The angst over Caroline Kennedy - too close for comfort

[question everything]

We have been there before. We work hard for our employers. We work well with our co-workers and bosses. We earn the respect of our peers across the industry, our customers and suppliers. We made demonstrable contributions to the bottom line and we hope that, at some point, we will be promoted to that corner office or the one next to it.

And then a niece of one of the directors just lands in that corner office. Yes, she is nice, and personable. Even has several degrees from prestigious schools, probably a quick learner but what about us?

Of course, it happened before. Edwards, who practically lived in Iowa for four years, knew the terrain and the people better than anyone outside of Iowa, was taken aback when Obama came from nowhere and swept the Iowa caucuses.

But at least Obama spent time in the trenches. Was a community organizer, has seen the poverty in Indonesia, knew of his mother's need for food stamps, walked the precincts, shook hands, kissed babies, ate rubber chicken necks starting with his first unsuccessful run for Congress.

Caroline Kennedy has lived a sheltered life, except for well guarded and planned speeches at art and school events. During the 80s I read the "Preppie handbook" (I think this was the name) and Caroline was described as someone whose skin would never be touched by a synthetic thread. Only cotton and wool and silk. These were the 80s, when "dressing for success" with a poly-cotton dress shirt would mean no need for ironing or for dry cleaning.

And, of course, once Caroline is in the Senate, the seat will be hers for life. What Democrat would dare challenge her in the primaries?

She probably will be the next senator, but for the ones who don't understand the resentment, we have seen this before, up close and personal.

[marylanddem]

1. She is an inspiring reminder of what America can be.

If her credentials are not lowly enough, is that her fault?
Besides that, she has terrific vibes.

[AspenRose]

2. She's not one of us. Therefore she can't represent us.

That sounds biased to me....

Very precious few politicians these days are "one of us."

[lapfog_1]

8. In addition, very few are the most "qualified" person for the job.

Elections are popularity contests. I think Caroline would do well in an election. So by that measure she is as qualified as any other... including the person she would be replacing.

[Captain Hilts]

21. ESPECIALLY in the senate, where legacies are everywhere. nt

[truedelphi]

64. That's my take on it too. I wish people would get over it and

Realize how much she would bring to the office.

Dianne Feinstein's qualifications were mainlyrelated to her presence on the day that Moscone and Milk were assassinated. She handled that event with grace and dignity, and now she is in the Senate, GateKeeping the more progressive elements of our pary right into the waiting arms of the Green Party.

I suspect Kennedy would be a progressive. We might se some real reforms with her in office.


Plus most of the Republican Senators we have had in the last twelve years have had zero qualifications.

And look at politiicans like DeLay. How many qualifications did he bring? other than his schemes of taking money for the Republican party and then handing it over to which ever candidate he thought would give him the biggest pay back.

[Bluenorthwest]

70. DeLay

was not in the Senate.

[Retrograde]

73. duplicate delete

duplicate delete - kitten walking on keyboard again

[Retrograde]

74. you left out a few steps re Feinstein

She ran for and was elected (and re-elected) to the SF Board of Supervisors. She was elected president of that board by her fellow Supes, which is why she was in the spotlight when the mayor was assassinated. She later ran for and won the mayor position in her own right. She ran for and won the senate, and continues to run and win (mainly because the CA GOP can't seem to find a decent candidate, but that's beside the point). Feinstein also lost a number of elections in her career, including governor.

Parlaying an unfortunate event into a larger political career? Yes. Deciding after a lifetime of privacy to pick up the phone and ask for a high political office? I don't think so.

I agree with the original poster. While Kennedy is probably an intelligent, hard-working, well-intended person, New York has a lot of those. What Kennedy has going for her is the name: Lucinda Smith from Rochester may be just as intelligent, hard-working and well-intended -maybe more so - but she can't just get the governor on the phone to express her interest in the seat. And in the final analysis, it comes down to first, money-raising ability and second, name recognition. As a Californian I've seen how important these are: just ask Gov. Steve Westly.

Re DeLay's qualifications: more voters in his district thought he'd be better represent their interests than the other people on the ballot. Why they thought this I can't fathom, but that's the way elections work.

[tblue37]

66. The Kennedy family has done a lot to promote progressive causes,

both inside and outside of elective office. Her name and connections will give her a fair amount of influence even as the junior senator from New York, which she will use to promote progressive causes, and her name recognition and the general goodwill toward her will make it easier for her to hold onto that seat for us in the next election. I have no problem with the idea of her as senator.

