The XX Factor: Slate women blog about politics, etc...

If This Is Dynasty, I'm Joan Collins

Poor Caroline Kennedy: After eight years that made Bush I look way less embarrassing than he used to, we've had enough of political dynasties, thanks. It's unfair, though, to blame her for representing the old way and old guard when the true knock against her is that she hasn't been old school enough, and failed to fork over the kind of campaign cash to state and local Democrats that anyone plotting a political future knows is part of the cost of doing business.

In the end, New York Gov. David Paterson will fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat with just one consideration in mind: He'll choose the person who he thinks will best secure his own political future. But if that's not Caroline Kennedy, then all the hand-wringing about her unfair familial advantage will have been wildly off-the-mark. The open criticism of her by any number of New York Democrats has already made clear that party people aren't exactly quaking in fear of offending her family; the oligarchy ain't what it used to be. And that this is the reaction at a time when Ted Kennedy is fighting brain cancer makes me think that maybe the "dynasty" has died out already, without an heir.

Get Rid of the "First Lady"

Over on the Post's op-ed page today, Lauren Stiller Rikleen laments our confused conceptions of the first lady—"the lack of clear definition of their role has resulted in first ladies facing a web of conflicting expectations," she writes—and then goes on to suggest that, to improve the situation, we saddle first ladyhood with ... a concrete job description.

Huh? This seems totally backward to me. Wouldn't it be nicer to limit the first lady's "expectations," so each occupant could make of it what she (or, someday, he) wishes? Wouldn't a rigid job description either to strain a low-key presidential partner like Laura Bush, who doesn't want to get involved in policy, or provide ammo for the critics of more wonkish partners like Hillary Clinton ("so sorry, my dear, but managing health care reform isn't in the job description")? And isn't it likely that the only duties a job-description-drafting panel could agree to enshrine in the first place are the noncontroversial (and therefore old-fashioned) ones, like picking out Christmas ornaments for the White House tree?

And why do we so often imagine that the complications that emerge when we update female roles (like motherhood) can be solved by shoehorning these roles into the contours of a traditional "job"?

If I were queen for a day, I'd go the other direction: Instead of adding a job description to the first lady's burdens, I'd take away the title all together. The word lady in pop culture suggests all kinds of negative things: the fettered, prim reserve of a woman who isn't too forward in her ambitions ("A lady doesn't wander all over the room ..."), snobbish arrogance (Lady Catherine de Bourgh), even pure evil in feminine form (Lady Macbeth). We hardly use titles in modern life anymore, anyway. How about just "Mrs. Obama" for now?

Sexism and ... Genderism?

Emily, totally fair point about the Iseman and Hunter stories—they were examples of other kinds of basic journalistic malfeasance. And Politico didn't point out that a number of its top press screw-ups were sexism. But neither did it really "mount a broader critique" of the media's coverage of, in particular, Hillary. All the blunders Politico named that related to Hillary (there were three) had to do with Team Hillary or the candidate's supporters crying foul on sexism in the press.

Which is a little funny, because I always thought the media's coverage of Sarah Palin was more sex-based than its coverage of Hillary. (I don't mean "sexist," exactly, but perpetually tinged—positively or negatively—by its consciousness of her sex. What's the word for this? It's like the difference between racism and racialism, but is there a word?) The condescending pats on the head from conservatives when the li'l gal did good, the sniggers at her Miss South Carolina-esque ditziness when she did bad, the titanic obsession with her wardrobe (Sen. Norm Coleman didn't get so much heat when somebody bought him fancy suits from the same Minneapolis Neiman Marcus) ... Of course, the McCain campaign invited all this by cynically selecting Palin over other reformers for her anatomical features in the first place.

