Eating Crow for Caroline Kennedy
January 11, 2009
by Contributor
|
After all, she IS a woman, you know?
At first I thought that I could avoid this moment since I don’t live in New York (I’m an Ohioan), so it really wasn’t my issue. I mean who cares what a non-New Yorker thinks, right? However, all the while the rage has been boiling up in me. I mean, we have REASONS, we former Hillary supporters, to not stand behind this woman. We’d accept ANY woman — just not THIS woman. Does this rhetoric sound familiar?
Our reasons include:
1) She turned her back on Hillary in the most spectacular of ways — GRRRRRR! How dare she now come grovelling back and not only ask for the seat but say she’s a “Clinton” Democrat? OOOOOH — it makes me fume just to think of it.
2) She has no experience and is just using her famous name and thus sense of entitlement to jump ahead of a list of many more deserving women who have paid their dues. What gall! Our Kennedy princess is being quite imperious, and I, for one, totally resent it.
3) After a political season of dissing Sarah Palin for her speech patterns, it turns out she’s got some extremely annoying verbal tics of her own, ya know? You betcha do! What a hypocrite!
So my ideas are being put to the test. In my first Interim Path To Power piece, I stated that we need to vote for and support ALL women, regardless of ideology in order for women to gain parity in government. Can I put my money where my mouth is?
In spite of the examples above which I have not overcome, I will support the naming of Caroline Kennedy as New York Senator in a New York minute. Why? Because while I fume and the steam pours out of my nostrils, I remember that my cause is much greater than my base emotions. Do we want more women in office or don’t we? I still maintain that the simplest way to get there is for women to vote for women. I just need to get over myself, and I will.
So, I support Caroline Kennedy should she get the nod while I eat crow and I swallow that yucky bitter pill. I might actually have to put a few of those meals on my menu in the weeks to come. Hope at least they’re low-calorie…
Cynthia,
I want to be like you when I grow up.
You couldn’t be more on the mark! I still hope some force will intervene and a woman will be appointed that will make it a thrill to support her, (Gillibrand et al.) But if it is Caroline Kennedy, I will support her 100%. Even if I have to get drunk to do it. Did you know Pinot Grigio is excellent with crow? (no comments from the wine snobs please, I’m trying everything with an open mind these days!)
I will support a qualified woman over a qualified man. But I won’t support someone completely unqualified and someone who has shown herself not to support other women. Caroline Kennedy does not get my support.
Thanks for writing this Cynthia.
While CK might not be the first choice for all of our members, I know how I will feel the morning after if Gov. Paterson picks a man….when we only had 17 of 100 Senators INCLUDING Hillary.
This should turn into an interesting discussion. I think the question is, which others have posed before – when DON’T we support a woman? As a group and as individuals?
Sorry, I can not stand with you.
There are several well-qualified women; CK is anti-qualified.
What is meant by ’support’? Iirc Silver was quoted as saying he would ’support’ CK — IF Paterson appointed her.
It makes sense to speak of ’supporting’ CK or Maloney or Gillibrand or Christian to BECOME the Senator. We can write Paterson or post in the media that we ’support’ one or another of these possible appointees. But AFTER someone is appointed, what will this ’support’ consist of, and against whom or what?
I agree. There are far more qualified women who have earned the right to be appointed to Hillary’s seat. However they don’t have a chance of being appointed. Right now your only choice is an unqualified politically connected woman who probably on some level intuitively understands women’s issues or a unqualified politically connected man who brings more manness to the Senate. So Caroline it is. Someday maybe us peons can run for office and be represented by government. But until then lets have 52% women among the elitists who “represent” us.
Ali on January 11th, 2009 7:10 pm
when DON’T we support a woman? As a group and as individuals?
———————
Different individuals will have different standards. Imo, trying to make one standard for the whole group would damage the group.
Imo it’s healthy for people to share their own personal standards and the thinking behind them.
Obviously I’m not going to stand outside Governor Paterson’s office to protest the appointment, so I’m not sure what all of you mean by “support”.
I don’t plan on voting for women just because they’re women as a way of achieving parity in Congress, because if I extrapolate that to all possible potentials, I have to include the possibility that as a group we might be successful at getting so many marginally qualified, under qualified and flat out UNqualified women into positions of power, it would have a negative impact on our country.
also, in a group that’s committed itself to not making endorsements, doesn’t a commitment to vote for all women candidates constitute a de facto endorsement of all women candidates? the only way it doesn’t is when there’s more than one woman in a race.
if founders are going to go up on the organization’s blog and declare the intent to support CK before Governor Paterson has even chosen her, why not just go ahead and endorse her? because essentially you’re telling him it’ll be okay if he appoints her.
a lot of us think Ms. jumped the shark by declaring Barack Obama a feminist on the basis of his campaign position paper, imo this, too, is jumping the shark, in the sense it’s hammering another nail in the coffin of two (or more) more qualified women candidates before the appointment has even been made. it also gives CK even more exposure (like she needs more) while the other women candidates get more of the nothing they’ve been getting everywhere else.
also:
If the only woman candidate in a race is running as a candidate of the Communist Party, are you voting for her, too?
If the only woman candidate in a race has a civil judgment against her for dishonest business practices, are you voting for her, too?
this is a degree of extremism that’s likely to be ridiculed in the press, for all the reasons above and possibly every time the group’s name comes up. NA won’t be the all inclusive, non partisan group, it’ll be that group of quacks who’ll vote for any woman, no matter what.
I apologize for being a wet blanket, but better to discuss the potential mud puddles from within the group than get pelted with criticism from without.
Wow. You know a “movement” has matured when vigorous and legitimate dissent arises among a cohort that otherwise agrees on many core principles. I could not disagree more with this perspective. I believe the paramount, and morally responsible goal, is to appoint and/or elect the best quality and all-around best suited individuals to a particular position–whether we’re talking corporate CEO or interim Senator. I do not care what the person’s gender is, or race, or religion, or ethnic make-up.
I do not subscribe to the “woman at any cost” theory of rectification any more than I would support “a person of color” or “a Jew”, etc., at any cost. . . We must prize excellence, temperament, and integrity above all else. That is the way to serve the American public. Not by a de facto affirmative action policy that may–simply by strict adherence to its principles–put individuals who are ill-equipped or unsuited to serve in key positions.