[juajen]

9. What is inspiring? She has relatively remained hidden for decades.

I think this stinks to high heaven. RFK, Jr. should have had this spot. He has worked for it. Everyone knows that being appointed gives you a real boost in the eventual election. This is totally unfair, and everybody knows it. I wish Hill would just not take the SOS job and remain the great senator from NY. BTW, if Obama should have a say in who succeeds him, shouldn't Hillary? I can assure you, it would not be Caroline.

[DevonRex]

22. Didn't you post this? Hmmm.

http://capitolhillforum.com/single/?p=198704&t=807601

So, how did that McCain vote turn out for you? Almost everyone here who supported Hillary in the primaries also supports Caroline for the Senate.

[marylanddem]

27. Good find. Thanks for posting.

[mkultra]

32. looks like jaujen has replaced reason with seething hate.

[DevonRex]

35. And unfortunately stirring up old primary stuff. Most Hillary supporters like

Caroline for the Senate seat. It's just a few who don't and they're making it appear as if Hillary supporters as a whole hate Caroline. That is grossly unfair to them.

[mkultra]

43. i think its obvious to everyone.

and sad to boot.

[Jax]

50. Thanks for that link

sickening forums, explains a lot though.

:thumbsup:

[firedupdem]

51. Good Find! Fucking McCain supporter here stirring up the bullshit! n/t

[JuniperLea]

54. Excellent find

I'm sick of this shit. Exposing it to the light is very honorable.

[firedupdem]

55. I wasn't here during the primaries but now I see exactly what

people mean. When I looked at that link I'm like wooo! Voted for McCain and now anti Caroline for no good reason...wow.

[DevonRex]

68. I think it's important for us all to distinguish between the great folks here

who supported Hillary during the primaries, and those who drop by occasionally to cause trouble between us. It's just not right to allow them to do that, or to allow our wonderful DUers (who happened to support Hillary) to be tarred with the same brush.

Unfortunately, the only way I could think of to counteract it was to show a link that had been posted here a week or so ago by somebody else. I just hope that my intent is clear, which is to show the contrast.

*sigh* I'm tired, so I hope that made sense.

[dionysus]

42. now this couldn't *possibly* be sour grapes about her endorsing obama, could it?

nawwwwwwww.....
i hear it's quiet over on "the hill" lately...
:rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl::rofl:

[dionysus]

44. because RFK jr endorsed hillarly and she endorsed obama...

[Alexander]

48. Hillary Clinton wants you to knock it off.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7986108

[question everything]

11. How? Because of her parents?

That's a sure way to fail. One should be one's own person, not one's parent.

[ecstatic]

3. "at least Obama spent time in the trenches"

Obama's upbringing was far more challenging than anything Edwards experienced. Edwards wasn't owed anything. The people didn't believe he was sincere. He was not robbed, he just failed to convince people.

I see your point about CK but you should remove the part about Obama and Edwards.

[question everything]

15. The comparison came from someone coming from nowhere

grabbing a plum job that someone else worked on. At least, this was Edwards perception and this is why he waited so long to endorse him. I think that his hatred toward Hillary finally was stronger than his humiliation caused by Obama.

[karynnj]

46. Edwards did not work longer and harder in terms of the real work

of building a resume. The fact was what he was given - and it was given, not strictly earned, was the designation as a serious candidate twice - even though he had a thin resume - compared to nearly everyone else.

[CTyankee]

18. The less said about John Edwards just now, the better, AFAIC.

I used to support the guy. Now I just can't stand anything about him.

I'm willing to wager that CK will not disappoint us.

[peace frog]

4. Depends on your POV, of course

We've seen Golden Boys and Girls materialize out of nowhere and take the top slots, but unless you deeply covet one of those spots yourself there's not neccesarily much resentment felt over it. And, for every gain there are costs, some of which are not worth paying when you weigh the pros and cons.

[cali]

5. If Carolilne ran and showed she had the grit for running

for an open seat, that would be one thing. Lobbying for a Senate seat on the strength of her name and family connections is another.

[question everything]

10. Thanks, this is my point

and, of course, this is what Hillary did in 2000, for the ones who lump both as "legacies."

I don't remember. Did RFK run a campaign in 1964?

[sohndrsmith]

24. I think we do, inherently, have a problem with "appointments"

even interim - as they are - when such positions are normally elected by us...

That said, who should be in the NY Senate seat? No one? Run a special election before 2010? What should we do? NY state allows for the appointment when a seat is vacant... so, are we against that - or - what would work? What would be better?