Political Nepotism

Emily Y., Emily B., and Melinda, you all make very important and good points about Caroline Kennedy's possible anointment/appointment to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. The level of nepotism in Congress is unseemly and does send a negative message to those young people—heck, to adults, too—who are not from rich or famous families and are not politically connected, that they should not even consider going into politics because they have little chance of breaching that increasingly elite wall that separates members of Congress from Average Joe peasants. But I beg to differ a bit with Emily B, who liked the idea of a woman taking over Clinton's seat but wondered if it was right to "overlook Kennedy's lack of most of the usual qualifications, like holding public office?"

Kennedy would not be the first member of Congress to lack that particular qualification. Hillary Clinton had not held public office before becoming a senator either. Even though during the presidential primaries she counted her time as first lady of Arkansas and of the United States as political experience, no one actually elected her to those positions. Using Clinton's logic, if her stints as first lady are to be considered as political experience, then why shouldn't Caroline's membership in a political dynasty be counted, too? After all, she did live for a time in the White House, albeit as a little girl. Other political wives have been similarly appointed to Congress (to fill the seats of their dead spouses) and then went on to win, or lose, re-election. (U.S. Rep. Mary Bono, widow of Sony Bono, and former Sen. Jean Carnahan, wife of the late Sen. Mel Carnahan, come to mind.) Wouldn't it be nice, though, if more members of Congress were like U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and got there by dint of their own hard work?

How Blago Is Hurting Caroline

All the talk about Blago's fundraising in Illinois makes it harder to hear the talk about Caroline Kennedy's potential fundraising in New York, don't you think?

I mean, rationally, one has nothing to do with the other. On the contrary, the country's most entrepreneurial governor (we hope)—and Kennedy are from such different parts of the jungle that Blagojevich's apparent thuggishness is something of an argument for her candidacy: Her granddaddy was a bootlegger, so his descendants didn't have to be, and she isn't likely to be tempted by the kind of pay-to-play schemes that seem to have so consumed Blago's brain that I'll be amazed if he doesn't wind up pleading insanity.

Still, you hear that story about how Jesse Jackson Jr.'s wife may have been passed over for a big state job because she wouldn't be held up for $25,000 by her extortionist of a governor, and that can't help but effect how you hear Harry Reid's comment about all the lovely pots of money that Caroline K. could raise for herself and other Democrats: Ugh, right? As Emily B. points out, that should not be the yardstick we use to take the measure of a candidate.

Whether we talk about it or not, though, the ability to raise pots of cash is, in fact, a huge part of the job. So much so that my distinct impression back when I used to cover the New York congressional delegation was that they had very little time to learn about public policy—through no fault of their own—because they had to spend so much time dialing for dollars and attending fundraisers. As a result, I don't assume that her potential competitors who've been serving in the House are necessarily so much more steeped in policy than she is. And while I agree with Emily Y. that nepotism is demoralizing for those of us who are have-nots when it comes to family or other connections, our current system virtually guarantees political dynasties and other celebrity candidates, like Reagan and Arnold and Al Franken, maybe even as a protection against Blago-style graft. As long as name ID equals campaign cash and the candidate who raises the most so often wins, how could it be otherwise?

I also take issue with Emily B's feeling that New York Democrats don't have to worry too much about campaign cash anyway, because they'll surely hold on to Hillary's Senate seat in 2012. The likely Republican candidate, Peter King, is so reasonable, likeable, and well-funded that I'm not at all certain of that; he's no Rick Lazio and should not be underestimated.

Mostly, though, I like Caroline for the job for reasons that have nothing to do with money: Because her Uncle Teddy has done such an admirable job on so many issues that are high on my own list—health care, anti-poverty programs, pushing for worker protections—I can't help hoping that his favorite niece has learned from him and could take up where he leaves off. She's a plain old-fashioned great story. And for perhaps silly, sentimental, even tribal reasons, I'd like to see her happy.

Yes, Caroline

Have to say, Emily, that your case against Caroline Kennedy for Hillary's Senate seat is a lot more convincing than Richard Bradley's argument that she'd been too tough on him but might not be tough enough to campaign or legislate. (Huh?) And when she heard that Gary Ackerman had compared her to J.Lo., I hope she laughed her tushy off. (Cee K from the Block for Senate? Isn't that a lot like John McCain comparing Obama to Paris Hilton?) Still, I find the whole idea of her second act in Obama's Democratic Party completely irresistible.

