Caroline Kennedy decides to go for Hillary's Senate seat
By David Neiwert Monday Dec 15, 2008 12:00pm
The New York Times is reporting:
Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of an American political dynasty, has decided she will pursue the U.S. Senate seat being vacated by Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, a person told of her decision said Monday.
The decision came after a series of deeply personal and political conversations, in which Ms. Kennedy, whom friends describe as unflashy but determined, wrestled with whether to give up what has been a lifetime of avoiding the spotlight.
Ms. Kennedy will ask that Gov. David A. Paterson consider her for the appointment. The governor was traveling to Utica today could not immediately be reached for comment.
We're still unsure whether a new Senator Kennedy is a good idea, mostly because we know so little about her. If she wants the seat, that's going to have to change. Already there's a backlash building, and it may turn out to be well earned.
The main criterion, I think, is that we need someone who can defeat Rudy Giuliani in the election to follow. Could Caroline do it? Perhaps. But we'd want to see more, thanks very much, before handing her the incumbency.
Login or Register to post comments.
Just heard some talking head say the largest group against her right now are the ones who supported Hillary for president and they are pissed because Ms. Kennedy endorsed PE Obama. Since I do not live in New York state, I have no idea is that is fact or fiction.
are pushing against the nomination of CK! They and she do not want a light shined on how little she did on the way to her presidential run through the Senate.. Like 2 million jobs lost and none of the new industry she promised!
They tried the no qualifications issue as a cover and the blow back about clinton carpetbagging to New york nearly blinded them plus her use of Bills name and CV...Note that clinton is working the senate to insure her confirmation and has not given up the seat yet!!! It is not hillerys seat but the seat from the State of New York which she currently occupies!
It is clear that they are unhappy that she supported Obama!
I really can't get behind her...the only reason she is getting buzz for this seat is because she's a Kennedy. That is it. Her name.
I want to know her positions on the issues. Would she be able to hold her own against these Republicans? We don't know! She hasn't shown herself in any political arena!
Isn't that what got Ahnold the governorship?
..but only for the most sexist of reasons, I admit. I just have always had a huge crush on Caroline Kennedy. Okay, that being said..
From what I can understand, being a Kennedy is a huge leg up for any progressive candidate in any day and age and she threw her support behind Obama quite early on in the primaries in a big way, so she's very savvy as well, imo
I agree that she needs to present herself in some solid and meaningful ways before getting that seat, mind you.
I don't know why but whenever I see her I feel like I'm 11 years old again.
Of course, I'd drop her like a hot potato for a shot at Haley Mills.....
Sorry, I love the Kennedy's and all, but is it just me or does the background reminds anyone else of HollyWood Squares!
Hillary's face occupies the lower right square.
why mention her 'resentment' Caroline supported Obama. Who gives a flying fuck about H's resentments?
Caroline has quietly gone about strengthening the things that matter in any society to keep it going for future generations...OUTSIDE politics. So that's a liability? I call that quite smart.
Caroline has a better understanding of the needs of any social structure from the basics up to the importance of supporting the treasure of culture and how to Make it Happen better than any hard-bitten scarey-eyed Clinton with no relationship to the city. To her the city is a bag of chips on her way to fulfill something else. That was a quick barreltop deal if there ever was one.
Caroline has my deep respect but am worried she'll be eaten alive.
Can't we aim a little higher than that? Rudy did run possibly the worst campaign in history.
We know that she's smart and we know that she's a democrat, doesn't that put her ahead of a few Senators already in the Senate?
It's far more important for many on this site that the Democrats run an unknown rathat than, ("gasp") someone whose family has a history of successful Presidential and Senatorial campaigns....
Just because she's a Kennedy is a lousy reason to oppose her candidacy.
Just because she's a Kennedy is a lousy reason to support her.
And the accomplishments of her family are not her accomplishments.
In the absence of other compelling reasons to support her (certainly none have been offered and I've seen nothing to suggest they exist), opposing someone's appointment to an office that others are undoubtedly much more qualified to hold is perfectly rational. Further, opposing dynastic inheritance is actually an excellent reason to oppose someone -- especially someone who has no other obvious qualifications for a position. At least some of her relatives were willing to run for election on their own. Certainly, their name and wealth gave them an unearned advantage, but voters could have rejected them. In this case, Ms. Kennedy wants to avoid all of the hard work of running for office, accept an appointment, and then, one assumes, run for a full term with incumbency added to her list of unearned advantages. That's just not a plan I can support.
With luck, the governor will identify someone who has genuine qualifications for the office and appoint that person. Then, if Ms. Kennedy really wants to be a senator, she can run in the Democratic primary against the incumbent. At that time, she can use her name and wealth advantages to make the case for her candidacy.
