« Minnesota more lopsided than ugly | Kevin Cassidy's Blog | Bristol Palin's future mother-in-law busted for drugs »
Caroline Kennedy considering NY Senate seat
Huffington says that Caroline Kennedy is considering taking Clinton's Senate seat.
Yes. Definitely, yes.
Kennedy for President 2016
Yes. Definitely, yes.
Kennedy for President 2016
Advertisement
I have read this and while I am open to the idea. I don't really know how qualified she is. But, president already??? She better be one awesome senator for the next 8 years to pull that off.
December 5, 2008 9:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
She just could be, with her background. Apparently McCain and his ilk didn't think Obama was quite awesome enough, even after his Dem Convention speech wa-y back in 2004 to be worth consideration for the job. Who knew, is maybe the question? Hey, she's even related to Bobby. W is just related to Prescott and George HW and, well, some other Bushes who are even less wonderful- and look at what HE got.
December 6, 2008 1:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
As a New Yorker I have a huge problem with this. Having an unelected governor appointing my Senator really ticks me off. We should demand a special election.
December 6, 2008 8:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
According to today's Times, she would have to defend the seat in both 2010 and 2012 - as would anyone, I suppose. So I gather you'd get to weigh in pretty quickly here as a voter!
December 6, 2008 11:26 AM | Reply | Permalink
Dijamo, where are you on this?
December 6, 2008 10:57 AM | Reply | Permalink
Well if Governor Patterson were to ask me, I'd tell him to look elsewhere than Caroline Kennedy. Does anyone know what her policy positions are? Has she taken a hard stand on anything? Her most significant experience in politics was as a fundraiser for the NYC Education system. She may be smart and capable, but the NYers who elected Hillary Clinton for Senate had every indication of where she stood on the issues. Caroline Kennedy has spent a lifetime avoiding political questions and is going to be appointed to the Senate with her primary qualification being an early and stanch advocate for Obama?
Please. We can do better. If she wants the seat, she should run for it against whomever is appointed. Her name recognition alone should help negate the incumbent advantage. I'd like to see Mayor Byron Brown of Buffalo who is not only a minority, but also from upstate NY (aka Lower Canada).
December 7, 2008 5:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Now you opened the floodgates for Quinn & all his Ice Weasel friends to cross over on the ice floes - I hope you know what you're doing.
December 7, 2008 6:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
splash...splash....
splash...splash....
December 7, 2008 7:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well if Governor Patterson were to ask me
------------------------------------------------
Yes! I think that's a great idea. Dijamo for NY senator. I hope he asks you.
December 8, 2008 12:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
If drafted, I will not run. If nominated, I will not pass vetting. If elected, I will bring in a new age of ass-words to the U. S. Senate.
December 8, 2008 7:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
Kennedy for president!
But shh. Don't say it too loud. You don't want to anger the anti-dynasty crowd. They would tell you that a Kennedy was already president, therefore another Kennedy cannot be president because that's a dynasty and dynasties are bad regardless of how effectively those family members govern.
December 6, 2008 12:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oh, I'd have thought it more likely that the center-RIGHT would be showing up telling us that another Kennedy in the Senate would be death to the post-partisan, bipartisan, give the right some love and we'll live happily ever after crowd.
December 6, 2008 2:05 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oy.
December 6, 2008 2:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see, Kennedy gave us the Bay of Pigs, slept with the same mistress of a mafia gangster his brother was trying to bring down, and managed to get us embedded in Vietnam. Oh wai. "Regardless of how effectively those family members govern" - what is Patrick Kennedy's claim to fame besides being a drunk and a Kennedy? What makes Caroline Kennedy more qualified than 100 other people for the serious position of Senator? (Even if you argue Hillary was unqualified, she ran in an election and won, wasn't appointed). Wow, the Kennedy brand as an approved rubber stamp for office. So much for electoral democracy.
December 6, 2008 2:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Must the child pay for the sins of the father? If so, Bill Clinton and a whole lotta people should never have been elected. You are being unreasonable, hysterical even. I know it must hurt to even think of an Obama supporter getting HRC's seat, but I think Kennedy would do a fine job, really.
December 6, 2008 5:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well then let her run in 2010, it's the perfect opportunity to convince the people of New York.
"Must the child pay for the sins of the father?" You're incredible. The child reaps the bennies of the father for no good reason, but cannot suffer any negatives for the same connection?
Hey, Hillary had to overcome her negatives. Tell Caroline to get cracking. Politics isn't pretty, if you play it for real.
December 6, 2008 6:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
I like Caroline Kennedy. Always have. I'm a lifelong Kennedy supporter. I have a lot of respect for her, she's very intelligent, and she probably will make a good Senator, but the truth is she has no relevant experience other than her genes and social position.
The very idea that she would be elevated from her current life to the US Senate says a great deal (none of it very good) about our society and our politics. This sort of thing makes something of a mockery of all our talk of equality, merit, people earning their stripes, coming up through the ranks, etc... in our political system. All other factors being equal, if she were exactly the same person, with the same education and work experience but she wasn't the daughter of our murdered and still mourned President, she wouldn't even be considered as a credible appointment to the US Senate.
