I understand the romantic attraction toward Caroline Kennedy

[cali]

and seeing her be appointed to the U.S. Senate. I can't agree- unless it's made clear that this is a "place holder" and she won't run in 2010.

Caroline is an attractive figure and I'd never claim she doesn't have the qualifications, but she is absolutely NOT the most qualified person that the Guv could name to the seat. And she would never, ever be considered if not for her lineage. That's enough for me to not support any such appointment unless it's as a place holder.

If Caroline wants to be U.S. Senator from NY, let her work for it. She's never put in the hard, often demeaning, downright grueling work that it takes to get elected. One of the fundamentals of our democracy is the system of electing our representatives. And campaigns show us a lot about the person running. Caroline is a blank slate in many ways. And yes, I'm very familiar with her background.

Personally, (and no, I'm not from NY) I'd like to see someone appointed who isn't going to run in 2010. If that's Caroline, fine.

Yes, political dynasties exist in this country: Rockefellers, Udalls, Clintons, Bushes, Kennedies. But let's see these folks run for the offices they aspire to- and not be appointed because of the family they were born into.

[Xipe Totec]

1. Without offering conrete alternatives, this is just bashing

If you think there are better candidates, name them and say why, specifically, you believe they are better qualified.

[cali]

2. Oh bullshit. There is not one phrase that's close to being bashing

And yeah, I can name them: Maurice Hinchey for one. Upstate multiple term, high profile, progressive Congressional Rep. As I said, I'd prefer to see him run rather than be appointed. Louise Slaughter is another NY Congressperson who is a possibility. Nydia Velazquez and Jerry Nadler are also hardworking dems.

You know, disagree with me all you wish, but don't throw out bullshit accusations that I'm bashing Kennedy, when clearly there's no truth whatsofucking ever to the charge.

[AllentownJake]

4. Never heard of them

Looking big picture...Caroline Kenndedy would be good for the party. Would be great asset for other races and I can't see her losing the seat once she is there. As a representative to NY I think she would be great. She'd have an instant seat at any table due to her ability to raise money and crowds for other democratic senators.

This is politics. I understand there maybe other dems that could fill the role. However, I don't see any of them that can generate the enthusiasm or excitement that Caroline could. She's a strong progressive and yes who her family is, is an asset. That's life. However I doubt any of the dems you mentioned could beat her in a special election anyway.

[cali]

6. If you've never heard of at least some of those folks, that simply

speaks to your lack of knowledge of the House. It's unlikely that Hinchey, for instance, would lose the seat. And Caroline can raise money for other dems without being handed the Senate seat.

And I doubt that if Caroline ran for the seat as a non-incumbent that she'd win against someone like Hinchey. She has exactly zero experience running for office.

[AllentownJake]

8. The house of representatives is 435 wild dogs

The only ones I know are my local one and guys like Kuccinuch who make noise.

I'm pretty sure if she ran for office David Ploufe would be her campaign manager. She kind of has an in with the Obama people.

Good night whoever if he's running your campaign :smoke:

[cali]

11. I'm pretty sure- no make that damn sure-

that you're talking from a place of ignorance. Oh, and it's Plouffe not Ploufe.

[AllentownJake]

13. Let me put it this way

Its fucking politics. Patterson doesn't strike me as a dumb man. Kennedy provides the most upside for him in his race for Govenor in 2010 and go along way of repairing the image of the party after Spitzer. No other person can help him in the state as well as she could for his own race for re-election.

She's popular, will raise money for the state party and his run at an enourmous rate, she's a woman, and she'd do a good job as a Senator. He can defend the pick rather easily. She's lived in NY almost her entire life, ran charities, and is a well educated lawyer.

I'm ignorant on all 435 reps in the house I'll fully admit that. However, on the politics of the situation I think I got it nailed.

[Muttocracy]

149. heard of acid rain or Love Canal?

http://www.sierraclub.org/awards/2000winners/wayburn.asp

SAN FRANCISCO - September 23, 2000 - Representative Maurice D. Hinchey (D-NY) was among those receiving national awards from the Sierra Club at this year's annual dinner.

Hinchey received the organization’s Edgar Wayburn Award, which honors outstanding service to the environment by a person in government. Hinchey was nominated by the Atlantic Chapter of the Sierra Club.

In Congress, Hinchey introduced America’s Redrock Wilderness Act and set about to convince as many of his colleagues as possible that this was a cause worth fighting for. In the 106th Congress, this legislation now has a record total of nearly 160 co-sponsors. He is the U.S. House of Representatives champion for the Utah wilderness.

On a more local level, Hinchey is responsible for the development of the statewide system of Urban Cultural Parks or Heritage Areas. In 1996 Hinchey wrote the federal legislation that established the Hudson Valley as a National Heritage area. Additionally, Hinchey has been a forceful advocate for the clean up and restoration of New York’s PCB-plagued Hudson River.

Hinchey served the New York State Assembly for 18 years, until elected as the New York 26th District Congressional Representative in 1992. During his time as Assemblyman, he served as Chair of the Environmental Conservation Committee for 14 years.

Under his leadership, the committee conducted a successful investigation into the causes of Love Canal and developed landmark environmental legislation, including the nation’s first law to control acid rain. He has been a leader of clean air legislation and has fought to hard to ensure the protection of pristine open spaces, preserve the Adirondack and Catskill Parks and clean up toxic waste sites. He has been known as the "environmental conscience" of New York State.

"Congressman Hinchey’s upstanding 25-year record of fighting for legislation at the state and federal level makes him most deserving of this award," said John Stouffer, Legislative Director of the Sierra Club’s Atlantic Chapter. "He has been instrumental in protecting America’s environment by providing steadfast leadership over the years. His outstanding service to the environment proves that he is a man that is true to his convictions."

The Sierra Club, which was founded in 1892 by John Muir, is the country’s oldest and largest grassroots environmental organization. It has more than 600,000 members. For information on the New York Chapter of the Sierra Club, visit them on the web at http://www.sierraclub.org/chapters/ny/

------------

http://vote-ny.org/Intro.aspx?Id=NYHincheyMauriceD

Early in his first year in Congress, Hinchey initiated and led the successful effort to preserve Sterling Forest, the last significant area of open space in the New York metropolitan region and an important watershed for southeastern New York and northern New Jersey. He also introduced and saw enacted legislation to create the Hudson River Valley National Heritage Area, the first federal action formally recognizing the fundamentally significant role the people of the Hudson Valley played in the early development of America and its institutions.

