MSNBC's First Read: "Caroline vs. the Clintons?"

[ClarkUSA]

On the old-style Democratic politics/politicians' front, Domenico Montanaro reports:

Just when you thought the Clinton-vs.-Obama rivalry had died down, now come reports that Clinton supporters in New
York are saying some not-so-nice things about Caroline Kennedy -- who supported Obama in the primaries -- potentially
becoming the state’s next senator. Writes the New York Daily News: “In recent days, Robert Zimmerman, a Clinton adviser
and member of the Democratic National Committee, and Stuart Applebaum, a former Clinton delegate and president of
the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, ripped Kennedy's qualifications. Reps. Anthony Weiner (D-Queens,
Brooklyn) and Gary Ackerman (D-Queens), both of whom are loyal to Clinton, have also harped on Kennedy's lack of
political experience. Ackerman compared Kennedy's name recognition with that of Jennifer Lopez, saying popularity
doesn't make someone qualified to be a U.S. senator.” Meanwhile, Caroline is trying to placate critics as she reached
out last week to Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a top Dem who apparently isn't crazy about the idea. She's working
this harder than some folks might have believed.

If this last bit is true, Caroline must be interested in the job because Sheldon Silver is the Democratic powerbroker who blocked
Mayor Bloomberg's Olympic gambit.

"It's been a little vicious," said longtime Democratic strategist Joseph Mercurio of the backlash. "It's a little over the top."

The criticism followed days of praise of Kennedy - though no official backing - from political powerhouses like President-
elect Barack Obama and Mayor Bloomberg as well as members of the Kennedy clan... A number of elected Democrats said
the governor would be smart to pick Kennedy.

"How many freshman senators at the bottom of the seniority list can pick up the phone and get the President?" asked one
influential Democrat, who asked that his name not be used.

Mercurio, who listed Kennedy and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo as two of the most-qualified candidates, said New York
has a list of past senators, including Clinton and Kennedy's uncle, Robert F. Kennedy, who had no prior electoral experience.

It's a shame that old-style revenge/retribution politics is entering into this choice, but is anyone really surprised, given the
players? This whole election was about turning the page on such politics. While President-Elect Obama has exemplified this
healing post-election spirit of unity in his cabinet choices and general demeanor, evidently some in the NY delegation just
don't get it. Gov. Patterson, meanwhile, is playing his cards close to his vest.

Paterson has said he will take his time making a decision since Clinton doesn't plan to resign her seat until after she is confirmed.

The guessing game continues... predictions? comments? bets on who is chosen in the end? :)

[floridablue]

1. I will give up my support of Caroline Kennedy IF

You promise to nominate Jennifer Lopez. Or Kaley Cuoco, or Cote de Pablo, or Emily Proctor... Any of the above would make a fine Senator for NY.

[wyldwolf]

2. In regards to Jennifer Lopez, to be fooled by the rocks that she got...

...she's still Jenni from the block.

[Sebass1271]

65. No one should be fooled.. i am sure with all the rocks shes got

she won't need to steal from goverment.. : ))))

[PBS Poll-435]

3. I have yet to see a statement by Senator Clinton about this issue

I see that a few of her supporters have reservations, but this is nothing more than media speculation.

"Caroline vs. the Clintons?" Hardly.

[Arkansas Granny]

15. That's how I see it, also. I don't believe any of these people represent

Senator Clinton.

[rvablue]

114. Yes, the headline is BS

These two congressmen endorsed Hillary. They aren't necessarily "in her camp."

Their complaints, IMO, are because they want the seat. I don't think it has anything to do with Hillary.

[kikiek]

138. Exactly. Makes better news to stir up the pot though.

[pnwmom]

4. This is exactly what I guessed was happening, and we can see it in a

microcosm on DU.

Hillary supporters, still angry with Caroline for endorsing Obama, are caricaturing her qualifications.

[Name removed]

14. Deleted sub-thread

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

[NashVegas]

30. Well, Hold It

I was an HC backer, and have no malice towards CK, nor do I feel like I have a dog in the fight (although I did predict if she takes the seat and runs in 2010 ....).

But I understand, very, very, well why other HC supporters are more than happy to give Obama's campers a taste of their own medicine, and wouldn't dream of condemning it.

[karynnj]

41. "A taste of their own medicine?"

Caroline Kennedy did not attack HRC's credentials - she endorsed Obama. Now, if one of these HRC supporters had made the case why say, Cuomo, was better - than I would have no problem. That would be the equivalent thing to do.

[NashVegas]

56. I Can Only Assume

That you were not on the left side of the internet between Dec 2007 and spring 2008, wherein various writings about HC's lack of qualifications and riding of her husband's coattails, among other things, were all over the place.

[karynnj]

60. Of course I was here

and my memory is different than yours. My memory was that HRC supporters were essentially claiming every significant positive thing done in the 1990s as hers and a few people claiming she did nothing. Both extremes were wrong. Clinton did not initiate S-CHIP no matter what her web site said. She also did not simply have tea with foreign leaders, nor was she key to any peace negotiations.

You could, of course, find people saying things that were far off base on either side.

The fact is that it is impossible to know what HRC's career would have been had see married someone else or stayed single. As to the question of could she have become NY Senator if she was not Clinton's wife - there is a huge problem in answering it. Being First Lady was not equivalent to a gap in the resume, nor can it be equated to anything else. So, the comments of if she was an unknown woman with just the JOBS she had could she have moved to NY and immediately been viable - are ignoring a big part of her biography.

[Cha]

99. "A taste of their own medicine"?

Don't try to fucking rewrite history..it does NOT work here.

[kikiek]

139. Actually I am supporting Caroline, and I have seen many known Hillary supporters doing the same.

And many Obama supporters against Caroline. Such broad sweeping statements are not accurate, and do nothing but start trouble.

[Onlooker]

5. Caroline Kennedy is simply unqualified

There are many reasons to oppose her as a choice. She is obsessed with the Kennedy legacy. The bulk of her work has been to promote the Kennedy name. She'd be a terrible choice as a Senator, and to hand it to her on a silver platter perverts the fine public service and sacrifice of the many Kennedy's that were obsessed with the public good more than the family name.

[BluegrassDem]

6. Don't worry, she'll run in 2010 and 2012..let the other NY Dems run against her

And leave it up to the people of New York. If Caroline would be a horrible senator and not up to the job, we'll all find out in 2 years. There'll be a Dem primary and all those Clintonistas should run against her and let the people of NY decide if she is worth a term.

[Renew Deal]

9. There will be no dem primary.

If Caroline is selected, she'll cruise.

[Renew Deal]

8. She's no more qualified than Hillary was in 2000.

And she was the candidate in NY.

[cali]

10. Hillary ran. she wasn't appointed.

granted she had a big advantage that she exploited, and I don't like carpetbagging, but at least she ran.

[Renew Deal]

12. There is no option to run, so what do we do now?

:shrug:

[cali]

16. That's something Paterson will have to figure out.

[karynnj]

42. She was given the nomination as everyone else ceded it to her

Here no matter who gets it - they won't run.

[Alexander]

174. And she ran against a weak candidate when Giuliani dropped out.

A ficus plant could've beaten Rick Lazio.

[Lucky 13]

32. Bingo.

What qualifications did Hillary have when she first ran vs. Caroline now?

[Bake]

77. Caroline's not "running."

She only has to convice ONE vote - the Governor's. Hillary had to convince a few more than that.

Bake

[Lucky 13]

164. So? Does that mean she's less qualified?

[pnwmom]

29. She's raised over $350 million as the chief fundraiser for the NYC Department

of Education. Her resume and her experience in campaigning for Obama make her as well-qualified as many junior Senators.