She's already come a long way since she stood by her Uncle Teddy at American University last year and endorsed Obama; in retrospect, that seems to have been a turning point both in the campaign and in her life, just a beat ahead of her uncle's cancer diagnosis and her discovery that she not only wanted to pass the baton, but run with it. I find it moving that it took Obama to call her to public service, and think it would be awfully compelling to watch her function as both keeper of the flame and confidante of the change-agent-in-chief. As someone who never wanted to get in the game before, she could be a bridge between the old guard and the new politics.

It is true that suffering and experience are not the same thing—though they were confused often enough during all those arguments about why Hillary ought to get this or that job simply by virtue of all she'd been through. But for me, the question isn't so much whether Kennedy "deserves" the seat. (If politics were about deserves, Nita Lowey would be in her second term as New York's junior senator, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.) The more important question is whether she'd be any good at it, and I'd have to vote yes on that—then watch with intense interest to see if she proved me right.

Not Caroline

So, Caroline Kennedy has apparently decided she would like her Uncle Robert's Senate seat  (about to evacuated by Hillary Clinton). One of the refreshing things about Caroline supporting the presidential race of Barack Obama over Clinton was that it signaled a rejection of dynastic politics. Yes, that was ironic coming from the Kennedys, but, fool that I am, I thought it meant that they, somehow, were recognizing the end of their own dynastic ambitions. Shortly afterward Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer, and I read that said upon his death, he wanted his wife, Victoria, to get his seat. And now Caroline Kennedy, who has famously led a very private life, has deigned to allow that she will accept an appointment to the Senate. This depresses me. One wonderful thing about Obama's election is that is says in America if you have the drive, the smarts, the will you can come from nowhere and get to the top. The appointment of Caroline Kennedy just says what we all know—if you want to get to the top, the trip is a lot easier and shorter if you're born there.

Goodbye, Bill, and Hello, Sailor

Bye-Bye, Bill

Isn't it time for Hillary Clinton to get a quickie divorce from Bill (it can be done; it took about 20 minutes for Madonna to dissolve her marriage) before her confirmation hearings start? The New York Times reports that over the last few weeks of negotiations between Obama's representatives and Bill, he has agreed to various restrictions on his business and philanthropic dealings to keep Hillary from getting mired in a bunch of scandals and conflicts. He promises to "submit his future personal speeches and business activities for review by State Department ethics officials and, if necessary, by the White House counsel’s office." Yeah, that should work, because if we know anything about Bill Clinton it's that a) He responds well to being on a short leash, and b) He's really good at filing timely paperwork.

Surely Hillary will not have trouble getting confirmed, but her hearings will be all about Bill—Sen. Richard Lugar virtually promises that. As her presidential campaign made clear, not only does Hillary not need Bill anymore, he has turned into a liability (except financially, and she would come away with a big settlement). And just think, if she divorced him, it would be the first time that their relationship made sense.

XX Factor Meets Bloggingheads

XX Factor contributors Emily Bazelon and Melinda Henneberger appear on Bloggingheads.tv today to discuss all things Obama and Hillary and also talk a little about abortion.

In this first clip, Emily and Melinda talk about whether Hillary might be too much of a neocon to be President Obama's secretary of state, and how unfortunate it would be if Bill Clinton's finances torpedoed his wife's shot at the job.

And here, Emily and Melinda discuss the seemingly outlandish claim that Catholic hospitals would be forced to shut down under Obama, if the Freedom of Choice Act passes. But Melinda's done some digging, and the act could require Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. And she says that church leaders could decide to shutter the hospitals rather than sell them.