As a member of the House Banking Committee, Hinchey's pointed and persistent questioning of Alan Greenspan forced the Federal Reserve Board Chairman to admit to the existence of taped recordings of the meetings of the Federal Open Markets Committee (FOMC), the board's policy making body. As a result, the public now has, for the first time, direct insight into the thinking of the FOMC and the logic behind the decisions affecting interest rates and other important economic policies.

On the Appropriations Committee, Hinchey has been a strong advocate for the integrity of American agriculture, focusing on protecting the family farm and the safety of the food supply. He continues to be a firm and effective defender of America's natural resources, especially our national parks and wilderness areas. Hinchey is the author of legislation that would designate more than nine million acres of federal land in southern Utah as permanent wilderness, thereby protecting some of the nation’s most spectacular landscapes, rare pictographs and fragile lands. He has also led the battle to protect the integrity of the Smithsonian Institution from crass commercialization.

In 1997 Hinchey and the late Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan wrote and passed legislation re-designating New York's Route 17 as Interstate 86, which could bring an additional $3.2 billion in increased economic activity to the Southern Tier and Catskills regions. When the legislation was passed, Hinchey secured more than $17 million in needed upgrades for the highway and led a community lobbying effort to convince New York State to complete the project quickly. He has used his position on the Appropriations Committee to ensure maximum federal funding for this important project.

In 1999 Hinchey wrote an amendment to intelligence reauthorization legislation that forced the declassification of documents that revealed the active role the Nixon Administration --especially Henry Kissinger-- played in the illegal overthrow of Salvador Allende, the democratically elected president of Chile, in 1973. He was one of the first and most outspoken opponents of the 2003 war in Iraq. He has traveled extensively in the Middle East, Asia, Northern Africa and Europe.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

51. Seems like your OP is bashing to me

You offered no suggestions in the OP only after someone called you on it.

[cali]

52. Really? Then fucking quote the bashing in my OP

Just because I didn't name possible other dems is hardly bashing. I expected too much of DUers obviously. I actually thought they might know who some of the other candidates are.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

54. No need to curse

But I guess you are pretty mad about it. You called her a "blank slate" which she most certainly isn't if you know anything about her career. That is bashing.

[cali]

58. I like to fucking curse. And saying that Caroline is in many ways

a blank slate is not bashing, it's merely the truth. She has led an intensely private life and she has never run for anything. We have no idea what kind of candidate she'd be.

[saltpoint]

59. You do like to curse. But you aren't as good at it as my grandfather was.

No one could turn the air blue as fast or in as deep a shade as my grandfather.

Trust me. You did NOT want to be a lawn mower engine that suddenly went kaput if my grandfather was around.

Do you really consider someone of CKS's accomplishments "a blank slate" ?

I would be willing to be that most of us on DU can't match the woman's resume.

It looks pretty goddmaned impressive to me.

[cali]

63. She is a complete blank slate as far as what kind of a candidate

she'd make.

[saltpoint]

66. True of many, if not most, politicians long departed or currently serving.

True of Supreme Court appointments as well.

True of just about anybody anywhere doing anything.

[cali]

69. Huh? Of course it's not true. Look how much we learned about

Obama from the campaign he ran. And the SCOTUS is NOT part of elected politics. That's just silly.

[saltpoint]

74. SCOTUS is very much a part of elected politics. Justices are

appointed by people you and I vote for if our side wins, which it certainly did not in Florida in 2000, for example.

Or in Ohio in 2004.

The founder guys did the 3-branch thing, and citizens' votes are in fact essential determinants in the political tone and direction of the high court.

[cali]

76. Disingenuous. Justices are NOT elected.

You were comparing apples and oranges in the post I responded to.

[saltpoint]

78. SCOTUS justices are not elected but elected people appoint them.

And they are subject to votes by the Senate to confirm, and those Senators are elected officials.

State Supremes are elected officials outright.

[saltpoint]

70. As was Obama. But that is not a persuasive argument that Obama

should not seek the presidency.

Nor is it an argument that had he NOT sought the presidency and remained in the IL state senate that Gov. Blagojevich should not appoint him to fill a President-Elect Durbin's seat in the Senate.

The Republicans tried to smear Obama on the experience issue. We Democrats fiercely rejected that claim.

[cali]

75. yeah, he didn't really run for the Illinois or U.S. Senates

And he didn't really go through an epically tough primary and general. I have made it crystal fucking clear I have no problem with Caroline putting herself into the fray and fighting for the dem nomination for Senator in 2010.

[saltpoint]

80. But as has been pointed out to you by many in at least 2 concurrent posts,

there is zippo -- zippo -- prohibition to the appointment of any Constitutionally qualified soul to the United States Senate.

Your argument pretends that fame and/or lineage are disqualifying elements.

They are not.

[cali]

84. And as I've pointed out to YOU at least a dozen motherfucking times

I've never made any claim whatsofucking ever that there is or should be any Constitutional prohibition of famous or lineage candidates- either when it comes to appointment or running for office. jeezus, what a canard, red herring, straw man.

My argument is that I don't like legacy shit. I don't like appointments predicated on someone's fame or name. Duh.

Please stop blatantly making up what I never said and attributing it to me. It's a piss poor argument.

[saltpoint]

85. Well it's your post. You wrote it. Your screen name's on it.

So, yeah. It's yours.

[cali]

88. And clearly that doesn't even give YOU a moment's pause

when it comes to shamelessly misrepresenting what I wrote. And that's just sad.

[saltpoint]

90. If I have misquoted you in your bias, please indicate where, and

we can talk it through.

I'm a believer in talking things out.

I'm also hopelessly mired in my cute little Camelot mindset which you referenced, and therefore, allowances must be made on several provisions in the discussion, especially the provision that I support qualified women to help people the United States Senate, whether they are the daughters of famous or unfamous folk.