[Onlooker]

126. What exactly did she do to raise the money?

Go door to door? Or simply put her name on a piece of letterhead?

[CTyankee]

52. "obsessed"? What makes you think that? She writes about her family sometimes but not ALL

of her writing is about her family. And anyway, so what? She is writing about what she knows best, her own family. Writers do that all the time.

She wants to serve her country. Quaint idea, that! She's no less qualified than Al Franken. How do you feel about his qualifications. I like Al but his books are humorous and lightweight. She has written about the Bill Of Rights and about history. I have observed her over the many years since she was a 3 year old in the White HOuse. I have never seen her to be anything but a gracious, intelligent, hard working person. Now she wants to use her "celebrity" in the service of her country. I think she is doing this because she wants to play a role in advancing Obama's vision for America. I do not think she wants this to play out as a dynastic thing.

[SoCalDem]

137. Strom Thurmond was "unqualified" for DECADES

and that never stopped the Goopers from wheeling him out of his hospital crypt chamber (which we all paid for) ,and then guiding his withered claw to the button for a vote against respectable legislation or for some despicable tax cut..

[harun]

147. She is qualified and trustworthy. Which I can't say about a whole

lot of other people looking for the job.

[Lucky 13]

175. She is as qualified as Hillary was when she ran. Period.

This whole "she's not qualified" meme is bullshit. She's as qualified, if not more so, as many many other people that have been elected to the Senate.

But I guess some people just like to tear women down, if only to try to exalt another - which I find more disgusting than people that are misogynistic across the board. It's opportunistic, cut-throat misogyny... and some people have mastered it.

As far as the Kennedy name goes, as the only surviving member of her immediate family and given Ted's failing health, is it such a bad thing that she would be concerned with the Kennedy legacy? Do you not see how she would feel a deep obligation to her father, and mother, and brother, and uncles to do so? Is that not an honorable quality? And wouldn't continuing her family's outstanding service to our country benefit our country while also honoring the legacy? Are you assuming the two must be mutually exclusive?

[Bake]

191. Nope. We just don't have "royalty" in this country.

Bake

[roguevalley]

192. beyond the lawyer thing they both share and being a part of a

presidential family which they both share and doing a lot of things in a non-elected sort of way which they both have, Caroline is as qualified as Hillary was when she moved to New York and went after *her* first elected office.

Caroline is as qualified as Hillary, they share remarkably similar resumes.

[Renew Deal]

7. I wonder if Weiner, Ackerman, and Silver said the same things about Hillary in 2000.

Besides that, what qualifications does Cuomo have? He was elected AG on his dads name.

[saracat]

11. Robert F Kennedy had NO electoral experience ? What BS!

He ran his brother's congressional and presidential races. Caroline has barely even campaigned for anyone. Sorry, I think she is a nice person but she is hardly political enough for this job while there was no question her uncle was very politically savvy.Too many other folks have paid their political dues for Caroline to be awarded this seat as a legacy.

Some folks may not like the Clinton's but Hillary was "elected" to her seat. Twice.

And she had a lot of campaign experience before that.

[Renew Deal]

13. What "experience" did Hillary have?

She came from out of state to a state with a heavy Democratic voter advantage. At least Caroline lives here. I think Caroline would be a hit in NY.

[saracat]

17. HIllary was part of the national scene for ages. She worked for several presidential and

congressional campaigns including McGovern's in Texas. She has been a field Director.. She was integral to Bill's famous War Room. She has campaigned all over the nation for various candidates. Caroline has made a few, very few .speeches.

Caroline has never even worked in a campaign office. She is a philanthropist who has never even had an interest in politics.

There is no comparison between Caroline and Hillary . Hillary had been actively engaged in the politcal process. Caroline has not.

[ClarkUSA]

20. Caroline headed up the VP vetting process along with Eric Holder, the incoming AG.

She also campaigned for Barack quite often and got involved in plenty of GOTV activities in PA (I know because I was there).
So you're wrong that Caroline has not been/never been actively engaged in the political process.

[saracat]

129. That is hardly being actively involved. Vetting isn't campaigning and neither is giving a few

speeches. Caroline has not really been directly involved. She has never been a Field organizer , campaign manager or candidate. She is very much an onlooker.

[ClarkUSA]

157. You've got to be kidding. Vetting Obama's VP pick is "hardly being actively involved"?

:rofl:

Sorry, but I can't take you seriously after that whopper.

[saracat]

176. You seem to think she did it alone and was a lot more invoved than was indicated.

Never mind you miss the point entirely.

[ClarkUSA]

178. No, that's not what I think at all, but you act like Caroline did nothing important when she did.

:shrug:

[Renew Deal]

22. If 8 years is ages, then Caroline has been involved for a lifetime.

New Yorkers had no idea who Hillary was in 1990. She had absolutely no "experience" in 2000. She did have a famous last name. So there is absolutely a comparison between the two.

[Billy Shears]

35. 8 years ago, Hillary had no Official Experience. This year she ran for President

8 years from now Caroline will be a 2nd-term Senator and a leading candidate for the Presidency.

It's amazing what can happen in 8 years.

[karynnj]

46. Caroline worked in at least one campaign office and spoke of it in 2004

She bicycled from the boarding school she attended to Kerry's office in 1972 and worked on his campaign. In addition, working on other's campaigns is good, it is not required. She also campaigned for McGovern then. Was she a field Director? No, she was 15 years old. She has been involved in many Presidential campaigns and many MA campaigns.

In addition, she does not have to have done everything HRC did. Who made her the role model of what a Senator should be. The fact is that every poll I've seen shows that MORE NEW YORKERS prefer her to anyone else. That and meeting the basic legal requirements - which she does is all that is needed for anyone to become a Senator. Not to mention she is a longtime NY resident and has absolutely no hint of scandal. I think NY would be proud of their new Senator if she is selected.

[saracat]

128. Never mind. Real experience on the campaign trail is obviously of no importance to some. Whatever.

Caroline has many good qualities but she is no politician and has had many opportunities to contibute to the political arena and has always rejected them. She has cousins who would be more suited to this position than she is .

[Lucky 13]

181. Yeah, she has real campaign trail experience with poorly managed, ineffectual, campaign FAILURES.

And campaign experience qualifies you for one thing and one thing only: Working on other campaigns. Campaign experience does not qualify one for public office. This is why most campaign managers never run for public office... they just run more campaigns.

[saracat]

188. Really? Don't know much if anything about the Clinton Presidential campaigns do ya?

Or the 2 successful Senate campaigns?

[Lucky 13]

189. I know she was his WIFE while he was running.

And I know the first Senate campaign she spent approx $36 million dollars... WAY WAY WAY more than anticipated. It is widely reported that that campaign squandered money like crazy and was highly inefficient.

Being married to someone while THEY accomplish things doesn't count. Sorry.

[saracat]

190. Hillary was the originator and guiding force behind the famous Clinton War Room

And Hillary's early work in various political campaigns didn't occur "while" she was married, except for the presidential and senate races. And whatever she spent, she WON a Senate race. Twice. Caroline hasn't even run, or contributed to any campaign except for a few speeches.

And if you want to use the widely reported meme, it has also been "widely reported" That Bill Clinton never would have been elected but for Hillary. She was no ordinary spouse.

Caroline is merely a well educated socialite philanthropist who has decided to get her feet wet at her own convienience.And at the expense of real political effort by others. This reminds me of the well known story that made the rounds in the private school circuit in NY (I also attended one )about Caroline refusing to wait in line for ice cream because she was " Caroline Kennedy" and shouldn't have to wait. For the record it was "widely reported" Jackie was furious with that behavior.

