Do You Support Caroline Kennedy's Bid To Replace Senator Clinton?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

Poll question: Do You Support Caroline Kennedy's Bid To Replace Senator Clinton?

I do!

[wyldwolf]

1. I don't NOT support it, and I do think it's funny to hear people claim she isn't qualified

[Billy Shears]

3. don't not = do, you've sure got a funny way of saying 'do'.

don't not not stress yourself out with all that support.

[wyldwolf]

9. I do believe I have a stalker named "Billy Shears." Or maybe a chihuahua nipping at my ankles

[mtnsnake]

13. Perhaps Billy knows you from a previous existence?

[wyldwolf]

16. I wonder who he was in a previous DU life? He seems to have an ax to grind with me

[mtnsnake]

29. What was that name of that guy that sounded like Calteacher

or something like that

[wyldwolf]

32. hmm... he lived in his mom's basement...

[Billy Shears]

17. it doesn't take long to notice old unending allegiances

especially those that are not to our Party or President Elect

but then again you know that, don't ya?

[wyldwolf]

21. ah, he gives ANOTHER clue he's been here longer than his post count and join date indicates

[mtnsnake]

26. That's quite a skill, Billy. I admire your ability to peg posters on a weeks notice (snicker)

Oops, a week and a half to be exact. lol

[Billy Shears]

28. I've pegged you right. Haven't I?

Don't blame me for my ability to perceive your loyalties.
All it takes is a scan of your posts.

[mtnsnake]

33. No you haven't. I supported Obama enthusiasticly from the second he beat Hillary

All it takes is a scan of your posts

How do you scan posts when you can't search on them? Do you have another current identity, too?

[wyldwolf]

36. very good point! One can't search on DU without being a donor...

[Billy Shears]

38. try google. It's a really impressive piece of software

Do you think we elected the best candidate as our President?

[mtnsnake]

43. "Do you think we elected the best candidate as our President?"

That's an odd question to be asking at this point, Billy, but read this from 2 years ago. It might jar your memory some. Some people have the ability to like more than one Democrat....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=3033492

[wyldwolf]

47. I guess google missed that one

[mtnsnake]

48. Well, according to Billy, if you have google, you don't need a star to search DUers posts

Amazing how he can sort through all of that.

Billy Google. :evilgrin:

[Billy Shears]

52. I did stumble upon this gem....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5243117

Nostalgic, eh?
:rofl:

[wyldwolf]

55. you're proof of how effective his posts like that were... sucker! LOL!

[Billy Shears]

58. sure thing...

"Let's face it, folks, when you are all of those great ladies all wrapped up into one fine woman, you just can't lose."

Why don't you hang up a 'DLC Mission Accomplished' banner?

[wyldwolf]

59. glad you're being such a good sport about being played by that post!

[Billy Shears]

63. no responses allowed in Wyldlc's 'Zone of Lamity'

[wyldwolf]

67. people who get played often post irrelevant replies like you just did.

[mtnsnake]

57. haha, glad you enjoyed that, Billy!

Yes, quite nostalgic. Ahhhh

[ieoeja]

77. Bring out your dead!

Posters on the 2006 link from mtnsnake two years before the primary....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=193547
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=110992
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=156029
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=192336
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=146964
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=196096
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=190687


Posters on the March link from Billy Shears when the primary was effectively over....

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=215499
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=110062
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=154271
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=214049
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=216742
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=144600
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=152463
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=user_profiles&u_id=215424

[SwampG8r]

105. now thats over the top

wowsers!

[Billy Shears]

15. get over yourself. you have to actually be liked to be stalked.

you just prefer to never be called on your bullshit. so anyone who dares do so is a pest in your mind.

I don't know why I even bother, you really aren't worth the effort.

[wyldwolf]

19. you obviously like me a whole bunch. Do you need a doggie treat, pepe?

[karynnj]

18. Does that make you Sgt Pepper?

[wyldwolf]

22. maybe in Billy Boy's mind. He read the news today, oh, boy!

[Billy Shears]

25. but I just had to laugh, at his DLC Golden Calf....

[wyldwolf]

30. there's that chihuahua again... yip yip yip yip!

[Billy Shears]

42. lame ad hominem attacks = getting under Wyldlc's skin

better leave you alone,
you might be rabid.

