It's Official: The Caroline Kennedy PR machine knows no shame...

[JackRiddler]

Even to the point of advancing pieces declaring her appointment "official" when in fact it is nothing of the sort. Hillary Clinton has not even yet resigned her seat!

The shameless campaign on Caroline Kennedy's behalf is a case of what we might call "inevitability marketing." In the last couple of days it has run into new obstacles and shifted into a shrill and mildly desperate register. Assembly Speaker Silver put a knife in her and then, in the classic mode of Albany and Brutus, made sure to tell us how he loved her more than any other. Bloomberg's backing off, perhaps realizing that he himself is a billionaire seeking to appoint himself to a third term. People may notice too many parallels between him and Kennedy for his endorsement to do either of them any good.

So it's time for some PR shill to threaten the governor with "political malpractice" if he doesn't do exactly what the corporate media consensus demands of him and give them their royal darling. Some HuffPost blogger today declares the decision has already been made, and this prompts calls of "it's official."

Well, it's not, and I'll say it again: Fuck appointment by corporate media (even with cheerleaders at the HuffPost and DU). The constitutional process says it's still entirely the governor's decision. I hope Paterson shows courage enough to reject this unprecedented usurpation of his role.

Fact is, the waging of a relentless daily professional PR war on behalf of someone who never before campaigned for a single vote should be an automatic disqualification.

Pro-Kennedy trollers, we know your talking points, so please note: This isn't about her qualifications. She's at least as qualified as most of the idiots in the Senate, and probably one of the 10,000 most qualified people in New York State. Why aren't the other 9,999 being given the inevitability factor?

This also isn't about her supposed politics - conveniently a mostly blank slate. I'm sure they're just wonderful.

It's about the process by which the corporate media gets to crown the new junior Senator from New York.

Kennedy would never conceivably be considered for the post, if she weren't a) a Kennedy, b) rich, c) an automatic darling of the media, and d) getting her quid pro quo for raising massive funds for politicians.

"Please, all powerful television, tell us what to do!!!"

[saltpoint]

1. Honoring Paterson in his choice but rooting hard for Caroline.

She'd be a stellar pick.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

11. stellar? come back to the earth.

give
me
a
break.

if that badly spoken, shy, not particularly aware individual was named anything other than kennedy, there is
NO
FUCKING
WAY
she would even be close to being selected.

godammit. we spent 40 years kicking out hereditary rulers, and here you want them back? Are you crazy? Thousands of lives were lost creating democracy. And now, you seek to avoid 20,000,000 people in New york, just to reward a girl whose claim to fame was that her daddy was president.

no wonder our country is in such trouble.

[saltpoint]

18. Your assertion that I'm to blame for our country's troubles is accurate.

I accept full blame.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

21. thank god we have loose gun laws, then.

why not deal with our problem as the japanese did?

[saltpoint]

23. On the subject of the Japanese, I think praise is owed for the

ability they have in manufacturing automobiles.

Also their music students are friggin' excellent.

[Jackpine Radical]

30. I appreciate your accepting responsibility for the problems you have caused.

What are you going to do to fix it all?

[saltpoint]

32. I thought maybe whip up a blenderful of rum and lime juice.

That'd be the first step.

After that, I think I'd put on some Yo Yo Ma, some Bonnie Raitt, some Shirley Bassey, the Duke Ellington Paris concerts, and Emmylou Harris doing "From Boulder to Birmingham."

With that combination, I believe enlightenment would ensue.

[Jackpine Radical]

35. Enlightenment, sure, if that's all ou're after.

But what about dharma?

For that you would need to add some Willie Nelson and maybe the Doors.

[saltpoint]

39. I can't argue with either Willie or Jim. Willie of course is not

a musical virtuoso but I don't give a tinker's damn about that -- I like him no matter what.

Jim was not of this world. He was a shaman from the time of foggy mists and lightning who wound up in a recording studio, unaccountably.

Yes, the river knows how he got here. I certainly don't. But he was the rare soul who could literally scream on pitch.

[jhrobbins]

75. I would add Laura Nyro

[saltpoint]

78. Add Laura Nyro, would you? Indication of a

sound mind, IMO.


:thumbsup:

[NYC_SKP]

34. Hold on there partner, I want some of that!

You can't take the full blame, I want some blame over here!!!

:rofl:

[Jackpine Radical]

36. Jeez, I can't believe my luck tonight.

I go and wreck the world, and two guilt freaks show up from nowhere to take the blame. Where were you guys when I broke Mom's cookie jar?