Caroline seems to have grown up quite a bit since them and has had to face, along with many of the rest of us at her age many life alyering experiences and , like many of us is a better person for it, but it doesn't make her "entitled" to be NY Senator.

I would like to see one of the female politicians from the trenches be appointed. They have paid their dues.

[Lucky 13]

180. Involvement in a CAMPAIGN does not qualify one for office!

All kinds of sleazy schmucks work on campaigns, but you rarely see them ending up running for public office. Working on campaigns qualifies you to do one thing: work on more campaigns. In addition, if I'm recalling correctly, the last campaign Hillary was IN CHARGE OF was an unmitigated disaster that managed to squander a significant advantage in the polls and fundraising to lose to a 1/2 black Hawaiian underdog named Barack Hussein Obama. So it's probably in everyone's best interest to take Hillary's underwhelming "campaign experience" off the table right now as a qualification. Most rational people are exceedingly unimpressed with that.

Caroline Kennedy gives really inspiring speeches, in my opinion. Just because she doesn't pimp herself out all over the paid-appearance circuit like some people, doesn't mean she's not capable or experienced. Honestly, it makes me like her MORE. But I thought the ability to give a speech didn't mean anything? I thought running for public office was more than "just words".

Also, what is this "national scene" you speak of. Simple proximity to events and important people does not qualify one for anything. Alaska's proximity to Russia didn't qualify Palin as a foreign policy expert. The private White House residence's proximity to the Oval Office didn't qualify Hillary for Senator of New York. And rarely does someone put on a resume "Part of the national scene for ages" as a qualifier. Paris Hilton is "part of the national scene". Is she qualified for anything political? I lived in DC for most of my adult life and went to all the K Street bars. Am I part of the "national scene"? That argument is vague and stupid.

So... tell me again how, SPECIFICALLY, Hillary was engaged in the "political process" to any extent greater than Caroline? (This request I'm sure will be met with crickets. Every time I ask for SPECIFIC examples to support someone's ill-founded arguments, I never get them...)

Or is this just one of those attempts to tear down one woman to exalt another? Seems decadently hypocritical to me.

[pnwmom]

31. Caroline will have to be elected -- twice -- if she is to retain this seat.

It's only a very temporary appointment, until the next general election; and then she'll have to run again in two years.

But she'll have no problem with the fundraising, given her connections, and she already has twice as many supporters among the NY voting public as her next closest competitor, Andrew Cuomo.

[psychmommy]

18. i love that she is interested.

i hope she gets it. at least she actually lives there and cares about her state. i am happy that she is finally interested in politics.

[Blu Dahlia]

19. Isn't that the same problem Chris Matthews will run into?

He wasn't exactly nice to the Clintons either during the campaign.

[ClarkUSA]

21. Not so much... PA Gov. Rendell et al are mature enough not to hold primary grudges

He has publicly endorsed Matthews, telling Bloomberg News that he believes Matthews is the best candidate for the job.
One of Rendell's top campaign aides is one of Matthews' biggest boosters, too. Matthews has done extremely well in
recent public polling against Spector, which has sparked the support and interest of top PA Democrats as well as won
Rendell's endorsement. It appears that PA Democrats are looking at the big picture.

[ShortnFiery]

86. Rendell clearly demonstrates both sexism and racism ... with as side of diarrhea of the mouth.

Fast Eddy Rendell is one smarmy politician who I hope the good people of PA "let go" from public service.

[ShortnFiery]

84. Too funny! This is ONE topic = No Matthews for PA Senate = that Hillary fans and I concur ...

100%. Matthews is NOT a good choice. :thumbsdown:

[disndat]

23. N.Y.S. may have another

open Senate seat. Sunday's New York Times front page article on says Charles Schumer was right up there with Phil Gramm on Wall Street de-regulations, using as excuse that he is bringing jobs to N.Y.C. Schumer is TOAST, as unbelievable as that would seem a week ago. He has brought ruination to Wall St. as well as to New York City.

[Renew Deal]

25. What state do you live in?

Because it's obvious you have no idea what you're talking about when it comes to Schumers political fortunes.

[Renew Deal]

24. People from outside of NY that are worried about this should get lost.

Worry about your own problems. (Not directed at your ClarkUSA).

[ClarkUSA]

61. LOL

Thanks, Bleachers7... between you and me, I am a born and bred New Yorker who's heart and soul will always
belong to the Big Apple, no matter where I live and work. ;)

[Metric System]

26. Interesting that you're still buying into the media's divisivness. I'm a huge Hillary supporter and

I really don't care if Caroline gets the seat or not. Just because these individuals supported Hillary in the primaries doesn't mean they're acting on her orders. But I think you knew that.

[ClarkUSA]

27. Your personal reaction does not disprove media observations of who's been publicly dissing Caroline

I wish all "huge Hillary" supporters would behave as you have towards this appointment, but it has not been the case.

[kikiek]

140. Aw bullshit. But you bought into it and look at this thread. The ugliness of the campaign is back.

Real classy.

[ClarkUSA]

143. lol! You're one to preach about being "real classy" with that language!

What I'm not buying into is media conspiracy theories. "The ugliness of the campaign is back" because some folks in
New York and at DU are still carrying primary grudges. If you have a problem with what I am quoting, take it up with
MSNBC and The Daily News. Let us know what they say, okay?

[kikiek]

146. They are trying to sell something. Apparently so are you. You're full of it so

too bad if it offends you.

[ClarkUSA]

148. Stop disrupting this thread with your personal attacks. Is that the only reason you're here?

Is it so hard for people like you to agree to disagree? :shrug:

[kikiek]

194. Oh you weren't looking for trouble with that post. Hahaha yeah sure.

Talk about being juvenile. I won't waste another minute on anything you post though.

[ClarkUSA]

198. Still here? You sure are looking for trouble with your replies on this thread, eh?

You won't again "waste another minute on anything" I post? Good, I won't miss you.

[Beacool]

28. I'm tired of making this argument, but here it goes again.

Caroline has never ran for anything in her life and by her own choice. She's smart and well educated, but so are many other people in her social position.

Hillary had never ran for elected office either and she may have ran unopposed on the Democratic side, but she wasn't given the senate seat as a gift for endorsing the PE. She put together a platform, she fundraised, campaigned tirelessly in every single county of NY state and never took a vote for granted. She was elected twice and by even a larger margin the second time around. New Yorkers had a choice and they chose her. What choice are they being offered now?

How about giving the seat to someone who already has a track record like Bobby Jr., Cuomo, Maloney or some other Dem.? If Caroline wants to prove her political worth, let her put together a campaign and run in 2010.

[Billy Shears]

36. if a non-New Yorker can be elected, a New Yorker can be appointed

what's a matta?
scared of little ol' Caroline?

[karynnj]

48. What is RFKjr's track record - other than endorsing HRC, who lost

He never ran for office - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_F_Kennedy_Jr

That you list him is telling.

[CTyankee]

54. Look at it this way: Caroline Kennedy knows her name and persona can help Obama

fulfill his mission. She believes in Obama's vision and wants to see it enacted legislatively. She believes in a life of service to others and to one's country. That is admirable. Yes, her case is special. I'm sure she realizes she hasn't worked for this the way others have had to do. She doesn't strike me as a naive person. She just wants to give back. I say let's cut her some slack here. Having her in the Senate pulling for Obama's plan for this country doesn't seem to me the worst thing that could happen to us!

[ClarkUSA]

57. You're echoing an assessment in the current New York magazine story, "The Cinderella Kennedy"

Here's the excerpt that mirror your comments above:

Caroline isn’t interested in a Senate seat because she thinks it is a family heirloom. She genuinely, cornily, wants to
advance the ideas the family cares about, and she knows better than most that only so much can be accomplished
through symbolism. An actual seat at the bargaining table is still more valuable. This is also the way in which her
choice makes the most sense for New York, and elevates her candidacy beyond her thin résumé and mere sentiment:
Kennedy’s Democratic patrician values and her power-elite connections are not negligible assets... Caroline Kennedy’s
desire to deploy her brains and her celebrity on a grander stage, primarily in service of public education, is admirable.