[wyldwolf]

45. lol. an attacker whines/whimpers about being attacked...

[Billy Shears]

50. I never whine when given the chance to call out a bullshitter

I just know when we have gotten past the point of actual discussion and have entered into your zone of lamity, where you do things like copy and repeat people's posts back to them or call them chihuahuas.
Nothing relevant can come from you once we have crossed that threshold.
My point has been made, and now you are simply demonstrating it. By all means, continue...

[wyldwolf]

51. you have quite the imagination, too! you abandoned actual discussion with your first post

you abandoned actual discussion with your first post in this thread.

[Billy Shears]

54. the discussion is 'should Caroline be appointed to the Senate?'

my first post was inquiring as to why your support for Caroline was so 'strong'.
you never answered, you just called me a stalker.

you still have not explained your 'don't not support' support...care to try?

[wyldwolf]

56. yeah, your post #3 was just a friendly innocent comment... (snicker)

you still have not explained your 'don't not support' support...care to try?

Since you're the only one having problems with it, I think you have a comprehension issue...

[Billy Shears]

62. no, yo comprendo perfecto.

you are unwilling to admit that you don't support Caroline for the Senate,
so you take a completely roundabout route to imply that you have no opinion on the subject.
but in doing so, it is clear what your opinion is.

I just wonder why you don't simply express it in the first place.

[wyldwolf]

68. charm, wit, and a mindreader, too! no, actually, you're clueless. Better luck next time

[wyldwolf]

145. he blew his mind out in car...

...He didn't notice that the lights had changed
A crowd of people stood and stared
They'd seen his face before...

[SoxFan]

61. OFFS

[NashVegas]

10. I Don't NOT Support It and Do Think People Who Said Clinton Rode Bill's Coattails

AND also say CK isn't qualified at least show some intellectual integrity.

Others, not so much.

[Billy Shears]

37. Bill is Clinton.

ohhh, but you meant Hillary. I see.

When has she ever called herself 'Clinton'?
She didn't even put that on her Campaign signs. Did you ever see a "Clinton '08" sign?

[wyldwolf]

98. I imagine she always has...

... hasn't she?

[last1standing]

2. It's not my state so it's not my business.

She's more qualified than most repubs as far as I'm concerned so if she is appointed I will support her as much as a Michigan resident can. But the only real voices that need be heard are those of New Yorkers.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

5. A Senator's Vote Affects Everyone In Our Constitutional Scheme

~

[Renew Deal]

6. Worry about your own Senator.

I'm sure there's plenty to deal with there.

[last1standing]

8. True, but I didn't set up the system, I just vote in it.

The people of New York deserve to be the ones who decide this question, not those of us from the 'outside'. I believe the Governor will make the right decision and the people will support it. If they don't then they'll show their true desire in two years.

[Captain Hilts]

31. I don't think it's his decision to make other than to appoint a placeholder.

I like CK, a LOT, but if she seriously wants this job, make her get in the scrum in 2010.

[last1standing]

41. I agree with that 100%

n/t

[onenote]

86. There are several downsides to appointing a "placeholder"

First, it automatically sacrifices the possibility of gaining two additional years of seniority for NY's junior senator.

Second, it means that NY will have a particularly uninfluential Senator representing it for two years.

Finally, if the person appointed is successful, having them be a placeholder means that the Democrat will have sacrificed the advantages of having a successful incumbent as the nominee in 2010. Of course, if Kennedy is appointed and she is not successful, then she won't have those advantages. Since 1970, roughly half of the appointed senators have lost in their bids to win the seat in their first attempt after being appointed. So the benefits of incumbency do not appear to attach themselves to appointed senators as quickly and strongly as they do to elected senators.

[Captain Hilts]

93. True, but Paterson himself is kind of a second-string governor.

And he's not been in long enough to have the dap to choose a candidate.

There are a lot of pitfalls here for him as there are several important constituencies here that want their guy to get the 'nod:
Upstaters, Hispanics, women, blacks, etc.

That's my take.

[saltpoint]

121. He's perceived to be, yes. But not for long.

And maybe not even now.

I think the Republicans are about to get a load of a full-power mind with Gov. Paterson.