For reasons you've failed to offer, you oppose appointment of such women on grounds of lineage.

[cali]

91. you keep bringing up this bullcrap about how I'm saying that

she shouldn't be appointed. I'm not arguing that there's any prohibition against her appointment. I'm arguing that were it not for name and fame she wouldn't even be considered. And what makes Caroline more uniquely able to serve as Senator than Nydia Velazquez or Louise Slaughter?

[saltpoint]

93. Gov. Paterson gets to choose, cali. You don't and I don't. He does.

The Constitutional provisions indicate that CKS, and Hinchey, and Slaughter, are qualified. Period.

Chelsea Clinton is qualfied but for the age provision. She will be eligible in 2 years, at age 30.

I bring no bullcrap. I bring consideration of Paterson's role and the perception on the part of New York State voters that with this replacement appointment we have an opportunity to solidify gains in recent elections.

Giuliani may run for Governor, in which case I hope Paterson kicks his ass. It is without question an ass in sore need of a swift boot.

As NY Governor, Paterson, it seems to me, will make a good, solid choice. He has a deep bench to choose from. If he chooses those you reference, I am enthusiastic in welcoming that person to the upper chamber and will root for her or his re-election and longevity in office. The bluer the better.

I hope you would offer the same welcome if Paterson chose CKS.

[cali]

95. Indeed. But that hardly means I can't hold an opinion and express it here.

And if Paterson chooses Kennedy, I'll hope that she does a good job and that if she decides to run, she's able to be a competent candidate.

[saltpoint]

97. Well there you go. We need to build the immediate number in the

Senate in coming elections and we need to construct states' organizations so that they can sustain Democratic candidates.

Paterson's appointment will be a glimpse of his sure-footedness for his own re-election bid. It will interesting to see how that goes, too. Giuliani appears to be sniffing around the barn.

I hope that Paterson's appointment to HClinton's seat and his own-re-election become sure things for our side.

[bettyellen]

145. what makes her uniquey + incredibly fucking able is what's got your sad little panties in a twist...

connections, a name etc. it may piss you off, but it would be great for NY. and maybe that's more imortant than your stupid fucking obsession with lineage.

[mtnsnake]

146. Have you been checked for rabies lately?

What a nasty post.

[bettyellen]

148. i responded in kind to to cali who just adores cursing and condesension...

i'm sure she'll really love my post!

[spiritual_gunfighter]

61. What had fucking Hillary Clinton run for before she was senator? n/t

[cali]

65. I'm no HIllary supporter and I thought her

run for the Senate in 2000 was blatantly taking advantage of her position, but she fucking ran for office. She wasn't appointed.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

67. Didn't say you were a Hillary supporter but the situation

is pretty similar. I would be willing to be that if Caroline Kennedy did actually run she would get elected anyway.

[Raineyb]

125. Not a damn thing

Nor did she even live in the state before running. Furthermore there were people who had other Democrats who held other elected positions who were basically told by the part to step aside in order to make room for Clinton to run for the seat.

Using Clinton as an example for why Caroline Kennedy would be a good choice is not a good idea. Clinton's run isn't exactly an example of someone working their way up to high elected office.

At least Caroline Kennedy lives here. That much I'll give her.

Frankly if all she's going to be is a placeholder I'd rather have someone else. I'd rather have someone who will run for the seat in 2010 and have some chance of keeping some seniority.

Regards

[The_Commonist]

107. Nydia Velazquez is my rep.

She's a good lady and would do a fine job wherever she is.
She's not a known name, not a big attention-seeker, and is often seen in the neighborhood getting her hands dirty.
I don't agree with a few of her positions and votes, but hey, what are you gonna do?
I happily voted for her last month, and would vote for her if she ran for Senate.

[Xipe Totec]

161. You could have posted the alternatives in the OP

Than we wouldn't have this argument.


Re-read my reply, you will see that my objection is conditional.

If you have better alternatives, great. But explain WHY they are better.

[Grateful for Hope]

10. Fortunately

Who fills that seat is up to our governor at this time, and, in 2010, it is up to us (those of us who are NY'er's).

[Xipe Totec]

160. NY'er's are the only one's who's opinions should mean something

:thumbsup:

[Grateful for Hope]

162. That's how I see it

And, in the end, that is all that WILL matter.

[pecwae]

37. How is the OP bashing?

If you think this is 'bashing' you weren't around during the primaries.

[Xipe Totec]

159. If you knew who I am, you would not say that

And I don't mean in the real world, just DU.

You should be able to check my posts during the primaries.

[NashVegas]

68. I'd Call It a Rare Case of Intellectual Integrity

On the part of one of the anti-Clinton posters of 2008. One of the the myriad (albeit weak) anti-Clinton arguments around here and from Chris Matthews, himself was that she wouldn't have become NY's senator in the first place if not for her status as Mrs. Bill Clinton.

[cali]

73. Hillary ran for office. She was not appointed.

And yes, she had a huge advantage, but she put herself into the fray and fought for that seat.

[Saturday]

3. I totally agree with you Cali except when you say

the person appointed should not run in 2010.

[cali]

5. I realize I'm being a bit of a purist, but I think incumbency

is such a political advantage that it tilts a primary too heavily in favor of the incumbent. It's one thing if the incumbent earned that advantage through the grueling election process, it's another if the person was just handed it on a silver platter.

[Saturday]

7. That's exactly why I do want them to run in 2010. LOL nt

[AllentownJake]

19. No matter what Patterson

is bestowing a gift to someone. No matter what the person who gets the seat has never run for statewide office before. So part of your argument is shot to shit.

[cali]

20. bzzzt. try logic. I didn't say one word about statewide office.

I spoke about the arduous task of getting elected to office- and duh, that includes to the House of Representatives. Caroline has never run for anything. She's had very little to do with elective politics at all. And yes, bestowing the seat to someone who intends to run again is a gift- that's why I said I'd prefer a placeholder.

[AllentownJake]

21. 2010 is an off election year

and the party in the Whitehouse tends to lose seats in the Senate and House.

NY is by no means a definite safe democratic seat without an incumbent. I'd perfer someone who insures the seat stays in democratic hands.

