What's the Difference Between Tim Geithner, Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird?
I know that asking you to access the brain cells that remember who Kimba Wood And Zoe Baird are might be a bit of a challenge. Their names haven't really been in the news for about 15 years. And, heck, sometimes I can't even find the brain cells to remember where I put the car keys yesterday!
Both of them were nominees for Attorney General of the United States for Bill Clinton, but were taken out of consideration because of nanny documentation and tax problems. Actually, Wood was legally and technically in the clear of any wrongdoing, but because her situation sounded so much like Baird's problem, the Clinton administration didn't want to risk it at the confirmation hearing.
Now, it turns out that Barack Obama's choice to head the Treasury has some similar problems, yet Obama has said he will not withdraw his name because of these "innocent mistakes."
Really? I can actually get past the possibility of not knowing if the nanny's immigration papers were in order, but the guy who is going to oversee the IRS and is the head of the Federal Reserve Bank, who's supposed to be an economic phenom, "forgot" he was supposed to pay certain taxes on his income?
Now, I didn't think Baird and Wood should have been taken out of consideration because of their nanny issues, but if it's OK to tell women they have to step down because of legal "mistakes," especially those involving working mothers and child care, then is it acceptable to give a pass to a guy in a similar situation?
My husband said to me last night, "Well if they lose Geithner, then who's going to have the expertise to take over at Treasury?" I have to believe there is more than one wunderkind who can manage Treasury, even in these desperate times. The larger question for me is whether Barack Obama wants to raise the whole double standard question before he even steps into the White House as POTUS?
Yes, maybe my feminist radar is a bit more on alert these days after so many misogynistic things that happened in the presidential election, but I have to wonder -- if Tim Geithner were Tina Geithner would the candidate be getting the same benefit of the doubt on the supposed honesty of these mistakes?
Senators who have to confirm Geithner acknowledge these problems are serious, but say they don't disqualify him. If that's so, then Zoe Baird or Kimba Wood should have been Attorney General under Bill Clinton. But somehow, their acts did disqualify them. Other than gender, what's different this time?
Call me crazy. I know there are plenty who will. I'd just like to see the same standards applied to men and women being considered for high posts, whatever we all decide those standards should be.
Joanne Bamberger is a writer and political commentator in Washington, D.C. She is the founder of PunditMom blog, a political guide for women, and a Contributing Editor for News & Politics at BlogHer. Her commentary has appeared on CNN, Fox News, BBC Radio and more.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
After "so many mysogynistic things were said during the election."?
If you are not yet convinced that Barack Obama is as far as any man can be from being a mysogenist, then you are clearly not paying attention.
Apparently Geithner has a malpractice claim against his accountant. If can successfully prove that claim and make it stick then good for him. Otherwise he will make a good external consultant to the administration.
what's the difference?
16 years, one near Depression and Barack Obama, baby!
As other posters have eloquently stated, the Obama/Geithner and Clinton/Baird/Wood situations are apples and oranges.
My bigger issue here is that EVERYTIME a situation has emerged that a prior president mishandled (think about the first half of the bailout), Obama somehow gets saddled with their baggage. This man is so different than his predecessors that he truly broke the mold. Folks need to give him a chance to, first get into office, but also to put his team together and start making some decisions before he gets thoroughly criticized.
This is nuts. Geithner is going to run the US Treasury? We can do better.
Differences:
1. The permit expired by three monthe. So the papers were in order and had been confirmed, not ignored.
2. The taxe are (reletively) small and is not related to his main employent or generally on going activity.
3. It was disclosed to the transition team and the committee, not discovered by a committee staffer.
It is NOT a male/female issue.
"Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar" (some obscure father of analysis.).
The taxes are relatively small? It is ok to cheat on your taxes if you only cheat a little? If Geithner was a liberal the media would be lining up to lynch him, but he is a liberal so they are lining up to make excuses for him. He was notified of the problem and failed to promptly correct it. If the treasury secretary can cheat on his taxes and face no consequences what does that do to the integrity of the system which Obama claims he wants to restore. People who say this was an honest mistake are being disingenuous. There is nothing obscure about payroll taxes, certainly not for somebody who is a finance professional. Even if you ignore the cheating on taxes what about Geithner's record. He has been involved in a number of questionable bailout deals in which taxpayers paid far too much for what they received.