[Renew Deal]

4. You should add a line "I don't live in NY so I will STFU"

Most people here should vote on that line.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

7. See Five

BTW I donate to Senate and Congressional races outside my district and state because I am affected by their votes...

[ellacott]

20. I agree

[iamthebandfanman]

153. thatd matter if this were an election

but its not. its an appointment.

everyone is entitled to their opinion.


wait, i didnt say it in sheeple so let me translate for ya...

baaah
baaaaah
baaaah baah bah bah
baaah

[Renew Deal]

156. You mean everyone in NY is entitled to their opinion.

Other opinions are meaningless.

[LisaM]

11. I do support it, and I'll tell you why

every time, EVERY time, she is interviewed by the media, she is treated with decorum and respect. She has suffered so many personal tragedies, people tend to be nice to her and that includes the media (even Tim Russert was nice to her; Chris Matthews loves her). It will be a pleasure to see a Democrat treated fairly by the media.

[Cha]

88. That's an excellent point I

had not thought of. I'm in New York and I would love to see her be the place holder and see what goes from there.

[verges]

157. As soon as she becomes a Senator,

that will change.

[GodlessBiker]

12. I believe that there are New York State Assembly and Senate members who have a more clearly...

defined track record on issues which are important to me. I would prefer someone else.

[AtomicKitten]

14. I think it would be a great appointment because Caroline can hold the seat in 2010.

[paulk]

60. why do you think she would hold the seat?

what do you base this on?

[AtomicKitten]

64. name recognition and the ability to raise money -- not unlike Clinton in 2000

[onenote]

85. agreed

Caroline would have more immediate impact than anyone else who's name has come up because other Democratic senators would be courting her to get her to campaign for them and be on bills with them. Just as was the case with HRC in 2000. Nita Lowey would've made a fine Senator, but wouldn't have had anywhere near the impact as a first termer that HRC had. (And, for the record, I supported Obama over HRC throughout the primaries).

[paulk]

96. I'm not convinced she would be a shoo-in

sure, the ability to raise money would give her an advantage, but I don't think name recognition was as big a factor in Clinton's win as you think. She toured upstate NY and learned the issues of upstate - which are not the issues of NYC. Kennedy will not be able to get by on name recognition alone - she's going to need to win upstate over the same way Hillary did. Maybe she will - but I don't think one can automatically assume that she will be able to do this. There will be a bias against her uptown city roots the same as there was a bias against HRC being from out of state. Maybe she is a natural born politician and will be able to overcome this bias - but, given her meager experience in that field, it's impossible to know.

She is also extremely liberal, more so than either Schumer or Clinton. NY isn't MA. The Democratic Party in NY just took control of the state Senate for the first time in 40 years. A moderate Republican, especially one who plays well in upstate, could give her a real fight.

[dkf]

130. You don't think NY can handle a liberal Senator?

[paulk]

151. well, since both Clinton and Schumer are considered liberals

by most any measure outside of the one's websites like this one employ, I do think that NY can "handle" a liberal Senator.

However, I think that a lot of people, based on her last name and her work so far, will see Caroline Kennedy as to the left of the aforementioned Senators.

The point I am trying to make is that this will not serve her well in red upstate NY, an area she will need to win over if she hopes to win election in 2010, especially if the Republicans are smart enough to run a moderate against her. Since we have no real idea of her effectiveness as either a campaigner or a politician, I don't think we can assume that she will be able to do this.

Based on that, I am disagreeing with the posters who are saying that Kennedy will win easily in 2010.

[brianna69]

90. She would definitely hold the seat in 2010.

[panader0]

23. If only she wasn't tattooed

<kidding>

[Hippo_Tron]

24. I'm pretty indifferent, she might be a great senator and she might not be

If New York were my state I'd probably have more of an opinion. Not because the decisions of NY's senators don't effect me (as discussed up thread) but because I don't know a whole lot about the Democratic bench of talent in that state.

[TahitiNut]

27. I think it's interesting that the M$M is saying Hillary is opposed to Caroline - since she supported

... Obama in the primaries. *Somebody* is doing some ax-grinding. :shrug: It seems to be a chorus of ax-grinding.

[Captain Hilts]

35. You never miss a chance to believe MSM bullshit about the Clintons.

Clinton won all the states CK campaigned for Obama seriously: MA, NY and CA.

