forever to answer a basic question – again, no problem. Obama doesn’t understand capital gains taxes during a debate and then days later changes his answer to Hillary’s – no one pays attention. Biden makes an uncountable amount of guffaws and mistakes during his debate – oh, that’s just Biden!
And this double standard while using sexism and lies (yes, there were a lot of lies) to drive home a point or to emphasize their hatred of her – this is the problem.
BTW, thanks for engaging in a respectful debate! I wish I had had the opportunity to dialogue so peacefully with others I disagreed with about Palin and whatever during the election. I’m glad to have this.
As a PUMA for Palin, I am shocked at my own negative reaction to Palin’s mannerisms and speech idioms (and her hairstyle). Her resume shows extreme competence, perhaps brilliance. So obviously I need to reprogram my expectations about how a brilliant woman should appear. Maybe I need to watch “Legally Blond’ all the way through.
Ali,
I absolutely agree with your point about Biden. The double standard was amazing. She did much better than he did and he has a million years of experience. I actually like the way she answers questions. There were some times when you could tell she was trying to stick to what the handlers wanted her to say and she almost looked like she was in pain. Before and after that, when she is just being herself, I love the way she just answers the questions like in the Greta interviews. For some reason we have come to expect what I call “slickness” from politicians. We think they should be like news anchors who have no accents, mannerisms etc. They must be able to talk for 30 min, say absolutely nothing while doing it, smile, and be like the stereotypical car salesman. It makes me crazy that we are judging these candidates like they are on a reality show or something.
fsteele,
Isn’t it funny how we stereotype people based on such ridiculous things. I have always had to put up with that because I have a really nasty southern accent and probably some mannerisms I don’t even know about. I travel for work a lot and LA was always the place I hated to go the most because, after they heard me speak, hotel clerks etc. would actually speak louder and more slowly to me as though I were handicapped in some way. What annoyed me the most during the election was that there were plenty of odd things about Biden and Obama that were never mentioned. Only Hillary and Sarah were criticized for appearance, speech patterns, facial expressions etc. It’s all so completely irrelevant!
Back to Caroline Kennedy. I’m trying very hard to put this in a way that will not seem catty … because I do think there’s a valid health/judgment issue here. (And McCain’s manner etc were also examined; perhaps too harshly, but his treatment was a counter-example to sexism.)
Here is a photo, http://latimesblogs.latimes.co.....edyap.jpeg, obvously posed and retouched. But it still shows the same pattern of wrinkles and stressed-out expression that many have noted in her candid photos. She’s 51, pampered and protected all her life, but looks like a 70-year-old bag lady.
What trauma it looks long-term) caused this? When? I wonder if it might have affected her judgment?
Do you mean losing your father, uncle and brother under such horrible circumstances would not be trauma enough? We have to look for something else?
That’s very bad lighting. A terrible piece of work if it’s from a professional photographer, and no I don’t think it is posed. I think she’s listening intently to someone, maybe in a public forum, a room with with ghastly lighting, and someone took this with a cheap digital.
Sis,
I agree that the lighting is terrible, so perhaps it is not a ‘best case’ photo. Have you seen any photos that could be considered ‘best case’?
I tend to cut all the Kennedys considerable slack because of their family tragedies. Her reaction (if that is the cause) may be understandable and blameless — but still indicates possible health/emotional problems that might affect her judgment as Senator (and more importantly as President, if that is what she is being groomed for).
You must know something I don’t. (Easy to do).
Why should this photo, whatever the circumstances of it’s origin, or the most certain trauma she suffered affect her judgement *negatively*. Did Biden’s trauma, HC’s trauma (Bill), Palin’s trauma(s) affect them so severely that would be a reason to disqualify them? No one could deny the trauma.
I think it’s possible she’s just another woman who keeps too thin, and her skin isn’t nurtured. Or maybe she uses the same moisturizer Mrs. Schartzenager uses. Respectfully, I think you’re digging too deep a trench in the wrong direction.
I agree she doesn’t seem to have the credentials for this. But I’m not American so I’m not confident of my judgment about that.
Can you imagine the banshees wailing if this had been done to any of Hillary’s posters?
Barry’s Makeover
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....56045.html
The Real Deal
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....nvestment/
After my initial comments on this subject (a personal quest of mine); I’ve been an observer.
There’s been many excellent points made here over the past days.
I agree with Gloria Steinem in the NYPost (?1/3):
The Senate seat left vacant by Senator Clinton should be filled by someone “like” a Carolyn Maloney. If Caroline Kennedy wants to go for Carolyn’ s Manhattan Congressional seat & run for Senate in 2010, GREAT.
As Geraldine Ferraro said, the person who fills that position must now how to navigate the legislative branch of Government (or something like that).
To the management of this site:
I offer my assistance in the gathering of information; Amy Siskand
said will be happening in the near future. As I stated earlier I fear CK, by sucking all the oxygen out of this has left the door open for Paterson to go ahead & appoint a man (namely Cuomo).
If you think I’m wrong; just look at the most recent poll they are showing:
Cuomo vs Kennedy
NO ONE ELSE is being discussed.
Sis,
Imo no single one of the negative factors mentioned in this thread (about CK or about Palin) should by itself disqualify a candidate.
This seems a safe place to examine one’s own reactions, and see what substance there may be to each factor and/or reaction.