[CTyankee]

62. Gawd, that's funny! I never read that piece but it sure does mirror what I said!

I feel like I "know" her, having watched her grow up and seeing how she has conducted her own life. And I feel that I know her motivation, too. I have this political gene in my body that "tells" me when something is the real deal and when something isn't (the gene was off only on John Edwards: I wanted to believe him so badly that I must have ignored the red flags).

What do you think? Do you agree with the article?

[ClarkUSA]

68. GMTA, obviously ; )

As for the article, the portion I excerpted is what I most agree with. I do not think she is capable of being tainted by the lure
of fame and fortune, as she has both and has remained a lovely person, in public and private. I believe she will bring honor
to the seat and will embody what is best in public service, should Gov. Patterson see fit to appoint her. It is obvious that she
and Barack and kindred souls in many ways they see public service. If it weren't for his example and likely encouragement, I
doubt she would be entertaining this. What do you think of the article? Besides the part you channelled perfectly?

:)

[CTyankee]

93. My sentiments entirely! I couldn't have said it better.

That Obama thinks so highly of her just reinforces my view of her. His judgment is pretty damn good and I really don't think he's all starry eyed over her. He just respects her deeply and doesn't mind asking her for this. I think it underscores the importance of getting his agenda through Congress; it is where she can be enormously helpful. I think she knew that the "time had come."

I am dismayed by the disrespectful tone of some DUers about Caroline Kennedy. They regard her as some kind of schemer who is "obsessed" with her family's story! I think that's crazy. She strikes me as one of the most balanced members of the Kennedy family (see my post above on this). It is so unfair and I feel embarrassed that any of my fellow liberals would act like this!

I do, however, think it's worth considering the "dynasty" issue. There are a lot of DUers distressed about this. I know of one who is downright apoplectic, a really angry person. Here's a thought about dynasty: the whole idea of a ruling dynasty is distasteful from the point of view of a democracy and I agree with that entirely. Now, one would think that Obama is at polar opposites with anything that smacks of dynasty, yet he is her strongest proponent. So, what he knows about her must have convinced him that she transcends the dynasty issue. I think we have to remember that our second president, himself a founder of our nation, had a son who also served as president. Yet no dynasty of Adamses ever came into being. So if it was ok for old John Adams, it's just fine with me!

Oh, by the way, could you tell me what GMTA stands for? I've been wracking my brain trying to figure it out...

[ClarkUSA]

122. Sure...

Sorry I got back to you so late... GMTA = Great Minds Think Alike

I hope the crazies that are attacking Caroline listen to you but I doubt any logic can penetrate their mental frothing.

Nice to "meet" you, though. Here's to a Senator Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg in our future. :toast:

[CTyankee]

123. Right back atcha! Thanks for the GMTA translation. I'm flattered!

Yeah, I think we have a lot of DUers who aren't old enough to remember Caroline and to see her growing up in the nice way she did. Too bad, isn't it...

:fistbump:

[ClarkUSA]

149. It's been a pleasure.

Some DUers dislike the idea of Caroline Kennedy being appointed Senator for reasons that only PUMAs fully understand.
Others are sounding "crazy" for reasons known only to themselves. I was born after the Kennedy Presidency but I have
watched Caroline Kennedy comport herself since I am a born and bred New Yorker and I like her the same way I like
Barack... I have the sense that they are decent people who truly care. It is too bad that some people here at DU, at the
DNC, and in NY seem to be part of a concerted attempt to sink Caroline's chances. I am proud that Team O and the
Kennedys are too classy to respond in kind. Maybe you and I will raise a virtual toast in January... I've got you on my
buddy list now!

:hi:

[CTyankee]

162. It's a deal!

I think that now's the time when all our talent in the Dem party should be utilized. We've been in the wilderness for so long...

[ClarkUSA]

186. Good.

May we meet up again soon, then. Don't be stranger and keep fighting the good fight. :)

[CTyankee]

187. sure thing! a good road ahead (if tough)...n/t

[ShortnFiery]

88. "She just wants to give back." ... No, a good part of it is for family dynasty ...

"Camelot" if you will. :puke: :thumbsdown:

[CTyankee]

105. I think if she wanted dynasty she would have become more active earlier

in seeking office. That she is only doing it now,when she has played such a significant role in Obama's campaign, is significant. I don't see any evidence that she is trying to establish a dynasty. Do you have any? If you do, I'd love to have a link to it.

[ShortnFiery]

127. It's all a BIG CLUB ... and you and I are not in it.

Welcome to the plutocracy ... aka *right wing status-quo duopoly.*

The boys and girls in THE BIG CLUB will make sure of it ... while us peons will stupidly continue to idolize the spoiled and bloated "political nobility." LEMMINGS for the fantasy of "Camelot" and/or "The Goddess of Peace." :eyes:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP4g_8OwEpU

[CTyankee]

144. If you cannot see the difference between Caroline Kennedy and, say, Dick Cheney

then there's not much common ground here. Cheney is a good example because he became the most powerful man in the world even tho he was not in any kind of dynastic family. Indeed, he flunked out of Yale because he felt inferior to the students there who were from the families you write about, the ones in "the club". It so embittered him that he operated on a grudge basis from then on against the same people in the same club that you vehemently oppose and led him to his zealous pursuit of power.

I think it is instructive to see what such bitterness can wreak upon the world...

[saracat]

131. This isn't about Obama.It is about NY and what is best for NY State.

[Starbucks Anarchist]

158. Would Nita Lowey have stepped aside for "Hillary Smith"?

Seems like Hillary received her own "gift." Her work ethic was certainly augmented by her last name.

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990604/ai_n14230372

The first hint that Mrs Clinton's four months of cogitation were at an end came early yesterday afternoon when Nita Lowey, the New York Congresswoman who had planned to run for the Senate, announced that she would run for re-election to the House instead. Mrs Clinton had promised that she would talk to Ms Lowey before making her intentions known. In the event, Ms Lowey called her to clear her way. A spokesman for Ms Lowey said she had told Mrs Clinton that she had decided to seek re-election to the House of Representatives in 2000 because "it was clear to her that the First Lady was running". The statement said that "she wished the First Lady well and would support her candidacy and do everything she could to help elect her to the Senate".

[PM Martin]

195. As you said.

[Billy Shears]

33. the Clintonites are starting to realize that Obama has plans for who comes after him

He put Hillary at SOS to make room in the Senate for the next President.

Kennedy in '16!

[Beacool]

37. Yeah, right.

Talk about overreaching. LOL!!!!!!!!!!

:eyes:

[Billy Shears]

39. in 8 years, Hillary went from no elected experience to Presidential Frontrunner

you doubt that Caroline could do the same?

talk about underestimating....

[ronnykmarshall]

82. Clintonites?

Still living in primary land I see.

Welcome back. Enjoy your short return.

[Billy Shears]

87. I live in Obamaland. And believe you me, I'm enjoying every moment of it.

[ronnykmarshall]

97. You may think you live in Obamaland

but your post are coming out of Uranus.

[Billy Shears]

106. no, it's Obamaland. I just saw him on TV announcing some of his Cabinet

Don't you like it here?

[ronnykmarshall]

117. What are you 12?

[kikiek]

141. Oh that is the best response I have ever seen on DU. Love it.

[Jakes Progress]

34. Doing MSM's work for them.

Not enough that this kind of crap is what we get on the tube, we get OP's like this carrying the messy water for them.

