SOCIAL VOX

My thoughts on the world around me

Caroline Kennedy Unfairly Treated Because She’s a Woman?

I wrote earlier today about Caroline Kennedy’s poorly managed run at Hillary Rodham Clinton’s empty Senate seat. I noted that her withdrawal was likely a disservice to women in politics.

There is a perception among numerous political insiders, however, that Ms. Kennedy was treated too harshly by the media and other politicians who questioned her credibility and demeanor. In fact, their contention is that she was treated much more critically than a man would have been.

There still exists a glass ceiling in politics. In the House, 75 of the 435 members are women. In the Senate, just 17 are women. Donna Brazile, a political analyst, made an important point:

Obama inspired us to turn the page, and now women seem stuck in the table of contents[.]

One thing is certain, the margin of error for a historically disadvantaged candidate (e.g. women, African-Americans) is much smaller. When David Axelrod came on board as President Barack Obama’s chief strategist for the campaign, Axelrod made it clear to Obama that he would have to be on his game at all times. When you try to break through old customs, it is imperative to not give anyone an excuse to vote for your opponent. Unfortunately, that is the state of politics today. We have made history by electing an African-American president, but that doesn’t mean that we, as a whole, won’t be more critical of a female or African-American candidate than we would of a white one.

Kennedy’s camp should have prepared her better. She could ill afford to appear weak or unprepared, particularly in the rough setting for politics that is New York. Had she known where all the blows were coming from, perhaps we would be writing about a different result today.

January 23, 2009 Posted by | Barack Obama, Media, Politics, Women's Issues | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Junior Senator From NY: Caroline, er, Kirsten Gillibrand

As reported in The Huffington Post, Kirsten Gillibrand will be taking over the Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As for Caroline Kennedy, she really couldn’t have managed this situation more poorly.

Where She Went Wrong

She should never have courted Gov. Paterson publicly, or at least as publicly as she did. In the blink of an eye, she went from private figure/JFK’s daughter to Obama supporter to the future junior senator from New York. One day the media pundits are wondering whether she’ll make a run at the seat, and the next she’s already in upstate New York talking to the key players in New York politics. A bit fast? A bit too in your proverbial face?

She would have been wise to speak to Paterson privately, behind closed doors. There would have been less pressure on both of them, and it would have shown more political savvy. Her entrance onto the political stage was dramatic from the start, and now her political death makes for equally good theater.

The Withdrawal Effect

Caroline Kennedy’s withdrawal from the Senate seat is a disaster for women in politics. Even if people don’t say it, the gender issue will be on their minds. Why couldn’t she just stick it out? If she wasn’t picked, then she wasn’t picked. It would have been an unfortunate political defeat, but at least she would have saved face. She could’ve gotten more experience working alongside lawmakers and other New York public figures, and then made a run in two years when that very Senate seat is up. At that point, who would deny her? She has the Kennedy name, would’ve had her face in the news for a couple years, and would’ve had a campaign fund raising machine behind her unlike any of her competitors. That was a total lack of foresight.

Now she leaves the media to wonder what happened. A housekeeper issue? Her taxes weren’t in order? She wanted to be near her ailing uncle?

Talk about a missed opportunity.

January 23, 2009 Posted by | Politics, Women's Issues | , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 3 Comments

The Bailout and the Media: A Circus Coming to a Town Near You

Arianna Huffington’s latest blog post was a slap in the face. Directing her scathing remarks at the media, she wonders why reporters are so enamored by the Blago-Burris and Kennedy-Paterson-Cuomo stories, yet have put such limited effort into uncovering the colossal mystery that is the nearly trillion-dollar bailout.

I give Ms. Huffington high marks for her compelling argument. Here’s a sample on display:

“[T]he bailout is a fascinating story. Not so much a whodunit as a who’s-doing-it. This mystery is unfolding right in front of us, and the size of the victim pool could very well depend on whether we unravel the mystery in flashback or while it’s still in progress.”

Here’s a quote that blew my mind:

“As a GAO report last month dryly concluded: ‘The rapid pace of implementation and evolving nature of the program have hampered efforts to put a comprehensive system of internal control in place. Until such a system is fully developed and implemented, there is heightened risk that the interests of the government and taxpayers may not be adequately protected and that the program objectives may not be achieved in an efficient and effective manner.’ In other words, the money is flying out the door but no one is watching where it’s going.”

As Ms. Huffington points out, the bailout is a poorly-hatched plan that is spiraling wildly out of control. Worse yet, we don’t know anything about it because the government won’t tell us.

That’s where the journalists should come in. You see, the media ought to be America’s watchdog. It’s supposed to represent what Thomas L. Friedman, in The Lexus and the Olive Tree, has coined the “democratization of technology” and the “democratization of information”: innovations in computerization and telecommunications that have made it possible for hundreds of millions of people around the world to get connected and exchange information, news, knowledge, money, etc.

Now, a second news article is reporting that the soon-to-be Obama administration, and senior Democrats, are talking to the current administration about requesting the remaining rescue funds ($350 billion).

According to the article, U.S. Rep. Barney Frank, chairman of the House Financial Service Committee, will soon be proposing legislation that would overhaul the remaining funds.

Here are some important points to the overhaul:

1. Treasury must develop foreclosure relief plans for owner-occupied homes by March 15 and start committing TARP funds to it by April 1. The plans can include government guarantees for modified loans, paying down second liens and outright loan purchases to bring down payments.

2. Toughen executive compensation rules and make some of them retroactive for banks that have already received funds.

3. Give smaller banks access to TARP funds and set benchmarks for institutions to meet in expanding their lending.

Will there be greater oversight and accountability over how the second half of the bailout package is utilized?

Ms. Huffington notes in her post:

“There is an all-too-real economic drama playing out behind the drawn curtain — a mystery waiting to be unraveled. And journalistic careers to be made by those doing the unraveling. So what are the media waiting for?”

Hopefully this post helped to pull the curtain back just a little bit.

January 10, 2009 Posted by | Economics, Law, Politics | , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 5 Comments