It’s often mentioned that when women’s groups’ statements are being reported in the media, the report uses terms like ‘women miffed’, ‘women still angry’, ‘women getting over it’, etc. As though we were only capable of emotional reaction, rather than rational reasons for opposition.
When posting to a women’s forum, I often find myself using emotional- terminology. But when I examine my thinking more closely, I find non-emotional reasons have been summed up in the emotional term and/or reaction. Sometimes perhaps the reaction is more than the sum of its non-emotional parts … or there may be some rational reasons that I haven’t yet discovered.
I have plenty of clear, rational reasons to support Palin and oppose CK. Their appearance is not determinative for me. However it is a puzzle, it tickles, it itches. I wonder what kind of culture Palin grew up in, where “Legally Blond” mannerisms were accepted (and if that culture may hold other, more serious, differences to my latte tree-hugger culture). I wonder what etched those lines in CK’s face and if they may indicate some sort of health or emotional problem that might result in poor judgment — especially if she goes back to the White House as President.
Sis,
The traumas to Biden, Hillary, and McCain occurred after they were mature. CK’s tragic loss of relatives began very young. More importantly, Biden, Hillary, and McCain have all proven their ability and their stability after their traumas, by their accomplishments.
Again, CK’s wrinkle pattern is not determinative for me,and I may be imagining things. But it is odd to see such a … beleagured, presssured, hardbitten … sort of look in someone so rich and so pampered. Or perhaps this is how rich Brits look, weatherbeaten from so much fox-hunting in the frosty dawn?
Why are we talking about Caroline Kennedy’s wrinkle patterns? This is insane.
Sara Palin on Kennedy/Media/Couric
http://www.politico.com/news/s.....17217.html
oops Sarah
I can’t figure out what would possess you to bring this up and try to make some connection with Caroline Kennedy’s skin and her worthiness for office.
And I am just as much at a loss to figure out what that ‘rich Brits’ and fox hunting comment is supposed to mean.
I think what Palin has to say about class is fantastic. Read the article Thia just posted.
And what she says about the media damn right. Since when, and since where, except modern day America, does media run the show, and make the policy? I’m sorry if that offends any of you, but the new by Entertainment Tonight is not in my culture at all. Neither is poltics as religious cult. (See HuffPo article I posted).
meant to say….the *news* by Entertainment Tonight.
fsteele “latte tree-hugger” is an oxymoron. And “Legally Blond(e)” is a modern day telling of Pride and Prejudice. Not a bad analogy though, Palin as Elizabeth Bennett: Spunky, smart, not a follower, no one’s fool.
While not determinative, a candidate’s physical/emotional health is one valid concern among many.
Wow, there’s a raging conversation going on here! I dare not jump in. Too much catching up to do. Will just take the easy road and respondd the the very last and brief post by noting:
Obama can’t seem to break his habit of smoking, yet no one has been concerned.
I’m outta’ here! Enjoy the rest of y’all!!! It’s a great conversation (though, I too, am puzzled by the focus on Ms. Kennedy’s skin).
Here is a new story on Paterson and CK. It sounds like he is not pleased by the media hype for her. The other applicants mentioned in the story are all men. If supporting CK is now a lost cause, maybe the support would be more useful if switched to Maloney.
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/543453.html
Maloney would be a good pick. She is qualified and has earned it.
Joining those who are surprised at the discussion of wrinkles here. There are a ton of wrinkly male pols whose facial aging is never mentioned, so it’s very odd to see this on a feminist site.
Many politicians — both male (Biden, others) and female (Pelosi, others) avail themselves of injections or surgery to look younger. Projecting sexist/ageist standards like “too many wrinkles means emotionally damaged” hurts women, in that it ups the pressure on us to resort to injections/surgery as we age. When in fact, there’s nothing in botox or collagen that reverses emotional damage. Nor does an outdoor lifestyle or less pigment create it. Looking at CK’s male relatives, her family isn’t blessed with slow-aging skin.
There are many other legitimate reasons to doubt CK’s appropriateness as a candidate.
Octagalore,
I brought up the issue of the SHAPE of CK’s wrinkles, and her habitual facial expression, with many qualifiers and modifiers and disclaimers, which seem to have been ignored. So rather than repeat those disclaimers, I’ve backed off from the subject.
I am going to stick up for Caroline. Yes, she is wrinkled as an old paper lunch bag. She has very blue eyes and fair Irish skin, not the genes of Jackie, who held up better. Jackie had plastic surgery along the way, but Caroline has had, from the look of things, none. She did inherit the jawline, cheekbones and neck from Jackie that save her from total desolation. It’s her skin type that’s the problem. A minor rhinoplasty and a chemical peel would take years off. Also, may I remind you all: It is a miracle that she is not a basket case, period. Growing up under the eagle eye of a perfectionist, avaricious, controlling mother, always being in the public eye, suffering the blighted legacy of a murdered iconic father, losing her beloved brother….money does not erase all of the emotional pathos of the hidden inner Caroline. I would be a basket case just from the loss of JFK Jr alone. Caroline, with all her money, probably wishes she was someone else. Did you see the remake of Grey Gardens with Lange, Barrymore, and Jean Tripplehorn as Jackie O? Little Edie accuses Jackie of usurping what should have been hers: First Ladyship with dead Joe Jr. Jackie replies ‘I wish it had been you’.
ZOMG, WHO GIVES A DAMN about some chick’s wrinkles? Thank dawg for two things:
1) this whole discussion is a year old, and
2) we’ve since found more important things to talk about.
Leave your response!