Caroline Kennedy to Seek NY Senate Seat

The New York Times and Washington Post report Caroline Kennedy has now told New York Governor David Paterson she'd like to be the new Senator from New York.

Several people are questioning her credentials and whether she's sufficiently experienced for the position.

Caroline Kennedy is a Columbia Law graduate and co-author of two books: In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action and The Right to Privacy . In addition, [More...]:

Kennedy serves as a member of the national board of directors for the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, the vice-chair for the Fund for Public Schools in New York City, and chief executive for the New York City Department of Education Office of Strategic Partnerships.

She co-chaired Obama's Veep Selection Committee, she's a director of the Commission on Presidential Debates and an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics.

I think she's more than qualified to be a U.S. Senator and I hope she gets the position. We need more Senators who are cognizant and respectful of our constitutional rights. She'll be great for education and funding for the arts.

She's outside the Washington power grid but knows how it works. Her celebrity will bring increased attention to the progressive bills she introduces, co-sponsors and supports. I think she's exactly the kind of change we need to bring to Washington.

< David Shuster Gets MSNBC 6pm Show | Report: Salazar Has Accepted Interior Secretary Position >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Disagree (5.00 / 18) (#1)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:41:38 PM EST
    Not with whether or not she is qualified - certainly there are many senators less qualified.  But i don't believe she should just be given a senate seat having never been elected to any office.  There are many New Yorkers who have also written books, or served on prestigious boards or were involved in the Obama campaign who have also never been elected to any office.  But those folks are certainly NOT being considered for this position.  Because their last name isn't Kennedy.

    If she wishes to run for the office - as Hillary did - and is elected, great!  But she should not simply get the post because she decided to express interest.  Get your hands dirty, campaign, ask the voters for their support, then be a senator.

    And tell us what you stand for (5.00 / 8) (#4)
    by denise k on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:03:40 PM EST
    I have nothing against Kennedy per se but that is because I have no idea what she stands for.  All I know is that she father is part of the Kennedy dynasty and she lived in the White House when she was five years old.  That is not enough to go on.  

    Caroline, we need to hear from you if you want to be crowned Senator.  


    This reeks of quid pro quo... (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:18:10 PM EST
    Caroline endorsed Obama then chaired/served on Obama's VP selection committee; and for those simple services rendered, she gets appointed to the Senate seat of the eminent, seasoned politician who nearly became President.

    I find it objectionable, both for the apparent quid pro quo process and for her abysmal lack of credentials relative to the person she is replacing.

    But, at least it's not as bad as Dick Cheney who recommended himself for VP after having chaired Bush's VP selection committee.


    I was hoping she would appoint herself as VP (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:26:06 PM EST
    would have been too d@mn funny!

    What about RFK Jr. ? (none / 0) (#71)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:45:29 PM EST
    He is a high-profile, stalwart progressive activist who's served the public interest for his whole adult life.

    Of course, he endorsed Hillary, who he regards as more progressive than Obama. But, if Obama truly believes in building a "team of rivals", I'm all in for Bobby.

    Are both Bobby and Caroline New York residents?


    I think Bobby should stay where he is (5.00 / 1) (#78)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:07:38 PM EST
    he's making progress and is a good voice.

    Hmm, you just made a question pop up in my head. Are the Kennedys (and related kin) not in office making better progress on their issues than those in? If you think about it, if Caroline was so inclined and wanted to be more public, she could effect a lot more than she already does, without the BS of the Senate. Clinton, Bill comes to mind also  ;) Look what he can do with his name, history and foundation. Caroline has been active in Education and fund raising for it, perhaps she could do more outside the senate if she were willing to put herself out there?


    Methinks Bobby's not too keen on Obama... (none / 0) (#84)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:21:38 PM EST
    Obviously, he wasn't a couple of months ago and there doesn't seem to be any reason for that to have changed.

    Perhaps he's come to the Gore-like conclusion that, in the long-run, he can be more effective as a non-politician.