[saltpoint]

43. Hey. It was me who broke that cookie jar, and I ate every goddam one of those

cookies inside it, too.

I gobbled them shamelessly in record time and have lied about to this day.

[Jackpine Radical]

54. A lotta good this confession does NOW!

I spent years in therapy over that issue.

[saltpoint]

56. LOL! I'll fry in hell for it, if it's any consolation.

[jhrobbins]

74. You are my new favorite person on DU-congratulations.

[Wednesdays]

58. Is there enough blame to pass around?

:shrug:

[thunder rising]

2. Caroline stood up for my guy (Obama) back when there wasn't many of us. I like Caroline. 'nuf said

[Donnachaidh]

45. and you don't think there was some wheeling and dealing being done even back then?

Shaaa -- hey, I have this REAAAAALLLY neat Bridge that just went on the market. I can even help getting you financed! :nudge nudge wink wink: :sarcasm:

[Muttocracy]

86. and that makes her the best for Senator from NY how? nt

[Horse with no Name]

3. There is something VERY ironic

about YOU insinuating OTHERS are trolls.:rofl:

[JackRiddler]

5. Thank you for your intelligent contribution.

[PM Martin]

4. I agree with what you have stated.

I am shocked by how many around here are supporting Ms. Kennedy after decrying the "dynasty" of the Clintons.
At least Clinton was elected to the Senate.

[NYC_SKP]

7. I'm cool with Dynasties, if they're good people with good intentions.

Not all families are equal in that regard, many like the Kennedy family but not Bill and Hill Clinton.

:shrug:

[PM Martin]

9. The Clinton's are not the devils that too many around here make...

them out to be.

[aquart]

12. So it's NOT dynasties, just personalities. Oh.

Not what was said during the campaign, of course.

So they were just lying their asses off.

[PM Martin]

14. Progressives are turning into the same type of hypocrits

that the right wing has been.

Sad.

[Fumesucker]

53. Same as it ever was.

There is no turning into, there is only is.

On what definition of is is it depends of course.

/Yoda

Hypocrisy is not a binary condition, practically everyone is a hypocrite in some form or another however some people raise it to a religion/science/art form.

[aquart]

You noticed that, too?

Fortunately no one will ever say that Senator Clinton's appointment to State paved the way for a political payoff to the Kennedys for their support.

[whathehell]

51. Moreover, Clinton campaigned, aka "worked", for the job!

She is also a decent public speaker who is unafraid to speak to the public and the press.

[ErinBerin84]

6. being in NY

I am surprised that I don't really have that strong of feelings about the Kennedy appointment either way. But in any case, "sources" kind of bother me too. I remember Hillary for SOS was reported to be confirmed by "sources" on Huff Post and it annoyed me then, but I guess it turned out being right so whatevs.

[bottomtheweaver]

8. This is satire right?

Or are you really under the delusion that "corporate media consensus" is demanding that Paterson appoint CK?

[ErinBerin84]

10. true

I have not really seen the media being that much behind it. Maybe the first couple of days, but that was sort of it.

[bottomtheweaver]

15. The New York Times actually published a completely fake letter

slamming Caroline into the gutter, allegedly from the Mayor of Paris, that they knew, KNEW was phony as a three dollar bill, and then left it up on their website after a French publication exposed them!

They are shameless, shameless swiftboaters, and the rest of the RW echo chamber press has been just as rotten.

[bottomtheweaver]

24. And here's a link

to my DU thread about it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=389&topic_id=4710796&mesg_id=4710796

[JackRiddler]

22. Have you watched TV or read the corporate news organs recently?

You tell me why they've got daily pieces trumpeting CK as the inevitable choice.

[ErinBerin84]

25. well

I have MSNBC on all day at my work (unfortunately), and I only saw the "oh, now he has to pick her, doesn't he" talk last two days. As soon as she spoke, everyone was like "Democrats like dynasties too much, Patterson has an out now, etc." The exception may be people who know her like Mike Barnicle. Have not watched CNN lately though, so I can't speak for them. Maybe you have better examples, but I haven't really seen it as a whole....

[bottomtheweaver]

26. You mean when they're not conducting gotcha interviews and

then trumpeting how many times she said um? Seriously, are you completely out of touch with what's been going on?

[JackRiddler]

31. Soon as Carolyn Maloney and the other 20 possibilities...

even combined, get 1/2 of the coverage, you might actually have a complaint about the occasional negative story about CK.

