Sign in to wowOwow

Enter the email address that you used when registering at wowOwow.
The password field is case sensitive. Click here if you have forgotten your password.

Please register for wowOwow

Newsletter subscriptions
Sign up to receive wowOwow's weekly newsletter and get our best picks delivered right to your inbox. Our newsletter content is hand-picked by the wowOwow editorial team and provides the top features, news, and commentary from our site. Subscribing to our newsletter is free and safe. We will never share your email or other information with a third-party without your direct consent.
By registering, you indicate that you have read and agree
with our privacy policy and terms of service.

Caroline Kennedy Candidacy Watch | 01/23/2009 9:30 am

Did Kennedy Face Gendered Double Standard?

By The Staff at wowOwow.com
© AP

In this series, which started in July ‘08, wowOwow follows the political news swirling around Caroline Kennedy since her surprise endorsement of Barack Obama and high-profile placement on his VP selection committee. Now, Caroline is ready to launch a political career of her own. With the Caroline Kennedy Candidacy Watch, we’ll follow all the latest news.  

Women took the national political stage in a big way this year. Hillary Clinton ran for the White House, and Sarah Palin hoped to be veep. Neither woman got what they wanted, but their presence on the campaign trails did raise important questions on whether women face a double standard in the political realm. (Remember all the hubbub over Hillary’s tears?)

That said, it comes as no surprise that there’s debate over whether Caroline Kennedy counts as another victim of a double standard when it comes to women in politics.

The Washington Post says:

Like Hillary Rodham Clinton and Sarah Palin before her, Kennedy illustrated what some say is an enduring double standard in the handling of ambitious female office-seekers. Even as more women step forward as contenders for premier political jobs, observers say, few seem able to get there.

Kennedy went from being a beloved icon to being "a laughingstock in the New York media," the Post says. Although many political observers dismissed the idea that Kennedy’s troubles had anything to do with gender and more to do with her lack of legislative experience, the newspaper notes that during  the time of the Kennedy-centric drama, three other Senate vacancies were filled by lesser-known men with "far less drama." That, we think, may be an overstatement. One of the Senate seats went to Roland Burris, the man picked by scandal-scarred Illinois Gov. Rod Balgojevich to fill Barack Obama’s seat. That selection was full of drama! But, still, political analysts insist women face a tougher road than their male counterparts.

"There’s something different about when women run," said Bob Shrum, a Democratic consultant and a close ally of Kennedy. That may be so, but Kennedy was long reported to be the front-runner. Regardless, Kennedy, who dropped her bid yesterday, could still find a plum job.

Meanwhile, Washington Post columnist Al Kamen offers up several possibilities for Kennedy, including ambassador to the U.N. Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO), representing the United States in the U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization, the Court of St. James in London or head of the Peace Corps, which cousin Maria Shriver’s parents, Sargent and Eunice, started.

But there’s also another option for her — senator from Massachusetts, the seat currently held by her uncle, Ted Kennedy. We don’t think that’s completely out of the question, for Kennedy may face less backlash in her family’s historic home state, and it’s assumed the Kennedys would like to keep that seat in the family. Whatever happens, we’re not counting Kennedy out just yet.

