Why Kennedy should NOT be the junior Senator from NY

[MajorChode]

First and most importantly, the choice is not really up to anyone but New Yorkers, and although Kennedy may have been popular early on she is NOT the one New Yorkers want today.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/poll_caroline_kennedys_support_collapses.php

One of the reasons why her support collapsed was because she was doing poorly in interviews. Does that remind you of anyone?

So what were her qualifications to begin with? Her name? What legitimate right does that grant her? What has she really ever done for the party? How has she ever been tested politically? It takes a lot more than that to fill a Senate seat, especially one that will be hotly contested in the next election.

[saltpoint]

1. I'll back Paterson's choice.

I hope it is Caroline Kennedy.

Your post wildly short-changes an accmplished woman.

[MajorChode]

5. I'm not short changing her accomplishments

I'm just pointing out her lack of political accomplishments.

[saltpoint]

Strom Thurmond had many political accomplishments, most of them abominable.

Stacking up political trophies isn't equivalent to inspired representation.

[MajorChode]

12. Explain how she was "inspired"?

What has she done for the Democratic Party, or even for liberalism or progressivism?

Looking at her resume I see a person that might be inspired for public service through non-profit organizations, and there is certainly nothing to be ashamed of there, but politically the most she has done has been to represent the Kennedy clan at funerals.

She didn't even bother to vote in many elections.

[saltpoint]

18. I feel her model of citizenship is outstanding.

Blaming a baby for being born into a poor family is absurd and cruel; the same accords to babies born into privilege.

You cannot cast blame onto a baby for its birthright any more than you can blame her parents for the love which brought them together in the first place.

If 'fame' or 'celebrity' is in and of itself bad, then any famous person who is generous must be rejected categorically.

That would include, for example, St. Francis, or if you prefer, Francis of Assisi. Born into a well-to-do family but publicly disrobed to make his commitment to the poor emblematic of the ideal servant.

The Buddha, also a baby born into privilege, had been sheltered from the struggles and sadnesses of the world, yet his model endures for centuries as one of focused sacrifice and mindfulness.

Again, I would reiterate that Caroline Kennedy has managed her celebrity responsibly and honorably by not using it as a trump card, but instead to influence the non-profits you seem willing to dismiss.

Those of us who have truck with non-profits take issue with pot-shot criticism. We are not angelic but we aim to do good in the world.

She also lent her name to the candidacy of Barack Obama. She was not the lone element in his victory, but she most certainly was a potent endorsement. "A president just like my father," she called him, last springtime. Months down the road, he is sworn in as president. Don't imagine that a Senator Caroline Kennedy would not be a fiercely loyal vote in support of Obama's legislative agenda.

The Senate could use more, not fewer, progressive women.

Fund-raising would not be an issue.

Paterson's call. But he has a field of impressive souls to fill that seat. Caroline Kennedy among them.

[MajorChode]

25. I'm not blaming her for anything

I'm pointing out what she has working against her.

1) NYers don't want her (nothing else matters much really).

2) She failed to vote in practically every election since she moved to NY.

3) She has been dismissive about her finances and political views.

4) She has performed poorly in the spotlight.

All of these factors will weigh heavily against her in 2010 during an election that will not be a given for anyone. So she very well could make an excellent Senator. She could also fall flat on her face. There's really no way to tell either way which makes her a poor political risk.

[saltpoint]

26. Are you expressly opposed to Caroline Kennedy or are there also

other Democrats afoot you can't abide? Point being, many of us who may prefer one or the other Democrat for that position will support Paterson's choice enthusiastically, no matter which potential candidate he picks.

I hope your disdain for Caroline Kennedy would not subvert Paterson's position, or the future prospects of the blue team holding that seat.

Kennedy is one on a list of qualified souls Paterson will consider.

She is a Constitutional lawyer.

She is most defintely not a fame-flaunter.

She has been distinctly generous with time and money to the Arts, and to Education, IMO the most enduring parts of any culture. The Senate, at all times, could use a healthy infusion of both priorities.

Fund-raising Paterson must make for his own race ought not to be split between his campaign and a Senator vying for the same donor list. That is what would divide the available cash flow and theoretically allow a bull-horn weasel like Peter King to be elected. Kennedy is a significant option because fund-raising she would vanguard goes to many Democrats in the state.

After 8 years of Bush and Cheney, a U.S. Senator steeped in Constitutional scholarship sounds real, real good to me.

[MajorChode]

31. It's simply a matter of picking the best person for the seat

Kennedy isn't the best choice, and I've specifically listed the reasons why. Now rather than dispute those reasons, you would prefer to go down the road of ad hominem. Paterson has already made his choice and I'm pretty sure that one or all of the reasons I listed factored into his decision. Supporting Paterson's choice is exactly what I'm doing, and it has everything to do with the "future prospects of the blue team holding that seat."

[tabasco]

40. Constitutional lawyer. LOL.

Name a single case in any court in which she argued a single constitutional issue.