Is this less about the appointee than it is about the fact that there is an appointment? I wonder...

[alwysdrunk]

62. You are talking about a change in the constitution

That's not going to happen. And even whoever gets appointed still has to run in 2010 to keep their job. That makes it much less of a "gimme" to me.

[cali]

25. yes he did.

[emilyg]

60. Thank you.

[Lucky 13]

6. You know what irks me? People who use their spouses accomplishments to launch their own career.

It's all a matter of perspective I guess.

[Captain Hilts]

20. Women's careers are often delayed, so this happens.

Michelle Obama shouldn't get a good job during/after BHO's presidency?

Eleanor Roosevelt shouldn't have gone to the UN? FDR to the four jobs that TR had held: Assist. Sec. Navy, NY State senate, Governorship of NY, Presdiency...

I get your point, though. Life isn't fair. And it's not a meritocracy. I just read a study pointing out that women don't get ahead because they think that if they work hard, they'll be rewarded. Men, on the other hand, are FAR more likely to seek mentors. Hell, look what Obama did in the state senate, etc. He always got mentors.

[sohndrsmith]

28. are you referring to C. Kennedy? If so, I'm confused... n/t

[Lucky 13]

30. No. I'm saying that if I'm supposed to be outraged at someone using their family name to get ahead,

I should also be outraged at someone using their spouses accomplishments to get ahead. It seems there is quite the double standard.

[sohndrsmith]

38. I can't disagree... I think both are inappropriate - in and of themselves...

but we do have famous people around and that's a given. That they exploit their name or spouse is, arguably, wrong. But where do we draw the line and why? As of yet, I haven't seen evidence of Kennedy doing anything untoward, or acting any differently than someone we didn't know might act... we just don't have the option of not knowing her moves because she is famous... and has a famous, yep - influential - name. But I don't see her trying to skate on that premise, but maybe I'm naive. I don't think so, but I don't know for sure that she's a power-monger hell-bent on personal political glorification... it just doesn't seem to fit with the non-self-ambitious life she's led thus far... at least not that I know of.

That would be something of a surprise... hugely.

[Lucky 13]

39. I personally am not offended by either... necessarily.

If you are qualified in and of your own right to hold elected office, and are AIDED by your family name or spouses accomplishments... that's fine with me.

What I have a problem with is people making it an issue with Caroline, while overlooking similar arguments about Hillary. It's hypocritical.

[sohndrsmith]

40. I agree that it's hard to make one argument if you support the

opposite for someone else. Well said.

And your first point makes a heck of a lot of sense too... : )

I don't see how Kennedy is using anything - or ever has - to leverage an unfair advantage... but apparently a lot of people disagree with me. I'm not shocked or surprised, just befuddled because I don't see it - in spite of her famous political name - I still don't see it in anything she's done or said...

[FARAFIELD]

7. Ive seen this before as well

I think you need help grasping life. You use a lot of adjectives in your post that try to make people think you know her. Which you don't. I don't either. But to say that Caroline Kennedy's life has been "easy" suggests that all her life is about is being "sheltered". I'm sorry you have "seen this before" let me tell you what I have seen before. A lot of lazy people who thought they should get something that they never worked hard enough to get it. Al Franken has never done crap either, but tell dirty jokes (Im embellishing but you get the point) And I want HIM to get the Senate Seat. So why not someone like Caroline who could be drinking her champagne in Newport with a finger up, instead is willing to give something back to the country. I'm sorry but based on my life experience I dont feel your pain.

[Strawman]

12. Don't we want to appoint a Dem that will be hard to unseat?

[marylanddem]

13. Thank you. Exactly.

[Strawman]

19. A genuine liberal who will never lose. How awful.

After all Ted Kennedy has been a real nightmare. Has he ever demonstrated any concern for people outside of his class?

And don't even get me started on that RFK character....

[alwysdrunk]

56. THIS! This is a damn good point.

This may be the best post in any of these Caroline threads.

There are many ways to look at this question, but for us non-New Yorkers (most of us), the party angle is the way we should consider looking at it. The appointment of Caroline Kennedy will probably be the best thing for the party long term. As I've seen many here say, I don't NOT support this.

[sohndrsmith]

26. wow. that's a really good point. Thanks... n/t

[question everything]

45. We certainly had have our share of ossified office holders who never realized

that it was time to go. This was one of the reason for our loss in 1994.

