Caroline Kennedy Should Not Get Hillary Clinton's Seat

[erpowers]

First, let me say that I am very disappointed that the media is trying to make out that the lack of support for Caroline Kennedy from Clinton supporters is all because they are upset that Kennedy supported Obama. The Clinton supporters have good reason to question Kennedy's qualifications for the senate seat. I am a former Clinton suppoters and I do not support Caroline Kennedy getting Clinton's former seat. However, it is not because of sour grapes as the media is trying to make out.

For me it is an issue of not getting something because of your last name. I think what many Clinton suppoters want to say, but may not feel they can say is, the only reason Caroline Kennedy is being considered for the seat is because her last name is Kennedy. I have been against Kennedy getting Clinton's seat from the very beginning, but not because she supported Barack Obama in the primaries, but because I believe someone should not get a seat based on their last name and who they supported in an election. It seemed that Barack Obama supporters claimed there would be this move away from the you scratch my back I'll scratch your back and the if you are connected you will get what you want. For me, Caroline Kennedy getting this seat would be a step back to getting something soley because of you last name and who you know or to whom you are connected.

I contend there are a number of people who should be picked over Caroline Kennedy. From the very beginning I thought the senate seat should go to someone who has already been in office and worked hard on issues. There are a number of individuals, including Obama supporters, who have worked their way through New York politics. I contend the seat should go to one of them, not someone who just has a popular last name from a well regarded family. I do not have a problem with Kennedy getting a Congressional seat, but let her work to get the seat. For all those who say Hillary Clinton is the same as Caroline Kennedy that is not true. Clinton did not get appointed to her seat. She said she wanted to be the senator from New York, went out and talked to people and then ran for election. If Caroline Kennedy wants to be in Congress she should do the same. To me Kennedy announcing that she wants Clinton's seat seems that Kennedy is saying she should get the seat because her family has been a political family.

[IndianaJones]

1. I think she deserves it simply for being a woman in that family. nt.

[Trajan]

2. I was wondering what you thought ....

[Nye Bevan]

3. It's like working at a company for 20 years

gaining experience, doing an excellent job, and then when a prestigious vacancy opens up that you are unquestionably well qualified for, the niece of the former CEO waltzes in and gets the job just because of her connections, even though she has no experience and will need to learn on the job.

Caroline Kennedy should at least serve a couple of terms in Congress before becoming a Senator.

[LostinVA]

5. That's a decent analogy

[trotsky]

8. "Caroline Kennedy should at least serve a couple of terms in Congress before becoming a Senator."

Hillary didn't. Why the double standard?

[Nye Bevan]

16. I would have liked Hillary to serve in Congress first

but she was better qualified than Caroline due to her White House days. At the very least, she was well aware of some of the pitfalls that can come up when you are trying to pass legislation.

[trotsky]

21. Let me preface by saying I have no horse in this race.

I think whomever Paterson chooses will do a fine job.

However, your reasoning here is getting worse. You don't think Caroline Kennedy is aware of the legislative process? At least as aware as Hillary was after 8 years as a First Lady? You do know what family Caroline Kennedy comes from, right?

[sohndrsmith]

23. is that what junior Senators usually do? Maybe they do...

I would agree with you if it were Paterson's niece being the only person considered, and if she had no valid/related experience while named front-runners vying for the position... did (I am not hearing a lot of other names, viable or otherwise).

Kennedy's dad was president once. He's not now. Her living uncle is a legendary, iconic Senator with what seems to be an equal number of supporters and protesters. Her deceased uncle is part of history. I don't think it's fair to label Caroline Kennedy - positively or negatively - with the work, history, ideology, agenda or character of anyone other than her. Certainly, she's been influenced by her relatives throughout her life, just like everyone else, and like everyone else, she's found that she agrees with them sometimes, I imagine, and disagrees with them sometimes too.

I don't know about you, but I am not my dad, or my brother or my uncle, and the idea that I would be categorized as something simply because of them or their actions makes me giggle. Think about it... are you - or do you - represent your father's/uncle's/other uncle's ideas fully and completely? I'd be fascinated by anyone who could actually back up such a statement... I find it hard to imagine. But since we have our own idea of what the brand "Kennedy" means, we think it's safe to assume that whoever wears it should fit our standard - including disqualification because the name is too famous and an unfair advantage.