I'm tired of dynasties by people who have not paid their dues. There are plenty of Democrats who have worked harder than she has for the Democratic efforts since 2000. Besides, we don't know enough about her ability to beat "America's Charlatan" in 2012. Having 9ui11iani win would be absolutely reprehensible. 911 made 9ui11iani, he was polling as low as Bush with New Yorkers before "terror" made him something he wasn't. There has to be an eye towards 2012 for whoever takes Hillary's seat. Patterson can not drop the ball on this one.
It is funny to watch the egalitarians support the elite's grip on power and money.
because you don't like her last name, how about suggesting an alternative candidate....other than Giuliani.
...that's a job for New York's governor, isn't it?
It is silly to suggest that people don't like her last name. My guess is that many, if not most, of the Democrats who don't support Ms. Kennedy for this appointment, would be more than willing to vote for a Kennedy under other circumstances.
Their point, and mine, is that Ms. Kennedy has done nothing to either deserve this appointment or demonstrate that she is qualified for it. Many people felt similarly about Hillary Clinton, but at least she ran campaigns for the offices she sought.
Instead of demanding that people offer alternatives, why don't you enlighten us all by divulging all of the compelling reasons why Caroline Kennedy deserves this appointment and what qualifications she has for the job. You can skip the part about her being a Kennedy -- we already know that.
She'd wipe the floor with Giulia.
I think there are a lot of very good reasons to put Caroline Kennedy in the Senate. Not least of which, she's a woman. We need more women's voices in the US Senate. It's a fucking white men's club -- why is having another Kennedy worse than sticking another white male in there with all else being equal? Because she's a Kennedy? Get real!
Why are we talking dynasty over a senate seat for god's sake? No one's going to hand it to her because of who she is - she'd fight for it like anyone else.
Aside from my absolute confidence in her abilities to handle the job - I want to see more women in the Senate. She'd be great.
*
I have no problem with having more women in the Senate. I have two female Senators and a female governor and I've voted for all three more than once. But I see no reason to support any of them simply because they are women. If there is one thing that we need more than more women in the senate, it's more good senators.
Liddy Dole is a woman; did you support her when she ran against a man? Kay Bailey Hutchison? There are lots of white men I would vote for before I'd support either of those two, and that goes for the other (Murkowski, Collins, and Snowe) female Republican senators, too.
You say that the Senate is a white men's club. Well then, why not appoint (a qualified) non-white to fill the seat? New York's a populous state, surely there is an African American or Hispanic woman in the state who is more qualified than Kennedy to be senator. Or why not a minority male? There are a lot more white women in the Senate than there are African American males (or any other non-white group).
You have "absolute confidence in her abilities to handle the job." Based on what? That she's woman? Surely, that isn't enough.
I'm not a believer that there is one best candidate for any job. That may be true of an election where only two candidates (or two plus a handful of minor party candidates) are running. However, the governor can choose any resident citizen over 30 years of age. Surely, there is an African American or Hispanic woman who is better qualified than Kennedy.
Hello? That's precisely what she isn't doing. She expects to have the job handed to her now. Then, armed with her name, wealth, and incumbency (all unearned) she could "fight for it" in the future. Only it wouldn't be like "anyone else."
In the current House of Representatives there are (by quick count) at least seven female Democratic representatives from New York, among whom are several African Americans or Hispanics. I'm not from New York and know very little about most of these women, but surely they all deserve consideration before Ms. Kennedy. Of course, I wouldn't limit consideration to currently serving politicians, but neither would I approve of appointing Ms. Kennedy in the absence of compelling reasons to do so. Sorry, but being a Kennedy and a woman are not compelling reasons.
Do you mean Hillary's unearned incongruous relationship to New YOrk?
Or do you mean Caroline's years of working off the grid of politics to bring genuine benefits to NY's most humble?
I'm not from New York but all this talk about Sweet Caroline not being qualified; being a senator isn't exactly brain surgery. I mean if Kyl or Cornyn can do it, I could train my gold fish to do it.
It doesn't take brain surgery to be an obstructionist either. There are enough of them on the Rethuglican side of the aisle as it is. We don't need another one. I'm from NYC and my main concern is who can beat the strongest Rethuglican in 2012 and I don't know if it's CK.
So, the qualifications for a Senate Seat are a law degree and a rich or powerful family. And this could possibly be considered "progressive"?
This country is #%$&ed up.
Do you know anything about her? Have you looked up her credentials? Her history? Most importantly...are you going to suggest anyone else for the position?
that she is also the daughter of Jackie Onassis - a cultured, educated, international woman who did a terrific job raising two very bright and talented children to adulthood.