Just watched a program on FDR the other day, and he certainly should not have run for a fourth term.

And we should change the way we set Congressional Districts where most of them are not competitive.

Again, naive of me but I think that we, as a country, can only gain if we have competitive races where the best man or woman wins.

[Uzybone]

47. So FDR should not have run for a 4th term???

An let a republican finish off WWII??? Are you insane? We would be talking about Nagasaki, Hiroshima, Tokyo, Kobe, Moscow on and on....

Without FDR 4th term we would never had had Truman.

[Strawman]

69. Well, in a better system...

I'd prefer to see fewer districts in each state with House members elected through some form of proportional representation. Right now too many people have no representation in winner-take-all districts. In very liberal or very conservative districts you might have competition from third parties on the right or left which I think would (probably) be good for our democracy (although there is some risk of even worse gridlock under that arrangement). So I guess I am sympathetic to your larger, systemic critique.

But that's an entirely different topic. Given the rules of the game that are unlikely to change, Caroline Kennedy is a good appointment. She would be hard to unseat, and she has a license to be as progressive as she wants. It's almost her legacy to be a solid liberal. We need more of those in the Senate and fewer spineless finger-in-the-wind types.

[SuperTrouper]

14. Sometimes we go on gut! I liked Obama very much 2 years ago and it came from my gut

the same with Caroline. She has always had my heart, the same with her late brother. I am their same age and have always admired CK and JFK, Jr. My gut feeling is that Caroline will be a fine Senator and we ALL here at DU will be proud of her and will be rooting heavily for her if she decided to seek the Presidency in 2016. My heart is singing at the prospect of seeing her in the Senate.

[marylanddem]

16. I think it's called charisma - Obama has it & so does she.

[SuperTrouper]

17. Thank you! You're so right!

[ecstatic]

23. It's charisma, but also a genuine sincerity. That's rare in pols

these days.

[Captain Hilts]

36. Any day...

Here's that other girl who was offered a NY senate seat...

[Bake]

75. Obama has charisma, Kennedy does not.

But she does have a great last name. I think you're confusing her name with having charisma. Granted, she does seem sincere. But charismatic? Hardly. Her FATHER was charismatic. I'm old enough to remember JFK.

Bake

[EFerrari]

29. Resentment is a toxic emotion that should be avoided because it's disfiguring. n/t

[marylanddem]

33. Right on the money, sfexpat2000

And the Kennedy family has always been the target of resentment. Wealthy people who do good - imagine that.

[hedgehog]

31. Yeah boy, father murdered, uncle murdered, mother's name dragged

through the tabloids at every opportunity, brother killed in accident;

we should all be so sheltered!

[BlueMTexpat]

41. I'm with you!

Caroline has labored behind the scenes for a long time and paid a lot of dues. Sure, she was born into a wealthy family, but with that she inherited an especially tragic destiny and one that touched her directly. I am actually surprised that she would want the job of Senator because being a good one is a lot of work. Public service is a high calling, but can also bring on a lot of headaches. Hillary was a hard-working Senator and the standard she set will be a high one.

Caroline may not have been playing in the political headlines as much as some, but she is certainly as qualified as anyone and she has used her so-called "sheltered" position for a lot of good causes that any politican worth his or her salt would be proud of. She supported Obama early, but didn't limit that support only to her name. She herself worked very hard for his campaign and for the Veep selection. Besides, if she follows the family tradition, her Senatorial salary will be contributed to good causes.

There are so many situations these days that demand true umbrage. This is NOT one of them, IMO. Just sayin' ...

[CakeGrrl]

34. WHOSE angst, exactly?

No matter who gets the seat, it's an appointment. This individual will not have campaigned because that's how the rules go in NY.

What does Obama have to do with this "It's not fair" meme? He didn't take Iowa unfairly - he pounded pavement and WON it from two candidates with much higher name recognition. That was on Edwards and Clinton not to have made the most of their advantage.

Why is it a problem if a Liberal Democrat might keep holding a Senate seat?

[karynnj]

37. I think your analogy to Edwards ignores a few facts

Edwards in 2004 was blessed by the media as the new "Bill Clinton" without the baggage. When they started writing stories on him, he had been a Senator for about 4 years and had done absolutely nothing more than an average Senate Freshman. He was even considered for VP after 2 years. You also ignore that after losing the 2004 nomination, he was the party and media favorite for VP and Kerry offered it to him. Now, if you were fair, you could say that many people deserved it over Edwards by virtue of their much longer service and greater lists of accomplishments. So, actually, Edwards was one of the favored.