Innuendo and slime. As stated in several replies already, this is classic appeal to the HH crowd. It drums up viewership for the toilet that is GE broadcasing, but it also gives those who miss their primary energy a place to loosen their lesser angels.

Shame.

[Pathwalker]

38. WHY am I supposed to believe ANYTHING the media says?

Innuendo and slime is right! Like suddenly Judith Miller was an upright, honest journalist, there really were WMD in Iraq, Bush and Cheney never made up anything, and KKKarl Rove is a decent guy who would never lie... Well, I haven't purchased a damned thing made by GE since 12/12/2000, and I'm not about to start now, including the hit piece posted here.
I'm glad I'm not the only one who sees this crap for what it is - thank you!

[karynnj]

40. If this is true, one really ironic thing is that Clinton allies are punishing

the supporters of Obama, who won - even as Obama has reached out and given HRC a plum job. There is something really wrong here.

[Alexander]

43. Some of them are bitter and want revenge.

No matter how petty it seems or who gets hurt in the process.

[AtomicKitten]

44. It's ironic to see those that screeched "sexism" with their boot on Caroline's neck.

[Alexander]

45. Yeah, funny how they whine about "dynasties" too.

:eyes:

[paulk]

47. what's funny is that some people don't know the definition of

"dynasty"...

a husband and wife do not make a dynasty

[Alexander]

51. But in 2010, guess who is old enough to run?

Something tells me the anti-Kennedy folks here would have no problem with generations of Clintons in power.

Call it a hunch.

[paulk]

63. that's an absurd argument

but I must consider the source

[Jakes Progress]

74. Absurd is their logic.

The source is consistent, if not rational.

[Alexander]

90. At least we actually use logic instead of double standards.

Let me guess, you thought Hillary Clinton was owed the presidency and that Obama should've "waited his turn".

[Jakes Progress]

111. No, you let me guess.

You think Clinton is the anit-Christ. MSMBC told you so.

So far your posts lack both logic and standards of any kind. In your search for a complement, you took my statement that your logic was based on simple Hillary hate as though I thought you had used any logic. It was a sarcastic reply. I don't really think you used any form of logic, only blind hate and blind faith in MSMBC. Clearer?

[Alexander]

154. That's all you have, guesses, assumptions and bullshit.

If you really want to know what I think of Bill and Hillary Clinton, feel free to search the archives.

But no, you're not interested in facts. You just want to paint me as a "Clinton hater" and be done with it.

"You think Clinton is the anit-Christ. MSMBC told you so."

Wrong again. First of all, I don't believe in an anti-Christ, and second, I don't watch TV.

Of course, if you actually bothered to read my posts, you'd know that. :eyes:

"So far your posts lack both logic and standards of any kind. In your search for a complement, you took my statement that your logic was based on simple Hillary hate as though I thought you had used any logic. It was a sarcastic reply. I don't really think you used any form of logic, only blind hate and blind faith in MSMBC. Clearer?"

That's a lot of assumptions for one small paragraph.

Do you use this as a template for dealing with anyone who isn't 100% supportive of Bill or Hillary Clinton?

Because you sure don't know jack shit about me.

[Jakes Progress]

161. You are quite a bit more

transparent than you think. Several here have your number and have communicated as such. We get the cool, too hip for TV, above it all pose.

You are at least consistent. Your primary attack method is to blame someone for doing exactly what you do. You knee jerk react to all Clinton posts, then claim that anyone who disagrees picking on you for knee jerk posting about all Clinton posts.

[Alexander]

167. So now you're a mind reader. Excellent!

Maybe you can tell me the winning lotto numbers next.

"Several here have your number and have communicated as such."

Yeah, all 5 of you and your sockpuppets. Besides, I thought you had a life! :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

"We get the cool, too hip for TV, above it all pose."

Actually, the only reason I don't watch TV is that I can't afford the monthly cable bill, but thanks for yet another baseless assumption.

Do you know what I had for breakfast this morning, too?

"You are at least consistent. Your primary attack method is to blame someone for doing exactly what you do. You knee jerk react to all Clinton posts, then claim that anyone who disagrees picking on you for knee jerk posting about all Clinton posts."

Nonsense. I react to bullshit posts where Clinton fans attack the Kennedys. I don't even think Bill or Hillary have anything to do with this - it's mostly the Harriet Christians of DU who are pushing this crap.

[Jakes Progress]

171. Consistent to the extreme.

You mock me as a mind reader when I talk about your posts, even as you do the same thing. You seem to know the nature of Hillary's soul and the soul of those who disagree with you. So you get to be a mind reader and no one else does.

[Alexander]

173. And you're not consistent at all.

Your ham-handed attack on my inability to afford cable TV failed so spectacularly that you've switched gears yet again.

"You seem to know the nature of Hillary's soul"

Please show me where I have made such an assumption. Put up or shut up.

"and the soul of those who disagree with you."

I don't know anything about your soul.

But when you change tactics every post and contradict yourself, I do know about your integrity. Or lack thereof.

[Jakes Progress]

184. Wow. Just Wow.

All over the place and still going for insult rather than reason. What a piece of work. (From a book. They are available at the library.)

[Alexander]

89. I thought it was absurd that Hillary Clinton would run in New York.

After all, she wasn't from there.

Caroline Kennedy is.

[Billy Shears]

59. dynasties also usually do something memorable.

bad memories, like getting impeached, don't count.

[paulk]

64. so are you going to start using Republican arguments now

you've been here less than a month and already your act is getting old

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_PgRznuRseA&feature=related

[Billy Shears]

67. no, I just agree with you that the Clintons don't qualify as a Dynasty

simple as that.

[Jakes Progress]

73. Now don't go using facts and words

to mess up all the nasty fun the haters have going here. You will spoil their holiday spirit if you read this story with any sort of critical thinking. They've had to put up with all kinds of pain, what with Obama being smarter than them and ignoring their hating bleats.

[Alexander]

92. Ah yes, anyone that doesn't worship at the Clinton altar is a "hater".

:eyes:

At least Caroline Kennedy is actually from New York.

[Jakes Progress]

109. I like Caroline.

I'm not into hating. I don't worship politicians. I don't think Caroline is the best candidate for the job, an opinion I share with several very progressive Democrats. If she gets the job, more power to her. She will have big shoes to fill. Perhaps she is up to it.

Is your all encompassing hatred of things Clinton because of a personal slight or would or just another case of media induced belief system.

[Alexander]

152. Newsflash: I don't hate the Clintons.

Sure, I disagree with NAFTA, GATT, WTO, most favored nation status with China and a whole bunch of other stupid things that Bill Clinton did while in office, but he was a damn sight better than Bush or Dole would've been.

I am simply capable of looking at their entire records, and not just cherry-picking the things I liked.

"Is your all encompassing hatred of things Clinton because of a personal slight or would or just another case of media induced belief system."

*yawn*

Can you play any other tunes?

[Jakes Progress]

159. You asked if I could

play any other tunes, but my refrains are only in response to the drumbeat of your chorus. You seem unable to look at an entire record. Instead, you cherry pick the things do don't like. Then you accuse others of doing that.

Do you have anything other than what you've read on the DU hate mongers shop to trot out? Prove you don't hate Clinton by showing that you see that this story is a media creation.

[Alexander]

166. I see you've answered my question.

With a "no".

"play any other tunes, but my refrains are only in response to the drumbeat of your chorus."

I don't have a "chorus".

I simply find it interesting that most of the opposition to CKS here is coming from the most vocal and obnoxious supporters of Hillary Clinton.

I also find it interesting that CKS endorsed Obama during the primaries, and that many of these same people simply could not move on even when it was mathematically impossible, and then completely impossible, for Hillary Clinton to win.