16 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Grande Camper
Like the ethnic racism we need to get over the double standards too.
By Grande Camper on 01/23/2009 10:00 am
f p
No, not at all—Paterson had already picked Gillibrand a week ago . She was was, and I hesitate to use the word, a victim of simple political expediency. And the fact she had paid her Nanny taxes. Paterson’s role in this was frankly sleazy. But he’s a typical pol—so what else can one expect.
By f p on 01/23/2009 10:01 am
f p
oops! typo: meant: hadn’t paid duh-my Minnesota cold fingers.
By f p on 01/23/2009 10:27 am
Brooklyn Gal
Hey Frank!! If you remember my past posts, I had said Gillibrand would be the best choice for Paterson’s bid to win the governorship because she is from “upstate”. Gillibrand I feel will work hard in this capacity. She is an up and coming star and smart too. And if you also remember, I no longer felt Caroline was ready for this job. That said, I agree with you 100% about the sleazy road Paterson took. It is unfortunate that Paterson could not have accepted Caroline’s withdrawal and the 2 make a joint announcement when she first called him. Why did he tell her to wait 24 hours then leak false rumors about her? I always considered him a gentleman. But, he is a pol first.
By Brooklyn Gal on 01/23/2009 11:10 am
f p
Pol, first, last, and always. BG and yes i remember you telling us that. I understand her stance on gun control but I dislike it too.
By f p on 01/23/2009 11:18 am
DeBúrca obj
Paterson appointed a woman. Hillary walked into the State Dept. to enthusiastic applause and optimism. Why is it when a woman fails to get something we immediately hear the sexism charge, but when women DO get something, nobody is rallying to say how far we’ve come? Overusing a valid term takes away its power and I really think all the talk of “sexism” every time any woman gets criticized or fails to achieve a position or win an election, devalues the term and makes it less meaningful when there are valid cases of sexism.
By DeBúrca obj on 01/23/2009 12:06 pm
Buh- Bye
I don’t think estrogen was the issue in Caroline Kennedy’s situation. More like: lack of actual experience in office, the dynasty thing, the garish PR push, her aggressive in-your-face comments to the media during TV appearances, the mere presumption of it all, the fact she wanted to take Hillary’s seat after her public role in Hillary’s undoing as Presidential and VP candidate and, well… perhaps the fact that Obama no longer needed the clout of the Kennedy fold because he was now officially prez-elect and was unable to exert pressure after the messy Blago thing (Cynical of me? Oh, perhaps.)
By Buh- Bye on 01/23/2009 2:12 pm
Belinda Joy
I hadn’t thought about her taking Ted’s seat. Hmmmm that could be an option for her. As her cousin Robert Jr. said, “It was like she was placed on a Broadway stage even though she had never done any acting before” I agree. Physically she is shy and unassuming and it showed. She does not know how to articulate her thoughts in a clear, authoritative and concise manner. She looks, walks and speaks in an awkward way. She just wasn’t prepared. It wasn’t sexism that did her in, she did that all by herself. Ugh! That kills me to say that…..along with the Obama Kool-Aid, I have the Kennedy juice as a chaser!
By Belinda Joy on 01/23/2009 2:13 pm
Agyness O
Belinda, I agree 100%. She hired consultants that let her down as well but I think Patterson’s insistance that she get “out there” was awkward as well. She is intellectually prepared so should get ready to be senator from Mass or at the very least, Ambassador to the Court of St. James.
By Agyness O on 01/23/2009 3:41 pm
Bonnie Oliver
There have been reports that her resume was a big exaggerated. Instead of six years doing volunteer work for the NYC school system, she worked only two years. The funds she raised for the schools included none of her own money. It does seem a bit picky but there may have been other reasons why the Governor was not going to pick her. In any event, the Governor’s ongoing delay in making the appointment has not done his image any good. Caroline Kennedy will return to her good deeds - i.e. Kennedy Honors and the Profiles in Courage awards. If the reasons for either her withdrawal or not being the one the Governor would have chosen prove to be more salacious, then I imagine this story is going to stick around for a while. And since she is a Kennedy, it will stay a bit longer after that period of time.
By Bonnie Oliver on 01/23/2009 3:37 pm
Bonnie Oliver
….should be ” a bit exaggerated”.
By Bonnie Oliver on 01/23/2009 4:20 pm
Brooklyn Gal
That is why Paterson should have accepted her withdrawal immediately instead of asking her to reconsider.
By Brooklyn Gal on 01/23/2009 6:38 pm
Buh- Bye
Is this story about an “affair” being the reason Caroline Kennedy withdrew true? If so, that is unfortunate. Soliciting sex in men’s public bathroom stalls is one thing for a political figure, engaging in a personal affair is quite another. Love is a powerful force that anyone can fall subject to.
By Buh- Bye on 01/24/2009 2:25 pm
k b
I disagree with all the ‘sexism’ complaints unless you can show that woman campaign and govern the same way as men. Women often emphasize differnt things or emphasize it in a different way. For example, in Palin’s State of the State address, she invoked the imagery of herself as mother of Alaska protecting it like a grizzly with cubs… if my governor (male or female) told me about how they were a parent protecting me… well, aside from being creepy, I’d never vote for them again. I’m not a child looking for a parent. I’m a citizen looking for a responsible adult to run a certain portion of the government in an HONEST way that (hopefully) will benifit me more than it damages me. Its seems all super agressive women like to pull out the sexist card when they don’t get what they want. BTW, I haven’t seen Kennedy herself doing this yet, but she doesn’t strike me as agressive either. I didn’t follow Kennedy closely, but really never thought she was totally into it. I think a senate seat would be confining for someone who already has the ability to promote the causes they believe in without a political seat. She took some horrible bashing, but that is a part of politics. Edwards is getting some pretty strong (and deserved) attention anytime he pokes his well coifed head out also. When it comes down to it, the media is going to go after what will sell their papers. Negativity sells. Celebs sell. They got a two-for-one in Kennedy, so yes she got coveraged. Look at the AZ Governor. She’s a sharp cookie but was rarely in the media. She did a great job and had no hysterics involved. Now she’s been appointed (deservedly so) and moving up. I don’t see the media going after her at all.
By k b on 01/24/2009 2:39 pm
O E
No, no, can’t apply the “double-standard” alibi here. Caroline Kennedy may be rich, smart, and well educated, but she proved to be inarticulate and self-concious during a network interview in which “you know” preceded every two words she uttered, while saying nothing at all. I know she has written/co-written books. For some people it is easier to express themselves in the written word, than verbally. But in her network interview, Caroline Kennedy was less articulate than Sarah Palin, and that’s no exageration. Political figures should be seen as possible leaders, or role models. A senator who can’t speak any better than Palin or George Bush would be a disaster. We wish CK well in her work away from the limelight.
By O E on 01/24/2009 3:38 pm