[brentspeak]

9. Consider yourself in agreement with Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity

They've been pushing the "Because of her name, Caroline Kennedy doesn't deserve a Senate seat; it's not fair to other candidates who didn't have JFK as their dad" B.S.

[Name removed]

12. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mtnsnake]

41. That's one of the most ridiculous posts I've ever seen

because of what it implies.

The fact that someone might share the same view on one particular issue is pure coincidence, not a family trait. Tough shit if Limbaugh and Hannity happen so share the same view about this as a great many Democrats do.

BTW, do you listen to that fat fuck religiously or only some of the time?

[midnight]

14. Cali this is a very thougthful point you bring up.

I could agree with this. I also could agree with appointing her and then letting her run because of who she is.

[saltpoint]

15. I like that Gov. Paterson is in the interesting position of having to

(or having the privilege of) filling this seat.

Voters ultimately will decide if they like the governor's pick. They might affirm a Kennedy for any number of reasons, or they might not. A Kennedy ran for a Congressional district in Maryland but lost to Chris Van Hollen. Another Kennedy lost to a Republican for the gubernatorial race in Maryland.

Like many others, CKS meets all Constitutional qualificiations. Her appointment would be big news. Her dad's memory remains keen on the minds of many of us who, whether we live in New York State or not, recall that there were residual nobilities in the relationship of people and their government when he was in the White House. That relationship has been pointedly turbulent since his murder in Dallas. CKS is a living remnant of the national aspiration to reaffirm those nobilities.

Her appointment, seen in that light, would be as affirming of those nobilities as the election of Barack Obama's is toward the notion that we're better off if our best vision drives the most votes.

[cali]

18. If she wants to serve in the Senate, she should run for it

and not as an appointed incumbent who NEVER ran for a single thing. It just stinks of privilege. Ask yourself this: If Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg's last name was Connelly-Schwartz, and she had a similar background- author, attorney, foundation manager, etc, would she be considered for this appointment?

[saltpoint]

22. She is who she is, as you and I are who we are. We get the fame

variable but politics often includes the famous.

Reagan was a film star (not a very good one, IMO) and his handlers packaged him as a rock-boned idealist of a by-gone era. Voters fell for it. Californians, no dummies, voted for him twice as their governor.

The Kennedy record in Massachusetts, though is one of demonstrable accomplishment, in health care and many other essential issues. You can't say a famous name here has been bad for the citizens represented. You can certainly say that if Edward Moore Kennedy were Edwards Moore that he might not have had the initial advantage of a Kennedy, but you certainly can't argue that he isn't qualified or that he hasn't demonstrated notable accomplishment.

CKS meets all Constitutional qualifications for this job posting. With no Constitutional argument against the appointment, and significant reason to believe she would be a convincing voice for progressive causes, I see no reason why she shouldn't be a serious contender.

[cali]

23. Teddy was not appointed. Yeah, he received all the

benefits of his name aside from that, but he ran. If Caroline wants the seat, she should run, not be appointed when she has NEVER run for anything before.

[saltpoint]

25. Whoa. The system is set up so that many states' governors appoint Senators

as needed.

You are what -- singling CKS out because she might be the appointee?

No go.

Any Constitutionally qualified woman or man may be considered. Governors are political animals, which is ordinarily both good and bad. The case for a progressive and dedicated woman, it seems to me, is a strong one. That she is the daughter of a famous president strikes me as a political plus.

[cali]

26. I am stating and re-stating that were it not for her lineage and name

she would NEVER be considered for this appointment. Never.

[AllentownJake]

28. So?

That's life. It isn't fair. Probably wasn't fair her dad had his head blown off when she was 5 either. She supports progressive causes, can do great things for the party, and based on seeing her campaign for Obama in my hometown is an engaging speaker and campaigner. Its not like some boob is going to be appointed. She's been working to improve the lives of others her entire life...just outside the halls of congress.

BTW she has national campaigning experience. She did travel quite a bit for Senator Obama and I don't think of any other potential candidates that have vetted a vice presidential pick. Dealing with the entire national party on that and keeping a pretty drama free process...quite an accomplishment.

[saltpoint]

29. But her fame is not a disqualifying variable, cali.

You assert that it should be.

You and I meet qualifications for public office, do we not?

Very likely we are not the offspring of famous people. Well, at least I'm not. Can't say about other DUers.

Fame is the working variable in your argument, but in and of itself is not disqualifying.

The woman is an attorney. She is very bright. I would argue that she is demonstrably accomplished. We need more, not fewer, women in influential positions. Her family's legacy of service suggests ongoing liberal positions and votes. Paterson's appointment needs to be one that enhances our odds of holding that seat. New Yorkers upstate and down would likely be delighted.

I'm not seeing the negatives at all.

[cali]

31. It shouldn't disqualify her. But it shouldn't qualify her either

If she had a background in elected politics, it would be one thing. She does not. How do we even know what kind of candidate she'd be? We don't.

[saltpoint]

34. cali, look at the way it works. Governors appoint replacement Senators

as a matter of routine.

In cases where a sitting member of Congress dies or steps down for any reason or is incapacitated, either a special election or a replacement pick by a governor is the customary standard.

Absent Constitutional disqualification, any Constitutionally qualified soul may be appointed, whether she or he is your first choice or my first choice, or not.

CKS is the daughter of a legacy president. A legacy family, for that matter.

Her virtues are numerous and demonstrable -- and progressive.

Paterson appoints whichever candidate he wants. Like all governors, he is not unaware of the political ramifications of this, that, or another choice. I like Paterson, expect him to seek full-election to his current job, and I hope he kicks Giuliani's sorry ass from here to Hong Kong, if it's Rudy who decides to challenge him.

Paterson could choose from a long list of solid Democrats to fill HClinton's seat.

I am seeing zippo argument against CKS as that pick, and I can personally make a very strong case in her behalf.

[Grateful for Hope]

110. "New Yorkers upstate and down would likely be delighted"

I know this NY'er would indeed be delighted.

[saltpoint]

113. Hi, Hope2006.

Good to see ya. Yep. I think CKS would appeal strongly across all the regional and demographic minefields Gov. Paterson has to negotiate.