I said nothing about Hillary Clinton or Bill Clinton. I think they are a lot more gracious than many of their supporters.

"You seem unable to look at an entire record. Instead, you cherry pick the things do don't like."

I pointed out the flaws in Bill Clinton's record. Excuse the fuck out of me for seeing flaws in his presidency.

As I said, he was far better than Bush or Dole would've been. They would never have given us a surplus, raised taxes on the rich, negotiated peace in Northern Ireland or stopped the genocide in Kosovo.

You seem unable to even discuss a record. At least I'm providing specifics and examples. Christ on a cracker.

"Then you accuse others of doing that."

Lovely. Now you're projecting projection. Seek help.

"Do you have anything other than what you've read on the DU hate mongers shop to trot out?"

I don't listen to "DU hate mongers", whether they are in the Obama camp or the Clinton camp.

Of course, if you were interested in facts, you could search for my posts, couldn't you?

Nah, that would make too much sense. :eyes:

[Jakes Progress]

169. Read a few.

They didn't seem at odds or different than what you do here.

Again, I do love the consistency. You do it again and again. It is still opinion and you still call it fact. You don't seem to know the difference. Throw in a bit more profanity and obscenity. That always adds gravitas.

[Alexander]

172. In that case, I'm sorry you failed reading comprehension.

"It is still opinion and you still call it fact."

You just can't admit that I'm discussing facts, like the fact that neither Hillary Clinton nor Caroline Kennedy had ever won elected office prior to their interest in the New York Senate seat.

Or the fact that Caroline Kennedy is from New York while Hillary Clinton was not.

As Hillary Clinton's predecessor liked to say, you're entitled to your opinion. But you aren't entitled to your own facts.

[Jakes Progress]

183. See the above reply for a definition

of facts vs. opinion. You don't get it.

[PM Martin]

196. True.

Especially seeing that both of them came from very humble beginings.

[paulk]

49. maybe they don't think she deserves the job

and maybe Hillary Clinton has nothing whatsoever to do with that calculation

not everything is some kind of grand conspiracy...

that, to me, is what's really wrong here

the automatic assumption by some that if Hillary Clinton's name is mentioned there has to be some behind the scene machinations involved.

but it does sell newspapers ...

[Alexander]

50. Yet Hillary Clinton somehow did?

Give me a break. She had just as much elected experience as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg does now.

This is bitter PUMA revenge, nothing more.

[paulk]

66. try to stay on topic

I know it's hard for you

but it would be nice if you occasionally posted something that had some relation to the post you are replying to...

[Jakes Progress]

75. But Hillary bashing is his only topic. nt

[Alexander]

95. And hit-and-run, fact-free snark posts are yours.

Two can play at this game, if you really want to go down that road.

[Jakes Progress]

112. Oh, you will win.

I have a life.

[Alexander]

155. You're right. Because I use facts.

"I have a life."

So do I.

The only difference is that I don't use that as an excuse to run away from an argument.

[Jakes Progress]

163. It is your life.

Arguing is not a life. It is an affliction.

What facts can you offer that prove that the story is valid? You want to use facts. You want to use facts. You can't handle the facts.

(Hope you caught the movie in the theaters since you don't watch television. Are movies too mundane for you also?)

[Alexander]

168. Yep. Yours is so busy that you spend it PMing other Clinton supporters

about what a poor, persecuted little clique you have and how those big, bad, nasty Obama supporters should pay. :eyes:

"Arguing is not a life. It is an affliction."

An affliction you apparently suffer from just as much as I do.

So you can get off your high horse about not arguing, as you continue to argue.

"What facts can you offer that prove that the story is valid?"

When have I ever said the story is valid?

"(Hope you caught the movie in the theaters since you don't watch television. Are movies too mundane for you also?)"

Ah yes, just like a bitter Clinton supporter, to talk shit about people who can't afford certain luxuries.

Maybe, if you're so interested in me watching TV and movies, you can pay my cable bill.

[Jakes Progress]

177. Ah, again the attack

for doing just what you do.

You increasingly accuse me of thinking I know you because of what you said. Then you assume I pm'd someone. Didn't say I did. You just think I am spending that much time on this. You don't know how easy this is for me.

And granted, you could conclude I am as obsessed as you with getting the last word, but it is more a matter fascination. Just how long will you continue. Sort of like watching an ant try to carry some fluff up a hill. Just fascinating.

Your question about the validity of the story indicates that you have forgotten the point of the thread.

You continue to do what you accuse me of. You have decided that I am bitter. You have decided that I am a Clinton supporter. You say I am the kind of person to talk about poor people. All silly attempts to bolster a lack of evidential debate. All patently wrong.

If your circumstances are so dire, I certainly hope you are getting paid by the post for the time you have put into this.

Fascinating.

[Alexander]

179. Yeah, because I dare to call you out on your nonsense, it's an "attack".

We're just supposed to accept everything you say as fact, like you're royalty or something. :eyes:

"You don't know how easy this is for me."

Ah yes, now you're excusing away your inability to debate.

"Your question about the validity of the story indicates that you have forgotten the point of the thread."

No, I haven't. The story is probably not valid, but the bitter Harriet Christian types here are sure doing their best to fan the flames. If you can't see that, it is your problem, not mine.

"You say I am the kind of person to talk about poor people. All silly attempts to bolster a lack of evidential debate."

You made a completely baseless and wrong assumption about why I don't watch TV.

You went on for some time about how I must think I'm "too cool" for TV, based on this wrong assumption. And it wasn't relevant to the discussion in the slightest.

I have several posts' worth of evidence here. You talk out of your ass and then get offended when people call you on it. And when you realize your tactic is failing, you drop it and move on to another line of attack, as if I wouldn't notice.

I would love to continue, as it's my day off, but it's beneath me to engage an unarmed person in a battle of wits.

Have a better one.

[Jakes Progress]

185. Easy because of my profession.

I work with struggling writers all day long.

[ronnykmarshall]

98. That's for damn sure.

and the usual suspects show up to throw in their 2 cents worth of shit.

[Alexander]

102. When have your posts been anything other than Clinton worship

and Obama attacks?

Pot, meet kettle.

[ronnykmarshall]

115. Perhaps you need to read more.

Please go back and show me Obama attacks that I posted once the primary was settled.

Even before that my posts were defending Hillary and not much attacking of Obama. Unlike OTHERS.

I'll wait for you to provide examples to back up your bullshit.

Get back soon! Love ya, mean it!

[ronnykmarshall]

125. Still waiting for your responce.

[Alexander]

94. If we hold them to equal standards, HRC and KCS had the same qualifications...

When it comes to the New York Senate seat.

Both are/were accomplished and intelligent lawyers with a prominent family name and no prior elected experience.

Try to be fair.

I know it's hard for you, what with double standards being your way of life.

[Jakes Progress]

113. You are betraying

your lack of history and fact if that statement is one your truly believe.

[Alexander]

156. So, can you refute what I said with FACTS? No, of course not.

It's obvious why you stopped arguing - your posts are nothing but a heaping pile.

And you know it.

[Jakes Progress]

165. Take some deep cleansing breaths.

Fuming will ruin your blood pressure. I sense that winning a silly forum argument is very vital to you.

You mention facts over and over, but these exchanges stopped including facts long ago. Your facts are just your predisposition to one side. What is factual about your statement? Is it any more factual than my saying that they are not exactly the same, that H had more experience. Both sides are opinions. You have yours. I have mine. A question of fact hinges on evidence; it requires objective reality. Is it your contention that you spent time with both ladies and witnessed their lives and actions? Do you truly claim objectivity.

(This is an out for you. You can rest assured that you won because I admitted that I an not objective. You can just ignore that you aren't either.)