The inevitability PR relies on having CK and only CK mentioned 90 percent of the time. It's working pretty well.

[bottomtheweaver]

33. The NYT has been shitting all over itself to swiftboat Caroline.

It doesn't get any lower than publishing phony letters from foreign dignataries, but they went there. The "corporate media consensus" has been as venal and mendacious toward Caroline as they were toward Kerry, and for pretty much the same reason, so please don't even try to pretend otherwise.

[JackRiddler]

40. Here we go again - NYT was fooled by a hoax.

It's a sad sign of the decline of newspaper staffing, no doubt, that they fell for it. You want to make it sinister? Fine.

Meanwhile, there are dozens of recent NYT articles on CK, negative and positive.

http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/s/caroline_kennedy_schlossberg/index.html?scp=1-spot&sq=caroline%20kennedy&st=cse

Compare: Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-NY). Handful of articles in same period. No picture, no profile.
http://query.nytimes.com/search/sitesearch?query=carolyn+maloney&date_select=full&srchst=cse



Compare: CK on news.google.com -- this is a news story aggregator, not just a search engine.
Kennedy: About 7,000 stories since Dec. 31st!
Maloney: A few hundred stories in the last month most of them not related to a possible Senate appointment.

[bottomtheweaver]

42. Right, they didn't know the Mayor of Paris had a press office or a phone.

Check.

[saltpoint]

13. Radio listeners were said to believe Nixon beat JFK in the first debate, but

tv watchers gave the nod to Jack.

If you read the transcript of that debate, you'd give it to Jack, too.

As little as some people liked Nixon in 1960, they'd have a lot more reason to dislike him very shortly.

But I digress in my anti-Nixon bias, which frankly, is deeply earned but tangential to the notion that television has not always been around to advance the careers of politicians, but it didn't stop any politician from being a politician, successful or not.

If it was a plus for John Kennedy, by god, good for him.

As to your point, I frankly do not see Ted Kennedy, a long-serving liberal in the Senate, as a pawn of "corporate media."

I see no claim or evidence that Caroline Kennedy, were she to be Paterson's chocie, would be either.

[VPStoltz]

16. What's the difference...

IF she decided for run for office, she would be the automatic nominee because she is a) a Kennedy, b)rich, c) an automatic darling of the press and d) (you fill in the blank).
She's just cutting out the middleman.

[bottomtheweaver]

20. Please, PLEASE show evidence that she is a "darling of the press."

This sounds about as ridiculous as Rush railing about the liberal media.

[VPStoltz]

90. I was sarcastically replying to another post that conjured that fact.

[Truth2Tell]

17. How is it that I'm the first rec for this post?

Does the politics of celebrity really have that tight a hold on everyone in America? Even at DU? Wait... don't answer that.

[Hutzpa]

19. Caroline endorsed Obama

at a time when most where being suspicious and calling him muslim and terrorist,
back then when most of ya where for Hillary, for that alone I stand by her
no matter what, so you can do all your hating of her as long as you want
she is going to get that seat and thats, that.

Capesh!!

[varkam]

27. I endorsed Obama before she did.

Why can't I get the seat?

[Hutzpa]

67. Simple

You're not Caroline Kennedy, unless you wanna change your name then you can
come see me.

[Cha]

82. Caroline was

great, wasn't she, with that endorsement in the NYT?

<snips>

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

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


<more>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html

[saltpoint]

28. Some of my best friends are cheerleaders at the HuffPost & DU.

[EFerrari]

47. LOl!

:woohoo:

[Mind_your_head]

29. Actually as much as I would like to see Caroline take the senate seat "in a perfect world'....

We don't live in a anything near a 'perfect world'.

I don't *know* anything for sure, but perhaps it's better that Caroline "works" things from the outside (rather than from the SEEMINGLY INSIDE?)

Don't know....just a thought/consideration.

[saltpoint]

37. But wait, and wait again. We need to establish boundaries.

We need to know, before any Senate replacement appointment is made, if ALL forms of fame and celebrity are equally suspect.

Caroline Kennedy's old man was in politics, I'm pretty sure. So I'm assuming you don't like political celebrities. Or at least you don't like the offspring of political celebrities.

Or could it be that we can like the offspring of political celebrities as long as they promise and cross their hearts never to replicate their parents' careers?

How about the wives, husbands, children, cousins, and prostitutes of political celebrities? Where's the cut-off point, in other words?

Ok, then we'd have to move to Hollywood celebrities. There's Reagan, and Arnold out in California.