Because someone has a famous name means that the generalization is somehow more - or less - legitimate? Does that really make sense?

I'd have to say that if you switched Caroline Kennedy with Paris Hilton (personality, resume, character, experience, etc.) I'd have to say that it would be absurd to consider Kennedy as a viable candidate and I would cringe in disbelief if Paterson appointed her anyway. I think a lot of people would have large problems with that... (or, not to target Hilton unfairly, choose anyone else with equally contradictory experience or lack thereof).

If Kennedy had zero experience, zero integrity, zero achievement, zero affiliation with NY, I'd find the idea of her wanting the seat not too plausible. But given what I consider high marks in these categories, Kennedy is not that much of a stretch. She hasn't "campaigned" on her name - ever. She hasn't exploited it... ever. She had to be persuaded to get involved, and she only did so because she saw someone and something extraordinary... and not only did he have no name recognition to begin with, but his middle name was the same as the dictator who's country we chose to overthrow and a very nasty dude at that...!

Kennedy does not - at least not to me - seem to be acting out of opportunism or entitlement. Quite the contrary, in my view. It seems as though she had deliberately chosen to stay out of politics - until it really mattered to her. Now, of course, I'm speculating far and wide here, but that's the sort of thing I've heard and read, including Kennedy's own words - written and spoken. Personally I find that extraordinary - particularly as to what it says about the person who inspired her... she's not the only one, there are millions of us who agree with her. If I had a law degree, Constitutional expertise and a record of contributing so much to NY and it's public school system, I'd be hard pressed to not want to throw my hat in the ring... I've been inspired to get involved more than I ever dreamed, I think many of us have... is it fair to dismiss such a sense of obligation to someone else just because they actually qualify for higher office when all we may have qualified for is flyer distributor or local phone-bank coordinator? Neither of these efforts are less important, in fact that work a million times over got our guy elected... but isn't it a little unfair to say that one is not allowed to be inspired if the job is of state - or national importance? I don't get that... but I get confused easily, so there you go.

So far, I'm impressed with Kennedy, but it has nothing to do with her name or her relatives. I think I say that honestly, but I am aware that she has fame where others don't. I hope I don't judge her based on that - with any weight undeserved. I don't think she is due a free ride for it and I don't think she should be dismissed for it either, or anything in between. I like what she's done with her life, and I like why she wants to be a part of the process. I find her reasons have merit and integrity, and I think that is in itself a valuable rarity worth appreciating. She may or may not be the best person for the job, and she may or may not be chosen. But given the reasons I've just touched on, I think we could do a lot worse and I'm optimistic about her priorities should she be the one Paterson decides upon.

I don't have the sense that there is entitlement going on here - if there were I think we'd have seen evidence of it way before this... no?

[sohndrsmith]

4. who should? n/t

[monmouth]

6. If it wasn't for Hillary's last name, who's to say she would have gotten

the NY Senate seat. Please....

[erpowers]

12. Clinton Ran

My point was that Clinton actually ran for the office. If Caroline Kennedy wants the seat let her run for it in the next election.

[monmouth]

17. Understand....n/t

[JTFrog]

18. Clinton had the landing strip cleared for her. She had no primary opposition

in a state that she had never resided in previously.

Had she run against other candidates in a state where she had actually resided, instead of the Dems paving the way for her in one of this country's most liberal states, I might be a little more swayed by your point.



And again... No one can run for this seat. It's not an option, so it's a strawman argument.

[sellitman]

7. She is smart, Liberal and connected.

That is exactly why I would want Kennedy as my Senator.

Her last name is a bonus.

[notesdev]

9. Didn't quite happen that way...

"She said she wanted to be the senator from New York, went out and talked to people and then ran for election."

She moved to a state that she hadn't the slightest familiarity with, and used the power gained while her husband was President to bully out of the way a woman who had spent decades working her way up in the Democratic Party. She then went on her infamous "Listening Tour", so audacious as to defy parody, in order to gain familiarity with the state after she was already running for the seat. It was blatantly obvious that the power of the office, not the duties thereof, was her primary - if not sole - interest.

