That’s what the Washington Post’s Anne Kornblut thinks.

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.

[Blogger: Note that tired old phrase, “observers say”—which really means, “people I called to try to find some quotes to support my thesis.”]

…“There’s something different about when women run,” said Bob Shrum, a Democratic consultant and a close ally of Kennedy. Echoing the complaints of many other family friends, Shrum noted that much of the criticism of Kennedy centered on her demeanor — her soft voice and use of the phrase “you know” — similar to the types of complaints that were so prevalent during the campaigns of Clinton and Palin.

Actually, that’s not quite true (and why anyone listens to Bob Shrum about anything, I’ll never understand). The “you know’s” were criticized, yes. They should have been, and if Caroline Kennedy were a man, they would also have been. But I never read anything about her “soft voice.” And I’m not sure what similar complaints were made about Hillary Clinton, but were the complaints about Sarah Palin and her inability to speak so off the mark?

DeeDee Myers, who once complained (probably justifiably) of sexism in her treatment at the Clinton White House, makes an argument that drives me nuts: That being a “mom” is a legitimate qualification for holding public office.

Myers said that “questions about her résumé absolutely have to do with her gender.”

“I don’t see it as thin, I see it as unconventional,” Myers said of Kennedy’s résumé…. “I don’t see why running a hedge fund is better preparation for doing the people’s business than writing books or working in the school system and raising a family.”

Let’s set aside the “running a hedge fund red herring” (I can’t off the top of my head think of any hedge fund managers in the Senate, anyway).

As I’ve written before, it’s a stretch to give Kennedy credit for “writing books.” Other than co-authoring two collections of essays, no, she hasn’t written any books.

Her work in the school system, I’m told by people who really do work in the school system, has been negligible—”one day a week,” someone said to me, and not for very long at that.

And while raising a family is a wonderful thing to do, its relevance to being senator is lost on me. I grant that it accords one some familiarity with some significant issues. But then, all life experiences help create the character of a politician. Being single accords one some familiarity with significant issues.

But other than that, how exactly motherhood prepares you for life in the Senate, I don’t know—and frankly, it’s a) sexist (men never say “I should be a senator because I’m a swell dad”) and b) lowering the bar to seriously argue that being a mother qualifies you to be a senator.

The “double standard” is advancing this as a serious argument when no man (I hope) would ever say, “Elect me because I have kids.”

Caroline Kennedy bombed in her campaign to be appointed senator because a) she was clearly unprepared, b) she was backed by a secretive group of powerbrokers who alienated the public, c) she dissed the press because she isn’t comfortable with the machinery of democracy, d) she could never state a credible rationale for her bid, e) she was unimpressive in her public appearances, and f) she never seemed very sure about really wanting the job.

All pretty good reasons why she shouldn’t have been senator, and none of which have the slightest thing to do with sexism.