[Alexander]

170. No thanks, I'd rather not huff the noxious fumes of your bullshit.

"I sense that winning a silly forum argument is very vital to you."

If it's not important to you, why are you still arguing with me and making assumptions about my life? :eyes:

"You mention facts over and over, but these exchanges stopped including facts long ago."

Please explain to me how Hillary Clinton in 2000 had more experience than Caroline Kennedy does today.

You still have yet to answer this. Where are your facts?

"Both sides are opinions."

Not really.

How many times had Hillary Clinton been elected prior to running for the Senate? Zero.

How many times has Caroline Kennedy been elected? Zero.

Facts like those are not a matter of opinion. If I say the sky is blue, that's not just my opinion.

"Is it your contention that you spent time with both ladies and witnessed their lives and actions?"

My contention is just the opposite. I don't personally know either Hillary Clinton or Caroline Kennedy, so the only qualifications I can speak of are the ones on paper.

And on paper, Hillary Clinton in 2000 had just as much experience as Caroline Kennedy does now.

If you want a factual discussion, let's talk about that, shall we?

[Jakes Progress]

182. You ask questions you know the answers to.

I'll play though.

Clinton in 2000, had been involved the running of a white house. Kennedy has spent an all too brief part of her childhood there.

Clinton had extensive experience in running state and national campaigns. Kennedy was a speaker at campaign events.

Clinton has shown an avid interest in politics and running for office since her childhood. Kennedy has, until now, said she never wanted to be involved.

You know these things. So don't be silly.

Then you make the really stupid conclusion that not running for office makes the lives and professional endeavors of both women equal. Come on. Stop being willfully silly. You know that serving as first lady in the state house and the White House, especially for someone as hands on as Clinton is more experience than serving on foundations and making speeches. You know that having suffered from and fought back against the right wing onslaughts for those years, surviving Starr, representing as emissary to foreign lands, and learning to get things done against the neocons is more experience.

I think Caroline Kennedy might make a senator. But let's not say that socialite fund raising is the same kind of experience. You really don't seem that shallow. Saying they have equal experience "on paper" sounds like an argument that might work with some kids hanging around the den, but it won't fly here, and I think you know that. You just hoped it would sail by.

Here we are not arguing facts. You are stating that neither had been elected before. That's not what we are arguing. That is a fact. What this argument is about is whether that "fact" along with the ones I have listed prove that the two estimable women have equivalent backgrounds for serving as senator. That would be opinion. It is not whether the sky is blue. It is more like whether this shade of blue presages continued cold or a break in the frost.

If you still think your post deals with a factual discussion, you are just not as bright as I have been giving you credit for. It is my opinion that you like to argue. It is also my opinion that when you begin to lose that argument, you resort to some pretty shallow reasoning to bolster a weak position and then throw in some insult. And you toss in an appeal for pity for good measure.

[karynnj]

53. That is why I started my post with a conditional phrase

"If this is true"

I think there are many possibilities:
1) A person may want someone else - and she is now a frontrunner - thus the comment
2) A person was angry thinking she helped derail - so they are disparaging her - and this is completely independent of HRC
3) These people know that thinkthis would be a slap in the face to HRC
4) Clinton allies have spread the word that the Clintons think it would be a slap in the face.
5) The Clintons have spread the word that they think it would be a slap in the face.

I would actually bet on 1 through 3, with 4 being a remote possibility - and then just because of the stories of their anger towards Kerry, Kennedy and Richardson. I think 5 is out of the question - even if they think it.

The above is of course mere speculation and has no factual backup.

[Jakes Progress]

71. You are being played.

Both by the media who miss the ratings the primary wars gave them and by the haters here on DU. This is a bogus story. A little innuendo tarted up to look exciting. Don't fall for it.

[ClarkUSA]

55. MSNBC Breaking News: "NY Times: Caroline Kennedy To Seek Senate Seat" with link to story -->

This is the first definitive indication that she really wants the job. Here's an excerpt from the story:

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, who 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... Ms. Kennedy has been making
calls this morning to alert political figures to her interest.

Game on! :woohoo:

[Billy Shears]

58. when has Zimmerman ever not been a complete asshole?

[ClarkUSA]

193. I give up... when? Can't think of any.

They overplayed their hand when he opened his yap. Hope Hillary's latest CYA "public message" to her toadies/hacks shuts him up.
Then he can go back to being chummy with Lou Dobbs tsk-tsking about the left wing of the Democratic Party.

[ClarkUSA]

69. Story is being discussed on MSNBC now

With Norah O'Donnell and guest Michelle Bernard. Rev. Al Sharpton has invited her to have lunch with him at Sylvia's next week
as a good luck charm since Barack did the same thing during the primaries.

:)

[S_E_Fudd]

70. Misleading headline....

I don't see anywhere in the article where the Clintons have said anything...

"Clinton Supporters" are not the same as "The Clintons"

Until there is some shred of proof that the "Clintons" are behind it to cast it as the Clintons vs. the Kennedys is ridiculous...

[ClarkUSA]

72. MSNBC's First Read made a point to include a question mark, so I don't see where it's misleading

And it's not as if there hasn't been such a thing as being a political mouthpiece in a proxy fight before. One look at the names
mentioned in the stories gives many of us a feeling of déjà -vu.

:shrug:

[S_E_Fudd]

76. Same as their oft used "Some Say" before slamming someone...

Usually a Democrat

As in "Some Say" Barack Obama is a Muslim...

The "?" is a CYA move...

[ClarkUSA]

78. The stories named very familiar names... so your analogy seems inaccurate.

As for the "Caroline vs. The Clintons?" title, I don't have a problem with it, because it captures the
essence of the Clintonian attacks against Caroline.

[S_E_Fudd]

81. Was either Bill, Hillary or Chelsea Clinton named ?...nt

[ronnykmarshall]

83. Maybe by some voices in someone's head(s).

[ClarkUSA]

85. Um, maybe this wouldn't be the first time known mouthpieces have been used in a proxy fight?

:shrug:

[Billy Shears]

91. the Clintons plausible deniability with these Parrots became implausible years ago

How many times did Zimmerman take a hatchet to Obama this last year?

We know who he acts on behalf of.

[S_E_Fudd]

101. I don't want to replay the primaries...

As I am quite happy how Obama has conducted himself so far...

But the Obama campaign were no slouches when it came to using surrogate hatchet men to smear the Clinton's

My guess is if the name Obama was switched in the referenced article there would be howls of protest here about the MSM...

[Billy Shears]

110. but it's not Obama that Zimmerman is after this time.

we're just saying that it's highly unlikely that he has changed allegiances in the past few months.

he knows who his actions will be tied to. they do to.

[S_E_Fudd]

100. And until there is any evidence for that ...the headline is misleading...

As I said in my original post

[ClarkUSA]

103. I disagree. The "evidence" involves using common sense deductive reasoning.

Many do see "evidence" of Clintonian puppet play. As for the headline, it's obvious your journalistic standards are too high for the
editors of MSNBC. I guess they'll have to live with your disapproval.

[S_E_Fudd]

104. Yes...the common sense deductive reasoning here

That only Bill and Hillary Clinton are responsible for the acts of their supporters....

[ClarkUSA]

107. In this case of concerted high-profile kvetching attacks on Caroline, yes.

It's a logical deduction. That's why so many political news sources are reporting it similarly.

[S_E_Fudd]

108. With the Clinton's...

No proof required....

[ClarkUSA]

116. See reply #103.

Lather, rinse, repeat. ;)

[S_E_Fudd]

118. Yeah...

Since I would just reference my reply we would get caught in an infinite loop that would never end...