Actually here is evidence that Paterson has not narrowed the field to CK or Cuomo. Imo it’s evidence that he is leaning away from CK. If he were going to yield to the pressure from the media (and/or the Kennedys), would he be talking like this?
“The notion that I have to take Caroline is not coming from me,” Paterson said in an interview in his Capitol office with The Buffalo News. [....] “[T]o the media, it’s Caroline and the others. To me, it’s there are 10 to 15 good candidates,” said the governor [....]
“She’s just another person. So what? Her name is Kennedy? Why do you pay so much attention to her?”
“it’s the combination of experiences I’ll look at in terms of all the candidates, and also how balanced the ticket would look,” Paterson added.
More on other candidates at the full story at:
http://www.buffalonews.com/home/story/543453.html
Confucious say, when about to be scr**ed, relax and enjoy it. This was a saying popular in my youth, many generations ago. The above discussion brought it to mind. I think energy would be better spent by organizing writing, emailing and calling campaigns to Gov’. Paterson’s office suggesting support for the
1. I’ve already weighed in on this issue, so no further comments from me about CK or related to Cynthia’s most recent piece.
2. If anyone lives in NY (or has NY contact info they can use), I hope you’re contacting Governor Patterson to express your views.
3. On a completely seperate topic, for anyone who would like some comic relief, check out this piece over at American Thinker. It’ll take all of 2 min to read and another 2 min to read the handful of blog posts, most of which are pretty funny:
http://www.americanthinker.com.....lunch.html
Confucious say, when about to be scr**ed, relax and enjoy it. This was a saying popular in my youth, many generations ago. The above discussion brought it to mind.
Momofnycblue
Think we were typing at the same time but with the same thought.
fsteele has posted a link to an article about other possible candidates and I believe TNA also had a list at one point. Why don’t we focus our efforts on lobbying the governor, including a list of those women we feel most worthy with brief reasons why.
good post.
Why are we acting like this is a done deal? This is supposed to be an activist org. Let’s act. Patterson has not named anyone yet. He must wait for Clinton’s seat to be officially available. Why not use these precious days to take action and make our voices heard???
Below are my thoughts:
My first premise is that all men or women should be supported who have a track record of advancing women’s rights.
My second premise is that if a man and woman are equally qualified, and both have a record of supporting women’s rights, the woman get the nod, especially if women are underrepresented in the job category
My third premise is that even if the woman is slightly less qualified than a man, but has a track record of advancing women’s rights, she gets the nod, especially if women are underrepresented in the job category. Plenty of men get stretch assignments, or are simply unqualified for the jobs they get
My final premise is the if a woman is both unqualified and does not have a record that advances women’s right, she should not be support. Find another candidate.
With these as my tenets, I hope Patterson finds another woman candidate.
I totally agree, though that has been my position from the beginning. I never understood the hullabaloo over Kennedy in terms of this seat. The idea is that the kind of women don’t matter in the short run–just the numbers. If the changes Maloney outlined in her book Rumors of Our Progress Have been Greatly Exaggerated regarding greater participation by women of all political stripes are true, the Kennedy scenario fits.
Would I prefer it be someone else? Sure. Would I consider her appointment a success nevertheless? Sure.
Kevin, I am in total agreement with you. Well said.
I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind, but I’ll try to explain my own rationale.
My first choice would be Gillibrand. I think it is still a big if, but if Kennedy gets the job I would rather it be her than any man for this reason. Most of my adult life I have been in male dominated workplaces. It was always hard when I moved to a new office because I freaked the men out. But over the years I have had conversations about why? with many of them. Almost all of them have said it is just weird if you have never worked for a woman before to suddenly have a woman for a boss. Many of them had never even worked “with” a woman before much less “for” one. They all said once they got used to me it wasn’t that weird after all. Some of them took longer than others to come around but very few remained as hostile as they were in the first few weeks.
I don’t think women will ever have equality in the workplace or in the government until we get some women into these positions and everyone gets “used to it.” There are many professions that excluded women in the past, but now almost no one remembers when they weren’t allowed. A few that come to mind are doctors, lawyers, bankers, teachers, writers, poets etc. Would I prefer to hand pick them myself? You betcha! But so far nobody has been willing to let me.
For those reasons I am willing to suck it up and support any woman that wants to pave the way. If I don’t get my perfect picks on the first few rounds, at least the women I do get will make it easier for the women I can gleefully support, just because everyone will be more accustomed to women in power. That is my own personal rationale.
Also, it’s PaTerson, not PaTTerson. As a former Patterson, I’m sure the misspelling is annoying for him. It always was for me. Of course now my name is Pfau. Try calling in your order with that name. I just say “Pfau P-F-A-U” now.
Also, Kevin, that’s a pretty thoughtful approach.
IF Ck is appointed US Senator, you can betcha, that HRC will be thrown under the bus by BHO, It will be Ck that becomes his heir apparant not HRC- HRC will just disappear as she wont have a power base( ie state of NY or the Senate) nor will she then be Secy of State. Just a thought, perhaps I am Machievellian but can this be the plan…
As a New Yorker, I will not support Caroline Kennedy for the senate seat. She does not represent women; she represents a patriarchy founded by Joe Kennedy.
I will support either Kirsten Gillibrand or Carolyn Maloney. They work hard. They do not represent a rubber stamp. They did not get their place at the table by betraying other women.
T
I support Randi Weingarten as my first choice. I want to ADD to the number of women in government, not just play musical chairs with the ones we already have. Also Randi is openly gay, a lawyer (like HIllary she worked to help women and children), she is also a teacher (kindergarten), and now she is the President of both the AFT & UFT (teachers unions). She is smart, qualified, and knows her way around politics and politicians both in New York and DC. We, in New York, would be well served.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Weingarten
http://www.charlierose.com/view/interview/9080
http://www.nydailynews.com/new....._ring.html
SAMPLE LETTER TO SEND TO GOVERNOR PATTERSON. BULLETED POINTS ARE OPTIONS TO SELECT DEPENDING UPON WHERE YOU LIVE AND HOW YOU WANT TO DEFINE YOURSELF.
___________________________________________________
Dear Governor Patterson:
I am writing to you as
· A resident of New York State
· A concerned American citizen
· A political activist
· A woman
· A registered Democrat
regarding the soon-to-be vacant Senate seat currently held by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
New York State’s loss will be America’s gain when Senator Clinton is sworn in as our next Secretary of State. However, I am deeply concerned that her Senate seat be filled with a person with the same degree of experience and commitment to those values embraced by Senator Clinton, including that of women’s rights.
As
· A woman
· A feminist
· An ardent supporter of Senator Clinton
I feel strongly that her seat be filled with another woman, and one with outstanding qualifications.
As you review prospective candidates, I hope you will not prematurely narrow the field to Caroline Kennedy and Andrew Cuomo. While Ms. Kennedy is female, she hasn’t the credentials worthy of this most awesome job of being a United States Senator. And, while Mr. Cuomo has the professional credentials, we simply cannot afford to loose a seat once filled by a woman, to a man. As I am sure you are aware, that although women comprise 52% of the population in this country, we only hold 17% of the seats in Congress. We need to hold every one of those seats and make gains. We cannot afford a loss.
In a state as populated as New York, the field of qualified women to choose from is large and impressive. As such, I would like to offer a few suggestions that I hope you will seriously consider:
Name and 1-2 sentence bio
Name and 1-2 sentence bio
Name and 1-2 sentence bio
Thank you for taking the time to make a thoughtful decision about this most important matter.
Sincerely,
_______________________________________________
Contact page for Governor Patterson:
http://www.ny.gov/governor/contact/index.html
I’d appreciate knowing if the organization has changed its policy regarding endorsements (not making them), because in politics the words “support” and “endorsement” can be taken as interchangeable/synonymous.
Kevin – Right on. Love your algorithm.
Bruce – Have had that thought, myself, and have seen it expressed by others. What crazy times to even think this way, but after what we’ve seen this year, anything’s possible.
And, while Mr. Cuomo has the professional credentials, we simply cannot afford to loose a seat once filled by a woman, to a man. As I am sure you are aware, that although women comprise 52% of the population in this country, we only hold 17% of the seats in Congress. We need to hold every one of those seats and make gains. We cannot afford a loss.
————————
That should be ‘lose a seat’, not ‘loose’, and ‘we hold only 17%’.
As to the logic here, of ‘we’ meaning ’set of people with vaginas’…. Do we have any indication of whether Paterson accepts this attitude or whether it will lessen the credibility of the writer?
KayJL,
No, TNA has not changed our stance.
Cynthia and all our blog pieces are written from the author’s perspective.
Cynthia,
I ‘m a New Yorker and I refuse to eat crow. Caroline Kennedy isn’t fairing will in working class up state New York. Although, I like and work here in the New York City metropolitian area, I am from an up-state working class family. My people don’t take kindly to REAL dynesties. Doesn’t the whole dynesty thing ring a bell too?
Most of us know the difference between a dynesty and the Clintons. It made all the difference in Clinton’s appeal here. Kennedy on the other hand screams of elitism. I hope Gov. Patterson uses his better judgement and appoints some one who has a record of fighting New Yorkers. He won’t make that call until Hillary Clinton is confirmed as SOS. I like the Governer and still maintain the hope that he will do the right thing and appoint a woman who has a proven record of public service.
I’m with Kevin and Ali. I love Kevin’s algorithm.
thebword on January 11th, 2009 9:06 pm
I support Randi Weingarten as my first choice. I want to ADD to the number of women in government, not just play musical chairs with the ones we already have.
————–
That’s a good point. If Maloney moves up from House to Senate, perhaps Weingarten or some other outside woman could take Maloney’s seat. And CK could come in at a level nearer her qualifications: perhaps as an aide to someone in the House or Senate.
Personally I oppose CK for anything, but coming in nearer entry level per her actual abilities would help.
kevin,
I agree with your algorithm. I would add the detail, that CK’s backstab of Hillary disqualifies CK from any sisterhood points (whether you count that backstab under lacking a record of supporting women’s rights, or as a separate item).
No way, no how, no Caroline. We can’t even vote for or against her – she wants her Senate Seat NOW, Daddy!
A qualified woman and one who DIDN’T help prevent Hillary from being elected would be the only acceptable choice for me.
If you feel the same way, please sign the petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/peti.....index.html
If not, to heck with ya!
(just kidding!)
Anna Belle – Thank you for the spelling correction. While the Governor doesn’t have the gift of sight, his name should be spelled correctly, none-the-less. Will correct it now.
fsteele – Thanks for the corrrection on lose not loose. Sheesh. Glad you caught that! As for the “we” statement, who knows what he’ll accept. I’m writing from me/I, but saying “we” as well in terms of my demographic group = women, plural. One can argue that it’s best to state one’s views directly and let the chips fall where they may. One can argue that it’s more savvy to try to match up who you are as the writer with where the recipient is coming from in order to maximize having your voice heard. In this case, I only have my own feelings to go on and just don’t know about Paterson. But, hey, I figure, if speaking as a woman about women’s issues isn’t his thing then I don’t know if I want to hide in the bushes, anyway. So be it.
You are absolutely correct, Cynthia Ruccia. I have refused to criticize Caroline’s qualifications because she’s no less qualified than half the men who ascend to office. What’s the problem, she never worked as a community organizer? I don’t like it, but just off the top of my head I can think of 20 men who would be even worse.
I also heard Sarah Palin make a statement saying she is in no way attacking Caroline’s qualifications when she complained about the media double standard. That is the mark of a feminist. I heard it again in Hillary when she refused to attack Palin during the primaries. That is the mark of a feminist. And heaven help me, I don’t care for the politics of Marsha Blackburn of Tenn, but doggone if she didn’t show the mark of a feminist and stand up to condemn the sexism directed at both Hillary and Palin.
Women must learn how to stand by other women, no matter our differences.
Anna, I thought in a previous thread you had expressed disagreement with the idea of voting for every female without exception, for the sake of 51%/parity etc.