On your other points, I agree though, Kennedy should not get the seat on the virtue of her name. There are a lot of people who have worked a very long time in the New York Democratic Party who deserve consideration before entertaining the luxury of a political celebrity.

[mmonk]

10. What legislation did Clinton pass as first lady?

[erpowers]

15. Had A Role

I believe many people admitted that Hillary Clinton to play a role in a great deal of legislation getting passed while she was first lady of Arkansas and the United States. However, to me that is beside the point. Hillary Clinton was not appointed to the senate seat, she ran for it. Let Caroline Kennedy run for the seat in a few years.

[mmonk]

19. Your argument is about why she shouldn't be appointed from what I

gather. She could run for it either way when the time comes.

[dkf]

11. If her name was Kennedy and she supported the IWR, I'd say no way.

Being a Kennedy simply opens the door.

[saltpoint]

13. Paterson may choose a total unknown, or an up-thru-the-ranks

contender, or Cuomo or Kennedy.

But the Governor's role is to fill the vacant seat, and his privilege IS to fill it as he sees fit. It is a responsibility of his office, and he is in that office having been elected by the voters of New York.

Part of the job of Lt. Gov. is to become Governor if the Governor is incapacitated, or dies, or cannot otherwise serve the people.

And part of the job of the Governor is to fulfill the Constitutional mandate of appointment Senators to vacant seats, as necessary.

If people do not like provisions of their Constitution, they are free to mount efforts to alter the mechanisms by which they are governed, but it is difficult, time-consuming work and generally uphill, to say the least.

A lot of people do not care for the Electoral College, and many, especially former Senator Birch Bayh, have offered meaningful reforms in its stead. But this is not a weekend's work anymore than a giant ocean liner can be turned 180 in 5 minutes.

There is a strong case for many potential appointmentees for HClinton's soon-to-be-vacant seat, but I have heard no compelling reason, nevermind a Constitutional one, to oppose Caroline Kennedy for that job.

[JHB]

14. Fundraising Potential

Rest assured, the people bandying about Caroline Kennedy (and just when did she drop the Schlossberg?)'s name are the same who were pushing for Hillary, for the same reasons: Dollar signs.

Neither experience nor public good enters into their calculus: all they see are the name recognition, the connections, and the bucks they can rake in fundraising for her.

[marshall]

20. She's as qualified as Hillary Clinton was

A famous last name and a familial relationship to a well known politician. In fact she's got even more of that familial qualification because she is related to several well known and well liked politicians.

[calico1]

28. Bingo. She is no less qualified than Hillary Clinton was

and you won't hear too many people claim that Hillary has been a lousy Senator.

Obama doesn't exactly have decades of experience under his belt yet he got elected because most people thought judgment was more important than experience.

Why are the standards different for Caroline?

If she is chosen by Paterson she will have to run in 2 years anyway. Then the people of the state of New York can decide if she deserves to stay or not.

[Le Taz Hot]

22. Okay, this is just too juicily ironic for words.

Let me get this straight, a Clinton supporter objects to a Kennedy getting Hillary's Senate seat because they think she's getting it only because of her name???? You do realize, of course, that there is probably no way in hell Hillary would have gotten the New York Senate seat if IT WASN'T FOR HER HUSBAND, right? Hillary had absolutely NO governing experience and pretty much everything she's done for the last 30 years has been because of her husband. Ah, I just love irony. :rofl:

[MoJoWorkin]

24. There were many who said the same thing about Hillary when she moved to NY to become Senator....

...that there were a number of others in NY who should have been Senator, based on their qualifications.


see earlier discussion regarding some of Caroline's qualifications:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x7984846

[retread]

25. It is NOT Hillary Clinton's seat. It belongs to the people of New York. n/t

[mod mom]

26. "many Clinton suppoters want to say, but may not feel they can say is..."

Why do you think Hillary won her seat-HER LAST NAME and SHE WASN'T EVEN FROM NY!

Clinton is only concerned about getting a corporatist as a replacement.

[Crunchy Frog]

27. I can't even understand what the fuss is all about.

Is she expected to be another Lieberman? :shrug: