I'm so glad you DUers weren't around to judge Joe Biden's qualifications to run for US Senate in '72

[LynneSin]

Because some of you would be nay-saying that someone serving less than 2 years on a county council isn't qualified to be a US Senator.

Personally I think Caroline Kennedy has more experience to be a US Senator than Joe Biden did back in 1972. She has never held an elected position but she has a lifetime of experience in the public eye along with decades of service thru various non-profit organizations (wait, wasn't that how Barack Obama started in politics?) I think this country would be a better place with Ms. Kennedy in the halls of our congress in Washington DC. And btw, I think it's a better place that Joe Biden took that chance back in 1972 too.

[Dogtown]

1. Camelot

Just sayin'.


I highly approve the choice. I'd be more receptive of complaints of the Dynasty Complex we have w/ the Kennedy family, but that concern is negated by her quality and grace.

Wonder if some of the 'chatter' is an attempt to palinize her...

[ShortnFiery]

3. With the imminent Depression, I don't think us little peons are all aflutter with the concept of

"Political Royal Families?"

Timing is all and NOW's not the time to be FORCING "the guilded classes" on us - we don't trust them. :thumbsdown:

[karynnj]

5. So, with the imminent depression you reject political royal families - one word: Roosevelt

The Hyde Park Roosevelts, who also had a Manhattan pied a terre, worked out rather well for the country. As to now, name ONE politician in the last 3 decades who beats Teddy Kennedy's record of doing things for people you term "peons", but whom he never would disrespect that way.

[cali]

7. Again, Roosevelt ran for office. He wasn't appointed.

My problem with Caroline is the prospect of her being appointed rather than running. And let's face it, incumbency is a big plum. I want to see her run without advantages conferred on her by the gov. I have one question for people advocating her appointment: Do you really think she'd be considered if not for her family name?

[karynnj]

11. ANYONE who gets the seat will be appointed

If you are consistent, you should argue that all vacancies need to be filled by special election. Wouldn't Cuomo or any other person also benefit from incumbency - and Cuomo also has benefited from a famous name.

The fact is that the two polls out there both show Caroline Kennedy as wanted by more NYers - http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/12/09/poll-kennedy-favored-for-ny-senate-seat/

[cali]

13. I've consistently argued that the gov should appoint a placeholder

and you still didn't answer my question. Would she be considered if she weren't Caroline Kennedy?

[karynnj]

17. Probably not, but that does not make her a bad choice

Everything would have been different. The fact is that Bloomberg has spoken very highly (even in the past) about her good work for the city on education. I doubt the Democrats would have given their nomination to Hillary Clinton - if she were not "Hillary Clinton". Remember, she did not even live in the state. Starting a race with the Democratic nomination was a boost that people without her name don't get. (and just like CK, I bet polls would have placed her as the favorite.) In both cases, they are getting an advantage that many - maybe more deserving - didn't.

One problem I see with a placeholder is that he/she will likely accomplish nothing and have no seniority. Even future stars are not immediately up to par on any of the committees, though, if good they improve quickly. Also, what happens if the placeholder after a year becomes very engaged in some work that they want to continue working on. Would they be forced to step down. The only two "place holders" I can think of offhand are the Kennedy family friend appointed because Ted Kennedy was too young in 1961 and Kaufman, who has widely been described as a placeholder for Beau Biden.


You also weren't consistent - Before the Illinois seat appointment became the mess it is, you did not seem as concerned that that seat would be appointed. You also were NOT arguing for a placeholder there. You were arguing for Jesse Jackson Jr, who likely would intend it to be the start of a long Senate career. The question could be asked if he would be so prominent on the list if he weren't a famous son. It likely also helped him get his Congressional seat.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7852674&mesg_id=7854229

Even further, look at your response to Wndycty's response about a placeholder -

From Wndycty:
LOL I actually want Jesse to be Senator BUT I don't want him appointed. . .

. . .I feel WHOMEVER is appointed is at a serious disadvantage for 2010 because the GOP will target that person the minute they are appointed and that person will be on the defensive for two years and because the person is appointed Democrats might not necessarily rally around that person, especially given the unpopularity of the current Governor.

I prefer that an obvious "placeholder" who will not run in 2010 be appointed.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=7852674&mesg_id=7854358

From you:
I can see the strategic points in your argument

but any incumbent has a real advantage. That's one reason I'd like to see Jesse appointed. And 2010 is another bad year for Senate repukes

[onenote]

12. incumbency for an appointed senator is not a "big plum"

As I've pointed out elsewhere, of the 30 appointed Senators since 1970, more than half did not end up being elected senator when their appointed term ended. Eleven ran and were defeated in either the primary or the general and seven didn't run at all, either because they never intended to or because they realized they couldn't win.