This sounds like the same approach, though put differently:
[[ As I am sure you are aware, that although women comprise 52% of the population in this country, we only hold 17% of the seats in Congress. We need to hold every one of those seats and make gains. We cannot afford a loss. ]]
fsteele
Yes and yes. I am not in favor of voting for women solely based on gender. AND, I want to grow our numbers in Congress. They sound like conflicting goals (as you seem to be suggesting), but they’re not. I want to grow our numbers in Congress, but with some requirements beyond gender only. So, I wrote the letter to Paterson to try to make the case that 1) I hope he will appoint a woman, and 2) I hope he will appoint a qualified woman. I made no choice between Kennedy and Cuomo cause I was trying to urge him to continue to keep his mind open to other (female) options who would have more experience.
I just posted this on another piece but here’s my similar response Anna:
…after voting Democrat all my life in every election at the State, Local and Federal level – never again.
Now, given the opporunity, I vote for the woman running. If she needs working on, she’ll get a call from TNA to speak out women’s issue (see our Goals). But, I am proud to say that I will vote based on gender. With Senate being 17% women (possibly 16% soon), Congress 16% and Governships 16% – you betcha!
good discussion. also agree with Kevin’s rational.
my favorite is Rep. Gillibrand, but is there some democrat who could take over her seat in the upstate district, which is so strong for republicans? I assume the governor would prefer somebody from upstate, then he is left with cuomo.
I am not from New York. In letters to the governor from people from New York, it may be worthwhile being on the look out for a Gillibrand replacement and mention names.
Amy – I saw your post on the other thread. (Just posted something over there myself.) I hear what you’re saying. I have a different approach. As I see it, I don’t want ANYONE who needs working on and I have no illusions about the prospects for working on them. We’re all heading toward the main big picture. No way we’re going to be aligned on every detail every step of the way. It’d be scarey if we were.
“Now, given the opporunity, I vote for the woman running. If she needs working on, she’ll get a call from TNA to speak out women’s issue (see our Goals). But, I am proud to say that I will vote based on gender.”
I hope that call comes before the election. But if she knows you will vote for her anyway, why should she care what you say? You’ve already promised to give her the milk free.
You bet it comes well before the election. We need to reshape the national dialogue around women’s issues.
A goal of this org should be that by the 2012 Presidential Election, there will be many debate questions at each debate centered on women’s issues (not one or none). We need to make all candidates accountible to us on women’s rights!
fsteele
“But if she knows you will vote for her anyway, why should she care what you say? You’ve already promised to give her the milk free.”
Good point (as usual).
Anna,
I guess I should catch up on the other thread, but your letter to Paterson is here. If this letter is sort of a template of positions as well as of the currently bulleted points, then I suggest you consider wording it so that people who support either extreme of gender voting can omit the other extreme. As it is, it sounds like you’re trying to cover both extremes and the whole middle range with one somewhat ambiguous and confusing statement (though I suppose the whole range could be covered in one clear simple statment as well.
That is me speaking for me – Amy Siskind.
Now when TNA has hundreds of thousands of members (voters) around the country in a year or two, and has a national grassroots get out the vote effort based on women’s issues, you bet they will care. Ain’t no milk from here coming for free.
On Paterson’s appointment, we have a short time to lobby.
A letter saying “I want a woman; Maloney and Gillibrand and W. etc are qualified” is unlikely to influence Paterson to appoint a man. At worst he might think, “These names don’t work, but that voter wants a woman so I’ll give her CK.”
fsteele
“…though I suppose the whole range could be covered in one clear simple statment as well.”
I’m all for clear and simple. Any ideas? Or is th eidea what you posted above?
Meanwhile, people can ignore the letter entirely. I don’t think I could write one that would cover the full range of positions. It’s just offered up as a draft for those who may not like to write or want a boost to get going.
…signing off for the night…
fsteele
Sorry, one last thought…I think you’re trying to get into Paterson’s head a bit too much. Just no way of knowing how he’d take any of this. At a certain point, you just have to put your thoughts out there, no? (This, from the Queen of trying to overthink and overanalyze things!)
Anna,
My examples tend to be too specific and concrete, sorry.
Lest we forget who CK’s father was and that he, in 1961, convened the first and only Presidential Commission on the Status of Women.
Granted he came to Val Kill looking for Eleanor’s support so this is likely why he did it – but he did it! And no other president has done so since.
If Bill and HIllary didn’t find it worth doing, then what JFK did (likely at Eleanor’s urging) seems a very minor point indeed.
CK was very young when JFK died. Her mother was quoted as saying “In our family we leave politics to the men.” In any case it will not be JFK on a ouija board telling CK how to vote; if not Ted K, it will be Obama.
Why would we trust any Commission that Obama would appoint? Appointing tokens (like Sibelius, McCaskill, Pelosi, Brazile) would be an old trick to get a report which … pink-washes the situation, one might say.
I’d prefer to let such a Comission wait till there is a better President to appoint it.
Cynthia,
Has leadership become a non-issue here as it has at NOW and every other “feminist” group? This column begs the question.
There are very capable women in the political pipeline who would do more for women in the US Senate than Caroline Kennedy can or would do. If she were the single woman candidate running against a man, this would be an appropriate endorsement.
She’s not.
I’m sorry I missed this exchange last night.
Thanks Cynthia “I AM CURRENTLY A NYer & REFUSE TO EAT CROW”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Just like during the primaries when “Caroline , Oprah,Michelle Obama , NARL and countless “Others” were allowed to NOT support the woman (Hillary Clinton); I deserve the same respect.
Not only did Caroline (within her right) ; not supporter Clinton’s bid to:
*”Break the Highest & Hardest Glass Ceiling”
**When the chance for her to “Break the “2nd” Hardest & Highest Glass Ceiling”…………she was PART of the group that “missed the boat on that one too.
*****************************************************************
I agree with Gloria Steinem on this & Caroline & NYS would be better served by her going for the potential vacant position left by some one else; ie Carolyn Maloney(co-drafter of the now passed in the House equal pay Bill etc…) “OR someone LIKE” her.
I’ve spoken to politicians offices…”They want us to Contact them / they are as CONFUSED about what is happening as we are.
************************************************************************
On a final note; “Bruce” I believe your CORRECT; if Caroline gets in Obama wins again & Hillary will one day be no where with nothing. He shows over & over again how “Disposable” people are to him.