And I would say that "a law degree" is a pretty good goddamn qualification for a legislator.
Jeez, does being a progressive on this site mean pig-headed these days? What were Hillary's qualifications besides a law degree and being married to a president?
At least Caroline Kennedy has lived in New York for most of her life - more than we can say for Hillary Clinton the carpetbagger.
... does not magically confer qualifications to Caroline Kennedy.
THANK YOU. Thank you for having those two seldom found organs, a heart and a brain.
and has quietly benefitted thousands of people without the leverage of politics or her uncle Ted. She didn't want to. So now, at the age of 52 and her expressed desire to take her seat in the state she has lived in since she was 5 she's some sort of brat?
YOu must be kidding.
Like I said, I don't live in NY State, so I don't know much about the state politics. Are there others interested in the job and what are their qualifications?
Caroline Kennedy to Seek Clinton’s Senate Seat
To all them folks kvetching about dynasties
It can also be called name recognition
You'd be surprised how often that can turn elections.
And when State governors and legislatures used to appoint Senators it was almost a spoils system.
Lets just have American Idol pick the next senator from New York.
We are awaiting your text votes now.
1. Lawyer. You can kind of discount this negative IF she worked for any progressive causes. Can't find any.
2. Kennedy. Anyone else as sick of dynasties as I am? Not that her dad was much of a president.
3. Actually anti-public-education. The "Office of Strategic Partnerships" she headed is Bloomburg's thinly veiled sham to sieze local control, promote charter schools, and break the teacher's union.
Another self-entitled corporate Democrat. I'll pass and so should Paterson.
..at Crooks and Liars.
Getting an education here, and thanks.
I needed that.
If I'm not mistaken, the only Kennedy who served in high office for any significant length of time is Ted Kennedy. John Kennedy was killed after serving only two years in the WH. His brother Robert was killed before he could serve AT ALL. In other words, this so-called Kennedy political Dynasty is NON-EXISTENT. The BUSH political Dynasty on the other hand IS a reality and is still with us today.
And I'm am totally afraid it might continue here in Florida if Jeb decides to run for Martinez old seat.
showing up in the family bedroom got the message across to him that he should consider retirement.
It's just a bidness coincidence that Jeb Bush is out of work..
And the 'political reign' of the Kennedy family lasted less than two years, ending with the death of John over 40 years ago. That can't be called a Dynasty by any stretch. Some people are acting as if the Kennedy family have ruled the country continuously since 1963, LMAO. It's nonsense.
I saw George P. Bush (Jeb's son ) on a Fox news show about a month ago - looks like he's gettign himself soem exposure for a run for Congress in the not-too-distant-future. Just what we need ------another freakin' George Bush!!!!!
POP,
If I lived in Florida, I be hoping that Jeb Bush did run. I think he is going to find that Teh Chimp has destroyed the Bush dynasty. The Bush name, from what I can see, is approximately the equivalent of the words "shit" or "crime". The stain on the name is going to last generations.
Bobby Kennedy being given the Justice Department when he was about 12 years old.
are you talking about? He was 26 when he started working as a lawyer in the Jusitce department. I'd hardly call that being 'given' the department. Stop filling people's heads with crap.
RFK worked at Justice for little over 7 months from late-1951 to mid-1952. About three and a half months in D.C. and three and a half months in New York. Neither position was held long enough to have more than a ridiculously superficial involvement in anything.
He resigned from the Justice Dept. to work on his brother's Senate campaign. After working for Joseph McCarthy, his own father, and the Senate Committee on union busting (oops, more hyperbole - sorry), RFK returned to Justice as Attorney General.
He was only 35, and obscenely under-qualified. But his brother was President.
I do call that being "given" the Department.
Do you consider 7 months to be significant experience? Why didn't you mention that it was such an insignificant amount of time? Reading your post, it sounds as if he were a nine year veteran at DOJ before heading the Department, when in fact he didn't even complete his rookie year.
Someone's head is already full.
Her father's generation:
John Fitzgerald Kennedy - U.S. representative, a U.S. senator and the 35th President of the United States
Robert Francis Kennedy - U.S. attorney general, U.S. senator from New York
Ted Kennedy - U.S. senator from Massachusetts since 1962
Her generation:
Mark Kennedy Shriver - a delegate in the Maryland state legislature
Kathleen Hartington Kennedy Townsend - former lieutenant governor of Maryland
Joseph Patrick Kennedy II - former U.S. representative from Massachusetts
Patrick Joseph Kennedy - current U.S. Representative from Rhode Island
Don't get out much, do ya?