If Caroline is appointed and can win in 2010, what is the problem? Even if there is a benefit to incumbency for an appointed senator (although the facts suggest its not much of one), anyone appointed is going to get that benefit over the other potential candidates. The solution, which I believe you support, is to appoint a placeholder and let everyone who wants the job start off on a "level playing field" for 2010. I understand the sentiment, but I don't think it makes sense to intentionally sacrifice two years of potential seniority -- if the appointee loses in the primary or decides not to run or is defeated in the general, seniority will be lost, but at least it wouldn't have been given away.

And as for her "name" being a factor -- of course it was. Just as it was the factor that led NY Democrats to nominate Hillary in 2000, pushing aside Nita Lowey who had been waiting patiently in the wings for a chance to get the job and who was discouraged from even challenging hillary in a primary for the nomination. It was a factor in Al Gore getting elected, with a whopping 32 percent of the vote, to his first house seat -- the seat that once had been held by his father, who was then a US Senator when Gore, still in law school, made his first stab at elected politics. It was a factor in so many political careers its hard to keep up.

[polmaven]

23. So let me get this straight!

Qualifications are irrelevant. Family ties, or the lack thereof are all that matters. Have I got that right?

[onenote]

30. Let me get this straight -- exactly how do you measure qualfiications to be a senator

apart from the most important one -- the ability to get elected when the time comes to stand before the voters? I think Kennedy has that ability. So I see no reason not to appoint her and ensure that the junior senator from New York has the maximum seniority possible.

[Jennicut]

2. Yup. Joe was only 29 and had very little experience

Caroline cares about the issues we care about, she would be a very good choice

[cali]

4. No. That's not what folks are saying. They're saying there's a difference

between running for office and being appointed to office. In my book, it's a big difference. My Senator Pat Leahy ran the same year and he was about the same age as Biden. He'd also been a prosecutor and elected to that office. More importantly, we got to know him through the campaigning process.

If she wants to run in 2010, more power to her. If her name weren't Caroline Kennedy she'd no more be considered for the post than Fran Drescher.

[Arkansas Granny]

6. Pretty much sums up my opinion. I think she is very qualified to run for the office,

but I'd rather not see her be appointed, especially if it's just because of her name.

[DoctorMyEyes]

8. Yup - all the difference in the world

Between running for office and earning the votes of your constituents and being handed one of the highest offices in the land because your last name is Kennedy.

I got nothing against Caroline. I think she's a terrific person. But a mid-life interest in political office isn't enough to excite me. Sheesh - it's as if it was always there for her (political office) should she just express an interest and that's bullshit.

[karynnj]

9. Actually she has done more for NYC on education than Drescher

has done on anything - and Drescher has actually done some good work.

The fact is that NOBODY will run this time for that seat. You cannot say that any one in state government or of the Congressional delegation would be the winner if there was a race. The other most named candidate is Mario Cuomo's son, Andrew, who likely was helped by his name in getting his HUD job that he was appointed to. It seems from the two polls, I Caroline Kennedy would be favored to win if this were an election. http://realclearpolitics.blogs.time.com/2008/12/09/poll-kennedy-favored-for-ny-senate-seat/ (In fact, the articel mentions (and rejects) that Patterson could appoint Cuomo to avoid a challenge to his own office that he didn't run for but moved up to.)

I would be more comfortable if you were saying that there should be special elections for all vacant Senate seats. One reason there isn't is that it would mean that in most cases the state would loss half it's representation for probably 5 months. This was the estimate in MA if Kerry or Kennedy left their seat - and the law there was changed to a special election to prevent Romney from getting to appoint a Senator had Kerry won.) As it is, they do require the person to run in the next Congressional election. I guess you could make appoint people who do not want to run and have the election for the rest of the term in November 2009. The downside is that the Senate runs on seniority and this builds less.

[pnwmom]

10. If Fran Dresher lacked her fame as an actor, there's NO chance she'd be

considered for the post.

But Caroline Kennedy's long record of public service would put her in the running, even without her family's name.

[lurky]

14. Biden was ELECTED. He was not handed anything.

He actually held political office before running for senate.

I'm sure CK would be a wonderful senator, but she has been handed a family name, handed a family fortune, handed a political network, and would be handed one of the highest political offices in the country. I'm tired of having our political fortunes decided over cocktails at the country-club tavern. I'm tired of the clubby aristocracy which runs our country like a feudal estate. Enough.

[hughee99]

22. And that's the difference!

As far as I'm concerned, if you want to run in an election, no experience necessary. Make your case to the primary and GE voters and let them decide. If you're going to appoint someone to temporarily fill a seat, appoint someone with experience.

Biden had been a congressman (only 1 term, I think) before that.

[onenote]

24. you realize that someone is going to be "handed" the position

And that person will not have run for that position. The fact that they may have run for Congress or the state house or city council or dogcatcher doesn't mean that much to me in this instance. There are 26 Democrats in the House of Representatives, 32 in the state senate, and 104 in the state house. And I suspect that none of them, despite having been elected to some office, would be a more viable candidate for the US Senate, in terms of fundraising, name recognition and initial level of popular support before the race even begins, than Caroline Kennedy.