December 6, 2008 12:11 PM | Reply | Permalink
Well, console yourself that she's a lot more qualified for the job than Al Franken. Anybody else they get will be just another of the go along to get along blue dog mush bunch. At least Kennedy might actually vote her conscience.
December 6, 2008 2:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
That's nonsense. It's not about qualification. There is no dispute Kennedy is smart and unconventionally qualified. For all his lack of qualification, voters are deciding the fate of Al Franken.
For the record, I never thought Franken was a good choice in the first place, but he isn't get in with a call from the governor.
December 6, 2008 2:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can appreciate that New Yorkers want an election but unfortunately with the state the parties are in these days voters usually get the candidates foisted upon them by insider deals anyway.
Well, maybe Al can change his residency back to the upper West Side real quick.
December 6, 2008 3:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
But voters finally decide between a minimum of two candidates. The way I see it, a reputed Democratic senior should hold the post with a strong endorsement by Senator Clinton for two years and with an understanding she or he will not run for re-election.
Because having an awarded seat for two years gives an unfair unadvantage in the primary. I'll be excited to see Caroline Kennedy in the subsequent primary in 2010.
I like the selection of Emil Jones as a placeholder in Illinois. I'd like to see something similar repeated in New York.
December 6, 2008 3:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Oops...I mean unfair advantage.
December 6, 2008 3:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she can win in 2010, good for her. I just don't like a slot like that being given to a no-election experience Kennedy, Biden, Rockefeller, whomever. I don't mind an appointee having an unfair advantage - better than turning Republican in 2010.
If it's just a high profile effective female for the slot, I'd rather appoint Martha Stewart. I hear Carolyn Maloney might be a good choice, but I don't think it specifically needs to be a woman. I don't know enough about Cuomo, but I don't have especially good feelings about him, and would still prefer a humbled and hopefully smarter Spitzer.
December 6, 2008 7:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can Martha Stewart even vote? Isn't she a convicted felon? Maybe that's why you like her.
I like Martha too, for decorating ideas and some recipes. Her ratatouille recipe sucks, however. Much better to go with Julia Child on that one (oh, and Julia's Tart Tatin, though very labor-intensive, is to die for).
December 6, 2008 7:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So true, CD -- Martha's Ratatouille recipe does indeed suck
And more to the point, early privilege, so dearly paid-for, should not disqualify a candidate of integrity from an appointment for which she is otherwise absolutely qualified.
I see symmetry. A president elected, the color of whose skin, and whose early disadvantages and mistakes did not bar the electorate from seeing his virtues.
Caroline Kennedty, an Obama mirror image: not an issue of race but of gender, whose early advantages and sins of the father(s) do not preclude her -- a woman of principle and merit -- from serving the public good.
CVille Dem: ditto
Desidero: think again.
December 6, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
It is extremely unfair, insensitive and dickheaded to compare Martha Stewart for Caroline Kennedy.
I'm sorry that kind of B.S. doesn't progress any discussion.
December 6, 2008 8:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I mean...Kennedy to Stewart.
December 6, 2008 8:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I ♥ Martha - the cookies, the smile, the David Letterman appearances, the Empire, the orange jumpsuit. And well, next to Elliot Spitzer got the roughest time. (Hey, William Jefferson had how many thousands stuffed in his freezer and he's still voting in Congress?). I would have picked Oprah, but she'd be a carpetbagger.
December 7, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
My real concern is that it simply seems fundamentally unfair that she is automatically in the running when her primary qualification is her pedigree. It ought not to be that way in America as frequently as it is. Look at the number of people in Congress whose parents served before them and whose seats they virtually inherited. It's troubling and I think problematic for Democracy no matter who it is, but it is particularly so when they don't even have to run to attain the position... they just get appointed because they run in the right circles.
December 6, 2008 7:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
OH, yes. Life is unfair. People! Be glad that it isn't Jeb Bush who is getting an appointment! Do you think there would be any teeth-gnashing if this were Florida and the choice was Jeb? At least she is a principled, intelligent person, who is educated and has a resume that shows she has actually thought about the big picture!
And she is just about to see the first Kennedy brother from her father's generation actually die of natural causes! [Which has nothing to do with anything, but it occurred to me recently that it was true.]
December 6, 2008 7:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, some of you guys are harsh, and uninformed. Kennedy is an attorney, editor, writer and member of the New York and Washington, D.C. bars. She founded the Profiles in Courage Award, which is usually given to elected officials who, “acting in accord with their conscience, risk their careers by pursuing a larger vision of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or powerful pressures from their constituents.” She also is President of the Kennedy Library Foundation, a director of the Commission on Presidential Debates, and a director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She also is an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics. She has written two books on civil liberties and her served in a volunteer capacity on numerous education and healthcare initiatives.