[BlueCaliDem]

21. She came out in support of Obama. Obama trusted her to head his VP vetting committee & we got Biden.

She has more than enough money not to be corrupted. She isn't part of the powerful DLC-Dem machine in New York. She and one other Democratic representative were the ONLY ones to support Barack Obama for the Democratic ticket in whole of New York.

After how the Dems have been behaving in office, pushing for DLC rule over progressive values, and enabling repub policies, maybe she was disappointed in the party her father AND uncle both died for.

She said as much during her open support for then Senator Obama when she said she hasn't seen any other who could inspire her as much as he had.

[MajorChode]

42. Ok, so she has been "inspired" for the past year

Where was her inspiration in 2007, or 1999, or 1992 when she didn't even bother to show up at the polls?

Furthermore her "inspiration" had absolutely zero political risk and followed her uncle's and cousin's endorsements. Nobody really expected her to do anything else.

[BlueCaliDem]

43. Didn't know there was a set amount of years to feel "inspired".

Ever ask yourself why she didn't bother to show up in the polls all those years? Perhaps she's a progressive Democrat and didn't like what the Democratic Party had become and didn't want to vote for a party so far removed from the one her father and uncle died for.

Who knows?

But that would be the logical reason, wouldn't it? Since the DLC infiltrated and tried to turn the Democratic Party into a DemoRepublican Party, I, as a progressive Democrat, wasn't feeling all too inspired to vote either - until Barack Obama.

That said, this discussion is moot since she's withdrawn her name and DLCer Gillibrand looks to be appointed. This isn't going to make President Obama happy since his administration supported Caroline because she boldly endorsed him while no other New York Democratic pol had the balls to, but oh well.

I'm sure he's the forgiving sort and will embrace DLCer Gillibrand with open arms.

[spanone]

2. it's up to the governor alone. period. who said her support 'collapsed'?

[MajorChode]

6. The link I provided

[HDPaulG]

3. Her qualifications...

She is over 30 and a United States citizen? Are there other special qualifications?

[MajorChode]

7. She's just as "qualified" as Pee-Wee Herman

Using that logic, no?

[HDPaulG]

8. If Paul Reuben....

Fit's the qualification's...Then yes he can.

[HDPaulG]

9. If Paul Reuben....

Fit's the qualification's...Then yes he can.

[stillcool]

4. ah well...it'll be over in a few days...

I'm sure New Yorkers will deal with it just fine. Now if people in other states, were as concerned about the people they elect, that would be a wonderful thing, wouldn't it?

[NashVegas]

10. Ever Hear of a Guy Named Rod Blagojevich?

Rod wouldn't play ball with Obama, and now he's arrested and in an impeachment trial - rightly or wrongly, it's where he is.

If Paterson wanted to name someone other than CK, he should have named that person right after Blago got busted, or when the shit with Burris was at its height.

You talk about "um, you know" but conveniently forget what Obama sounds like without a teleprompter.

It's not about who you think should get the gig, it's about who gains and loses if she does vs if she doesn't. I think Paterson showed himself to be spineless by dragging it out and letting the NY Post do his dirty work.

[BlueCaliDem]

15. Yep. And I don't think Pres. Obama's forgotten he didn't get ONE NY pol to support him

but I'm almost absolutely sure he remembers Andy Cuomo's "shuck and jive" comment against him.

I think, however, that Paterson had his eye on Cuomo for Hillary's seat since he could eliminate his most dangerous competition for the governorship. I've been reading Cuomo would otherwise run for the seat if he's not sent to the U.S. Congress.

Then Obama's people had to make things difficult (from Paterson's pov) by coming out in support of her saying they hope Caroline Kennedy will get the appointment. Then came another delay.

You're absolutely right, Paterson effed it up royally.

[NashVegas]

17. Consider What Obama's People Did To Clinton

I would not want to be Paterson come election time. Nor would I want to be Cuomo or Maloney.

[clear eye]

29. Obama's no idiot. He understands "native son" loyalties.

Or in this case, "native daughter". I agree that Cuomo would have to dig himself out of a hole of his own making. Unfortunately he's the electorate's frontrunner, as well as convenient for the Governor, so it would be hard to fault Paterson for picking him. I've never trusted Cuomo since his shameful performance as head of a badly corrupt HUD. I've been hoping for a woman with a good political record. I was very disappointed when Nydia Velasquez withdrew. Although she's nominally DLC, Rep. Maloney has a voting record that must give them heartburn. She's currently in 3rd place (behind Cuomo and Kennedy) in polls of the voters. However, I think the political winds are blowing Cuomo's way.

[BlueCaliDem]

33. Why not Rep. Slaughter? Now Caroline Kennedy's withdrawn,

no longer has to throw her support behind her and can throw her hat into the ring again. From what I've seen, Rep. Slaughter would make an excellent U.S. Senator.

[clear eye]

34. She'll be 80yo in August. n/t

[BlueCaliDem]

36. Yes, but she's still as sharp as a whistle. n/t

[Me.]

11. This NYer Thinks She'd Do Just Fine

And I certainly think she will be better at the job than senators with names like Kyl, Vitter, Cornyn, Inhofe and so on.