Then in 2005, he was still the golden haired boy of the media and he was pushed. Both Edwards were given a huge amount of coverage for their books. Now, Edwards did spend a huge amount of time in Iowa, but, many people who saw him often and knew his record ruled him out. Iowa is retail politics and he was there enough that he didn't lose people because they had no chance to evaluate if they wanted him - he lost them because they wanted someone else as President.

Obama certainly didn't have a headstart on him, not was he wealthier.

[qwlauren35]

49. Did people complain as much when Hillary won the Seat?

I'm just curious.

Hillary Clinton moving to New York and running for Senator struck me as the tackiest thing since sliced bread. At least Kennedy has spent most of her life there.

Senate seats are funny things. Maybe it's not supposed to be like the House of Lords in Britain, but it seems to end up that way.

I've pretty much come to terms with it. And perhaps that's why I can't get upset about Kennedy.

If it hadn't been Clinton's seat, I think a lot of people would be disgusted. But after it was virtually given to Clinton in the first place, I don't see the fuss this time with Kennedy.

[Raksha]

65. Actually, I thought the Senate was modeled on the House of Lords,

except that we don't have lords in America--not officially anyway. Likewise the Roman Senate was made up of the Roman aristocracy. It can't be a coincidence that the name "Senate" was chosen for the upper house. And why did I just use the word "upper" for that particular institution anyway? Why does anyone?

What I'm saying is that the Senate has been an elite institution from the beginning, and was intended to be.

[Beacool]

52. Pretty good analysis.

The Camelot princess gets the seat handed to her by hereditary right as if instead of the senate we had the House of Lords.

How about those who worked very hard to win the position that they currently hold? Aren't they far more qualified to seek the senate seat than someone who deliberately stayed away from actively pursuing a political elected position of her own until now?

I would have zero problem with Caroline running like any other candidate, but to just hand over the seat to her is almost undemocratic.

[EFerrari]

57. You have a whole straw village going there.

lol

[mwei924]

58. Whoever gets that appointment will have a senate seat "handed" to them.

Caroline would have to run to keep the seat in 2010 just like any other candidate.

[Beacool]

67. I know that, but she never ran for anything before.

Why should she be holding that seat for two years? Besides, once she's there she'll probably have it for life. Which Democrat would dare to run against her in 2010?

[MadBadger]

53. Your Edwards argument really really sucks

[alwysdrunk]

59. But who would be better for the company?

I feel you on your analogy very much. I've been through a very similar situation myself, and no, I wasn't the rich niece.

The fact is though, the company exists to make profit, not to reward hard work. What if the blue-blood niece with her upper-class friends and prestigious school connections ends up bringing more clients to the firm? What if it's her marketable name and face that lands the company on the cover of Forbes for the first time? Who's better for the company then?

It's not fair. It's not really the right thing to do. But sometimes the right thing and the smart thing are opposites.
In a for profit corporation the smart thing is always the preferred option. In party politics......?

[rhett o rick]

61. Is she less qualified than say Al Franken? or Joe Lairman? or Diane Fuckstein? or the Nelson brother

s, or a whole lot of other Senators? In a perfect world the most qualified should be elected. But we are in as far as a perfect world as we can be. Besides, I am not convinced that those that "have experience" are better. Our current make up of Democratic Senators have sold us down the river time and time again. So who is to say that she won't be a breath of fresh air.

[davidpdx]

63. I think people are being too hard on her

Yes, she has led a sheltered life and she is rich. That doesn't mean she's not human. People forget what absolutely terrible things have happened to her family. She grew up under a microscope as a child and then became reclusive as an adult. Who could blame her for that?

The idea of resentment isn't as bad as some of the other trash I've seen on DU, including the accusation that she's stomping her feet demanding the Senate seat.

My take on the whole thing is, if Patterson picks her, so be it. If not, then I'm sure she has plenty of other things to do.

[Radical Activist]

71. It's the definition of institutional racism and white privilege.

Much better qualified people are being passed over because they weren't born into a wealthy and powerful family.

[No Elephants]

72. She, like Obama, is smart and well-educated. She has been in public service, one way or

another, her entire adult life, even though her family sacrificed three of its members to this country. She is an expert on Constitutional law, education and courage in public office, among many other things. Her integrity and reputation are beyond reproach. If appointed, she will have to run for the seat twice in the next four years. Who's BETTER suited for this appointment. Someone like Rangel? Schumer? Blago?