... because women just can't speak to reporters

There was a bit too much of a sense of déjà vu today when Caroline Kennedy was shepherded away from reporters by her aides when asked a question about her qualifications for being senator. When asked the question, Kennedy apparently began to answer the question (I know, I know, what audacity) before being immediately hurried away by her aides. The poor woman actually said, "Hopefully I can come back and answer all those questions," while she climbing into her car. Not quite as bad as Palin telling Katie Couric that she needed to call and ask someone about the answer to question, but same general concept.

This continuing perception that female politicians are essentially unable to roll with the punches the way their male counterparts do is disturbing in and of itself. But it speaks to a larger problem of women being pushed to the forefront of the political scene for what they are (women) rather than what they've done. In some bizarre attempt to replace Hillary Clinton in the heart of the feminist movement, first the Republican and now the Democratic Party (well, to be fair, she has yet to actually be appointed) have rushed into filling the void with some woman, any woman, who hopefully could manage to provide some other vote catching mechanism as well. In Palin's case, she had the added benefit of shoring up the base. And in Kennedy's case, well, I think we all know what she brings to the table. The fact of the matter is, there are qualified women in both parties (Kay Bailey Hutchinson, Kathleen Sebelius, Olympia Snow and Barbara Boxer, to name a few, along with recent Obama Cabinet pick Janet Napolitano). So why keep supporting unqualified candidates with some amount of star power? Well, in part, perhaps, because that seems to be a working formula for many male politicians (care to recollect our current president?), but also because there seems to be some sort of consensus that voters will only stand behind a woman if they associate her either with powerful male leaders or "strong family values" (which apparently means instilling the value of teenage pregnancy). However, why everyone keeps harping on this formula that didn't work for Palin (more voters, in the end, had a negative view of her than a postive one) is beyond me.