Caroline Kennedy to seek Senate seat

[NickCole]

Some thoughts on the subject ...

It's pretty funny watching people who complained about Hillary not being qualified in 2000, or complained about the Clinton "dynasty" (absurd since neither Hillary nor Bill were born to political families), now supporting the idea of Caroline Kennedy to be given a Senate seat. At least Hillary Clinton ran for her seat and won by being elected by the people.

That said, I think Caroline Kennedy is clearly qualified to do the job and she can be an effective advocate. One thing some are touting as a strength, however, I'm not sure might not be a weakness: that Hillary's replacement will have to run a campaign in 2010 and again two years later. Campaigning is hard, it's intrusive and it can be rough and tumble in New York; Caroline Kennedy is no stranger to the process but she's never been faced with any kind of real confrontation by an opponent. Maybe she'd be fine but apart from being able to raise money, I'm not convinced she has what it takes to run in two campaigns in two years - possibly against someone as tough and nasty as Giuliani. And she'd have to win over upstaters.

Also, like it or not there is still some animosity among some New York Staters towards New Yorker Caroline Kennedy backing Obama at a pivotal moment in the primaries against New York Senator Hillary Clinton. It's easy to say "get over it," but this is a bit of a slap in the face while the sore feelings are still healing. Not, IMO, a reason she shouldn't be seriously considered, but it's worth paying attention to.

My pick would be Carolyn Maloney, who has a proven track record not only in public service but also in winning tough elections. She was NYC Councelwoman for 10 years and then in 1992 became a Congresswoman after a hard-fought race to unseat an incumbent Republican (in a district that favored Republicans) who had a big cash advantage over her. She's earned it whereas Caroline Kennedy has not. I realize that, to some, earning something as opposed to feeling entitled to be given something doesn't mean anything, but to some of us it has weight. And for those gays who claimed that where a candidate stands on gay issues is very important, Carolyn Maloney is the one who introduced the first legislation in New York to recognize domestic partnerships for same sex couples. Far as I know, Caroline Kennedy's never done or said anything to help us.

 

[iman]

Since both his eyes are blind, I guess you're right. But thats cruel Iman.

Oh for shame, Smelter! My sensitivity to others is so well known to the regulars here. One would have to be blind as a fucking bat not to notice the delicacy with which I approach all such issues.

 

[iman]

That said, I think Caroline Kennedy is clearly qualified to do the job and she can be an effective advocate

I'm not sure anyone knows what the qualifications for a good Senator are. She has the name, she has the degrees, she is not a dunce and probably has no real difference with all the standard positions of eastcoast liberal Dems, but she has been a retiring wealthy matron for all these years and the public knows very little about her as a person. I know more about Sarah Palin than I know about Caroline.

Why the sudden interest? Is she bored? Is it post menopausal? Or is it just opportunism, a chance to get appointed without going through all the preliminary career moves that other candidates have had to make? She has apparently hired a well known NY Dem fixer to introduce her to all the political neighbors that she now wants to represent, but has never bothered to meet in the past.

Has she ever been interested in public service? Has she ever taken a controversial stand? Has she ever taken a stand on anything?

She played under her father's desk and 45 years later she has decided to be a Senator; that's not presumptuous, that's arrogance or maybe just "audacity" as they call it now a days.

 

[NickCole]

I'm not sure anyone knows what the qualifications for a good Senator are. She has the name, she has the degrees, she is not a dunce and probably has no real difference with all the standard positions of eastcoast liberal Dems, but she has been a retiring wealthy matron for all these years and the public knows very little about her as a person. I know more about Sarah Palin than I know about Caroline.

IMO an intelligent well educated person who cares and is committed, and has powerful contacts and can get her calls answered, is a big step toward qualified. She'd be a junior Senator, which is not exactly entry-level but still gives her some room to learn. Calling her a retiring wealthy matron is not really fair. Her nearly two years of work for NYC public schools, while part-time, has not been inconsequential -- though I don't know what impact her work has had in real terms, if there's been improvement in the schools. She sits on several boards, mainly if not totally nonprofits. None of which particularly qualifies her to be Senator but she's more than a retiring wealthy matron -- she's capable of work and I have the sense that's what she wants to do now.