How about astronaut celebrities? Should we band together and send John Glenn a "You ain't shit" letter? Just to let him know that we're on to how phoney a Senator he was and that he only got elected because he was an astronaut.

What about Hollywood celebrities or music people, for example, who send checks to progressive politicians? Are they on the shit list as well? Should some kind of regulatory body prohibit Bonnie Raitt or Bruce Springsteen or Barbra Streisand etc. from holding concerts to raise money for blue candidates? YEAH! Damn them all! We don't want yur damn celebrity money. We're pure and don't want celebrity contamination. We'd sure tell THEM.

Now there's a bit of a problem, though. What if the candidate in question is the daughter or son of another politician who wasn't all that famous? Then what? Do we ban them from consideration on the basis that their parent politician could THEORETICALLY have been famous?

What if their parent politician lost an election? What if they won some and lost some? What if they were going great guns and seemed entrenched forever and then, like Wilbur Mills of Arkansas, wound up naked in the Jefferson Memorial pool with a hooker?

If a decidedly NON-famous person wound up naked in the tidal pool with a hooker, whether or not from Arkansas, would he or she still be qualified for a Senate appointment?

Would that sort of fame boost the offspring's chances or disqualify them?

We have to establish boundaries.

[Smarmie Doofus]

38. I don't think it will happen now. Paterson will look utterly ridiculous.

Every time Caroline looks bad.... which is basically every time she opens her mouth... it will reflect on Paterson.

Paterson would like to please the heavy hitters in NY politics but there is now no way out of this bind for him other than to appoint a competent, qualified, articulate, accomplished, energetic individual to this post. Ms. Kennedy is a nice person but she is obviously not THAT person.


We can thank the Kennedy/Bloomberg PR BS campaign overkill.

[JackRiddler]

41. Yes, I think they overexposed the "campaign" and it's backfired.

[Me.]

44. I Support You In Your Support

Despite the fact that you just about, nearly, ruined the entire world I can see that your judgment is not flawed.

[madrchsod]

46. i`ve got my own problems here at du and in illinois but

i do`t get why she`s entitled to the senate seat. is`t there someone else that is more qualified to be selected for the senate? i guess caroline is acceptable to reid....sorry... i could`t resist.

[EFerrari]

48. Of all the things to feel shame over, successful publicity?

Come on. :)

[yodoobo]

49. Lets play guess the pedigree

Who does this describe:

1) Child of a former president
2) Attended a prestigious university and was admitted based on family reputation
3) Did little since college
4) Appointed to high office, or wishes to be appointed to high office, bypassing the election process.
5) Terrible command of English language

Is that person:

A) Caroline Kennedy
B) George W. Bush
C) All of the above?

[greguganus]

57. Touche'!! That would make a great poll. n/t

[1]

50. but... but... but... her name is KENNEDY! KENNEDY! what is your problem?

KENNEDY!

my god, what about this do you not understand?

[OneBlueSky]

52. why is anyone surprised by this? . . .

it's just business as usual in the good ole U.S. of A. . .

[HamdenRice]

55. A pol who "made it" by being son of a pol, appoints the daughter of a president to replace ...

a pol who "made it" by being the wife of a president -- that should be the headline of the Caroline appointment goes through. Non-NYers may not realize that Paterson himself is son of Basil Paterson, a prominent NY state/Harlem pol of the prior generation.

The nepotistic nature of politics is becoming overwhelming.

Thanks for the analysis. I wasn't aware of the PR angle.

[saltpoint]

59. If 'fame' is itself suspect, then anyone who is currently famous

should step down from office, refuse to record any more music, eschew acting on stage or screen, and so forth.

No matter what field of endeavor a famous person might be in, his or her fame is the problem. To root out fame, we will need comprehensive rehauling of just about every human arena of accomplishment.

If famous actors or musicians or politicians have children, the risk runs extremely high that people will recognize them instantly as the offspring of someone famous. Therefore, it follows that no one should be allowed to be famous, ever.

In fact, it would be better if people who are famous didn't have children to begin with. It's only fair. otherwise, entertainment and political dynasties would surely follow, and the fame that fuels said dynasties is suspect, even evil, and should be strangled in the crib, as it were.

Also, the same no-reproducing prohibition should apply to anyone who MIGHT be famous later but who is not currently famous.

With tabloid publications at grocery store check out lanes, this will not be an overnight project, but Christ knows it has to be undertaken to avoid the chance that the daughter or son of someone famous might themsevles become famous.