As others have stated, I'll support his choice with enthusiasm.

But I'll be cheering a bit louder if he chooses CKS!

[Grateful for Hope]

116. Back at ya, Old Crusoe!

I will be cheering along with you if he chooses CKS. I think our Governor is pretty darn intelligent, and, I am sure he is well aware of CKS's contributions throughout the years.

Also, like you, I will support any choice he makes.

:hi:

[saltpoint]

117. You're doing it right, Hope2006, and

more power to ya.

A big blue hug and on to victory!

[Cha]

139. I like the light through which

you are looking at this, Crusoe. We are who we are and if Caroline is interested in this New York Senate appointment that Hillary has created by becoming our SOS then I would be grateful for her to be one of our Senators for the interim and see what happens down the road.

I was ecstatic that she came out of her behind the scenes mode and supported Obama so publicly:D

But, we shall see..it could be just a thought in Robert F Kennedy Jr's head and Gov Paterson was on it.

[saltpoint]

141. Hey there zidzi.

Nice to see you.

Thank you for that post. Paterson strikes me as not only an intelligent soul but very likely an underestimated intelligence.

I think he will win his election to keep his current job.

And I'll honor his pick for HClinton's seat.

I could go with several strong picks. But one of the virtues of CKS as the choice is that she is a personality that has not drawn attention to herself for being the son of an icon.

She's quiet and effective out of the range of microphones and media.

[Cha]

155. Yeah, and I

love her!:)

And, what a gift for New York that there was someone like Lt Gov David Paterson working in the wings.

He was just on our local tv station(right after Obama) commending Obama's Economic proposals for the States that he thought had been ignored for a long time(try 8 years).

This reality in politics is awesome!

[saltpoint]

156. Agree. It just feels a whole lot more real than it has for a long time.

Paterson is one of the stars, IMO.

I think your call is just exactly right.

[glowing]

16. I'm not from NY, and I wouldn't even pretend to really weigh in on what

the people of NY would like or not like.. At least she's actually lived in NY most of her life and understands the issues. She does have all the qualifications. AND if she is well supported by people contacting the guv, then it will probably go very well. Most of us wouldn't automatically be assumed for the position.. but her dad lost his life while serving this country.. perhaps she could do a few things to finish out his last goals.. AND if anything, she'd be a huge plus for Universal Healthcare that her Uncle is working on.. She'd def. be the pretty, romantic face that NO repuke would DARE vote against or come out against strongly of angrily.. or they'd look like assholes. Perhaps that's the only purpose she has and she will step aside in a couple of years.. who knows.

[paulk]

100. I don't think it's at all a given

that she understands the issues of NY. She's lived in NYC - as a member of a privileged class - and the issues of a privileged, wealthy Park Avenue gal are not the issues of upstate.

In 2004, Hillary Clinton won upstate counties that hadn't voted Democratic in a Senatorial race in 50 years. It would be a slap in the face to upstate to appoint Kennedy rather than an upstater, of which there are several far more qualified, at least in terms of actually having worked in government.

[Cha]

158. That you for your post,

glowing. I am in New York and you make excellent points!

[vanderBeth]

17. I agree.

It's not so much that she is woefully under qualified, but I think there are more in New York that are better qualified.

I don't think her qualifications are terrible, but if they were of anybody else who wasn't named Kennedy, they wouldn't even be considered for this Senate seat.

[Captain Hilts]

24. I agree with you. She should be a placeholder.

But it's smart to name a placeholder because there are so many good candidates for the spot and it's not fair to give any, one, the advantage of incumbency in '10.

[Vinca]

27. I don't think I'd describe Caroline as a "blank slate."

She's a well read, well educated, thoughtful, intelligent woman. Good heavens, you might think she was Sarah Palin to read this thread. I think she'd make a fine Senator and if she wants to run in 2010, that's fine, too. It would be nice to have the perspective of someone who hasn't been a career politician.

[cali]

32. She certainly is a blank slate as far as what kind of candidate she'd be

she's never run for anything. One can be a terrific and admirable person and a lousy candidate.

[saltpoint]

30. Re the Kennedy legacy, it isn't about fame. It's about service.

Including but not limited to CKS's.

[cali]

33. Oh, please. It's about fame and People Magazine politics at least

as much as it's about service.

[saltpoint]

35. No, it isn't. The Kennedy legacy is a service legacy.

And it predates PEOPLE magazine, by the way.

[pecwae]

38. By that logic

the Bush and Clinton legacies are 'service legacies' as well.

[saltpoint]

40. It is a Clinton who is vacating the seat Paterson will fill.

Obama will thank the outgoing Bush for his service to the country, even as he vigorously campaigned against most of its defining tenets.

The distinction is between fame as rationale for appointment or service as content of legacy.

[pecwae]

43. Then Chelsea could fill it.

[saltpoint]

44. Sounds like you're a big Chelsea Clinton fan.

Is she old enough to be a U.S. Senator by Constitutional requirement or not?

If she is, you're right. If she meets qualifications, she meets qualifications. I hope she picks a better campaign staff than her mom did.

---
On edit: Chelsea Clinton was born 02-27-80. She is ineligible for the appointment now but could run in 2010 when she meets the Constitutional provision of being 30 years old.

[pecwae]

92. And you sound

like a Kennedy dynasty fan. So?

If were Chelsea eligible it would make as much sense to appoint her as CK.

[saltpoint]

94. As indicated. But she isn't old enough this afternoon or even next month.

When she is old enough, I believe in late February of 2010, she joins many hundreds of thousands of her fellow citizens as eligible for the post.

[pecwae]

111. Do you think she'll have to

run a campaign or just be appointed due to name recognition?

LOL! You can have th last word. I don't need it.

[saltpoint]

115. I fully expect Chelsea Clinton to follow in her parents' footsteps,

very possibly improving on the earlier models.

I think she's damned smart and pretty tough-minded, too.

[cali]

48. You have a cute little Camelot mindset. That is not reality.

The Kennedy legacy is not only about service. It's just as much a story of privilege and it has some very ugly stains on it. Romanticize as you will, but that does not change the facts or history.