Uhh, did those Kennedys get into office because they happen to all be accomplished individuals and the people actually ELECTED them to office, or did they get by on their name alone or somehow cheated their way into office (like Bush)? And, are any members of the Kennedy family who have held office known to be corrupt or have a tradition of corruption (like the Bush family is well-known for)?? No? If the answer is NO, then they cannot be called a dynasty.
You think they have to be corrupt to be a dynasty? When did that become the definition?
Ted held no elected office before Senator. And basically ran to fill JFKs seat. Bobby was elected Senator from NY after being appointed AG by his brother. (Full disclosure - he was qualified to be AG having worked in DOJ and for Senate committees for almost 10 years.) But the family name enabled both of them, and outright nepotism at least one of them. THAT is the definition so.
Hillary wouldn't be where she is today if her last name wasn't Clinton. And Ted Kennedy turned out to be one of the most progressive and respected members of the Senate, regardless of his previous experience, as was his brother. 'Nepotism' if you can call it that certainly isn't a bad thing if its a good family and when the sons and daughters are determined to follow in their parent's footsteps, which Caroline shows every indication of doing. She is at least as qualified as Hillary was when she first ran for the NY senate seat but she's also a progressive Democrat, something Hillary is not.
Bobby Kennedy served as Attorney-General under his bro.
But you should read something about Joe Kennedy, JFK's father. In addition to being a less-than-legal financial manipulator in the '30s, he was also on board with Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis in the late '30s.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Kennedy
was Ambassador to the "Court of St. James" - Britain. and the Chairman of the SEC.
No elected positions, just appointments.
...he was also on board with Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of the Nazis in the late '30s"
Which beats the shit out of being a loyal and principal financier of Adolph Hitler, the nazis and the SS from the earliest beginning of the nazis forward, and a major financier of nazi arms industires, while the Us was at war with nazi Germany, as was Prescott Bush
before I read your response.
I share your antipathy for dynasties.
It's no accident that they so often stem from corrupt wealth.
#3's the one that gets me...Charter schools are mainly useful as instruments by which to defund public schools and drive teachers out of the schools (and, thereby, not incidentally, out the unions).
Civil Rights is her area of expertise (Books coauthored In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action (1990) and The Right to Privacy (1995)). Really, the dismissal of people based on the 'Attorney -- ick!' bullshit -- well, I thought that was just a Thug Party thing.
2) Don't think growing up in a family of politicians qualifies her to be a politician? You think a novice to DC would serve the public better? Think again. I'll bet she'd have most of those aholes sitting up and listening -- that name thing works both ways.
3) you're right, that fucking sucks.
Well, we're already to-thirds in agreement.
As far as my point #2, let me pooint out that the phrase "the best and the brightest" was coined to describe the alleged "best and brightest" who screwed up. So no, I don't think that growing up in a family of politicians qualifies her any more than growing up in a family of surgeons qualifies you to be a surgeon. Particularly a family of flawed politicians.
Surgery requires formal education, training and a knack, along with loads of eye-hand coord, and manual dexterity, though with the advent of surgical robots, the manual dexterity can be fudged a bit.
Politics is not something you pick up in school. It's lifelong training. To be a good player, you have to have a network, she has a great one, an eye for detail and command of social situations, and myriad other subtleties. Like a surgeon, you definitely need the knack. But her early life and family connexions can't be dismissed as things that would make her horrible at this.
It's exactly what will help her be good at it.
And yeah. I'm familiar with McNamara's work. I grew up in the day. No one is perfect. The Kennedys weren't/aren't and never will be, like the rest of us.
But to dismiss her just because she's a Kennedy is as goofy as thinking she'll be great only because she's a Kennedy. I'm not doing that here. There's more to her than the name.
"Just" because she's a Kennedy? Read my first post. Her name is not my only reason. But it is one of them.
and if you're a one issue guy, or you find her involvement in the charter school to be that vile and disgusting, good on you. You're entitled to your opinion.
And you're entitled to you opinion that the name 'Kennedy' somehow makes her inherently evil, unqualified, or just an arsehole.
But it's the same as being against someone because they're, say black, or female. It's an unfounded fear, based on actions of other people who share the same name. Fairly knee jerk from my perspective -- which again, is totally your right to be that way. I certainly don't have rational explanations for every one of my feelings.
Wait a minute, didn't you say you agree with me on charter schools?
And I did not say that being a Kennedy disqualified her. Oh wait a minute, I guess I did. But I'll retract that partially and say that is does not add to any of her presumed or proven qualifications in any way at all. Waht I definitely not say is that it makes her inherently evil or an asshole. Please do not put words in my mouth.
Well said Miss_Kitty!
I'm curious. What would be your opinion of Al Gore, who is the son of a US Senator?
