It started at least as far back as 1992 when Patty Murray won her Washington state Senate seat campaigning as just a "mom in tennis shoes."
The progeny-as-experience argument was back in the news when Barbara Boxer grilled Condi Rice over military casualties in Iraq in January 2007: the California senator said the childless Secretary of State had no "personal price" to pay in the war.
Then a year and a half later Sarah Palin paraded her brood (and soon-to-be grandbrood) on the campaign trail, as supporters like Fred Thompson touted her "experience not only in politics but in life ... She's a mother of five."
And now comes Caroline Kennedy, who brings her experience "as a mother, as a woman, as a lawyer" -- in that order. (She's also extremely wealthy, or just a "mom in Manolos.")
Am I willing to dismiss her motherhood as experience? Of course not. I plan to walk outside at some point today -- and I'd rather not be castrated by an angry gang of knife-wielding stay-at-homes. (In that sense I'm no different than any of the other male TV or print journalists who have yet to question the "mommy" credential.)
But is having kids an unqualified qualification? If it were, the RNC and DNC talent scouts better hightail it to the YFZ Ranch, because those ladies are really qualified.
Let's face it, there are good mommies and there bad mommies. If we're going to include motherhood as experience, then we need to make sure we're electing a competent, reputable, good mommy.
We need transparency. To that end I propose the following measures so that voters can evaluate Caroline Kennedy's performance as mother:
- Report cards for Kennedy's three children for the last ten years.
- Footage of the family eating dinner: how are the kids' table manners? how do they talk to each other?
- Bedroom inspections: have the kids been taught to clean up after themselves?
- Sit-down interviews with each of the kids for their candid thoughts on their mother's child-rearing.
This vetting is hardly failsafe: the kids, after all, have a father. And who's to say which parent is responsible for the Kennedy-Schlossberg kids' best qualities? But some vetting is better than none at all.
What do you think? Is being a mother a qualification for higher office? What other mommy vetting measures would you add to the list above?
And what about the guy who had the baby last year? Is he extra qualified?
Reader Comments ( Page 1 of 3)
1. It's silly for the media to mention motherhood as a so-called qualification. Especially, since most of the Mommies in politics have nannies, or other family members who spend more time with the children then they do.
I don't believe that a person can be a "good" Mom and a "good" politician at the same time.
giftedgirl at 12:38AM on Jan 5th 2009
2. Concerning any vocation, not just the "higher office" of politics being a Mother is no more a qualification
than being a Father. Both are irrelevant to the job sought.
The qualifications for a vocation are training, experience and wisdom.
The qualifications to be a parent are that you were able to consumate a sexual act.
The two are mutually exclusive as "qualifications."
Alost anyone can have sex, you can even hire it to be done. However, that does not qualify you to be President or Senator, ect.
Though too many office holders in the past seem to think that holding office qualifies them to have sex.
Ric James at 1:07AM on Jan 5th 2009
3. Didn't it start years ago when Senator Patty Murray of Washington state ran as "The mom in tennis shoes"?
ink at 6:45AM on Jan 5th 2009
4. Good catch, Ink! I've amended accordingly. Thanks.
Mo Rocca at 9:16AM on Jan 5th 2009
5. Ric , one does not “consumate a sexual act” , one does consummate a marriage. The wedding ceremony, vows of the man and woman to each other before God, is just the one step of two. A marriage is not fully consummated until the couple has sexual intercourse. This male female sexual union is open to the possibility of the gift of life.
JillJG at 11:02AM on Jan 5th 2009
6. I don't think reproductive responsibilities should be included as political experience. You can be the best parent in the world, and still raise a jerk. It's like the lottery in that respect, as a terrible parent could "raise" a great world leader. Shouldn't even be on the table.
Ken at 11:08AM on Jan 5th 2009
7. Many knee-jerk haters think being a Republican disqualifies you from holding any office.
JillJG at 11:10AM on Jan 5th 2009
8. Re:JillJG @ #7 - Many ignorant Republicans claim an ideology is a mental illness, as it's somehow not bigotry to use a disability as an insult. Is there a point to this?
Ken at 11:21AM on Jan 5th 2009
9. Please, not another Kennedy! We need to get rid of familes running a country that is ...'of, by, and for the people.' Get rid of the Bush, Kennedy and Clinton folks who have never really held a job along with Al Sharpton, and Jesse Jackson. Come in, this is America!
Jim at 11:52AM on Jan 5th 2009
10. Talk about a sense of entitlement! Being a parent makes you no more prepared to be a politician than it does to be a surgeon. The level of ridiculousness in that argument is mind boggling.
Gabrielle at 12:02PM on Jan 5th 2009
11.
Democrats Patty Murray, Caroline Kennedy, Nancy Pelosi all tout their parent/grandparent status as a plus as do their supporters. Nancy P. is not above using her grandkids in photo opportunities. But that's okay. It's called exploitation if Sarah Palin brings her family to the Republican convention to see her historic moment.
JillJG at 12:11PM on Jan 5th 2009
12. Jill, did you read the article? it expressly mentions Patty Murray. Maybe you don't realize it, but there are a great many of us who you might call "centrists." We eye both parties, and what they do, without putting blinders on for the ones we like. And even the ones we like are subject to critical evaluation.
Ken at 12:31PM on Jan 5th 2009
13. I respect and Rep. Pelosi and Sen.'s Murray and Hillary Clinton because they put their own blood, sweat and tears into getting elected.
If Caroline Kennedy is picked as Hillary's replacement, that's NY's business. Certainly, at one time the name-conscience NYC elite would have seriously considered Clark Rockefeller.
JillJG at 12:32PM on Jan 5th 2009
14. Love Ya, Mo! (Really!!) And what's up with her name? Isn't she a Schlossberg? Up until now - wasn't she going by the name Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg?
Celiene at 1:04PM on Jan 5th 2009
15. Being a mom does not qualify you for political office. But then again IMHO, neither does being a rich person who runs a business or a sports franchise or something and has never done any kind of civic work before. And we have tons of male rich white guys in office with only "rich" on their CV.
I have to admit, although I like Hillary Clinton, I kind of think the current erosion of female expectations began to gain momentum with her. I just never saw being First Lady as experience to count. Sure it gives her a total insider's perspective on the White House, but wouldn't Chelsea get to count that too? (And what about Socks?) Not that Hillary didn't have any qualifications, she was a Senator and that should definitely count. I just don't think we should have considered her Clintonian-era First-Ladyship as part of her experience for office.
As a woman and a Feminist, I actually think its pretty damn sexist to consider a woman without experience (or brains in the Palin case) as a qualified candidate. Its a backhanded way of saying you can't expect anything else from women. You can't tell me that there are no qualified female NY State Legislators qualified to be considered. Judges? Town Mayors? Anyone in civic life? Kind of insulting if you ask me.
jen in california at 1:19PM on Jan 5th 2009