Join me call:
Patterson # 518-474-8390
Speaker S. Silver # 212-312-1420
Rep Charlie Rangel # 212-663-3900 (close friend/adviser to GOV)
“JeanLouise”
“NOW & I believe NARL endorsed Carolyn Maloney; but no one is listening to them because, all the “talk” of Caroline K.:
Sucks all the oxygen out of this open discussion of who is the BEST:
“Qualified on Day One Woman”.
IMO – this distraction allows Paterson to select a man instead.
I just want to thank Cynthia for writing such a thought provoking piece…once again.
And thank all of our wonderful members and viewers for a terrific, high caliber discussion.
No. You are absolutely wrong and extremely shortsighted to support Caroline Kennedy . And this is an incredibly disappointing post from the New Agenda.
Supporting CK or just ANY woman is not the point. If Caroline is handed this extremely prestigious position, entirely on the strength of her family name and money, it will strongly discourage every other non-name, not-born-to-wealth woman and girl from ever again thinking “Hey, maybe I could be Senator” (or governor, or president).
There are so many qualified women to take this seat who have worked their way up. Appointing Caroline will tell all of them, and all of their supporters, and everyone who ever applauded their work and rise to a position of respect and responsibility, that women are fools to think that merit and hard work are worth the effort. It will say them very clearly, “If you don’t think you can make a billion or two on your own, just marry some rich guy. That’s all you need to do.”
Support one of the many women in NY who deserve this and have worked for it, not someone who can just pick up the phone and say she wants it. A Senate seat should not be seen as some wealthy family’s bauble.
I agree Jb in VA
Judging for the over-whelming feedback on this topic each time it runs:
“I believe a VOTE on the list of individuals” that NA should list is in order. As I stated many times:
I don’t have a problem with TNA ” NOT” supporting “1″ choice.
My problem “from the start” was/is that Caroline Kennedy as an opinion for them “gives standing” with the many other “Qualified on Day One Women”.
In the end (as I read in the LI/NY newspaper today) the choice in the public arena is between Caroline & the male choices & “she loses”.
All Caroline is /is a “distraction” to allow the boys to do what they are going to do anyway……”IMO”.
It’s time we get to VOTE on who is on the list, presented by “OUR”
organization.
How “POWERFUL” of a “Press Release” would that be:
“A newly formed Woman’s Group VOTED to Withdraw Caroline Kennedy’s name from a list of Female options provided by the organization to replace Senator Clinton”.
JB,
This is an opinion piece, and Cynthia is entitled to her opinion – as are you and anyone else here who would like to enter the discussion in a constructive way.
To counter-balance all this talk about CK, perhaps TNA should join the other women’s groups that have come out for Maloney.
I would only add to my four tenets above that whether or not a women supported HRC or Palin is not a litmus test for whether they support women’s rights. I don’t consider women like Sibelius, McCaskill, Pelosi and Brazile as tokens. I am not a Brzile fan at all but people can have reasons they did not support HRC and Palin that do deal with gender.
The litmus test for me is:
- supporting equal pay
- supporting glass ceiling and affirmative action legislation and enforcement
- supporting health and dependent care that puts women on equal footing in the workplace
- supporting worklife balance programs that puts women on equal footing in the workplace
- agressively breaking down barriers for women in science, technology, engineering and math and
- finding a way to support women who make the sacrifice to stay at home and raise families, particulrly when they want to re-enter the workforce
I believe there are women who believe these objectives but do not necessary support HRC or Palin. I will go on record as not a Palin supporter, for other reasons, and believe HRC should have stayed in the Senate to fight for these issues.
I am not impressed by CK but if we have to get her, she should go on record of supporting a women’s rights agenda.
If you support CK (albeit w/o enthusiasm), fine.
If you don’t and have alternative ideas of capable women, write to Paterson with your suggestions (and, perhaps, your rationale, as well.
When does Patterson have to make up his mind?
I agree with fsteele. Every time I read about legislation helping women, it has Maloney’s name written all over it. Maybe Patterson’s lateness in appointment is a sign he is still undecided and needs input. I say we get one last blast of support for Maloney. I’ve already signed 2 petitions for her and will gladly do again.
“mamabroad”
**He will make his decision AFTER Thursday / when Clinton is confirmed.
Although my personal choice has been Carolyn Maloney; I would be fine with any of the other deserving of this honor,”Women that have been mentioned”.
Just like I did not support Obama “jumping to the head of the line for Pres.” / I don’t support Caroline Kennedy doing the same thing.
I also don’t endorse her “newly realized” political aspirations advancing on the “Back of the person she campaigned against”.
Thanks for signing the petition(s).
***@ 8:11 this am I posted some contact #’s.
I think the strongest factor in any of this is women seeing other women in power, regardless of what they represent. This is something that men take for granted, or sometimes use against women, to prove Evolutionary Psychology. There are men in power all over, and not all men agree with all of them, but you will often find a man who will point to all the men in positions of power and deduce some kind of natural argument of the superiority of men, from that.
I wish we were in a position where women in power could be in power without necessarily being the “right woman”.
So I agree that we should support any woman, and if we have a choice of women to support, that is even better.
Kiuku,
“So I agree that we should support any woman, and if we have a choice of women to support, that is even better”
Won’t that be fantastic! Someday we will have so many women to pick from we can fight about that! I look forward to the day.
I think tp/ny’s “jumping to the head of the line” statement is a great example of why championing someone like CK actually hurts women.
Sure, not all male senators are qualified. And if CK runs in 2010, is elected, and does well, more power to her.
But I think it’s important for anyone — male or female — who’s appointed to have paid his/her dues. Agree with her or not, Palin has been a politician and has campaigned and won votes on her own.
If TNA and/or other women’s orgs get behind candidates who don’t have the rudimentary governmental qualifications just because of gender, I think we lose credibility. And the female candidates we do support, also do.
Thia,
We’re already fighting about which woman to support.
Which qualififed sister like Maloney, Gillibrand, W-whosis — or even CK, who is neither.
Imo each of us should do the straight honest thing and recommend whichever candidate she really likes best. Or, rally round Maloney as she seems to have the best chance, and we all do like her somewhat (sfaik).