Just playing the devil's advocate here since the devil is tied up in meetings right now. Would Hillary have won her first senate race had her last name not been Clinton and had she not been an ex first lady?
http://www.rodurago.de/bilder/riderwaite/maj1...
I don't really have an opinion of Caroline Kennedy, but to the Hillary supporters moaning and b*tching about the fact she endorsed Obama in the primaries:
Who's Secretary of State again, after us Obama supporters voted against her BECAUSE of her foreign policy positions, who would rather not see a Clinton (be it Bill OR Hillary) in the White House at all?
We eat your crap. Now it might be time for you to take a bite too.
Caroline Kennedy is brilliant, smart, accomplished and a genuine liberal Democrat. Unlike DINO Democrat Hillary Clinton.
Caroline Kennedy will continue the long tradition of public service that is the foundation of the Kennedy family.
are the "foundations" of the Kennedy family.
Collaboration with the Nazis was the Bush family foundation, so what's your point?
And it could be said of the Bushes that 'public service' was a family foundation, also, nest paw? Nazis, gangsters, they're all a bunch of thugs...Hitler recruited gangsters to his SA, iirc.
my point is that it's ludicrous to claim someone is qualified for such a post merely--or even primarily-- on the basis if her family name...
was a public service back in the day. How else would you get your drink on in the 20s if it weren't for foul old bastards like Joe Sr?
A necessary evil, mate. :)
Thar be devil's rum...arrr!
Or even doing anything illegal.
Joe, sr., set up shop in St.Pierre and Miquelon, a part of France just off the coast of Canada. He brought in booze from Europe and Canada (Canada prohibited selling booze for consumption in the country, but distilleries could produce and sell for export. See Windsor, Ontario- Prohibition Era; see Detroit, MI- Prohibition Era; see Gang, Purple; see Navy, Little Jewish), and sold it to...whoever. But Joe, sr., wasn't a rum runner, just a very smart businessman.
Irish whiskey. Prohibition made a lot of people wealthy, just as drug trafficking does today.
a mindless, fluffy attention whore. Get real. Clinton was only a first lady and not even a resident of NY when she decided to go to for the seat. So running a campaign against a guy who dropped out because he had cancer qualified her?
Instead of bitching about a talented person being interested in the seat and moaning "What's she think SHE'S got?" look up her CV. A great deal of what qualifies her is that she has the balls to speak up and ask for it. Very important. A confident person. Who wants to do the job. And given her family background, she probably has a much greater idea of what it is she is requesting. This is not a capricious person.
I assume you all have computers and internet connexions. Here's a thought. Somehow, find your way to teh Search Engine of your choice. Type in the name 'Caroline Kennedy' You might find her life is pretty much an open book, even though she's spent most of it avoiding the spotlight.
Well-said, Miss_Kitty.
She'll be hands down better than Babs friend from Oklahoma
(Inhofe)
Kennedy is known cuz she's a Kennedy.
We both know how hard HRC worked for her title.
just sayin
Was that a joke?
What, you don't think their success wasn't the result of mutual effort? Of course she worked her ass off to become first lady...
he worked his ass off for his father's election. So what? Lot's off people work their ass off at actual work, and they aren't handed Senate Seats for their efforts.
The "work" is irrelevant. It's all about money and power.
I made a similar point upthread, only in a more serious vein, ending with a sarky suggestion.
I still think Clinton did less than Kennedy has, but woody, you have a point.
...if her last name wasn't Clinton.
It seems some would put a "corruption of blood" onto this clan, when rightfully, it should be on the boosh's.
She's possibly the only person who could beat Rudy in '10 and for that reason alone, she should be appointed. As for her qualifications, she gets my support for NOT having been a part of the political machinery - more fresh air in DC. Her credentials? I've got two words for you - Caroline Kennedy - 'nuff said.
It seems to me to have logical internal consistency, if her name alone shouldn't qualify her for the senate, than her name alone shouldn't disqualify her from the senate.
imo
a disqualification, but I've yet to read any qualification she has other than her name.
Is Rudy seriously thinking of running for senate next time around? I can't believe a man who has had his ass handed to him the way he did in his presidential run would run for anything again. Is he still the 9-11 darling of NY these many years later?
Rudy won't be running for the seat.
It will be Pete "there are too many mosques in America" King running.
And would Pete, the nut job that he is, even have a chance? I mean I would think he would be an embarrassment to the whole state, if not the country.
I don't think pete has a chance. It'll be like Rick Lazio (another Long Island Congressman) vs Hillary, Part II, assuming caroline gets the dem nomination.
It sounds like Rudy will run against Patterson in 2010 for governor-- I think rudy's the favorite to win governor.
If Hillary won the 2008 nomination, you'd be endorsing the hell out of her, even though her national experience consisted of standing in front of a mic in Bosnia...