She has, however, never run for office, and that's a big deal since this appointment would mean campaigning for the seat in 2010 and again in 2012. She's likable and pleasant, and can be persuasive -- but that's been a winning combination among specific groups of people who are predisposed to like her and where she has never had to confront an aggressive opponent or intrusive press. In NYC she's always been "our" Caroline and people, including the press, treat her with the utmost respect; how she'd handle the nitty gritty of politics and political office is an open question. She could do fine or she might not.

Why the sudden interest? Is she bored? Is it post menopausal?

I think it's that her kids are basically grown (2 in college, 1 in high school) and she's at the beginning of the next chapter of her life. I don't see that that reason is any less valid than any other kind of ambition, as long as she's competent and committed to doing the job.

Or is it just opportunism, a chance to get appointed without going through all the preliminary career moves that other candidates have had to make?

I think opportunism is a reasonable word to use. In fact I think she may have running for President in the back of her mind. But, again, is that in and of itself a disqualifier? (Although, those who criticized Hillary for that, I notice, are not criticizing Caroline for the same thing even though she's less qualified than Hillary was.) I also think it's a confluence of circumstances: her kids growing up, a drive to make something bigger of her life, her opportunities, than she's made so far, a desire maybe to be part of solutions to problems in the state she's always lived in, this seat becoming available and Obama owing her a big favor.

My primary objection is not to Caroline Kennedy, if nobody else were on deck, but that Carolyn Maloney wants it very much and has earned it.

She has apparently hired a well known NY Dem fixer to introduce her to all the political neighbors that she now wants to represent, but has never bothered to meet in the past.

That's a smart thing to do. Speaks well of her understanding of the way things work and how to make something she wants happen.

Has she ever been interested in public service? Has she ever taken a controversial stand? Has she ever taken a stand on anything?

I've never heard her take a controversial stand, and on many issues of the day we have no idea what her position is --if she has them-- and that concerns me.

She played under her father's desk and 45 years later she has decided to be a Senator; that's not presumptuous, that's arrogance or maybe just "audacity" as they call it now a days.

She has a definite sense of entitlement, and she hasn't put in the time, which is reason for concern, but it doesn't necessarily mean she wouldn't be a good Senator.

I think it's a tough call for the Governor. Patterson can do whatever he wants but if he gives it to her and she doesn't step up to the plate over the next year, he could be effectively handing the seat to a Republican in 2010.

Again, my pick is Carolyn Maloney.

 

[JayHawk]

^^ non-New Yorkers have been ny's most famous senators in modern times

Well they couldn't find no one else in or around the shitty city that was qualified or untainted by corruption.

 

[chance1]

I like her

and she could probably do the job

which probably says more about the job than her

if her name was not Kennedy we would not be having this conversation

the one about her possibly getting the appointment

 

[iman]

think it's a tough call for the Governor. Patterson can do whatever he wants but if he gives it to her and she doesn't step up to the plate over the next year, he could be effectively handing the seat to a Republican in 2010.

Does the Governor really have a choice? Can he reject Little Caroline in favor of a Congress woman or the Attorney General?

I don't think anyone else stands a chance unless there is a public outcry about the sense of entitlement that is so evident in this and I don't think that will happen.

I don't really doubt her abilities if she is anything like the rest of the family, but I think it would prefer that people begin their careers at a level lower than the US Senate.

 

[letme]

Does the Governor really have a choice? Can he reject Little Caroline in favor of a Congress woman or the Attorney General?

Iman ,are you saying that in a state that has 10 million people the Governor is so limited to a pool of 3 or 6 ?

If so what a sad state of affairs that, that State is in.

Maybe he could talk to Blago.

 

[NickCole]

Does the Governor really have a choice? Can he reject Little Caroline in favor of a Congress woman or the Attorney General?

Of course he has a choice.

And, as a point of reference, remember he wasn't elected Governor and although he's the son of a formerly politically powerful father, he's paid his political dues and put in his time. Interesting dilema.