They're all grown-ups, unlike DU.

[karynnj]

44. True, but not be the margins ancipated

before Kerry and the Kennedys endorsed Obama. She was over 35 points ahead in MA then. The delegates she was likely to get were far higher than what she did get. Without that, Obama winning Illinois and the caucus states would have been too little to stop HRC from getting a huge lead on SuperTuesday and the momentum that goes with it. Consider when you first started hearing of superdelegates maybe not voting for the one with the highest number of regular delegates.

[TahitiNut]

46. Isn't your ax sharp enough yet?

:eyes:

[Beacool]

75. I'll be seeing Hillary in a little more than two hours.

If I get a chance, maybe I'll ask her about it.

:-)

[La Lioness Priyanka]

66. they also claimed the clintons killed dozens of people. do you think obama would want a killer

on his payroll?

[TahitiNut]

87. The M$M did? Really? Gee, I must've missed that.

:shrug: :eyes:

[La Lioness Priyanka]

99. you dont remember the implications during the clinton years following white water?

[onenote]

34. I support it and I supported HRC getting the nomination in 2000

without having to face a primary challenge from other potential candidates with deeper ties to NY and with more legislative experience, but with less statewide name recognition and support.

[TreasonousBastard]

39. I really don't give a damn, but...

some day I'd like to see someone with some actual accomplishments in that seat.

We've hade a slew of carpetbaggers, namesakes, Presidential candidates, and other assorted flotsam temporarily taking over our junior Senator's seat over the years, some of whom have actually done a fairly decent job, but most of whom have just been passing through.

[Captain Hilts]

53. In 1948 NY and Nat'l Dems begged Eleanor R to run for the seat...

to help brunt the chances of Dewey winning NYS in the presidential election.

Her sometimes political foe, Harold Ickes, sr. went up to Hyde Park to grovel to her.

[sabbat hunter]

40. No I do not support her bid

Because there are other candidates I would rather see in the slot.

1) Tom Suozzi
2) Andrew Cuomo
3) Carolyn Maloney

[paulk]

49. I would rather see someone from upstate

someone who has paid their dues representing the state, either in the Statehouse or in the US House.

[S_E_Fudd]

65. Honestly - I don't care one way or the other...

I don't think she is particularly qualified...but I'm sure she is smart enough that over time she will do a fine job...

[Bryan]

69. I don't know

She's not unqualified, but she's never held elective office, and there's a real whiff of starfucking in the air. I'm not familiar enough with NYS politics to have a preferred candidate, but I don't doubt that this has the potential to fruitlessly piss off veteran legislators who think they're due consideration for the appointment.

That said, her fame would also result in greater scrutiny, so she'd be under the gun to show that she could do the job. IIRC, there will still be an election in '10 which she may choose not to run in, and even if she did run, she might have enough fundraising juice to keep the seat away from some wealthy liberal Republican who'd give us all fits. I can't really come down on one side or the other.

[Iggo]

70. I'll support whatever Democrat New York chooses.

As far as which Democrat that is, well that's up to New Yorkers and not us Californians.

[Beacool]

74. Ahhhh, but therein lies the problem.

New Yorkers are not choosing anyone, the governor is the one appointing Hillary's replacement.

NY, IL & DE should have special elections and let the people decide who they want to be their senator. Why wait 2 years?

:(

[qwlauren35]

81. Perhaps one should think of her as an "Interim" Senator.

If she can't win public enthusiasm within 2 years, she'll lose the seat.

I guess that's a big reason to accept whomever gets the slot. It doesn't mean she gets to KEEP it.

Senators can get booted, no matter what their names are. See, for example, Libby Dole.

[Beacool]

106. You know what?

Whatever.......

Yeah, appoint Caroline because she's a Kennedy and everybody remembers her as a sweet little girl playing under daddy's desk.

:eyes:

[Whisp]

114. I'd consider her trustworthy and with good judgement

I doubt very much she's a big liar. If you have some examples, please provide.

[Beacool]

116. A liar?

Who called her a liar?

:shrug:

[onenote]

84. how long should this special election campaign last?

How long should NY be without a senator? How would the Democratic party nominee be chosen? A primary? Or would it be a free for all with as many Democrats, Republicans, and third party candidates that can meet some petition for candidacy requirement allowed on the ballot?

