… the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut for her attempt to assign Caroline Kennedy’s epic flop on sexism.  In a piece headlined, “Does a Glass Ceiling Persist in Politics?”, Kornblut argues that Kennedy’s withdrawal came from some animus over her gender rather than the serial embarrassments Kennedy provided over the last few weeks.  The story went public at 10:10 am today on the Post’s website, just in time to get proven ridiculous:

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 — and as New York Gov. David Paterson seems poised to name a little-known female lawmaker to fill the Senate seat Clinton gave up Wednesday when she was confirmed as secretary of state — observers say women seem to face barriers in the political arena.

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 Paterson’s office indicated in a statement yesterday were not factors.

Unfortunately, the Post can’t even use bad timing as an excuse, since the story included this:

Wire services and New York media outlets reported early this morning that the governor had chosen Democratic Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, a second-term lawmaker from upstate. Gillibrand was endorsed for the job by the New Agenda, a recently formed, nonpartisan women’s rights organization.

“Today’s announcement embodies what the new women’s movement looks like in America,” said Amy Siskind, a New Yorker who is the group’s president. “This is the right way to turn the page from 2008 to 2009.”

So what’s the problem?  Gillbrand’s appointment clearly demonstrates that the issue wasn’t gender at all.  In fact, as the New York Times reported earlier this week, Paterson had more or less committed to excluding men for consideration completely.

Kennedy had the inside track on this nomination until she actually had to start politicking for it.  When she did, she performed terribly.  She could not articulate any compelling reason for seeking the appointment, refused to answer questions from the press, and presented no qualifications for the office except her name and her money.

Kornblut then asserts that three other Senate appointments got filled with “far less drama by little-known men.”  First, that’s simply absurd, as the Illinois Senate opening has had much more drama associated with it.  When was the last time a sitting governor got arrested for his deliberations over a Senate appointment, or the last time the Senate refused to seat someone?  That’s real drama, not the bumbling Kennedy displayed.  If Kornblut doesn’t recognize that, then she’s in the wrong profession.

Second and more importantly, Kennedy was supposed to bring drama, as well as celebrity.  What other reason would Paterson have to appoint her?  Caroline Kennedy’s bid gave journalists an excuse to wax nostalgic for the umpteenth time about Camelot, a martyred President, and the Kennedy mystique.  Without the backstory, Paterson had no reason to even consider Kennedy for the spot, except for the prodigious amounts of cash the Kennedys could provide.

Was today a holiday for editors at the Washington Post?