[saltpoint]

49. Actually, my cute little Camelot mindset is my best feature.

Thank you for pointing it out.

[chelsea0011]

36. This is just an appointment. She will have to run for the Senate when the

time comes. I think this would be a great appointment that would have the statewide appeal for an election when the time comes.

[cali]

46. And she would have an enormous advantage

as a sitting Senator.

[michaz]

39. And speaking of qualified, how qualified is a comedian such as Franken? n/t

[mtnsnake]

42. Last anyone knew, Franken didn't get appointed. n/t

[cali]

45. There is an obvious difference: Franken ran for the seat

Caroline, if the reporting is accurate, is seeking the seat through an appointment.

[michaz]

47. Appointed or elected, if they both serve, which of the 2 is more qualified for these positions? n/t

[cali]

50. for pity's sake. That's like saying that McCain is more qualified than

Obama. I don't buy that for a second. There's a huge difference between putting yourself up for the people to decide on, and being appointed.

[michaz]

56. Of course there is a difference, but Kennedy and Franken are not running against each other. n/t

[demwing]

154. By your logic

All political appointments of this type must be given to previous Senate candidates who have won seats, and vetted themselves through the election process.

1. That's not the way the rules work in this country.

2. There are other methods for vetting. Campaigning is not the only--nor necessarily the best--method for vetting a pol.

3. Appointing a House member to the Senate is exactly the same as appointing a non-politician, or a governor, or a librarian, to the Senate. None have run for the seat which they will claim through appointment.

and finally -

4. That's not the way the rules work in this country.

[saltpoint]

53. Should the Constitution, then, be amended to set forth

prohibition to public office for the daughters and sons of the famous?

[cali]

55. Oh, please. How many times

have I said that if she wants it she should run for it. Handing it to her on a silver platter because she's a Kennedy, is fundamentally undemocratic when there are people more qualified than she is, available. Or let her serve as a place holder for the next two years.

[saltpoint]

57. cali, Jesus God. Read over what you're posting for once.

Governor Paterson may appoint as he pleases anyone who is Constitutionally qualified for the position.

Your beef against CKS is lineage. You are setting it in as a disqualifying variable against her appointment. That is a red herring of the 3-day old variety and it needs to be tossed out.

There is zippo rationale to disqualify any woman or man for a public service post because she or he happens to be the offspring of someone famous.

Your entire arguement pretends that fame disqualifies a qualified person, and that is false.

[cali]

60. sweet jeezus. read. I have never claimed that Guv Paterson

doesn't have the right to appoint whoever he chooses. I'm arguing that choosing Caroline Kennedy, is a poor choice and one that is predicated in her lineage and not in her qualifications. Were she anyone else she would NEVER EVER EVER be considered. That's the bottom line for me. She is by no stretch of the imagination, the most qualified person for that appointment.

[saltpoint]

62. Daughters of the famous may serve. So may sons.

You have no argument against her appointment here, but for lineage.

Which is neither a Constitutional impediment nor a disqualifying variable of any other kind.

[cali]

71. Not true. If Caroline had served in elected office in the state of NY

or as a rep in the Congress, it would be much more palatable to me. She has no record. The biggest reason she's being considered is because she's Caroline Kennedy. That's a suckass reason.

[saltpoint]

77. You must be of a more slash-and-burn disposition toward women of

demonstrable accomplishment than I am, cali.

Speaking strictly for myself, I would have SERIOUS pause about approaching a woman of CKS's accomplishment and profile of service to others and arguing that the rationale for her appointment to a job she is Constitutionally and otherwise qualified for is "a suckass" rationale.

[cali]

79. No. what a silly and not very bright accusation.

I have something against legacy bullshit. Whether it's at an Ivy League or in politics. You don't. Fine. We disagree.

[saltpoint]

81. We do seem to disagree. It appears that you harbor deep misgivings about

CKS.

I've yet to hear you advance one single point against her profile of service, which is of significant merit and range to MORE than qualify her for the appointment in question.

Again, you advance lineage as a disqualifying element, which it most certainly is not.

[cali]

82. wrong once more. quite a record of faulty assumptions you are making

I like and admire Caroline. She simply is not as qualified as Maurice Hinchey, for example. She is not as qualified as Nydia Velazquez. But honestly, I'd rather not see either of them appointed either if they want to run in 2010. I think an appointment such as this is just too much of an unfair advantage. How much clearer must I be before you get it through your head?

[saltpoint]

83. I'm thick, cali. You may have to use industiral equipment to

bore thru my cute little Camelot mindset.

If you're inclined toward Hinchey, why not post in favor of Hinchey directly instead of trash-talking CKS?

You glued yourself to the lineage point and it's no point at all.

[cali]

86. wow. another faulty assumtion. pathetic.

sorry, I'm not inclined toward Hinchey. I'm disinclined to the appointment of someone who would NEVER be appointed were it not for her name. That's it. That's the argument. Now argue that Caroline is the most qualified person for that seat.

[saltpoint]

87. You mentioned Hinchey. You could have mentioned Caroline Kennedy

Schlossberg, but for your ridiculous and un-Constitutional argument about lineage.

You might own that your bias is driving your thinking.

Paterson may appoint Hinchey. Or not. We'll just have to see.

[dansolo]

98. Then why don't you just argue that all appointments should be placeholders

I don't know why you keep harping on the fame issue, when the real issue you seem to have is with the advantage awarded to incumbents. If you had argued that all appointments should be placeholders, and that there should be an open election at the earliest convenience, it wouldn't sound like you are picking on Caroline Kennedy specifically. The same problem exists in Illinois. There are people who want Tammy Duckworth to be selected, even though she has never been elected to anything, and would arguably have a smaller chance of winning re-election than Caroline Kennedy would.

[cali]

99. I have argued that.

and yeah, I don't like political "royalty" being affforded special favors and advantages.

[spiritual_gunfighter]

64. Did you say the same thing about Hillary

She had no previous experience in public office before being the Senator from NY. And her only claim to fame was that she was married to a president.

[Name removed]

89. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[stray cat]

72. I want the person who will best represent me in NY - I could care less about pedigree

Hillary Clinton was a hardworking senator I was happy to have represent me even though being an ex-presidents wife was probably helpful for her as a non-NYer to get elected. I was happy to have her as my senator.