[Beacool]

109. The governor should appoint an interim replacement

and hold elections within six months.

Some democratic way we have for choosing these replacements!!! Biden's seat goes to his buddy, Obama's seat was up for sale until recently and NY will probably get the one Kennedy who chose to stay away from elected office until it was placed on her lap like a Christmas gift.

:puke:

[onenote]

143. a six month interim senator would be a waste

Appointing someone to serve for six months and then leave is essentially a waste. That person would have no influence and indeed, would end up costing the taxpayers considerable money for setting up an office and staffing that would then be replaced by the new incoming senator. If the candidate is allowed to run for the office they will even less of a real senator, seeing as they will have to spend most of their time back in NY campaigning. Holding the election in NOvember 2010 -- a mere 16 months after when you've proposed it be held, would at least allow the interim senator to serve and build a record on which he/she can run -- something that will help the Democrats hold the seat.

I'm still not completely clear -- Would you have a problem if Caroline was appointed to the interim spot and then ran? Or do you think anyone appointed should commit to not seeking the seat?

[Iggo]

92. So the appointed governor is appointing a senator?

Boy, there's some shitty timing, eh?

[onenote]

144. he's not an "appointed" governor

No one appointed Patterson governor. He was elected lieutenant governor and then succeeded to the position of the governor when Spitzer resigned.

[Iggo]

146. Got it.

I make zee joke.

[Fearless]

71. Yes of course.

[Beacool]

72. No, I don't.

:shrug:

[Faygo Kid]

91. You do realize that all these posts are refighting the primaries.

Guess I can understand Hillary supporters not being happy about such an outspoken Obama supporter being named to Hillary's seat.

I sure wish some of the passion on this issue was reserved for the workers and retirees losing their jobs and health care, and supporting the next Secretary of State, and next senator from New York, whoever that may be.

But that would be naive in the extreme.

This will go on for years.

[Beacool]

103. I don't think the NY senate seat should be doled out like a party gift

just because she endorsed the PE and has a powerful uncle who is senator. It's undemocratic and reminiscent of royalty.

If Caroline wants a senate seat, let her run for it like everyone else. Why should it be given to her without having to work for it?

:-(

[onenote]

147. someone is going to be appointed.

I understand that you want her to have to run for it. But someone is getting that appointment without running for the seat, so that seems to be a bogus argument.

Hillary got the nomination (and I'm glad she did) without running for it because of her name and connections. And that name and those connections made her a more influential senator faster than would have been the case if almost anyone else had been elected. From the get-go, HRC was able to help raise huge sums of money for other Democratic candidates and senators sought her out for support on bills as well as for financial support. It was good for NY, good for the Democratic party, and good for the country. And everything I just wrote would be equally true of Caroline Kennedy.

[Faygo Kid]

166. Well said.

A positive post well stated. Thanks.

[paulk]

115. only for those too weak of mind

to realize that there are legitimate reasons to both endorse and oppose this...

[uponit7771]

73. If she's smart and commpetent then HELL YES.

[happychatter]

76. the "ayes" have it - n/t

[Alexander]

78. Yes, and I supported Hillary Clinton when she ran for the Senate, too.

At least I'm consistent.

Unlike certain others here.

[TheKentuckian]

79. Yeah, but it is up to the voters of New York

[Flash Bazbo]

80. Are there no capable, deserving candidates from within...

the NY state or congressional legislative bodies? Someone from the trenches who has worked their way up through the ranks? Appointing Caroline Kennedy smacks of celebrity privilege. If she wants to be a Senator then let her stand for election in 2012 and take her chances with everyone else.

[onenote]

83. there may be capable, deserving candidates, but are they the strongest candidate?

There were deserving capable candidates within the NY state and congressional legislative bodies in 2000, particularly Nita Lowey. But the party leaders, correctly in my view, concluded that HRC, despite being an "outsider", would be the strongest candidate and provide NY with the most immediate impact in the Senate. As a result, Lowey and others were "persuaded" not to even mount a primary challenge to HRC. I supported that strategy then and I support Caroline Kennedy's bid for the appointment to the Senate now. Someone is going to be appointed and that person is going to have to run in a couple of years. If CK would likely be the strongest candidate statewide and have an immediate impact, a la HRC, because other members would want her to be campaigning for her, etc. etc, then I see no reason for her not to get it, even though there may be more "deserving" or "capable" (however one subjectively measures such qualities) legislators.