And when he asks us to vote for him next election, all his choices are on the table.

I don't think anyone else stands a chance unless there is a public outcry about the sense of entitlement that is so evident in this and I don't think that will happen.

I guess this will test Patterson's integrity.

No I don't think there'll be a big public outcry, I don't think most people care enough, but there has been some real objection to Caroline Kennedy taking Hillary's place and that's worth noting because for the past 50 years she's never been anything but the darling of media and Democrats.

 

[NickCole]

I mean, if Patterson doesn't pick Kennedy, who will he pick? Cuomo?

I sure hope not.

It just never ceases to amaze me how limited the political pool for quality candidates seems to be.

There are plenty of quality candidates.

Unfortunately many aren't considered, or don't win elections, because they're not in with the power machine (Ted Kennedy is the power pushing hard for Caroline, but how is filling a New York Senate seat the business of a Massachusetts Senator) or in campaigns don't appeal to voters in superficial ways.

Politicians like Ted Kennedy aren't going to stop using their power to pass along undeserved favors. Our only hope is ourselves and our votes. When more Americans value competence and experience over likability we'll be started in a better direction.

 

[NickCole]

SYRACUSE — In a carefully controlled strategy reminiscent of the vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, aides to Caroline Kennedy interrupted her on Wednesday and whisked her away when she was asked what her qualifications are to be a United States senator. ...

It was the first stop in an orchestrated tour of upstate New York. ...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/nyregion/18upstate.html?_r=1&hp

Um. Princess Kennedy, the questions are going to get harder.


In similar news today it seems Obama's following in Bush's footsteps when it comes to answering tough questions:

... But Obama's response to Blagojevich questions has been decidedly junior varsity. Begging off because of an ongoing investigation? Hiding behind Patrick Fitzgerald's skirt? Warning a reporter not to "waste" a question and asking for an alternative question? All four techniques were popularized by Bush.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/16/AR2008121602652.html

It seems "change" from Nodrama Obama and the Princess of Privacy may be just more of the same.

 

[TierraSimms]

United States Representative Gary Ackerman, a Queens Democrat, said last week that he did not know what Ms. Kennedy’s qualifications were, “except that she has name recognition — but so does J. Lo.”

WOW, wasn't that the SAME qualifications that Hillary Clinton (last name as her only claim to fame) had when she given her US Senate seat in 2000 as well? Hmmm... sounds like to me that Clintonista are HATERS b/c Caroline Kennedy supported Obama during the primaries...

 

[justapixel]

I think it's probable Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg would make a great senator and advocate for N.Y.

Umm, it is Caroline Kennedy not Caroline Kennedy Schossberg.

It seems she lost the Schossberg when she became interested in being a senator.

 

[iman]

WOW, wasn't that the SAME qualifications that Hillary Clinton (last name as her only claim to fame) had when she given her US Senate seat in 2000 as well? Hmmm... sounds like to me that Clintonista are HATERS b/c Caroline Kennedy supported Obama during the primaries...

It is just plain stupid, although not surprising, for you to pretend that Hillary Clinton had no credentials when she ran in a Primary and a General Election to win a Senate seat.

The question for NY'ers is whether she can beat King, who, I would think, is the natural inheritor of D'Amato's constituency.

It is too bad that the voters of NY won't have a say in who fills the Clinton Senate seat. It is also unfortunate that that someone who has enjoyed the privileges that Caroline has enjoyed feels she needs the advantage of an appointment to the Senate to begin her career in public service.

I suppose when the black and blind Governor of New York feels it necessary to run an affirmative action program for a Kennedy, then the apocalypse is certainly near.

 

[iman]

No offense but what elected governing experience did Clinton have before becoming senator? Isn't it reasonable that a federal senator might start out as a local council person, maybe serve in a state senate, then become a US senator?

No, it's not necessary for a person to hold elected office before going to either the Senate of the House. However, it should be necessary for a person to do something prior to going to the Senate or at least stand for election.

Hillary was well known to the public and she had a distinguished career as an attorney besides her partnership with Bill and she stood for election - twice.