[Grateful for Hope]

114. As a fellow NY'er

I definitely agree with you.

[NashVegas]

96. If She Wants to Be the NY Senator, She's Going to Be the NY Senator

Kennedy is owed in ways that no other Obama endorser is owed - not even Uncle Teddy. The political capital she extended on his behalf when she went on national television was priceless.

The most qualified-to-govern person is seldom the one who gets the gig. The one who understands and works the politics of it, is.

[goclark]

112. She will be a great Senator and I for one will be pulling for her

She is brilliant and believes in helping people.

Love her!

[sunnystarr]

101. Please check your history ...

You said: "One of the fundamentals of our democracy is the system of electing our representatives. And campaigns show us a lot about the person running."

It was never a "fundamental of our democracy" that US Senators were to be elected.

Originally, Senators were elected by the state legislatures, not by the citizens. Direct election was established in 1913 by the passage of the Seventeenth Amendment to the United States Constitution...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Senate

After the British were defeated a centralized, national government was seen by George Washington and company not as a method of extending freedom and the right to vote, but as a way of keeping control in the hands of rich. They wrote several anti-democratic provisions into the U.S. Constitution. Slavery was institutionalized. The Senate was not to be elected directly by the people; rather Senators were to be appointed by state legislatures. The President was not to be directly elected by the voters, but elected through an electoral college. The Supreme Court was to be appointed. Only the House of Representatives was elected directly.

More important to our democracy-versus-republic debate, the U.S. Constitution left the question of who could vote in elections to each individual state. In most states only white men who owned a certain amount of property could vote. So, on the whole, the first federal government that met in 1789 was a republic with only a fig-leaf of democratic representation. This is what today's commentators mean when they say America is a republic, not a democracy.

http://www.williampmeyers.org/republic.html

[cali]

103. Yes, I know that Senators were once elected by state legs

but to argue that voting for our representatives is not a fundamental of our system, is just, well, stupid.

[Inspired]

102. Is this the topic we should be getting indignant about?

I think our country would benefit greatly by having Caroline Kennedy in the US Senate. No matter how she got there.

There are worse things that could happen. Just thank God that Gov. Patterson is a Democrat!

Another Kennedy in the senate sounds good to me. Especially Caroline. I've always thought she was the brightest one.

[cali]

105. who are ;YOU to decide what topics are important to ME- or anyone else here?

No one. That's who. And if you want to play adorer to famous clans, that's your thing.

[Inspired]

108. I'd never try to do that. I think your threads are too entertaining!

[Bad Thoughts]

104. Senatorial Appointments to Senate? Who knew!

But appointing Caroline Kennedy would fit the definition of being Senatorial: representing the interests of the elite ruling class.

I don't know about Kennedy's specific qualifications, but I don't see how the Senate, which serves at the behest of the states, should be reserved only for those who pursue elected office. Those who serve in state and federal government have experiences that ought to be represented in Congress, yet they tend to have lower standing with the public because they have been doing things other than pursuing election.

Let me put it differently: would Madeleine Albright make a good selection? She was never elected to public office.

[atimetocome]

106. ah, the dynasty question emerges once again.

[pecwae]

109. Yes, but this time it's okay

because it's a Kennedy who came out for Obama in the primaries. Has Caroline supported anyone else the indignant, outraged dynasty hatred would send this place to Defcon status.

[Billy Shears]

118. She's from a good Dynasty. That's why it's ok.

[saltpoint]

119. She is. The Kennedy legacy is a service legacy.

Welcome, by the way.

I like your screen name.

[Billy Shears]

122. What would you do if I sang out of tune?

Viva los Kennedys!

[saltpoint]

124. You know, if I have to have a song worm in my head all day, that one

is a damned good one to have.

Thanks.

And again, welcome. DU is an interesting place. I stumbled on it by accident but have run into a boatload of interesting, brainy folks here -- and some really funny ones, too.

[polichick]

126. You're right - it is a service legacy.

[saltpoint]

127. Hi, polichick. It is always a lark when I speak with my GOP relatives

who are so into the Bush family to compare them with the Kennedy clan.

Two New England families of considerable wealth, but other than geography and income, there's a universe of difference in how they conduct themselves.

[polichick]

128. Hi, OC :)

Interesting to compare those families ~ like growing up with the idea of giving back vs taking as much as possible.

[saltpoint]

131. Yes. It's still really hard to stomach Barbara Bush's comment about

displaced Americans after Katrina. It was something having to do with their having to be on cots in the New Orleans Superdome, and Barbara Bush responded in way that made it clearly sound as if for some of those people, this was a huge plus, as if to say, "more luxury and consideration than they deserve."

And it's such a long country mile between that and what the Kennedy family has stood for over many decades.

[polichick]

132. Funny you should mention that...

I overheard a man in a restaurant the other day saying that Bush will someday be seen as one of our greatest presidents for reorganizing the Middle East, and that Barbara Bush is such a wonderful woman. I almost choked on my scrambled eggs!

[saltpoint]

133. The man was probably delusional. He likely should not even

be walking around in public.

[pecwae]

120. Oh, gee, thanks for pointing that out.

I hope everyone reads your post and is enlightened by the wisdom therein.

[saltpoint]

121. The man expressed affirmation for a family he respects.

I'm not seeing where that's a problem.

[Billy Shears]

123. sometimes, the truth is simple.

[atimetocome]

138. good-bad. simple binaries with no wisdom therein.

[pecwae]

140. But it's an 'approved ' good.

:argh: All the difference in the world, donchano.

[atimetocome]

151. oops.........

:sarcasm:

[mmonk]

129. Appointments aren't elections but sometimes have to be made. Politics is 90%

romantic attraction and 10% intellectual in the United States anyway.

[Trajan]

130. Well ...There is one person's opinion ....

I am going to ask another 100,000,000 others to see what they think ....

I'll get back to this most important thread as soon as I am done ...

[FrenchieCat]

134. Being Qualified for the Senate is relative. There are too many there now

who couldn't qualify as dogcatcher.