I’d say that makes her as qualified as the person she would be replacing. She has never tried to cash in on her family name or tragedies. I think she’d be great.
December 6, 2008 12:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Can't you people Wiki? Her whole career is a cash-in on family name - interning for Uncle Ted, handing out the Profiles in Courage award, President of the Kennedy Library, and an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics, a "living tribute to her father". She even endorsed Obama with a column in the NY Times entitled "A President Like My Father", if anyone was to dense to get a subtle connection.
December 6, 2008 2:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
blah blah blah blah -- could you BE any more negative? I didn't think so. I'm sure you'll keep trying, though.
December 6, 2008 7:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I must say you are funny in your retorts. LOL!!!!
December 6, 2008 8:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks! I'm trying to be a real wit. I'm half-way there!
December 6, 2008 8:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can't still get over the quip you made in the other post. I'm stll ROFLMAO!!!!
December 6, 2008 8:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would you 2 like a room to roll around on the floor (out loud) in?
December 7, 2008 6:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
As I said above, I'm a Kennedy supporter and like her a whole lot. But anyone who denies that her being under consideration for Clinton's Senate seat (not to mention all the other things you listed)all come as a result of who her father and mother were is just fooling themselves. Now I personally believe that the Kennedy family has demonstrated time and again that wealth, power and fame can be used for good and I think she's likely to be a good Senator. But the things she has achieved are primarily a function of family and social position, not merit. If her name was O'Connel or Jones and her parents were nobodies she could have done all the things listed and still nobody would consider her for US Senator.
December 6, 2008 7:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I love her. But I don't think she must be handed the seat on a silver platter by a governor who wasn't elected by us New Yorkers in the first place.
I see her as no less qualified than Hillary Clinton before she became the Senator of the empire state. I supported a first time senator for President so I don't think conventional experience is all that important. Also, as someone who supported Obama, I don't think she has to go to the back of the line for her chance. But, like Senator Clinton, I want to see her hold the post by winning an election, not as a Christmas gift.
She will find the democratic primary highly challenging and will certainly not be the favorite to win the nomination in a contest.
December 6, 2008 2:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
What's wrong with you people. Caroline Kennedy is immensely more qualified than many of the current setting Senators on the hill. So what, if she get there by appointment. Bush has made recess appointments of judges and cabinet members who have much more influence over our daily lives. That's part of how the process works! For years, and even as recent as the replacement of Mel Carnaghan when a Senator died, he was replaced by his wife. Was she qualified because she sat at the seat of power? Hillary has argued that she was qualified because he sat at the seat of power. Well, Caroline Kennedy has sat at the seat of history for years and probably has a better perspective on the needs of people than most of those rich, white, millionaire men currently n the Senate. Her appointment would be as good as anybody else and better than most!
December 6, 2008 4:52 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure that a member of a rich and influential family is going to have "a better perspective on the needs of people than most of those rich, white, millionaire men currently (i)n the Senate."
December 6, 2008 5:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
The problem with your attitude about wealthy people who have empathy towards those who live in poverty is that it is reverse snobbery, and is antithetical to progessive ideals. I cringed every time I heard John Edwards reviled because he is a millionaire who cares about poverty. If you truly think that only poor people give a rip about poor people maybe you should consider the republican party.
The ugly truth is that people who are poor are not in a position to advocate for themselves because they are too busy trying to feed their families and keeping them warm. They also don't have the connections that you denigrate, but which keep the wheels spinning to make change.
If having money automatically disqualifies a person from fighting for poor people, then does health disqualify a person from advocating universal health care? Should only uneducated people be trusted with educational policy?
Empathy is a real emotion, and it is what keeps us human. Please don't fall into the pit of FOX NEWS, which questions the motivations of everyone who doesn't have something obvious to gain by working for those less fortunate than themselves.
December 6, 2008 8:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Bravo. Such an important comment. For example, the Kennedys have done more for people with special needs than ANYONE on this planet. So, that shouldn't count somehow because they have money? Balderdash!
December 6, 2008 9:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
I thought Edwards folded his anti-poverty 501(c) organization when he pulled out of the campaign. No props needed anymore.
December 7, 2008 2:32 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. You said it perfectly.
December 6, 2008 5:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
That was aimed at GTFOOH.
December 6, 2008 5:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Don't worry, I know you weren't praising me on that one. :)
December 6, 2008 5:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
But I LOVE your outfit!
December 6, 2008 6:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
For those interested here is the wiki for CK
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kennedy
Frankly, I don't see that she is more or less qualified than mnay other persons serving in our congress. And I suspect she is better prepared to serve than some who have been there for years.
December 6, 2008 9:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
The people of the neighboring state, Connecticut, would sacrifice their left nutmegs for Caroline Kennedy.
Ned Lamont is rich, too, and it's pretty obvious he would have represented the population of Connecticut, rich and poor, far better than ol -regular-Joe Lie-berman.
New Yorkers are lucky to have decent people interested in representing them, be they rich or not-so-rich.
December 8, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink