The New York Senate Seat

When Carline Kennedy withdrew from consideration for the soon-to-be-vacated New York Senate seat, I was somewhat skeptical of her alleged personal reason for withdrawal (initially reported to be concern for the health of her uncle, Ted Kennedy). Her nose-diving popularity and general mishandling of a political situation where she began as the far-and-away front-runner seemed a more likely cause. Furthermore, the whole gendered concept of her withdrawing because of her uncle's health generally irked my feminist sensibilities (can anyone imagine, say, Bill Clinton abandoning political aspirations under such circumstances?). So, you can imagine my delight in discovering that, apparently (according to such laudable and reliable sources as gawker and rightpundits.com), her "personal" reasons for withdrawing concerned her affair with New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger. Hopefully, she wasn't relying on this affair to receive decent press coverage). While the fact that our female politicians are now engaging in at least some level of morally ambiguous extra-marital sexual relations in an attempt to match their male counterparts may gave some hope to feminism, it is important to keep in mind the fact that this would never (unless it was publicly revealed by an outside source) be the cause for any man to step down from consideration of political office (it didn't seem to bother John Edwards during his latest failed presidential bid).

... 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.

what's in a senate seat?

Well, according to Governor Rod R. Blagojevich of Illinois, somewhere between $200,000 and $300,000. But I'll leave Blagojevich's questionable political dealings vis-a-vis Obama's vacant Senate seat, which may not even have been strictly illegal under America's delightfully vague definitions of political corruption, for others to analyze. Instead, I'm going to discuss that other Senate seat soon to be left open by a former Democratic candidate for president. Caroline Kennedy seems to be the likely front-runner, now that she's officially declared her interest in the office. Her bid has been met with some (deserved) degree of skepticism. In fact, the best thing I've actually heard in her favor is that she'll help maintain the half-century long tradition of having a Kennedy in the Senate. As an added bonus, she'll bring some star power and name recognition to the office, à la Hillary Clinton. The most innocent benefit of this idea being, of course, that it would keep someone in New York's junior Senate seat who would command a great deal of power and respect. Oh, and the fact that being able to vote Kennedy-Patterson may help Patterson win his re-election bid. The New York Times ran an article today originally titled "Resume Long on Politics, but Short on Public Office" The name of the article was changed at some point this morning to "Kennedy's Credentials are Debated in Senate Bid," perhaps because the article failed to name a single way that Kennedy's resume was long on anything save charity board membership. First among the grievances against Kennedy is the fact that she has never been elected to public office and, until the Obama campaign, was not particularly drawn to that perennial political call of the Kennedy clan.

What I find most disturbing is the continuing trend in politics that power female figures must derive their clout from name association and familial ties. Hillary, let us remember, despite some level of disapproving noise from her camp in reference to the prospect of a Kennedy pick, had never been elected to political office before running for the New York Senate seat in 2000. While Clinton was clearly far more qualified than Kennedy is (given the fact that, you know, she'd be highly involved in politics since her early days at Wellesley (where she was president of, wait for it, the Young Republicans her freshman year). However, there is something distressing about the fact that when the Democrats turn to find a powerful female leader, the first place they look is at the wives and daughters of established (male) politicians.