Imo what we should not do, is try to game the system by recommending CK because we’ve given up on other women. That will just confuse things. Imo it’s clear that Paterson is not leaning toward CK and is honestly considering all candidates. (See Buffalo News story I posted above.)
I guess in my mind there is a difference between endorsing someone and saying I’ll support her if she gets the gig. I’m not a huge fan of Maloney because of the comments she made about Hillary having experience sexism but Palin’s situation was different. (her comments translated in my mind to “because Palin deserved it”) I just want more women in office. I even had to defend Pelosi from a sexist attack the other day and boy did that stick in my craw! I wouldn’t endorse her for any job but I can force myself to defend her if the attacks are sexist.
At this point it all makes my head hurt
Okay, here’s what I sent Paterson through his site at
http://161.11.121.121/govemail
Topic: Women’s Issues
Subject: NO CK; Maloney or Gillibrand or Cuomo okay
CK is not qualified as a legislator or as a feminist (she backstabbed Hillary). Maloney, Gillibrand, and other qualified feminists are available. Cuomo also has a good record on women’s issues (and supported Hillary).
CK would be a puppet for Obama and Ted Kennedy. The US needs qualified, independent-minded Senators, not elitist dynastic puppets.
Thia,
I agree about ’support’ vs ‘endorse.’
This is the first I’ve heard about Maloney not supporting Palin against some sexist charges. However I’d examine it very carefully before faulting Maloney. The world is full of misquotes, spins…. Even at worst, if Maloney did accept some false charges about Palin … still NY is very far from Alaska and it might have been an honest mistake.
Thanks for the link fsteele. Here’s what I sent to Patterson:
Please appoint Carolyn Maloney to replace Hillary Clinton. Anyone who replaces Hillary should be the champion for women that Hillary has been. Carolyn Maloney is the one to fill Hillary’s shoes. Appointing Carolyn Maloney will send a positive message to and on behalf of women in all 50 states. This is something our country needs now.
Thank you for your time.
Let’s send this link around the internet on all the blogs we visit asking them to contact Gov Patterson directly to suggest Maloney. at this 11th hour.
http://161.11.121.121/govemail
I have made a pledge to myself to vote for any live woman on a ballot. I draw the line at voting for the dead. Of course, I want to vote for a highly qualified woman. A well-qualified woman would be OK, too. An articulate woman who shares my views, but has little experience could still get my vote. An inexperienced woman who is a polar opposite to me can still have my vote if she asks me for it and promises to help other women get elected, too. That’s how I would triage my votes if all candidates were female. Male candidates, when they share a ballot with a female rank just above “dead female”. If there are only men are on the ballot, I will vote for the candidate on the bottom of the list to offset the statistical advantage for the candidate on the top. I want to be fair to all of the guys running and give them all an equal chance like women get when we run for office. That being said, I hope Governor Paterson finds the most highly qualified woman he can and appoints her, but the last I checked, Caroline Kennedy is still breathing.
Re: Clinton’s confirmation on Tuesday comment
I saw a headline on Yahoo news that they are anticipating hurdles in this process. Dare we get ready for bumps in the road? Perhaps best not to assume anything till it’s for sure.
Re: “Support” vs “Endorse”
Not sure how everyone perceives these as different or the same. I do recall (it resounds in my head still!) Senator Boxer, as a superdelegatae, initially announcing her “support” of Clinton while stressing she was doing so because her state voted for Clinton and that her support was not an “endorsement.” Geez. It didn’t take a genius to read the subtext there.
fsteele
There used to be a youtube link of this but it has poofed?
This is the article I saw it in, you can make up your own mind about what she said. I thought it was stinky!
http://embeds.blogs.foxnews.co.....ne-at-all/
“octogalore” – “Thanks”
It makes me really upset when the media compares Hillary’s “lack of experience in 2000 with the Caroline Kennedy of today”.
For “1″ thing I don’t agree; but even “if” I did that was “Weighed & Measure” during an election by the voters of NYS.
Hillary “EARNED” the respect she got & so has many of the other choices we have mentioned here.
There should be a “Higher Bar” for an appointment since that person would need to be “Effective” right away.
“fsteele”
Love your entries & your enthusiasm.
I know this is terribly off topic, but a lady at my church told me about this:
http://www.howobamagotelected.com/
It’s really interesting!!!
“media malpractice” should become a term of weight. Americans rely on the media. I don’t know how many people tell me and truly believe Palin was a “nutcase” because of lies in the media that they refused to correct. Refusing to correct lies, bigoting reporting, should not be tolerated. You should be able to sue the media for unfair reporting.
KiuKu,
I can’t agree more. I think that someone needs to sue the dickens out of all the MSM companies. The MSM needs to loose a couple billion to get into their heads that they shouldn’t be controlling politics. I would then advocate the money being donated to a new organization for the seperation of media and state (so that it wouldn’t be about the money, just the non-existent ethics in the journalism industry).
Kiuku have you seen the interview with Palin conducted by the documentary maker making a film about Media Malpractice. You can find it at bighollywood.breitbart.com
Thia and others,
It’s a valid point that seeing women in leadership will help conditon viewers to, ah, seeing women in leadership, regardless of what those women are promoting.
But I think these things really need to be weighed case by case.
Here’s a thought experiment (as I don’t know Cuomo’s actual record). Suppose Mr. Goodguy is qualfied and in fact is a devoted feminist who has passed up power within the patriarchial structure. He has worked very hard for women’s causes, and to keep Hillary from being pushed aside by NOW etc in favor of an inexperienced non-feminist symbol (ie Obama).
Now Mr. Goodguy has a chance to be appointed to Hillary’s seat and continue her work. But he is pushed aside by some women’s groups because he is a man! His policies, his qualifications, his dedicated work — matter not at all! (Just as Hillary’s mattered not.) All that the group wants is a symbol, and he happens to be the wrong symbol.
How is Mr. Goodguy going to FEEL about this group, and about women’s causes in general? Will he continue sacrificing for women’s causes, after women backstabbed him?
By choosing symbol over substance, we might end up wiht both a non-feminist Senator (CK) and a no-longer-feminist Atty Gen (Mr. Goodguy).