I would love to see her in the senate.

Ms. Kennedy goes to Washington!

She's a person who has led a scandal free and productive life,
and sometimes, that's what most important.

Senators don't "do" so much that one needs a wealth of experience to get the job done.
They simply need a good disposition, to be intelligent and well read, have good ideas and an imagination, strong convictions, moral clarity, and to understand how government works.

I remember when Mrs. Carnahan was chosen to replace her husband.
Her only qualifications was a marriage band and a personal tragedy.

I believe that Caroline Kennedy could do the job quite magnificently.

[mtnsnake]

135. That is the most ridiculous example of reasoning I've ever heard in my life

for anyone becoming Senator.

Completely absurd.

[cali]

136. ooh, she's lived a scandal free and productive life. so have

thousands and thousands of other New Yorkers. And sorry, that description of what Senators do, just sounds ignorant. Relevant experience is important. Getting elected and chosen largely because you're heir to the most famous name in politics, is even more important.

There is zero evidence that Caroline could be a "magnificent" senator. There simply is NOT the evidence to make that judgment.

I detest this stupid adoration of certain political families. it's a sickness.

[FrenchieCat]

137. That is fine that you disagree......

But you haven't changed my mind.

I believe that she would do as well as any of the other politicians there now.

Call me ill. Not a problem.

Have a great day, Cali! :hi:

[Midlodemocrat]

142. For some of us, admittedly not all, obviously, the so-called

'romantic attraction', (which is a hideously condescending phrase) is that we've met her. Worked with her. Recognize her intellect and passion and think she would be a good fit.

I would venture to say that those who are squeaking and bemoaning the fact that she might like to be the next Senator from NY know little to nothing about her.

[polichick]

143. True dat - I've worked with Caroline and found her to have a first-rate mind...

...a generous spirit and great dedication to Obama's progressive vision. imo she'd give it her best and do us all proud.

[saltpoint]

144. - - - -

:thumbsup:

[cali]

150. wrong. I know quite a bit about her.

And I've met her too. Now, granted, that's about all it was, meeting her casually. But I actually do know quite a bit about her. I admire her. I like her. She has no experience at all in electoral politics. She would NEVER EVER be considered were it not for her family name.

[dkf]

147. I hope she does run for Senate. I'd send her a few clams.

I'm just grateful she decided early on to support Obama and got her Uncle Teddy to stick his neck out pretty danged far.

She seems so much more grounded than some of those pretty flaky cousins of hers.

If anyone carries on the Kennedy legacy, I hope it is her.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

152. I am a NYer and although there are a couple of Reps I'd like to see appointed, if they

weren't, I would be proud to have Caroline Kennedy to represent Me in the Senate. She received her BA from Harvard and received her law degree from Columbia U and is a member of the NY and DC Bar. Not too shabby. She has worked to help the NYC school system by garnering private donations to help public schools...just the opposite of the charter school crap. She is the President of the Kennedy Foundation (not an easy chore) and is a director for the NAACP and has not led an idle life. She is articulate and her heart is in the right place. Who can say that about many of the "elected" Senators who tend to win popularity contests?

I mentioned Reps I would like to see...Maurice Hinchey, very Progressive and not a chance in hell and a possibility.. Louis Slaughter. From upstate and Liberal.

On edit... let us not forget that if appointed, she'd have to run for the seat in 2010 and again to keep it in 2012..her funding potential is boundless if she has to run against someone like Rudy Ghouliani. I want to keep that seat for a Democrat.

[demwing]

153. Caroline Kennedy's Wiki Resume:

For those that may be unfamiliar, I've added a link to Kennedy's wiki-bio. For those who doubt her, tell me honestly that ANY other person with this resume would be called unfit to serve. This doesn't pass the sniff test.

______________________________________________________________________

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kennedy

Caroline Bouvier Kennedy (born November 27, 1957) is an American author and attorney. She is the daughter and only surviving child of U.S. President John F. Kennedy and his wife, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy.

She received her B.A. from Harvard University and her J.D. from Columbia Law School, after attending the Brearley School, and Convent of the Sacred Heart in Manhattan, and Concord Academy in Massachusetts.

She is one of the founders of the Profiles in Courage Award, given annually since 1990 to a person who exemplifies the type of courage examined in her father's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name.

After interning with her uncle, U.S. Senator Ted Kennedy, and at The New York Daily News...Kennedy worked as chief executive for the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education. During this time, she helped raise more than $65 million for the city’s public schools. She currently serves as the Vice Chair of The Fund for Public Schools, a public-private partnership founded in 2002 to attract private funding for public schools in New York City.

In addition, Kennedy is currently President of the Kennedy Library Foundation, a director of both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Honorary Chairman of the American Ballet Theatre. She is also an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics, a living memorial to her father.
______________________________________________________________________

The concept that Kennedy may not be the best candidate is irrelevant, and impossible to call based on resumes. Another politician may have years of impressive service, but be no more or less effective that a newcomer. The proof is in the puding, and Kennedy certainly has all the right ingredients. The fact that she comes from a venerable democratic political clan is a plus, not a minus, imo.

If you disagree, explain in what way her family name would hurt her, her party, or her country.

[RBInMaine]

157. She's as qualified as many who've been appointed, and I think she'd be AWESOME !!

[mwei924]

163. Since when has the MOST qualified person ever gotten the job?

I mean, yeah, there's probably a bunch of 80 year-olds who have tons of qualifications..

And that would mean Joe Biden would be President, while Obama would have to stay in the Senate for 90 years to become the "most qualified".

[No Elephants]

164. Who in NY is more qualified for that seat than Caroline and how do you know? Posters here

keep saying she is not qualified, but not a one of them has backed that up. NO ONE Patterson appoints will have done the hard work necessary to get elected. And, whomever he appoints will have to run in a special election only two years from now. IMO, as a Democrat, ability to get elected two years from now should be a criterion for the appointment. She has that. She is also very smart, with impeccable integrity and very accomplished.

[cali]

166. Hinchey, Velazquez and Slaughter- to name just three.

[victoryparty]

165. Kennedy

Observing from California, it would appear to be that if Caroline wants the seat, it's hers.

As it should be.