    RFK, Jr. (none / 0) (#72)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:47:44 PM EST
    Bobby junior has taken his name out of consideration and thrown his support to Caroline.

    Was RFK jr being considered over Caroline? (none / 0) (#76)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:56:05 PM EST
    And he took himself out of consideration? I slept through all that. When/how did this happen?  

    NYTimes city room blog (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:05:45 PM EST
    reported on Dec. 2 that Bobby, jr. had contacted Paterson to take himself out of consideration. Bobby cited his six children as his reason to not take on the rigors of a senate seat and the two upcoming senate elections.

    Good to know, thanks. (none / 0) (#141)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:09:06 PM EST
    huh? (none / 0) (#7)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:06:06 PM EST
    is that person you just quizzed expressing the expectation of a senate seat handed to him/her?
    What sense does your question make, please?

    I was replying to another comment (none / 0) (#8)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:10:41 PM EST
    that seems to have gone away.

    thanks for that (5.00 / 4) (#12)
    by denise k on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:18:36 PM EST
    because the other comment had me confused.  Clearly, Kennedy is the one who needs to start talking.  Otherwise, I think the Senate seat should go to someone who has done the leg work.

    Most politicians run for office and (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by inclusiveheart on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:48:44 PM EST
    then they write books full of platitudes.

    Ms. Kennedy Schlossberg has actually gone on the record about her beliefs.

    Another book that she edited which is near and dear to my hear is called "Profiles in Courage for Our Time".  She is no slouch in understanding what this government should be rooted in and more liberal that 60-70% of the Senators currently elected as Democrats.

    I will make no warranties for her ultimate performance as a senator as she has always shied away from the limelight.  Therefore, I do not know how she will do if she is appointed or even elected, but I do know her politics in a way in which frankly is a lot more than I have ever known about many of the Democrats who have run in the past 20-30 years.  

    I lived in New York for a lot of years and she is the only person I know of currently on the scene who would actually have the guts to fight for poor people and working class folks.  She's hardwired as a Kennedy to do that which bodes well in my mind for her potential.  She knows how to make deals.  She's got a better understanding of and respect for the Constitution than most of the 535 members of Congress.  I think I'd risk appointing her.


    Unfortunately (none / 0) (#122)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:34:28 AM EST
    For Caroline Kennedy, she's never had to fight for the poor or working class in a partisan environment.  Certainly before this year, she'd never shown any inclination to get involved in politics (rather than policy) and we have no idea how she'd do in debate, under GOP attack, etc.  Moreover, while I'm sure her books are excellent, when you campaign you are required to become versed in issues outside your preferred areas of expertise.  What does she think about dairy subsidies?  What's her view on Amtrak?  Who knows - she's never gone through a campaign.

    I'm sure she's a perfectly nice, intelligent person, but being smart and nice isn't enough.  She needs to run for office and ask the voters - not just Paterson.


    Yes Yes Yes (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:20:29 PM EST
    I would love to see Caroline appointed. To see her carry on her father's legacy would make me very happy. If her brother was alive he would also be in the running, but he's not, so I say yes.

    JFK's legacy (4.00 / 4) (#43)
    by denise k on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:31:11 PM EST
    What exactly is JFK's legacy for her to carry forward?  He was in office less than 3 years.  I was five when he was killed, so I don't have much perspective living through it and I never studied it in history class. I am just curious what you consider as his legacy.  

    I was 15 (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by mmc9431 on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 06:00:20 AM EST
    What I remeber about JFK was that he was able to instill a sense of excitement, vitality and pride in the country that I had never seen before and haven't seen since. Being a "liberal" wasn't a four letter word. There were possibilities. No doubt that death enshrined his image but he was the right man at the right time for the country.

    Presidential Commission on the Status of Women (5.00 / 1) (#128)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:34:51 AM EST
    Found mention of this at Wikipedia. Looks like a start, an opening, for what came later in the decade.