So public opinion here is crucial. I suggest that the next time someone even mentions the name of a famous person, the proper response should be feigned ignorance of that referenced famous person. As in, "Barbra Streisand? Never heard of her." Or, "Kennedy? Doesn't ring any bells. Are you SURE they're famous?" And so forth.

[JackRiddler]

65. Strawman ... with lots and lots of straw. Yawn. nt

[saltpoint]

68. Nope. 'Fame' is the fuel of legacy.

The claim against the woman is legacy.

Otherwise she meets all qualifications and criteria.

[JackRiddler]

76. "Otherwise she meets all qualifications and criteria."

"Qualifications"?

Nearly every professor at Columbia, NYU or SUNY Binghamton meets the qualifications (assuming these should go beyond the constitutional requirement of being at least 30 years old and a resident, and include some intellectual accomplishment or other). So why aren't their names in play? Why don't they have the inevitability factor?

"Criteria"?

Whose criteria?

[saltpoint]

79. The gov makes the appointment. He has to choose someone

whose qualifications adhere to 3 strict Constitutional rules to be a U.S. Senator.

My father was a history teacher. I don't recall any book on his shelf which indicated that "inevitability" is illegal.

Or un-Constitutional.

Or even undesirable.

And in any case, "inevitability" has not been established, as the appointment has not been made.

You like another candidate for that post. Great. Paterson may appoint that candidate. Or not. He may appoint anyone he wishes, whether rich or poor, whether Asian or Hispanic or female, or with or without freckles.

Your bias is against fame and not in fair consideration of all other variables.

Caroline Kennedy meets all criteria for the post.

[JackRiddler]

83. Your bias is against earning an office by way of actual accomplishments.

Your bias is for royalty and stars.

See, it's easy to turn your bullshit on you.

[saltpoint]

87. You've delineated fame and celebrity as the source of your bias,

evidently.

Should Ziggy Marley then be barred from recording any music because his father was famous? Should those who like Ziggy's music be shamed for liking it?

Your bias against CK for her father's last name is an unsubstantiated criticism because it in effect punishes any child for being the product of its parents' marriage.

In politics, especially, it is not very practical, in addition to being blatantly illegal.

[liskddksil]

60. Two reasons I like Kennedy

1. As far as I can tell she is a genuine progressive and has no affiliations with the DLC or Third Way.

2. She is a huge proponent for government support of the arts, which is something that has been completely missing during the last decades. Now with many arts organizations, which employ a significant number of people, starting to go under with the economy, we'll have someone in there who understands their social and economic importance to this country.

[jhrobbins]

77. Hear, hear!

[saltpoint]

81. The Arts? Who needs the damn arts? We don't need no orchestra

and no fancy-pants museums.

These libruls'll spend money on ANYTHING.

- - - - - - -

“Art for art’s sake? I should think so, and more so than ever at the present time. It is the one orderly product which our middling race has produced. It is the cry of a thousand sentinels, the echo from a thousand labyrinths, it is the lighthouse which cannot be hidden... it is the best evidence we can give of our dignity.”

--E. M. Forster, 1962

[deaniac21]

61. You know, you are being kind of harsh, you know?

[JackRiddler]

63. You know, I was thinking I may be kind of harsh...

Were I writing this a day later, today, I'd tone it down, without changing the content. There's no need for unnecessarily provocative language. This issue angers me out of proportion to other, even more important matters, because a) I'm from NY, so I'm entitled; and b) so many intelligent people don't seem to recognize it when they're being swept up in an obvious PR campaign. Or they even admire it for being so "effective" and think this is an argument in Kennedy's favor (she'll have some vague "influence," as though it wouldn't matter on behalf of what or whom).

[deaniac21]

89. I thought you were spot on.

[mdmc]

62. who better?

:shrug:
I mean, who better for Patterson? This is as good as it gets...

[JackRiddler]

64. Maloney is the obvious choice.

For Patterson, too. Kennedy's not going to look as shiny by 2010.

[saltpoint]

70. Upstaters or Hispanic voters would not see Maloney as an obvious choice

at all.

There are astericks to any choice Paterson makes.

He has his own election to be concerned with as well.

He's governor of a state and likely wants his share of benefaction from the upcoming administration, a not-at-all-uncommon wish of governors of either major party.

IMO the nuts-and-bolts of politics may be enhanced by legacy but legacy is not the ultimate determinant of what comes back from DC to a given state.