And ohter
And other up-coming Mr. Niceyounggoodguys, who are choosing whether to ally with the feminists or with the patriarchs, will be watching this. By backstabbing Mr. Goodguy in favor of CK, we may be losing not only a feminist Senator and AG, but also these potential Goodguys who could have helped feminist causes in future.
fsteele,
I understand your point but I’m tired of of women having to go through men to ask for what they want. Maybe it won’t matter as much when we have more equality in representation but it does matter to me now. I’m sick of begging for scraps and handouts from men in power, even the good ones. I want to get women in equal positions of power and then if they ignore women’s issues we kick them out and replace them. With Mr. Goodguy, we are still asking for protection, permission, and opportunities from men. We still have no real power of our own.
fsteele,
One more point, we have been trying that approach with the Democratic party for the last 30 or 40 years and what has it gotten us. Nada! Nothing! Zilch! Zippo!
Mr. Goodguy can bite my Baby Ruth! I want to talk to Mrs. GoodGal for a while and see what she can do
(fsteele, if any of that little rant came off snarky it wasn’t intended that way. I’m on a sugar high or something
)
I was recently on an interviewing team for a vacant position in my agency. One staff wanted to hire a person with almost no qualifications simply to give this person a chance at a job. We politely shouted this staff member down, pointing out that our clients deserved the best we could provide. Surely to God there are qualified Democrat women in NY to become a US Senator. Gee, Cynthia, why not appoint some ‘eye candy’ for that vacancy – wouldn’t that make it easier for her to get along with all the men in the Senate? Just think of all the benefits some NY ‘eye candy’ in the Senate could bring to the state! I mean all she would have to do is twitch her butt and grant money would coming pouring in, right? Voting gender without qualifications is sexist in my opinion, something Larry Flynt would endorse.
goesh,
I agree. Voting gender “all else being equal” makes sense. But if it’s known that an unqualified, non-feminist woman will always get our vote over a qualified, feminist man — then neither will give us anything. The woman will know she can get the milk for free, and the men will know they can never get it (and will be justafiably bitter toward us, as we are toward those who backstabbed Hillary).
Eye candy? Whoever said anything about eye candy? I’m talking about the idea that scientists have produced many studies showing that the capacity for a human being to accept women in a leadership capacity is decided by the time we are——nine months old. Ask our founder Nancy Hopkins, a biologist at MIT, about that.
So if that is the case, all ideas of how we want to ideally see the world are fine, but just that. An ideal that is so far from coming that we can keep splitting hairs for all the good that it does us. I too would like to see the system work the right way, as goesh and others have expressed.
But our progress has been poor. You know if you keep doing the same thing you always have done you are going to keep getting what you have always gotten. Or, insanity is if you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect to get different results.
My idea isn’t so radical or ridiculous. In countries where women have more representation, some of the problems we are having here in America are lessening there. And besides, it’s an INTERIM path, as I keep saying. We have this great power (greater numbers) and we are not using it. As a result we have been left the crumbs. And if you think that the men are going to give up power because it is the right thing to do, think again. How far has that gotten us? We have to grab it from them. And do it by using the tools at our disposal. Our numbers.
I realize that it is not an idea for everyone, and we don’t need everyone to be on board, so if you can’t do it goesh and others, ok. And Anna, my saying that was misinterpreted by you. I am NOT giving anyone permission to think the way they do. It is not mine to give. It is a colloquialism that means that I personally am fine with your point of view. No hard feelings from me. I respect you for your position.
If anyone else has other ideas of how we are going to wrest that power from the men, please contribute. Power grabbing is usually an ugly process as students of history can attest. It won’t be pretty in our case either. But if women vote for women for a little while, it won’t be a violent takeover. And then we will raise a new generation where seeing women in power will just be normal. We will have given them the privilege of voting for the BEST women. Just like our immigrant forbears who made so many sacrifices for us, we will have to make some for those who come next.
Cynthia,
If it’s true that “the capacity for a human being to accept women in a leadership capacity is decided by the time we are——nine months old”, then our current votes will not produce that the desired effect till current babies reach voting age: 2017 at earliest.
And by then we might have a generation in office with a high percentage of women — like Pelosi, McCaskill, and CK. Think of what legislation they may pass in the meantime.
(Of course if some of those women really supported Obama because their children told them to, then we might get some effect from the current babies before they reach voting age.
fsteele Jan 12th @ 11:06
Great example, though I also think that if a man were truly, deeply commited to women’s issues then they shouldn’t (talking ideal world!) abandon them simply because women cast them out in favor of a woman. They should (ideal world) grasp the rationale and continue to fight for women’s issues if that is/was truly a deeply held value and commitment they hold/held. All of that said, I am NOT for voting for women based solely on gender. Just challenging one aspect of your idea.
Thia
“I want to get women in equal positions of power and then if they ignore women’s issues we kick them out and replace them. ”
Sounds good, but it’s not so easy to kick someone out once they’re in office. It is extremely difficult to beat an incumbant. That is one of many reasons why these voting choices must be made carefully, in my view.
But, I agree it gets old asking men for what we want. I’m just not convinced that asking an unsympathetic woman makes that much difference at the end of the day. All a matter of priorities: Does one place the importance of asking a woman over the importance of the likelihood of getting what you want?
Cynthia
There are now a lot of variations of “Anna’s” on this blog. I’m not sure if you were addresing me or Anna in AK. Ugh.
Re: “….scientists have produced many studies showing that the capacity for a human being to accept women in a leadership capacity is decided by the time we are——nine months old.”
How does one then explain women in positions of power who appear to garner enormous respect, including those in the corporate world, education, government, etc. Yes, I know what we witnessed this year, but I’ve also seen women in leadership roles who were highly respected in their role and quite accepted as such. Are they outliers? How does one explain Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, Golda Mier….you get the gyst. I’m not saying these studies are wrong or poorly done. I just wonder if the truth is somewhere in the middle.
I, you know, don’t think, you know, that Caroline, you know, is qualified, you know. How can we possibly support a candidate who can’t even expresss herself without sounding like a 15 year old? QUALIFICATIONS do matter. I wasn’t for Hillary just because she was a woman, I voted for her because she was the most qualified candidate!!! There are other women in NY politics and outside of politics, who are more qualified than Caroline Kennedy to be considered for the Senate. What happened to paying your dues? What happened to grooming yourself as a viable candidate before you jump into the arena? Caroline Kennedy may some day be a good candidate. Right now, SHE IS NOT. I won’t sacrifice higher standards just because Caroline is a woman. We also have to have the best candidate available and from where I sit Caroline is not the only possible choice out there. Governor Patterson should do the right thing and appoint a woman who has the best qualifications, not the one with the most money or connections.
