Women and Politics

With her abrupt exit this week from consideration for the Senate, Caroline Kennedy added her name to a growing list: women who have sought the nation's highest offices only to face insurmountable hurdles.

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.

In less than two months, Kennedy, 51, was transformed from a beloved, if elusive, national icon into a laughingstock in the New York media, mocked for her verbal tics and criticized for her spotty voting record. After she withdrew from consideration, speculation floated that she had done so to avoid discussion of an illegal nanny and back taxes, charges that people close to Kennedy disputed and that New York Gov. David A. Paterson's office indicated in a statement yesterday were not factors. The newest Treasury Secretary also had problems with this - but the Senate had no problems confirming him.

During Kennedy's candidacy, three other Senate vacancies were filled with far less drama by little-known men. Michael Bennet (D), a 44-year-old schools superintendent from Denver who had never held elected office, was sworn in yesterday to take the Colorado seat vacated by Ken Salazar (D), who became interior secretary. In Delaware, Vice President Biden was replaced by his own chief of staff, Ted Kaufman, widely seen as a placeholder so that Biden's son can run for the seat in 2010, after he returns from Iraq. And in Illinois, Roland W. Burris (D) ultimately gained the seat vacated by Obama, despite being picked by a governor charged with corruption and the open opposition of both the Democratic majority and the incoming president.

What is so different with men? When Palin ran, people were questioning her beliefs and abilities because she wasn't at home with her children and one of her children was pregnant out of wedlock. Why were these factors? Children - as anyone can tell you who has them - make their own decisions and you can only stop them so far. They are not dogs who can be locked up and put on leashes. But these were all issues with Palin's "qualifications" for Vice-President. I dare anyone to tell me how those are qualifications for a job whose description is basically: Have a beating heart.

At the outset of the presidential campaign, Clinton was widely favored to win the Democratic nomination, as well as the presidency. But her quest was trumped by Obama. Palin was initially celebrated as John McCain's running mate, before questions about her qualifications weighed down the Republican ticket.

Advisers to Clinton and Palin -- and the candidates themselves -- complained at various times about treatment they considered biased. But their rivals said their problems had nothing to do with gender, but rather with personal flaws.

Women did little better in congressional elections, as their numbers remained virtually stagnant. The House added four women, bringing the total to 75 of the 435 members. The number of women in the Senate -- 16 -- will either stay the same or go up by one, depending on who replaces Clinton.

Some female candidates say they face media scrutiny and public criticism on questions that rarely derail male contenders.

For example, another prominent New Yorker, Timothy F. Geithner, withstood questions about more than $30,000 in unpaid back taxes and an improperly documented household helper but has moved ahead as the future Treasury secretary.

Joblessness, Unemployment and Job Seeking

I don't understand. There is an 8.5% unemployment in the Sacramento area - and about that statewide in California.

Yet everywhere I go I see signs that are asking for people to work. Not in law firms, highend jobs and the like. But there are jobs out there - lots of them. Temp agencies still have lots of work. So why are people still unemployed?

Searching for a job is time consuming. It costs money (suits, travel, resumes etc.) And it can be hard. It can be frustrating. No one like to hear that they are not qualified, they are over qualified or they lack experience. It can be a crushing situation to go on 15 job interviews and not get a single job or call back. But that is job hunting. Everyone knows it. Which is why people don't do it.

Instead they sit at home and collect unemployment. Or they don't earn money at all and collect Social Security, Disability or other governmental paychecks.

Part-time work is better than no work. But many people don't see this as true. It can be deflating to a college graduate to go work in Barnes and Noble until something better comes along - but that is what you have to do. That is the responsible, adult thing to do. This is even more true if you have kids or other relatives depending on you.

If you run out of options and are under 35 (I think) you can always join the Marines, Navy, Army or Air Force. If you think these are "too tough" or you "don't want a military lifestyle" - join the Air Force. Other than the uniforms, very little is strictly military there. Best of all, you can train for a new career and get paid while you are doing it. And the military provides housing, food and health benefits. It is a guaranteed job for people between 18 and 35. It is paid job training - the one thing people say they want when job hunting. Why aren't more people using it?

Because, like job hunting, the military takes work. And requires you to work. It isn't an easy breezey life - but it is an alternative to staying unemployed.

So people need to get up and get jobs. I understand that they may not be your "ideal" situation. But while you are waiting for the "ideal" situation, you are losing earning potential, experience and money. And the rest of us are losing money to bail out over-stressed unemployment funds.

The Inauguration, Hope, and a Rat

I watched the inauguration of a new President yesterday - just like millions of other people. In fact, I watched it because I watch it every year. It is a historic event - regardless of who is being sworn in. The nation, and history, remember all 44 Presidents - some are more known or loved than others, but they are all remembered.

I was on the light rail (public transit) home yesterday and everyone was asking each other (and me) if I thought today was extremely historic. First of all, nothing can be extremely historic. It is either historic, or it is not. Second, no. I don't attach any special signifigance to yesterday's inauguration. I don't care if President Obama is black, I care if he's a good President. Is he going to raise my taxes? Is he going to make people work for money instead of giving out free handouts in social programs? Is he going to make education and health care better? Is he going to lower the deficit so that America can survive in turbulant economic times rather than relying on other countries and investors to buy bonds to finance programs? These are the things I care about.

I have hope for him. Not on the deficit issue. No one wants to deal with that. I want the federal government to deal with it, but they don't want to. It's an unpopular topic that would require major funding. Something along the lines of a $0.50 gas tax dedicated to reducing the deficit. But on the other issues, I have some hope. That is what I am watching for.

However, there is a smelly rat in the room too. It is the California Legislature. They were at the inauguration rather than working on solving the budget crisis. That simply stinks.