Maloney is a fine pick, but there are many such fine picks Paterson has on hand. He'd likely go with one with few negatives and several positives. Maloney meets those criteria, IMO. But so does Caroline Kennedy and many other New Yorkers.

[JackRiddler]

73. Thank you. You've just pointed out why the CK discussion is a PR campaign.

"Maloney meets those criteria, IMO. But so does Caroline Kennedy and many other New Yorkers."

Right, but "many other New Yorkers" do not get more than 50% of the total coverage devoted to this issue, like CK. They aren't even in the discussion. Only those who have otherwise run for elected office are. So what's the difference in CK's case? A PR campaign based on her divine-right privilege (the name), her money and her favor as a corporate media subject (whether the publicity is good or bad, they want to talk about her and her only, all day).

[saltpoint]

80. Jesus God, JR. Your DU posts are always worth a good read but you

are missing the blue side of the barn on this one.

Give me a basis for your objection to the appointment of Caroline Kennedy which eclipses the arguments for her appointment.

There aren't any.

You may prefer another candidate. So what? Any number of people might want the job. Any number of people might prefer someone specifically for the job.

But only one person chooses the person who will hold the job, at least for the 2-year period prior to the election for same. That's Paterson.

I'm not getting how you want a progressive woman disqualified for a public sector appointment based on her father's last name.

[JackRiddler]

84. Oh, okay, you did just say something very nice to me.

Let's just agree to disagree.

;)

[saltpoint]

88. I've always enjoyed your DU posts.

We could use more of them rather than less.

But I ain't gonna stand for a slam on CK when she doesn't deserve it. I don't like it when the playground boys pick on the smart girl.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

71. She voted for the IWR even though her constituents asked her not to.

She bought into the lies.

[JackRiddler]

72. That's why I voted against her, paradoxically enough!

Nevertheless, based on the traditional "realistic" criteria that people falsely use to justify CK, like viability and the like, I think CM is the right choice.

[Balbus]

66. She's an idiot. 99% of the senators are idiots.

Sounds like a match made in heaven.

[OmmmSweetOmmm]

69. I'm a NYer as you are and personally speaking there are other people I'd like to see appointed BUT

I am perfectly fine with Caroline if she gets the nod.

[Muttocracy]

85. thank you. nt

[ShortnFiery]

91. Oh no, we love celebrity and it's Caroline's birthright don't cha know?

:sarcasm: :puke:

[bigtree]

92. 'Pro-Kennedy trollers'

:eyes:

[JackRiddler]

93. See post #63 and please consider it as an apology.

I'm old enough to know better, but rhetoric has oft-irresistible seductions.

[bigtree]

94. good man

:toast:

[mnhtnbb]

95. Caroline Kennedy's expectations to be named to the Senate seat

mirror Nancy Pelosi's original run for office: she was a BIG fundraiser for the Dems in S.F.

[JackRiddler]

97. The difference being... with Pelosi there was a vote...

no doubt a foregone conclusion, given the set-up in this country with campaign finance, cronyism and media access. But a vote, nevertheless. Something precious. A confirmation of the people.

This is a gubernatorial appointment. Normally it would never be the subject of an high-profile public discussion, like this one. We'd all snooze along, some might quietly lobby the governor, then he'd make his pick as he is entitled to under the constitution. Normally, anyone who tried to apply massive public pressure, like Kennedy's PR machine, would be seen as trying to railroad the governor and be automatically qualified.

Except for relatives of people who died in office, people who never ran for any office also never get consideration for a Senate replacement appointment - unless they're dynastic rich fundraisers with a big PR machine and the corporate media's favor as an object of gossip (better than the "mandate of Heaven!"). Suddenly, to her cheerleaders here, CK's more qualified than the 20-odd Nobel Prize winners who must live in New York, she's the most progressive sliced bread ever, she's earned that free seat more than all the politicians who actually put themselves on the line with campaigns in elections and votes on legislation, thanks to her fabulous connections and money she'll make the greatest representative of New Yorkers' interests ever (soon as she comes up with some actual political positions), every day we must get more coverage of her (it's probably still more than a month before Clinton's confirmation as SoS, by the way!), etc., etc.

Not just a travesty, but overkill. CK will be toast before Clinton's confirmation is concluded.

[Muttocracy]

96. NYT has some coverage of the other candidates:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4762282

and a story about Caroline Kennedy NOT being a policymaker in NYC Education - or at least that was the loophole that kept her out of financial disclosure.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4762258