Yes, Hillary (Because I'm Rooting for Tracy Flick)

My fellow Emily, as usual I read your acerbic post and find myself about to disavow my own previously held views. Why did I find myself aflutter over the prospect of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton again? Oh right: She could ace this job! You are right that she has not proved herself as an administrator. But here are three quick retorts: That is only part of the state job, three's the charm, and she is too smart not to figure out (finally) how to successfully delegate the management of this. Plus the bonus: She must be through with some of her worst campaign managers. On the soap opera front, for once I don't want Bill drama to disqualify her. I hated the idea of the retread of the two of them back in the White House. But this would be her work, her office, and I can't believe the Obama people haven't made it clear that Bill's role should be limited to the cheery star-power glad-handing he is so good at. If they think that they can work with her, then like Hanna says, I'm ready to trust them. Also, I want the Democrats' rival houses to come together this way. This president is taking over with all the world in economic shambles. It's the right time for putting aside past differences, for our most prominent politicians to act like their biggest and best selves. That's what Secretary Hillary would signify to me, on both sides of the détente.

Also, while I resist the idea that Hillary Clinton deserves this, in the sense that no one deserves any incredibly prestigious plum of an office, the Tracy Flick fan in me wants her to have it. And wants her to shine. Yes, she could also just go on being a good senator. But this gives her the opportunity for a grander next act. I want her to keep the pantsuits and the toughness but lose the brittle edge of her image that the campaign left us with. She should be the bitch who gets stuff done, as Tina Fey put it, but less bitchy. 

No, Hillary, No

Give Hill a Chance

Taking the Bait: The Feminist Case for Hillary as SoS

Yes, the Bill factor is irritating. But this story about forced abortion in China reminds me why it might be pretty neat to have Hillary as secretary of state—despite Emily, Hanna, and Melinda's convincing articulations of Clinton fatigue. Arzigul Tursun is a Muslim Uighur woman living in rural western China. A mother of two, Arzigul and her husband fled their village after learning she was again pregnant, in violation of Chinese law. When government officials threatened to seize their home unless Arzigul submitted to an abortion, the Tursuns returned. Due to international outcry, the situation is now in deadlock, with the 26-week pregnant Arzigul currently under watch at a municipal hospital.

So what does this have to do with Hillary Clinton? In short, with sexual and gender oppression at the root of so many global conflicts, I'd welcome a secretary of state not only aware of these problems, but with a history of speaking out on them. One of Hillary's most famous speeches as first lady was at the United Nations World Conference on Women in Beijing, where she declared "human rights are women’s rights and women’s rights are human rights." On the campaign trail in July 2007, Clinton said, "When I traveled to China in 1995 ... I thought it was absolutely essential that I speak out against the practice in China of one child per one family. Because what that meant for women's lives was often forced sterilization and forced abortion."

Of course, we have a female secretary of state currently, and we've had one in the past. But Condi Rice has hardly pursued a feminist agenda, and Madeleine Albright, though she had a history of working on women's issues, didn't come with the platform and celebrity Hillary would bring to the job. If anything, Hillary became more comfortable with playing the role of feminist icon over the course of the long 2008 campaign. Partly, that was a purely political choice; she learned after that choked-up moment in New Hampshire that appealing to women delivered more votes than some of her more hawkish advisers had assumed. But only her fiercest critics could accuse Clinton of not having real feminist convictions. In a Washington Post interview as her primary campaign faltered, Clinton said, "Oppression of women and discrimination against women is universal."

As secretary of state, Hillary would be Obama's chief diplomat. And indeed, it would be strange to see her directing negotiations with Iran, for example, after harshly attacking Obama for wanting to speak directly to that nation's leaders. But if Obama gave Hillary some latitude to develop a platform on international women's issues, it would send a powerful message. Maybe that doesn't outweigh all that Clinton fatigue—but it's at least something to consider.