Yes, why can't she run without her family name like Hillary? Oh, wait!
Yes, their efforts really show in the 2000-2004 elections...
More like "I'll give you the Presidency if you don't divorce me for that blowjob with Monica!"
Just because she has the last name, doesn't mean she's got the chops to do the job...
But she still has yet to run correct? I mean, she may not win...but who's her comp gonna be? Rudy? pfffft!
to make Sara Palin appear over-qualified. Congratulations, Princess Caroline.
palin was running for the VP, a heartbeat away from the presidency, Kennedy for the Senate, where the only constitutionally mandated standards are being 35 or older, and residency requirements.
We elect entertainers for the Senate, surely someone who can read and write legal memos, briefs and other documents qualifies more.
And palin didn't even know what the constitutional requirements of the VP job entailed, whereas Kennedy is another constitutional expert.
Caroline Kennedy is as qualified to be Senator as an entertainer. Of course, Franken was elected to his position, as was Palin. Heck, even Clinton was elected (kind of) to her seat.
She'll have to run in 2010 and again I think in 2015.
I haven't heard that Franken has won yet (hope, hope, hope), only that the courts said they have count some disallowed ballots which MAY favor him.
But this is an appointment. And to assume that her appointment to the U.S. Senate would be anything less than rank nepotism and the result of powerful political horse trading is... well... It's enough to make Blago roll over in his political grave.
for the seat. Nothing like that been exposed here.
Also what do you all want? the gov to pick out some unconnected homeless guy off the streets to do the job?
It's a political appt. A politician will benefit. Period. It's how shit is done. New York has legislation that directs it to do what it's doing now.
Don't like it, write a new law and flog it in Albany.
And I agree completely. A big part of CK allure for Gov. Patterson is the "friendship" of the Kennedy family - including political fundraising.
Of course, Paterson hasn't been bugged...
he hasn't issued the requisite "Go ahead and bug me!" invite to the authorities...
:)
Palin, with a 2bit communications degree -vs- a graduate of Harvard University and Columbia Law School?
Jeez, I just can't decide!
Judging by sheepskins, Bush is a genius.
I guess I just have a little less trust in legacy scholarship.
But Gorlock's comparison was between palin and Kennedy, in response to yours at 13:16, and now your shifting the discussion to boosh; that's hardly a consistent argument.
I was just addressing point that the "superior" education Ms. Kennedy received was a legacy and had nothing to do personal accomplishment. At least Palin became Mayor and Governor on her own "merit."
It's shifting the frame of reference not to reach a consensus, but to attempt a win at any cost.
That would make your comment at 13:16 a petitio principii, a logical fallacy.
Palin couldn't organise an orgy in a whorehouse.
Caroline Kennedy has proven herself quietly over and over again. She's worked, raised her kids, written books. That's quite insulting to Kennedy, fiver. I think you owe her an apology. ;-)
She's raised kids. OK, that makes her as qualified as about 100 million Americans. She's written books. Does that bring the list down to tens of millions? I've still yet to read of even one accomplishment of hers other than being a Kennedy.
Her biggest accomplishment is that she's not a republican!
read about her. There is a lots of info about her. It's not like she's some fuckin bible thumping snowbilly no one ever heard of before she asked to do the job.
Like I've said, even though she has worked to stay out of the spotlight, everything she's ever done is listed somewhere in cyberspace.
Also I think a lot of people are ignoring the obvious. She would not ask for the responsibility of the office, if she thought she would suck at it. I'm very sure she didn't wake up one morning and say "Hmm I think I'll call the gov right now and run this shit past him." It's been something she's had a lot of counsel on (see news reports), and from people who know her and her abilities and limitations.
... and I have done my homework (admittedly somewhat superficial at this point).
I've seen nothing in her bio that doesn't read exactly like any child of power.
Please, someone, anyone, name just one major accomplishment Caroline Kennedy has ever achieved aside from being a Kennedy.
She's had a plenty of opportunity to accomplish great things. Yet nobody can name even one.
and you dismiss it.
And you want someone to TELL you what she's done? then you say you don't need a list? Fuck dude, researchers get PAID. I've told people on this thread how to use a search engine. Do your own leg work if you are this riled up about it. That way, you'll value the info more. If it's just given to you, I see you place no value on it.
So PAY someone to tell you, do the work yourself, or just put a sock in it.
... and the only accomplishments you've named are two books. Well, that and point out that you are a master of teh internets research and that any one who asks for support for your position is no better than a third grader too lazy to use the dictionary.
But you still can't point out even one significant accomplishment of hers.
That's not surprising. Wikipedia can't either. Nor does a search of her name in The Times or The Post.