[ShortnFiery]

118. "strongest candidate" = "breeding" = "right class"

:puke:

[ShortnFiery]

112. No, "family name" trumps "working your way up through the ranks."

Don't cha know that the 21st Century is only for "the haves" and "have mores."

I'm sure folks like Princess Caroline will know EXACTLY what it's like to have to go hungry or eat macaroni and cheese for a week to make the rent.

Oh yeah, that's progressive ... she FEELS our pain from afar .... way way afar. :thumbsdown:

[FormerDittoHead]

82. Your poll forgot the option, "Not Presidential Politics" n/t

[brianna69]

89. I do. Go Caroline!

[mwei924]

94. Hell yeah. She's awesome.

[ecstatic]

95. You know... The fallout over her as a potential pick has made me a supporter

before I didn't give a damn. The haters would have been better off staying silent.

[stillcool]

97. me too..

I really dislike when the chorus comes out en masse.

[TexasObserver]

100. Yes 165 No 38 ... says it all!

It also proves how noisy the 20% in the minority here is.

[ShortnFiery]

110. I wonder if the question about Jeb Bush being SELECTED for Senate in Florida would get as much ZEAL?

This "family name" crap goes both ways. How about us pushing "public financing" so we don't have to tolerate these warmed over horse's asses for decades to come?!?

[TexasObserver]

113. Irrelevant. You're wrongly equating Caroline Kennedy with Jeb Bush.

The confusion is in your mind. They're not alike.

[ShortnFiery]

117. Nope. If "we the people" are so easily duped by "dynasties" then we deserve to be SCREWED.

Remember, it will go BOTH ways ... just wait? :nuke:

[TexasObserver]

119. Again, it's a reality that only exists in your perception.

She was on the new president's VP selection team.

Clearly, Obama knows her much better than you do, and Obama's judgments of her are much more sound than yours are. You create a caricature reality, then overreact to that image. The demon exists only in your mind.

[Jersey Devil]

101. Sweet Caroline

I cannot believe that any of us who went though it would be against it.

[saltpoint]

102. Will honor Gov. Paterson's decision but strongly favor CKS.

[SwampG8r]

104. the vapid twistings

of those drunk on clinton love are making me laugh except for the part where they try to tear CK down

[Maru Kitteh]

107. All senate seats should be the choice of THE PEOPLE.

Always, end of story.

[saltpoint]

111. State constitutions are drawn up in opposition to your plan, though.

Gov. Paterson is conferred the power to make that appointment.

Both a privilege and a responsibility.

The People voted for a ticket with Gov. Paterson on it.

[IndianaGreen]

108. It is up to the people of New York what kind of poison they choose to drink

Why don't you guys take Evan Bayh and we will take Kennedy?

[saltpoint]

120. At 1:00 a.m. Eastern, Tues., 8 in 10 of us think CK would be just dandy

as a U.S. Senator.

Go, Caroline.

[mvd]

122. I'm supportive

I lile the idea of keeping the Kennedy heritage in the Senate alive. And I do not think she'd be out of her league:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/huffpost/20081209/cm_huffpost/149450

[TankLV]

123. New York could do - and has done - a lot worse than Caroline Kennedy...

but no matter which party it is, I still feel uncomfortable about hereditary succession/occupation of political offices...

I'm sure there are a lot of persons equally or more qualified to serve - but it take publicity and MONEY to develope a well known NAME...

sigh...

[MrSlayer]

124. I don't support it but I also don't care if she gets it.

Ambivalence, it keeps me sane.

[Marrah_G]

125. Wholeheartedly

Brilliant woman.

[galaxy21]

126. This is like Palin all over again

Yes, I know Caroline's not as dumb as Palin, but there are similarities between Caroline possibly getting the senate seat, and Palin getting tapped for VP.

1) Both were under qualified
2) In both cases, there were better, more qualified people that could have been picked
3) Both had 'romantic' qualities that supposedly made up for their shortcomings. Palin was a hunting, hockey mom from Alaska, Caroline is a Kennedy.
4) Supporters that will never admit how unfair and cynical the choice was.