Maria,
I agree with you.
I wouldn’t condemn CK or anyone on a verbal tic. It’s the lack of substance BETWEEN the tics. Anyone (including Hillary) tics some, to puncutate, give the audience time to catch up, to warn the audience there is a sort of gap between their expectations and her coming answer, perhaps give herself time to think about an unexpected question….
Making fun of CK’s tic is a quick way to invoke her lack of knowledge and experience in general, though. If she knew what she was doing and had any opinions of her own and had the basic familiarity with public speaking or speaking to the press that is expected of a candidate — she wouldn’t need to use those tics so often. (It also makes her appear to be vague, unfocused, perhaps in poor health.)
“Maria & fsteele”
In my quest to be “HEARD” on this issue; I explain the “qualification” question like this:
Caroline has more than enough experience to “RUN” for Senator & leave her fate in the hands of the voters of NYS.
However, who ever Gov. Paterson selects needs to be “Qualified on Day One”; the bar for that is higher.
As far as the verbal “tick” thing; I find the attacks troubling & sexist.
Also with Geraldine in 1984 now Hillary in 2009; a woman should not be declined her promotion due to her husband’s activities.
Isn’t that “guilt by association”??
Wow this CK sure is a hot button issue!!!
Maria
“There are other women in NY politics and outside of politics, who are more qualified than Caroline Kennedy to be considered for the Senate.”
I so agree. That’s why it seems nuts that the short list has been rumored to be down to CK or Cuomo. What’s up with that? In my letter to Paterson, I made the very point you make. In a state as highly populated as NY, surely there are many qualified women to consider.
One other thought (among many) re: Caroline Kennedy
It seems that all of the other Congressional seats that were vacant due to appointments in the Obama administration were filled with Obama supporters. It just seems such a shame to think of Clinton’s seat being filled with someone who did not support her. Another slap in the face. One part of me think this is petty thinking and I need to move on. Another part of me is so fed up with the many ways that Clinton’s worth was devalued, minimized, disresepcted, etc that it’s hard to consider yet one more affront.
As a non New Yorker I try to tell myself to not get to involved with this, though the fact that it is Hillary’s seat that she is vying for is galling. However, I’m pretty sure that she is setting herself up to run for President in 2016 and that does, as an American, concern me. This is the Obama template, first woman president version. Just as I would have preferred that our first Black President was actually someone who came out of the African American slave experience and worked his or her way up to the top, that’s what I would prefer for our first female President – one of the many hard working women out there who have sacrificed so much to accomplish something in this sexist society. I am growing ever more cynical about celebrity culture, $$$$ based Politics.
To clarify the previous post, the person I am talking about who has her eye on a 2016 Presidential race is Ms. Kennedy.
As I posted above (7.32), Paterson is mad at the media for focusing so much attention on CK. He says as far as he is concerned there are 10-15 candidates.
From Daily News message board:
Contrast Kennedhy’s with Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand whom according to the Village Voice, Paterson is seriously considering for the Senate:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/.....ols_to.php
Kennedy -
- Never worked as a lawyer, ever, and let her law license lapse for years until she decided a month ago she wanted the Senate Seat
Gillibrand: A magna cum laude graduate of Dartmouth, clerked for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals and was a partner in David Boies ( guy who argued for Al Gore in 2000) law firm
Kennedy: Never elected to office
Gillibrand: Elected twice to office in a heavily Republican district. First Democrat in years to do so.
Kennedy: According to school Chancellor Joel Klein, Kennedy didn’t come into the office very much for her job with the Public Schools.
Gillibrand: Had a big job in the Clinton administration, working as a lawyer in HUD
Gillibrand: Currently on the Armed Services Committee
Kennedy: Has never been a member of Congress
Gillibrand: Worked for abused women
Kennedy: no experience working for abused women
Gilibrand: One of top fundraisers in Congress, ranking #11
Kennedy: Also a top fundraiser. But of course, she doesn’t have another job
Gillibrand: Has voted in every election
Kennedy: Did not vote in several general elections and primaries.
That post about Gillibrand was by way of Uppity Woman, http://uppitywoman08.wordpress.....ment-37945
[...] as Cynthia Ruccia wrote in January that she was Eating Crow for Caroline Kennedy, well looks like I’ll be eating some crow for Nancy [...]
the post about eating crow for Nancy brought me here. some great comments about this. i agree with Kevin. that is my way of thinking about this too. i also believe that i would have difficulty supporting ann coulter if she were to run for public office; i would have no problem having her back though if she were the person in the video rather than nancy. it may be difficult to approach this without drawing some sort of line, but supporting all women for political office and having all women’s backs are two entirely different things as the 2 posts make evident.
i didn’t mention in my previous comment that i did have nancy’s back. i wrote chairman steele and forwarded the letter to most of my friends. one responded that she didn’t like nancy at all and that she deserved what she was getting, but that she would write steele in spite of that. also, i never did bring myself to back caroline; i was relieved that she took herself out of it, and yes, she really did have some annoying speaking habits.
[...] tasting better all of the time!!!! I refer to an earlier piece of mine (Eating Crow For Caroline Kennedy) where I was making one of my favorite points that women need to vote for women—-even if we [...]
No, I am not supporting Caroline cause she is a women. I am embarrassed at her verbal tics ( her mother had the same tics) and really what looks like a lack of education. I did not like the entitlement attitude. What a shocker to the Kennedys.
Leave your Response
Supporting women.
Ending sexism.
Finding common ground.
We’re in the Media »
Click to see our latest stories in the media
More Stories »Recent Comments
The Latest from our Blog
Archives
Blogroll
Find the New Agenda Online
Subscribe Entries (RSS) | Comments (RSS)
The New Agenda is a 501(c)(4) organization dedicated to improving the lives of women and girls by bringing about systemic change in the media, at the workplace, at school and at home. More...