Caroline Kennedy Withdrawal: Not Good For Women in Politics

Upon hearing about Caroline Kennedy's abrupt withdrawal from contention for the New York Senate seat, a male political colleague remarked to me: "Shouldn't she have just stayed in the race like a man and faced being passed over?" The implication was that Kennedy was not going to be selected by Governor Paterson and withdrew her name as a face saving measure.

The problem now is that some are deriding her herky-jerky interest in the Senate seat and whispering "well that's a woman for you." The idea that her change of heart is somehow inextricably linked to feminine qualities is exactly the type of sexism that unfortunately has been pervasive in how people view women candidates. Wonder why the Unites States ranks 70th in the world in terms of women in elected office or why women are the majority vote in the past two US Presidential races (by more than 9 million votes to men in both the 2004 and 2008 Presidential races) yet women only hold 25% of elected office in the nation?

Caroline Kennedy, from the brief interactions I had with her, was reserved and rather shy. I think that after two months of the klieg lights shining on her, coupled with recent statements Governor Paterson made that suggested he had had a change of heart and might be favoring NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and her uncle's ill health, all made her decide to withdraw.

I personally wish she would not have withdrawn, not because I thought her performance was so stellar in the last two months, but rather because it is unfortunate that now many will use her gender as some type of explanation for her erratic behavior, and that does not bode well for women in politics.

Her gender is not why she made the decision to withdraw. In my view, she did not have the temperament or the real interest in the seat in the first place. When asked by the New York Times in December why she wanted to run for the Senate, she was not able to provide a cogent answer. Having the requisite fire in your belly and passion to represent New York, as was clearly evidenced by Hillary Clinton, are necessary requirements for the job. And that has nothing to do with being a woman.

Comments

[neurologymatters]

Women have the right to choose and Caroline Kennedy did what was best for her.

[longislandlol]

No- Dave thought geographically on this one-- not gender!

[maxfax]

It begs the question, where were her advisers, and why did they fail her, and not prepare her better for the public, and the media storm?

[Skepticat]

The appearance of dynasty candidates - I'm a Kennedy - I want to be senator - give it to me - is NEVER good for women in politics. Neither is running a dirty Hillary Clinton style campaign.

[S1m0n]

You're kidding: woman B, who had done somthing to deserve it, won instead of of woman A, who hadn't, and you call this a loss for womankind?

Lady, it's a loss for nepotism, not feminism.

[DennyCrane]

While it's true that gender is used against women in politics, I don't think people will look at Kennedy's decision as being a product of her gender. Most people know she's a private person and that she didn't do well when the media turned their attention to her. Given that, it's no surprise that she dropped out.

[jbgnyc]

I should add as a PS that we don't know what kind of campaigner Caroline Kennedy would be because she was asking to be appointed. That's why many of us wanted someone seasoned and tested for our U.S. Senator. However, I find it troubling to have Ms. Menin, herself a local political fiqure, in this Huff Post call another woman political figure, "erratic." Don't we have enough men doing that? Ms Kennedy's political debut may have been rougher than it need be (she is new at this), but I would not have chosen that word.

[jbgnyc]

As a strong supporter of Rep. Carolyn Maloney to replace Sen. Clinton (see HuffPost 12/21/08), those of us not unhappy to see Ms Kennedy drop out never thought of her gender as an issue, ever. It was always about qualifications. And "gender" had nothing to do with her asking for her name to be removed. MALE politicans do that all the time when they see their support dropping. Caroline was reading the same polls we all were, whether she had belly "fire" or not. However, the fact that the new junior senator from New York also was an early support of Hillary for president does seem a plus for those worried about supportive sisterhood. And Ms. Kennedy is talented in many ways and I don't rule out supporting her at some time and welcome her to the political arena. However, as I've written elsewhere: it's not for the faint hearted and no special rules need apply for women, but far as I can tell, Ms. Kennedy never asked for any.

[strangerinthenight]

That premise that her withdrawal was detrimental to women's status is totally flawed, if not ridiculous of the highest order. I don't know if it was courageous of her to withdraw before the spaghetti hit the fan - but as I voter, if any candidate has not been exercising her right to vote, I would never ever vote for that candidate.

Regardless of all those issues - unpaid nannie taxes, her unwillingness to disclose her tax and financial records, none of that really matters to me. It matters that she never actually voted in the last several elections. It's for sure, she is not in touch with the issues that affect ordinary Americans. Talk about a princess in the ivy tower - that to me would be a total disqualifier of the first order.

On that issue, Caroline Kennedy shames every American. So much about my sentimental feelings of Camelot.

[MagisterLudi]

"it is unfortunate that now many will use her gender as some type of explanation for her erratic behavior."

NO ONE is using her gender to explain her behavior. Can you site a single instance?
But people of New York understood early on that she was a person with over inflated sense of entitlement and zero experience. The gauche letter to Obama pretty much did it for me.

Regardless, the entire premise is moot because Paterson is appointing a women for the post.

[Rockerbabe]

Your point is well taken, but a bit too late. The American public is used to seeing "feminist organizations" backtrack and backstab their own. All one has to do is look to the shoddy treatment SoS Hilary Clinton recieved at the hands of so many feminist organizations she actually went to bat for in their quest for a change in policies that affect women and girls alike. Failing to support Clinton in her bid for the Presidency has delayed the improvement of the status of women in this country.
While I believe she will be a great SoS, but I wonder if I will ever see a woman as President of our country. There seems to be no women leaders on the horizon.
Caroline Kennedy has her reasons and they are hers alone; she is just one little blip on the radar. . .NY'ers will decide her political fate should she ever decide to run for office.

[strangerinthenight]

I agree with the first premise about Hillary Clinton. On the second, about Caroline Kennedy, she had no business running for the Senate. She was unqualified, and she knew all along she has skeleton in her closets that others will use. For me though, her unpaid taxes, nanny issues are not so important as the fact that she has not participated in the political process for so many elections, she failed to exercise her right to vote.

Imagine, a Kennedy who has not voted for several elections. That is unforgivable.

[Rule Of Law]

You are the first writer I have seen suggest the "that's a woman for you," line. What a terrible way to drive people to this blog. Your summation re the fire in the belly is undoubtedly more accurate and should have been your lead.