Caroline has raised her kids and raised money for NY schools, but little else, she has deliberately avoided the public for years and nobody really knows anything about her.

Paterson could visit Caroline's neighborhood on Park Avenue and find hundreds of women with the same or better qualifications that Kennedy has, but without the celebrity. Aside from her last name, Caroline is unremarkable.

The appointment of Caroline would smack of privilege, nepotism and aristocracy and that is not good for the Dems or the Senate.

 

[opinterph]

It is too bad that the voters of NY won't have a say in who fills the Clinton Senate seat.

What authority denies the voters of NY their participation in this process?

 

[rowjimmy21]

Caroline has raised her kids and raised money for NY schools, but little else, she has deliberately avoided the public for years and nobody really knows anything about her.

With the name Kennedy, she probably wanted to stay out of the spotlight for her kids, especially with her family history.

I think it's great to see Caroline Kennedy wanting to get more involved in public life and to continue her family legacy. She would probably do a good job with on the job training and with plenty of help from her family, with that said I don't see what her qualifications might be except for her name. It would be nice to hear why she thinks she's the best suited for the job.

It wouldn't be surprising if she did get the position and was able to win in '10 & '12 that a run for POTUS would be in the cards for '16.

 

[rowjimmy21]

Why not give someone who has worked his or her ass off on a local or state level who dreams of national office the chance to make a new legacy?

There are plenty of people in NY who deserve and have worked for this much more than Caroline Kennedy. Timing is everything in politics, look at Obama. Her family, whether you like them or not, have dedicated themselves to public service for two generations. It is her legacy. I think if she does get the appointment it will be more of a coronation. I don't think she deserves it, but she would be capable.

 

[smelter]

^ Wait till these kinds of photos are reprinted in the magazines ..... She may not deserve the Senate seat but star power is tough to overcome.

 

[NickCole]

No offense but what elected governing experience did Clinton have before becoming senator? Isn't it reasonable that a federal senator might start out as a local council person, maybe serve in a state senate, then become a US senator? It seems to me Clinton, not only was new to NY when to became senator but was also new to elected office. Is this not true?
Seems Hillary benefitted and Caroline is benefitiing from a famous relative in politics more than any real qualifications of their own. Nepotism.

Many who've run for Congress are new to elected office, and even some with no experience who're appointed to fill a vacated seat do fine. But it's really absurd not to notice Hillary Clinton had many years of public service and public scrutiny, and working hands-on within Washington, behind her when she ran for the Senate and Caroline Kennedy has very little of any of that.

Before she moved to Arkansas, Hillary worked in Washington advising the House Judiciary Committee during Watergate. In Arkansas, she was a successful practicing attorney (the first woman to become a partner at the Rose law firm) and wrote about children's and family policy, and sat on the boards of organizations like the Legal Services Corporation (appointed by President Jimmy Carter) and also was an active First Lady where, among other things, she served as an effective chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee and chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee for many years, wherein she not only raised money but fought hard battles for school reform. As First Lady of the US she was the first First Lady to take an office in the West Wing and was involved in many policy initiatives, sometimes successfully and sometimes not (her detractors like to point out her failures and then, absurdly, try to assert that she wasn't really involved in anything more than having teas), and made countless appearances and speeches worldwide. Also, by the time she ran for the Senate she was a veteran of many political campaigns, tough ones, had been fully scrutinized by a press that never gave her the kid glove treatment Caroline has had all her life, and was well prepared for what campaigning in New York State entailed.

Hillary Clinton has been working her entire adult life in the public political arena and participating in shaping policy. Caroline Kennedy has been living a pampered life of wealth and privilege, quietly sitting on a few boards and raising money for good causes here and there. Apart from co-authoring books about privacy, she's never taken a public stand on an issue and never fought a battle for any cause or issue. There's nothing shameful about Caroline Kennedy's life or her choices, and I think she could possibly be a fine Senator, but to imply Hillary Clinton ran for the Senate with about the same level of experience that Caroline Kennedy brings to it today is disrespectful to what it takes to put in long hard years of work versus living an easy life off a silver platter, and just plain wrong.