I'm neither lazy nor completely unskilled at the intertubes, and to use that attack in lieu of a serious response was uncalled for.
apparently you think being a mom and a homemaker doesn't count as a qualification. I think your mom might be really insulted by that. Do you have a clue as to how skilled one has to be to run a home?
And she's an attorney. Do you even have a scintilla of an idea as to how handy THAT is when you want to be a lawmaker? I mean my dad wrote and flogged legislation before he got his law degree, but it certainly saved him work when he knew where to look for everything.
If you want to call it an attack, I can't stop you. Doesn't make it so, so go ahead and be all offended by it. I won't lose sleep over it.
But it's not incumbent on me to do research for you. I don't have to answer your questions. If you can't find anything about her accomplishments, you aren't looking hard enough. That's NOT on me.
Caroline Kennedy's qualifications as noted thus far:
1. Parenthood
2. A lawyer
4. An author
I'm not very impressed with these credentials. Yet you accuse me of setting the bar too low.
And I never said I was "offended" by your tactics. I just said it was uncalled for and that you obviously had nothing else to back up your position. Of course, now that you have pointed out that she's also a parent and a non-practicing attorney, I have hope.
Because maybe now I can claim that I'm a non-practicing astronaut. After all, parenthood apparently qualifies me for everything.
you obviously aren't interested in accomplishments, except to tear them down. It's OK, there's no pleasing some people.
and I actually called her a coauthor elsewhere. Since I gave the titles of the books, it's not hard to find that info. But she is an author on her own as well.
The problem is that Caroline Kennedy has none for this position. Others do.
Like Louise Slaughter, the twelve term progressive Representative from NY-28. Chis Bowers has more.
She's helped in the effort to promote and fund charter schools in NYC, so if you dislike public education, equality, or unions, she's your gal.
...other than her last name??
for that matter, what makes her qualified to be SOS?
other than her last name and 'dodging bullets' in Bosnia?
But at least she went through the formality of an election (kind of).
In case you didn't know, Caroline Kennedy worked for the Obama campaign and helped him to get elected. (She endorsed him early on and was the head of his VP selection committee).
but I'm not claiming that I deserve a Senate seat.
As far as I can tell, Caroline Kennedy's name has never appeared on any ballot.
that in and of itself disqualifies her?
Jeezus. How many ballots did Clinton appear on before she took the seat?
And look at shitheads who have been on Capitol Hill forever. What qualified Ted Stevens? What qualifies Joe Liebertool, Frist, Thurmond, Helms, Gramm, McCain, Specter, Hatch? Just because they've been there forever? Or that they can run a successful campaign and hold the incumbency which by and far gives them a leg up on newcomers.
And hey, The Chimp appeared on the Texas ballot before the presidential one. That wasn't really a great qualification measurement, was it?
But at least
theyshewerewas elected (kind of).wow. hard to satisfy when you are the potential beneficiary, yet you set the bar so low for those that would bend you over.
And you know I didn't.
"Sorry miss kitty, no apologies"
;-)
Go AWAY!
She's one of the good guys!
\
if she can't beat that lisping idealogue we dont deserve the seat
Rudy is so 2002. You know, back when Bush had a 90% approval rating!
Would love to see him run and get burried (he will)!
If she commits to pushing for the declassification of the documents surrounding her uncle's death and her father's death.
I actually support her regardless. She was raised right with the values that I hold and share. She has demonstrated a commitment to those values. Look at it this way. Bush was raised with Bush values. Caroline was raised with Kennedy values. Sometimes that isn't always as easy to see and often isn't even the case, but with these two, they really represent their family values well.
This is America, not Olde Europe or some backwards African nation with hereditary rulers not even Egypt's Old Kingdom.
Nobody is entitled to govern by name alone.
NOBODY!
If I can despise the Clintons and the Bushes for their arrogant assumption of power and entitlement, that has to go to all dynastic "patrician" families. A famous name and fat wallet doesn't equal skill, education, wisdom, or experience.
We elect our government with a hope for competence and an eye on merit. Being born into royalty isn't a consideration in this country. At least we are ALL supposed to be equal, no matter what our name, and we are ALL supposed to be judged by what we have done, not what some distant forebear accomplished.
NO DAMNED DYNASTIES!!!
This is a democracy, if we can keep it.
I'm a NYer, and the same age as CK, and I'd support her in a NY minute. She'll be able to raise money for re-election & advance Obama's agenda. Rudy will look like the slime ball he is compared to her. And, I assume she'll be able to learn on the job, as all new senators do... after all, she'll have some great coaching.
On the other hand, I'd also be okay with some of the other contenders, but I'm not as convinced they'll be able to win in re-election.