So I suggest we agree to disagree

[ClarkUSA]

121. Agreed.

Alas, I wish more here would subscribe to your levelheaded manner of settling unresolved political disagreements.

[okieinpain]

79. man does anybody other then me get really sick of seeing some

clinton advisor bitching about something that the clintons aren't getting. geez they act like they own the freaking world or something.

[ShortnFiery]

80. How about no more ROYALTY - no one should be selected because of their name or their family ...

connection. This whole notion of political royalty is disgusting and insult ive in these hard times.

Down with nepotism and cronyism. Perhaps Princess-Senator Caroline Kennedy? THEN President Hillary Clinton? Next President, Jebbi Bush? Followed by SON, George P.? :puke: ... oh and last but not least President Chelsea Clinton?!? Enough is ENOUGH! :nuke:

[Beacool]

133. For once I agree with you, up to a point.

To me the difference is that Hillary and Jeb ran for office and voters had a choice, they are given no choice with Caroline.

[question everything]

96. Now often do sitting candidates lose in the primaries in New York?

I don't remember how RFK got his seat, but Hillary campaigned and got elected. If Caroline gets the seat, she will have it for as long as she wants to, having the power of incumbency and what Democrat would dare running against her?

[CakeGrrl]

136. So...what if CKS is actually a SUCCESSFUL Progressive senator?

Or is that the fear? That she may have a chance to equal or surpass Hillary's Senate accomplishments?

Not for nothing, but I seriously doubt Hillary would have been successful in her senate campaign if not for her name recognition.

[Joe the Revelator]

119. Why is there ALWAYS drama with Clinton and her supporters?

You wonder why some of us are sick and tired of it.

[ClarkUSA]

124. On MSNBC this afternoon, Amy Stoddard of The Hill called it...

"another Clinton soap opera". She said it with amused resignation. Neither Washington Post political reporter
Ann Kornblut or host Norah O' Donnell contradicted her. It was a given.

[LittleBlue]

120. Fuck the fucking Clintons

Sorry, but they are really getting under my nerves. Those two are carpetbaggers. Obama should have never appointed anyone affiliated with Clinton-- this will be a never-ending dramatic nightmare.

[Metric System]

130. Oh look, another manufactured excuse for people to get their Clinton hate on.

[Beacool]

132. Don't argue with assholes, it never goes well.

I just came from seeing Hillary and Bill. It was a great night, but bittersweet. Many people are sad that she's leaving the senate, me included.

;-)

[Metric System]

134. Wow, I am envious. That sounds so amazing. Yeah, DU has decided to pit Hillary vs. Caroline as an

excuse to do some bashing.

[Beacool]

135. Same old jerks, different fight.

If Caroline had endorsed Hillary, they would be the first ones screaming bloody murder that someone who has never ran for anything is just being given as important a position as senator just due to her family connections. Actually, even if she HAD endorsed Hillary, I think that the seat should go to someone like Cuomo, Maloney or some other Dem. who has already ran for elected office.

Hillary said something tonight that was quite apropos to what we see here and on the MSM. She said that who she is and what people say she is and how she feels and thinks make her feel as if she were in a surreal world. That since 1992 it's been schizophrenic, people cast her in certain roles and project their own feelings onto her. She joked that there was not much that was left private about her life and that there were dozens of books written about her and that she had made many people rich. Her point was that most of what was written was not who she was as a person.

[ClarkUSA]

151. Pot, meet kettle. I seem to recall a recent anti-Kennedy meme OP by you...

:shrug:

[kikiek]

142. Yeah and it isn't even true. The whole split is different. More along bucking the name it appears.

How silly is that? The Kennedy's have been stellar progressives, but you wouldn't know that reading these posts. Disgusting.

[Jennicut]

145. This thing has gotten out of control. Just appoint someone already and get on with it.

Geez.

[sohndrsmith]

150. "How many freshman senators at the bottom of the seniority list can pick up the phone and get...

the President?" asked one influential Democrat, who asked that his name not be used.
... um... there was one I think.... no wait - she was only married to a president. What was her name again? I think she got appointed to some cabinet office or something... shoot... it's on the tip of my tongue.

No one should be appointed.

It's
just
not
fair

...right?

[iamthebandfanman]

153. i really dont understand what the clintons have to do with anything

my issue is a political appointment based on a name and being in the know.

ill probably never respect the clintons after this past election cycle,
but i also dont understand why caroline should be first in line for a seat in the senate..


to me , neither have jack shit to do with each other.


sounds like people just wanting to once again divide democrats.


well, im not playing that game.

[ClarkUSA]

160. CNN is discussing this issue now; the usual suspects are attacking Caroline.

Guess who they used to work for? Others are saying she is capable of raising scads of money which will hold her in good stead
within the party and in 2010/2012. Oh, and Larry Sabato says for most Americans, it'll be the return of Camelot welded with
Obamalot. "Which means alot."

[McCamy Taylor]

197. They wish. Divide and Conquer is the GOP's favorite game. Engels said THIS is why workers in the US

are kept oppressed---we allow ourselves to be divided. This is such a non issue. Just pick a name brand Democrat. That is how Clinton got her job. It will work for Kennedy. Democrats should be bitching about Bush's 11th hour executive decrees. At least the rich ones will not be caught up in pay to play scandals.

[polichick]

199. Well, now Hillary has called off her dogs.

[ClarkUSA]

200. NYT today describes Caroline's efforts to win over officials and visit the upstate area.

Here's an excerpt:

On the day Caroline Kennedy declared she wanted to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, one of the first people
she called was the mayor of Buffalo... she wanted to visit western New York. She told him she wanted to learn more
about regional issues... as Ms. Kennedy begins an understated if carefully orchestrated rollout, with calls to political
leaders early this week, and a trip upstate, including a private meeting with the mayor of Syracuse, on Wednesday...

“New York likes candidates like Pat Moynihan and Robert Kennedy and Hillary Clinton and I would put Caroline in that
category,” said Robert Shrum, a Democratic consultant with strong ties to the Kennedy family. “We always assume that
they are going to have more trouble than they do."

Ms. Kennedy’s advisers suggested that they were looking to how Mrs. Clinton ran her race for the Senate in 2000 and
dealt with similar obstacles. And some people who worked for Mrs. Clinton during that race expressed confidence that
Ms. Kennedy could address the concerns New Yorkers have about her... Yet there are differences as well. Unlike Mrs.
Clinton in 2000 — and Ms. Kennedy’s uncle Robert in 1964 — Ms. Kennedy cannot be accused of being a carpetbagger,
having lived most of her life in New York... Upstate newspapers have... advised Ms. Kennedy to mount a “listening tour”
forthwith. But in an interview on Tuesday, the paper’s editorial page editor, James Lawrence, said it is also important
that she demonstrate command of the area’s issues...

Still, there were signs that Ms. Kennedy was making progress. Edward I. Koch, the former New York mayor who last week
seemed underwhelmed by the idea of another Senator Kennedy, was nothing short of effusive about her — on Tuesday —
after hearing from her.

“I think that she will be a superb senator,” Mr. Koch said. “She’s paid her dues and more.”

And Mr. Koch, whose own bid for governor ended with some stumbles upstate in 1982, was quick to offer some advice.
“The first thing out her beautiful mouth should be ‘I love upstate New York — and I can’t wait to get there.’ ”

[HeraldSquare212]

201. CKS should promise to create 200,000 new jobs upstate.

[ClarkUSA]

202. Isn't that what Hillary did?

It never happened, of course. But it got her elected. I'm not sure Caroline is into that kind of gratuitous BS, though, unless
she actually has a plan to do so that Team O approves of intrinsically (e.g., high-rail system, infrastructure rebuilding, green
federal building retrofitting, etc.)