Hillary Clinton hasn’t officially given up her Senate seat yet, but the list of Senate-wannabes grows every day.
New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo. Hillary’s hubs and former President Bill Clinton. NOW and The Feminist Majority have endorsed Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney, a longtime advocate for issues such as fair pay for women, family planning, family and medical leave and heads up a joint Senate/House committee on finances and the economy.
Others include New York state politician Thomas Suozzi and Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. And don’t forget Fran Drescher, though I’m not quite sure whether “The Nanny” is qualified, but she’s tossed her hat in the ring anyway!
And then there’s “the name” — Caroline Kennedy. Those following this story have been abuzz since she reportedly phoned New York Governor David Paterson to talk about the slot.
But aside from the fact that her name is Kennedy, is there a reason she should be in the running? Is the name enough? As Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post suggested, maybe it’s enough that Caroline was the little rich girl from Camelot whose family has suffered innumerable and unimaginable tragedies so we want to see that legacy continue in the form of a modern day fairy tale?
I have to admit, I was a bit taken aback by some of Marcus’ comments. There certainly is an argument that can be made that even though Caroline Kennedy has never held elective office that she’s got experience that could serve her well — political connections, degrees from Ivy League schools (which seems to be a special leaning of the Obama administration to be). She’s the Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates. She’s been actively involved in the New York City educational system and an adviser to the Harvard Institute on Politics. Certainly not a shabby resume.
As Marcus, I’ve always been interested in Caroline Kennedy’s story — we’re about the same age and one of the earliest memories I have is watching her father’s funeral on our little black and white TV. But I don’t think we really want someone in Hillary Clinton’s slot who is there because it satisfies some sort of fairy tale ending. And when there are so few women’s voices discussing important issues on the op-ed pages, I’m a bit miffed that one at the Washington Post would use her slot to, as she admits, write about a topic in such a ‘girly’ way.
Don’t get me wrong. I’ve got puh-LENTY of girliness in me, which I am happy to embrace at the right times — like when I’m with my daughter or out at lunch with some friends. But not on the op-ed pages of a major national newspaper. That just really sets us all back.
As for Caroline? She may end up getting the nod for the seat of the woman she ignored in the Presidential campaign. She may end up getting the seat because she was such an early supporter of Barack Obama. But please let’s not say she’s going get the seat because we love princess stories with happy endings.
When I interviewed her a few days ago, Feminist Majority president Eleanor Smeal said she already believes it’s going to be another two or three generations until we get even close to political parity with men. Talking about women candidates in terms of fairy tales is only going to make it even longer.
December 9th, 2008 at 10:50 pm
I’m rooting for Maloney. Honestly, I just don’t know enough about Kennedy. She’s untested and not very vocal. I’m not sure exactly where she stands on several key issues. Maybe now’s a time to really speak out and get herself out there more.
December 10th, 2008 at 12:29 am
I am not in favor of Kennedy getting the nod because she’s had a hard lot in life. My daughter lost her father when she was three and a half. She spent her entire life watching him die. Does this entitle her? I try not to let her use that as an excuse or to allow others to baby her because they feel sorry for her.
Despite her losses, Kennedy grew up privileged and luckier in many respects than most.
Two or three generations to equality? Not at the rate we are going. We had a shot and tossed it aside because many women foolishly believe we are equal already. As long as that attitude persists, we aren’t going anyway.
December 10th, 2008 at 7:41 am
In this case I’m going with my first response. I think it’s a terrible idea.
I adore the woman. I was absolutely glued to the tv when she spoke at the 2004 convention. She has class, wit, brains, an accomplished resume and enormous influence. And it’s exactly why I think she should stay out of the senate, where I fear we’ll find out that she has feet of clay just like all the others.
And seriously. If she weren’t a Kennedy, would we even be having this conversation?
The woman is amazing. I hope she walks away from this to continue living the life she has – from where she seems to do a ton of good and affect things positively with way fewer hurdles and ickiness than is going to go hand in hand with anything on the Hill.
December 13th, 2008 at 12:25 pm
Maybe I am crazy but-perhaps the fact Carolyn hasn’t held any elected office could be a bonus- she owes no one anything.