Although, Palin was (rightly)heavily criticised on these pages for her inexperience, Caroline is apparantly a different story.

[saltpoint]

128. Wow. As way-the-hell-off analogies go, this one is a contender for top prize.

[galaxy21]

129. Would you care to counter the 3 or 4 reasons I gave?

And I said, Caroline's not as dumb as Palin. So, I'm not saying Caroline's a dumbass or anything.


But Caroline is under qualified (like Palin) there are better qualifed people for the appointment (like Palin), and people justify it by talking about Caroline's romantic qualities (like with Palin).

[saltpoint]

131. No, I'm too stunned to index anything.

[galaxy21]

132. Just like I'm stunned by the justification of nepotism on here

funny that.

[saltpoint]

133. It's not a convincing argument when the potential appointment is

demonstrably accomplished.

I lived in New York during the Bella Abzug years and find much to respect and admire in intelligent, tough, progressive women in government.

[galaxy21]

134. "demonstrably accomplished. "

And what about the 29 state senators and congressmen? They're considerably more 'demonstrably accomplisehd' than Caroline is.

[saltpoint]

135. I disagree. One may serve in many different ways.

I also have a pragmatic streak a mile long that says few if any of those 29 folks have the clout to raise funds and sustain the blue seat over the long haul.

[galaxy21]

136. "One may serve in many different ways. "

Yes, but if John McCain being a POW wasn't considered a qualification by president (and it's not) then I don't see how anything can compensate for genuine political experience.

"I also have a pragmatic streak a mile long that says few if any of those 29 folks have the clout to raise funds and sustain the blue seat over the long haul."

You could at least give them the chance.

[saltpoint]

137. I'm happy to give them a chance if one of them is Paterson's pick.

But Kennedy solves many problems for us in the long term.

She's an attorney and can draft legislation and interpret legislation as well as those 29.

She's avowedly progressive and philanthropic.

She would be a vivid point woman for Obama's legislative agenda in the Senate.

The seat, which we want to keep blue, would likely and practically be much safer with her than with an unknown.

The Senate would profit from more progressive women, not fewer.

Again, Paterson's call is the final call, but I see no compelling case against his appointing Kennedy, and see specific and enduring positives with her as NY's next Senator.

[galaxy21]

138. My response

"She's an attorney and can draft legislation and interpret legislation as well as those 29."

Yes, but they just happen to have the political experience to go with it.

"She's avowedly progressive and philanthropic. "

Again, there are people out there who fit that description as well, but they're better qualified.

"The seat, which we want to keep blue, would likely and practically be much safer with her than with an unknown."

I disagee. People will become resentful if they think she got it because of nepotism.

"The Senate would profit from more progressive women, not fewer."

Again, there are better qualified progressive politicians. As for the woman thing...I'd rather have a over qualifed feminist man, than an underqualified feminist woman.

" Again, Paterson's call is the final call, but I see no compelling case against his appointing Kennedy, and see specific and enduring positives with her as NY's next Senator."

The compelling case is that she's underqualified and there are better people.


I've said this before but even Caroline supporters know this is nepotism. And they know that's not right. So, everything else ('she can raise money!' 'she's a feminist!'), is merely justification for something that they know deep down inside cannot be justified.

[saltpoint]

140. Well, we'll have to part company on the potential appointment, even as

we know Paterson gets his own choice.

If she is not chosen, perhaps your reasons will have prevailed.

In any case, I want a blue seat for that seat and I want it for a long time.

[AndrewP]

142. But....she has superior night vision!!!!

If she gets it or not, that's fine. I would like the fact that she has name recognition and would raise a lot of money for re-election (in theory). I'm just a little amused by the people who are rating her as the next messiah.

[onenote]

148. You seem to love the 29 state senators.

Here's one of those folks that you think is more "demonstrably accomplished" than Caroline: Ruben Diaz, Sr., who is so rabidly anti-same sex marriage that he threatened to withhold support from the Democratic leadership of the state senate unless there was a promise that legislation legalizing same sex marriage would not be considered.

The problem with knee-jerk reactions is that sometimes you end up with a jerk.

[galaxy21]

155. Well, okay then, 28 senators to choose from

Are you willingly to go through each of those 28 senators and explain why each one is inferior to Caroline?