[saltpoint]

13. Paterson's available choices are all good.

They are good by degree to each individual observer / voter, since it's natural to like one candidate perhaps more than another, or in some cases the entire field looks strong.

IMO the latter scenario is the one Paterson enjoys.

I think it's key to back Paterson's choice, no matter if it is a woman or a man, someone from Long Island, NYC, or upstate, whether Asian or Hispanic or you name it.

It's his call. I like the way he's conducted this so far. We're about to find out his choice.

As for Caroline Kennedy specifically, I see no argument against an intelligent, socially-conscious, pro-Arts, pro-Education, and well-funded progressive woman for the U.S. Senate.

Ask Texans or Oklahomans if they'd trade any of their U.s. Senators for Caroline Kennedy.

[Tatiana]

14. Hey, we're returning to Constitutional government, something Caroline Kennedy is well-versed in.

Her background in Constitutional law alone qualifies her (in my opinion) and she got her JD while graduating in the top 10% of her class at Columbia shortly before giving birth to her first child. From education to journalism to film - this woman has a wealth of knowledge and experience, not to mention a very striking sense of gratitude and humility.

[Octafish]

22. It'd be so great to have a Senator who stood for peace.

And stood up to War Inc and the War Party.

[Tatiana]

24. She can do that. She has nothing to lose.

Which is why I really hope she is picked. Even as a junior Senator, she could still do some heavy lifting for the American people, considering she isn't ethically compromised like many of the other Congresscritters.

[clear eye]

27. She owes and idolizes Obama.

That is politically compromised in the context of a dire economic climate where NYS may desperately need something other than an Obama rubberstamp.

[tabasco]

41. What background in constitutional law?

She has never argued a single constitutional issue in any court.

Or any other issue.

[Uzybone]

16. So to you Kennedy = Palin?

you fail for that comparison.

[MajorChode]

19. So you think Caroline Kennedy has a stellar media presence?

Apparently quite a few NYers disagree with you.

[Octafish]

20. Here's the reason she should be the Senator from New York.

She'd continue in the tradition of her father, President John F. Kennedy, which is as good a tradition as ever was. Politically speaking, of course.

[Me.]

30. Yes

She has learned at the knees of giants not to mention her personal accomplishments

[aikoaiko]

23. I don't think that she's necessarily the best choice, but I get it.

She's smart and has a certain gravitas which leads to political influence.

[clear eye]

28. Paterson's office may have tried to give her a graceful out

with that rumor that she had withdrawn due to her desire to spend time w/ Ted. Who else besides me thinks that this is what happened, and that she didn't have the political acumen to read between the lines? Or she didn't want to spare the Governor the anger of her family for embarrassing her by taking so long to reject her.

[MajorChode]

32. That's exactly what happened

The reason the selection process takes time is because NYers need to be allowed to weigh in on the selection. That is exactly what happened and the result was they didn't want Kennedy for whatever reason. Paterson isn't going to announce his selection without first contacting those who didn't make the cut a few days in advance. Paterson well understands that Kennedy is a significant asset to the Democrats even if she isn't selected. Allowing her to find out in the newspapers serves no purpose.

[FLAprogressive]

35. sour grapes. It's the only reason why DLCers hate CKS

[LanternWaste]

37. Qaulifications:30 years old, U.S. citizen for nine years, resident of state

"the choice is not really up to anyone but New Yorkers..."
I though the choice was the sole domain of the Governor-- is that not correct?

"So what were her qualifications to begin with?"
She's 30 years old or older, she's been a U.S. citizens for at least 9 years, she's a resident of the state of New York.

Unless you believe there should be additional qualification for the position-- is so, what are they, and what are they based on?

"It takes a lot more than that to fill a Senate seat, especially one that will be hotly contested in the next election."
Specifically what? Based on what? Is the list absolute and used for any and all office holders? If not, what (and why) are the exceptions? Specific only to New York or every state?





I don't really care if she takes the seat or not, but I find it quit disparaging that the only valid criticism I hear re: her is "qualifications", but when pressed, those qualifications come out (at best) as merely vague answers...

[mmonk]

38. I'll take one with rightness of cause and mind over another slick politician

that would vote for the invasion of Iraq or telecom immunity or to give an outlaw executive branch more power no matter how "qualified" they are because they have been a politician (ie: human being with either good or bad ethics or good or bad ideas). But that's just me.

[tabasco]

39. I did not support Caroline for senator.

She is not qualified and we are trying to restore honest government, not more nepotism and incompetence.

[shintao]

44. Good Point - I think she withdrew

Normally I would say anyone can sit in the seat, Sonny Bonos ol lady did. But good point on the election. We can't afford to lose the seat, but with NY? Geeze I doubt we could do that.

[MajorChode]

45. Do you really think so?

NY had a Republican Governor just two years ago. Clinton was elected to her seat by a very narrow margin. So whoever gets that seat isn't necessarily a given in the next election.

I think it would be a great idea to give Kennedy Gillibrand's rep seat, but after her run for the Senate seat was so badly managed, I'm not sure even that is going to happen now.