That was then. This is now. That was Clinton. This is Obama.
Shall I go on?
Here's the main reason. Bill Clinton set out to have a female AG. When Zoe Baird got a little heat, he didn't stand by her, because his objective was not to have her as AG but any "her." So he swapped out Kimba for Zoe and then Janet for Kimba and ended up with an Attorney General he couldn't get along with and with whom he never worked well.
But we got to have a female attorney general.
Here's one for you.... what do Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin have in common?
Two things... they were both quick to blame everything on sexism and they both lost.
Barack Obama on the other hand never attributed anything to racism and won.
Perhaps there is a lesson there.
"The larger question for me is whether Barack Obama wants to raise the whole double standard question before he even steps into the White House as POTUS?"
How does Clinton's decision not to stand by his nominees make Obama guilty of a double standard?
Now, now. Making sense is not allowed here!
Exactly what does the current President-elect have to do with the callowness of President Clinton with respect to two female attorney general candidates 16 years ago? It was President Clinton, who I voted for twice, whose inability to keep his pants on in his office is most directly responsible for the election of President Bush and the current calamity we are now facing. Please do not tell me that the 2000 election was stolen. More ink, videotape and celluloid have been wasted on this non-issue for eight years. Bush's brother was the governor of Florida. Al Gore did not win his home state of Tennessee. What US president has ever been elected without winning his home state?
The same standards are never applied... Remember, you have to do it twice as well, backwards and in heels (hattip, Ginger Rogers) to get half the recognition. So special.
Obama is standing by his nominee, clinton didnt. So blame clinton, he was the one who didnt stand by his nominees
Nobody is perfect. Everyone has made a mistake of some kind at some time in their life. The opposition party at a Senate confirmation hearing is going to come up with any and every boneheaded move that the nominee has ever made.
The most that you can truly ask for is that they:
- admit to the mistake
- honestly discuss the circumstances
- prove that they have made amends (i.e. paying back taxes with interest & penalties)
If those points have been addressed and the infraction does not affect the nominee's ability to do the job for which they have been nominated, the only remaining consideration, in my mind, is the whether or not the President-Elect faces a friendly or combative Congress.
This is assuming, of course, that the nominee is actually qualified to do the job.
I thought something like this happened with Linda Chavez also?
Changing times, changing "rules"? Changing PEs, changing decisions? I suppose so...but still, it struck me the same way: there's something discomforting about this, gender-wise. So no, Joanne, you're not crazy, you just have a good memory. It won't upset me if he's ultimatly nominated but that won't undo an injustice to two qualified women who were not allowed to serve.
There seem to be 3 differences here.
The first is that politically Clinton came in with a plurality vote and didn't want to spend capital on such issues. That may have been a mistake, but that was his approach, There is no reason why Obama should emulate it. (The worse case was actually Lani Guenere (sp?) who was dropped because she had provocative ideas).
Second, this is a period of economic crisis so we are less likely to be concerned about the silly stuff. Neither Baird, nor Wood should have been disqualified for such silliness but there have been men brought down by such silliness as well. Remember Ginsburg admitting he smoked marijuana?
Finally, while Baird and Wood were both qualified there was no sense in which they were uniquely qualified. They were replaced by Reno, and there were probably a thousand other women who could have stepped in as qualified. Geithner is among the small number of people who has been working directly with the issue that seems most essential right now. Holder has similar protection. As the assistant attorney general under the last democratic president he is the natural next in line, so it is likely to take more to convince people he is not qualified than if he was just someone with a resume that could work.
Love your points.
The fact that Baird was replaced by Wood was replaced by Reno brings up another point... Clinton was determined to have a female AG. As long as another one was waiting in the wings, he wasn't that committed to the first one. He was naming a symbol as much as a person.
Also, this was a legal issue and the job was Attorney General. The #1 law person in the land is expected to follow the law and perhaps held to a higher standard.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