[onenote]

161. are you willing or even able to explain how each one would be superior to Caroline?

Do you even know their names? There is every reason to believe that Kennedy will have an immediate impact in the Senate, just as Hillary Clinton did and just as Jim Webb did. Why did those particular senators make more of a splash than the average freshman? Because they brought with them something that other Senators wanted to be associated with -- in HRC's case, her name and connections; in Webb's case, his military background. Kennedy will likely have an immediate impact because of her name and connections as well as because she is a published author on constitional issues relating to the bill of rights and the right to privacy -- issues near and dear (one would hope) to the Democratic faithful. Can you truly say that any of the other 28 senators that you claim to be presumptively superior to Caroline could even approach having that level of imapact?

[galaxy21]

162. "are you willing or even able to explain how each one would be superior to Caroline?"

They ran for office, got elected, and have vast political experience from being in the senate.


"Kennedy will likely have an immediate impact because of her name and connections as well as because she is a published author on constitional issues relating to the bill of rights and the right to privacy -- issues near and dear (one would hope) to the Democratic faithful"

I seriously doubt she's the only democrat in New York that respects the right to privacy. As for her 'name' and 'connections' even if she does, that doesn't make it okay to give her the seat over someone better qualified.


"Can you truly say that any of the other 28 senators that you claim to be presumptively superior to Caroline could even approach having that level of imapact?"

I'd like to give one the chance.

[onenote]

163. so having run for office and havingt vast political experience is all it takes

for someone to be a better choice for the Senate than Caroline Kennedy?

You obviously don't mean that since you've already conceded that maybe, if you actually knew anything about these 29 senators you think are presumptively superior to Kennedy, you might not think that much of them.

You can't answer my question because you don't know squat about these folks. And that basically proves my point. A virtual unknown isn't going to have the clout in the US Senate that someone like Caroline Kennedy would have. Maybe they know how to draft legislative language. But so what. That's what staff are for. Its what the legislation would say that matters. And whether anyone would bother to pay attention to it. ANd legislation sponsored/co-sponsored by Caroline Kennedy will get more attention and more support than a bill tossed into the hopper by someone that 99 percent of the other members of the US Senate probably have never heard of.

[onenote]

150. which of the following senators/congressmen would you wish had never been elected

Al Gore
Beau Biden
Russ Carnahan
Teddy Kennedy

[galaxy21]

154. They ran campaigns, though didn't they? They didn't have it handed to them

Anyway, I find this idea that because nepotism may have worked out well in the past, we should keep doing it, very strange.

Nepotism is not a good thing. Even if you occasionally end up with someone good.

[Barack_America]

127. I respect the right of ANY eligible person to throw their hat in.

But I also do not expect anyone to be guaranteed the seat. Let's see who decides to run and select the best-suited person, which may or may not be the most "experienced" person.

[mkultra]

139. i dont really care if shes qualified or not. I like her

and thats enough for me. seems like qualifications to be senator should be:

1) reasonably honest
2) reasonably intelligent

[terrya]

141. I don't live in New York State.

But she's fine with me.

[hedgehog]

149. I'm a New Yorker, don't I get extra points for my opinion?

:)

[iamthebandfanman]

152. remind me to speak in a language DUers can understand from now on

BAAAAH
BAAAAAAH


anybody want some fresh hay?

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

158. Damn right! She'll get a lot more done in less time than it took Hillary.

[oviedodem]

159. I vote NO; Yet I am being ripped apart on another thread.

[Vinca]

160. I'm not getting this whole brouhaha. She's certainly more qualified

than a whole lot of individuals already installed in the job. She's not "demanding" anything, as some seem to think, but if you're going to be a politician don't you need to use everything positive at your disposal . . . including the family name?

[DemocratSinceBirth]

164. Me Neither

.

[invictus]

165. Yes, I think Caroline Kennedy would be an excellent choice.

nt

[Taverner]

167. Sure, she's a Kennedy. But that name means many things

Are we talking Joe Kennedy who wanted to work with the NAZIs?

Are we talking JFK who wanted to start a war with the USSR?

Are we talking Bobby who wanted to erase poverty?

Are we talking Ted who wanted to preserve liberalism through the Reagan/Bush/Clinton/Bush years?