Hillaries Everywhere

My dread about the Hillary revival is more general. All of a sudden the Clintonites are everywhere—on TV, in the papers, at all the Washington parties. It's as if they've been hiding out for the last eight years, planning their private-school auctions, and now they're ready to take over again. One brave, path-breaking Hillary rewarded for a lifetime of hard work and suffering, I can handle. But the whole lot of them colonizing the transition is too much. The Clintonites are not dreamers. They came to power during a Republican era and have a constricted view of what they can accomplish. Over the years, they have lost whatever blue-sky instincts they once had and have turned into schemers and professionals. I can see what's going on, from Obama's point of view. He is above these sorts of staffing details. His vision goes right over John Podesta's head, straight to the heart of the problem. Still, it's making me nervous.

Hillary for Senate

Ann, don't you love how we've all turned into headhunters for Hillary, eager to pitch in and help her locate just the right job? State wouldn't be the best possible platform for her diplomatic and managerial skill set. But Hillary as war czar isn't quite the ticket, either. (Because nearly everything reminds me of a scene from a musical, what I'm thinking is "May God bless and keep the czar ... far away from us.'' In the Senate, for example.) Obama has created a problem for himself by dangling a major cabinet post as an option; if he doesn't offer it to her now, her partisans won't be happy. But it would be even worse to begin his bright new day in Washington with a confirmation hearing starring all the ghosts of Clinton scandals past. And Defense doesn't work as a Hillary landing pad any better than State does; her initial and lingering poor judgment on Iraq wasn't a plus in any way. Where did rewarding those who were wrong about the war ever get us? Truly, I never followed the '04 reasoning of those who argued that since Bush made the mess, he should be the guy on cleanup. During the run-up to the war, I remember talking to a top Clinton foreign policy person who patiently explained to me that, in fact, the Clinton and Bush administration's views vis-à-vis Saddam and invading and coalition-building were just not that different: "Together if we can, alone if we must.'' Which is why Clinton at DoD would not be different enough for me.

The Brass Ceiling for Hillary?

Melinda and Emily, you're probably right that somebody should have whispered to Obama, "Wait, you'll be sorry," before he summoned Clinton for a Chicago chat about the State department slot. But either no one did, or he didn't listen, so now what's he going to do? Offer her secretary of Defense. The cons are all the same (and who knows, he may be counting on her to consider the prospect of filling out all those forms, and decline). But here are some fresh pros. For him: It wouldn't hurt to have someone who voted for the Iraq war in charge of handling the withdrawal, and she's been a member of the Armed Services Committee for years. He wouldn't be unleashing another globe-trotting Clinton when Bill is already out there, and it would ratchet down her hobnobbing with world leaders. Pros for her: Here's Clinton's chance to be a first and break the brass ceiling. State would be so been-there-done-that.

I'd Like To See Her Application

Hillary for Secretary of State?

Sarah, Michelle, and Hillary

Did I say Palin in '12? Correction: Palin in '09. And did I say she'd be back? Wrong-o; she shows no sign of going away.

As for Michelle Obama, my beef with that Rebecca Traister piece about the "momification" of the next first lady is that Traister supposes Obama is in mourning for her career in hospital administration. But based on what? She likewise assumes that Obama's emphasis on her duties as mom-in-chief were hoked up only to help her hubby get elected. In her view, the only reason Obama hasn't dropped the whole schtick now that the coast is clear is that she can't risk looking like a Hillary Clinton as first lady.

Only, Michelle Obama isn't Hillary Clinton; for one thing, I believe her when she says she has no political ambitions. Not that there would be anything wrong with it if she did have, and if she changes her mind later, she's got my vote. But why is a focus on her role as a wife and mother assumed to be just for show? Is she required to regard being a hands-on mom and first spouse as small potatoes just because she's in every way an equal partner to the president-elect and attended schmantzy schools?

As satisfying as running PR and community outreach and volunteer programs for the University of Chicago Hospitals no doubt was, like Emily I have a hard time seeing the White House as a step down. Is there a woman (or man) alive who wouldn't gladly take a few years off to advise and support the president?

Can smart, strong women not choose traditional roles? Everything I know about Michelle Obama tells me that this really is her choice, not her consolation prize. And if we're not OK with that (can you say projection?) I'm not sure it's her problem.