Kennedy would not be the first person to become a senator without ever having held any other elected office. She would not be the first person to have an advantage because of her name. I could come up with dozens of examples of elected officials who would not have been elected to their first office but for their name. ONe such example is Al Gore, who was in law school when the congressional seat that once had been held by his father (who had gone on to be US Senator) opened up. Gore narrowly won in a multi-candidate race by getting a whopping 32 percent of the vote and if you don't think enough of that vote came to him because of his family name as opposed to any of his own prior accomplishments, I have a bridge to sell you. But, as we know, Al went on to be a pretty successful Senator, among other accomplishments.

Having a name is no guarantee of success, however. Ask Jean Carnahan.

[Occam Bandage]

26. Which is why he should appoint a placeholder who has no intentions of running in 2010. nt

[onenote]

29. I see the argument for that, but getting a shot at two years extra seniority trumps it

I think it would be an error for NY Democrats to intentionally sacrifice the possibility of two years extra seniority for their junior senator. On the other hand, I see no downside to appointing Caroline Kennedy. If I'm right and she is the strongest candidate for election, she'll end up with the nomination for 2010, get elected and have those two years of seniority. If I'm wrong, someoone better able to win the general will have a shot at knocking her off in the primary and if they are elected, the situation would be no different than if a placeholder had been appointed. Now, I recognize that the same argument could be made by anyone who thinks that there is another possible appointee that would be a stronger general election candidate for the Democrats in 2010 than Kennedy, but to date, no one has convinced me of who that specific person would be.

[Cha]

15. Thanks for Joe Biden's history,

Lynne, on his Senate run. Sometimes it's just meant to be even if you don't have years in the same job.

I trust her judgment just like I trust Obama's when he didn't have years of experience like what's his name and that fucked up governor of Alaska.

<snips>

"Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960.

Most of us would prefer to base our voting decision on policy differences. However, the candidates’ goals are similar. They have all laid out detailed plans on everything from strengthening our middle class to investing in early childhood education. So qualities of leadership, character and judgment play a larger role than usual."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=2

[GarbagemanLB]

16. Obama wasn't appointed. He was elected by the people. If Caroline can do the same, then she

deserves the seat.

[Cha]

18. The Governor of New York will "appoint" someone

to hold the seat..if that should be where Caroline Kennedy Starts then so be it.

Thanks for pointing out that Obama was elected.

[GarbagemanLB]

20. Yeah, and I'm sure there are more qualified people to "appoint".

You're welcome, by the way.

[LynneSin]

19. Even if she is appointed first she is still more than qualified

and her work with non-profits have shown she isn't some spoiled lil rich princess that some people here on DU have made her out to be.

[Cha]

21. Some qualifications from a DUer who worked

at the MMOA when Caroline Kennedy worked there.

LibertyLover (1000+ posts) Tue Dec-09-08 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #42

45. Well, let's see - Caroline Kennedy -
after finishing college, she interned with her uncle, Ted Kennedy, then went to work at the Metropolitan Museum of Art. That's where I know her from. She is a lawyer with 2 publications on civil liberties to her credit. She is president of the Kennedy Library Foundation and has worked extensively with the New York City Public Schools, first as chief executive of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the NYC Dept. of Education and now as Vice Chair of The Fund for Public Schools. Additionally she has represented the Kennedy family at any number of official functions. She is very intelligent, passionate about civil liberties and the Constitution and knows her way around the American power structure. To me that makes her a very attractive candidate for the position of New York's junior senator.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x3637484

[Occam Bandage]

25. The difference: Joe Biden ran. Caroline is demanding her hereditary peerage. nt

[LynneSin]

27. Oh geez, get over it - Kennedys have done more to help out this country

and if you haven't seen that, if you still think Caroline Kennedy is some sort of elitist princess then I feel sorry for you.

[onenote]

31. But Caroline would have to run in two years, so exactly what is the difference?

Either she can win or she can't. Hillary, whom I supported for her senate run, was handed the nomination without having to prove herself in a primary, even though there were elected New YOrk Democrats, most notably Nita Lowey, who had expected to make a run for the seat. Those other Democrats were told to back off, principally because the party leaders felt that HRC would be a stronger candidate. My support for Kennedy getting the appointment is indistinguishable from my support for Hillary getting the nomination without having a primary opponent - my assessment of who would be the strongest candidate when the time came to face the electorate in a general election.

[Bake]

28. "In the public eye?"

That doesn't qualify her for diddly. At least Biden had held office.

It's not that I'm opposed to CK. If she can win an election, more power to her. What bothers me is the idea that she should be appointed now, so she can run as an incumbent, and then run for President in 2016. She's never held public office and they're talking like she's the successor to Obama in the White House, like it's a done deal. That bothers me.

How did Biden get his seat? Appointed, or ELECTED?

Bake