I just heard that there are ten or eleven other people who have expressed interest in this senate seat. It would be great to have a bio on each of them to see which ones are qualified and how.
I'd pay a dollar for that!
I like and trust her more than Hillary. By any reasonable definition, Hillary is a right-wing Republican. Kennedy, from what I've seen, is solidly liberal/progressive. I also think she can mop the floor with Giuliani's ass, and is probably the only one who can do it at this point (though I must admit that it is incomprehensible to me how anybody can take Giuliani seriously). One of the reasons I find it easier to trust Kennedy is that, unlike Clinton, she has avoided a lifetime of self-serving self-promotion. In those things she has been involved with, she has worked quietly and effectively. Doesn't appear to be any ego problems and even though she's a Kennedy, though I could be wrong, I don't get a sense of privileged entitlement from her.
The idea of having a solidly progressive/liberal taking the place of a corporatist, right-wing hawk, a carpet-bagger with bottomless ambitions, seems like a no-brainer to me. Obama did us all a favor by getting Clinton out of the Senate, into a postion where if she plays any self-serving games he can fire her. Now all that's left to do is capitalize on the opportunity.
Just my opinion.
Rudy has absolutely NO chance of winning a N.Y. Senate seat. Whichever dem gets the nod, will destroy him by at least 15% points!
wouldn't a better course for gov patterson be to sidestep this one and to request the legislature to call a special election to fill the vacant seat -- and that way, he avoids making enemies with other powerful talented and/or qualified pol's and their supporters with this 'foregone conclusion' appointment?
but even better, with an election, caroline gets a chance to compete and be selected by the people of NY (remember the people?)...this would validate her cred rather than doing so at some future date after her sinecure and/or ojt and diminishing her cred and character and our pretense of non-hereditary/entitlement democracy.
better than announcing her interest in being chosen by the governor imho.
I love her!
I think she'll learn the specific skills. But she's already got the heart, soul and grace!
I wonder if she'll support the Bestiality-Rights Movement?
If you haven't heard about it check out the amazing doc here: http://www.comingsoon.cz
Or on Google: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-1524...
One of the best flicks in a long, long time ;-)
So having another Kennedy in the Senate - the premier White Men's Club in the US (not the White House mind you - we're only talking about the Senate)- is worse than sticking another frickin' white male in there?
She'd be stunning. We need more women in the Senate.
*
She's much smarter than Bush, and has more heart.
She's hotter than Hillary.
She's more articulate than Palin (/snark).
She could kick Rudi's ass in a New York minute.
And did I say she's hotter than Hillary?
By God -- CAROLINE for SENATOR! Yes!
A 9 out of 10 on the yummy mummy quotient.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gYe53YwErGM
Hillary Clinton is not qualified to take the position as Secretary of State since it is a higher paying position than that of the Senate seat she currently holds.
This is according to the Constitution.
So, in the end, if the Senators who are supposed to be "confirming" Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State perform their functions according to the oaths they took, they dare not confirm her. It would be un-Constitutional.
I'm in the midst of moving now so I can't argue any of this. Google it all at Judicial Watch and you be the judge.
There's a work-around for this little technical snag. Hillary just takes the job without pay for awhile, until the next Senate pay-raise. That eliminates the snag, and then she gets back-pay for the period she worked for free. Been done before, I believe.
updated 10:35 a.m. PT, Thurs., Dec. 11, 2008
WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton would make about $4,700 less as secretary of state than her predecessor, Condoleezza Rice.
Congress late Wednesday lowered the salary for the nation's top diplomat to keep Clinton's nomination from running afoul of the Constitution.
An obscure section on compensation for public officials, the Emoluments Clause, says that no member of Congress can be appointed to a government post if that job's pay was increased during the lawmaker's current term
but the senate must allow it...Think that is why she has not given up her seat yet...no guarantee she can get confirmed!
I'm amazed how many people here never seemed to have heard of an interim appointment. These happen all the time when vacancies occur between election cycles. Of course by the time rolls around for an election she might back down; she's known for a strong sense of privacy. The odds are other Democrats will run against her before the election of 2010. By then of course, she'll be the incumbent, and have some kind of record to be considered.
Meanwhile it's not a done deal, the governor of New York has several other possible appointees to consider.
too, bad. Louise Slaughter's credentials are great and she'd be a great interim. i still think running a campaign, talking up policies and facing the people is a better route. higher calibre candidates show core values this way, imo. grasping at opportunity at this level as she is doing speaks for itself.
That is the acid test, but each potential nominee brings pluses or minuses with them. They should be evaluated impartially, what can they bring to the office, what can they bring to the state, what can they bring to the party. All other considerations as to whether one personally likes their family or not should remain off the table.
Login or Register to post comments.