    Also space exploration, the Peace Corps...Kennedy didn't get much done but he certainly spelled out some of the progressive changes (civil rights, medicare etc) that Johnson made real.


    Bay of Pigs, missile standoff, (none / 0) (#102)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:12:32 AM EST
    increased U.S. military presence in Vietnam.  

    Besides, wasn't the mantle... (none / 0) (#110)
    by EL seattle on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:56:37 AM EST
    ... passed to Obama as part of his phenomenal campaign of Hope?  Why should it be Caroline's responsibility to fulfill the promises and dreams of JFK (the good parts, at least) from the position of junior senator when there's someone in the oval office who supposedly shares those dreams?  Should Obama delay work on a new and improved Peace Corps because it's somehow Caroline Kennedy's inherited turf?

    That's Too Narrowed A Perspective (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:09:46 AM EST
    Why can't 'inherited mantles' relating to renewal of programs like the Peace Corps be carried by more than one inheritor or assignee?

    In the wake of W/Cheney, there's plenty of need for a broad collaboration among leaders to undo the damage of the last eight years.


    Yesterday's AP headlines included (none / 0) (#131)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:00:33 AM EST
    Cheney stating Joe Biden will appreciate how the office of the VP has been modified.

    Cheney Should Know Right Now (none / 0) (#142)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:44:44 PM EST
    Many of us "appreciate" what Cheney did to that office already.

    Dictionary.com's 3rd def. of 'appreciate':

    3.     to be fully conscious of; be aware of; detect: to appreciate the dangers of a situation.


    Reply to: JFK's legacy (none / 0) (#140)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 01:47:35 PM EST
    Old(er) person chiming in. I'm still surprised to read that people didn't study certain historically vital time periods. As a young person, this grey head (born '47) studied FDR, HST and DDE (Ike) ... as I would have thought the following gens would have looked at JFK, LBJ, and RMN. Not displaying great knowledge  here, just making a point (and celebrating that I still have a memory!). But it's good to hope that even if one doesn't LIVE through really important events and in that way know and understand the impact of public figures, maybe it might be of passing interest later on in life. No personal insinuation, Denise K, just talking generally. No doubt, you had lots on your own educational plate. It's just that sometimes filling in the blanks helps.

    No personal insinuation, RF, (none / 0) (#146)
    by denise k on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:15:21 AM EST
    but you went quite far out of your way to call me lazy or incurious -- or whatever it is that you are not personally insinuating -- without even answering my perfectly reasonable question.  What do you suppose that is about?  But this is far afield from the topic of Caroline Kennedy and the legacy of JFK that she carries forward, so I will drop it without further comment.

    You want her?! (5.00 / 16) (#2)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:47:54 PM EST
    Take her. CO is welcome to her.

    We have plenty of qualified individuals here in NY. She is not one of them. She "wants to be appointed" and is "sentimental about her uncle's seat". BFD. If she was so d@amn interested in becoming a Senator from NY, she should have done something about it before now. Ya know, like run for public office and serve like Maloney, Velasquez, Lowry, Gillibrand, Cuomo, and the list goes on.

    What does she know about job creation in NY? Food Safety? Agriculture issues? National/State security? Health Care reform?

    Obama should just appoint her to a position if she wants one so bad and let NY have a Senator that can hit the ground running. Last thing we need is someone who needs on the job training who will then be campaigning for 2010.

    tough issue (5.00 / 0) (#3)
    by txpublicdefender on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 05:49:13 PM EST
    I agree that she has the qualifications.  I don't think someone needs to have held elected office prior to being a U.S. Senator.  I think all sorts of experience can be useful, and she certainly has dedicated much of her life to public service.  I also agree that she is someone who has clearly spent time thinking and writing about the importance of our constitutional freedoms, and having someone like that in the Senate would be welcome.  I do get concerned, though, when it seems like we are continuing to perpetuate a political dynasty, which seems somewhat anti-Democratic to me.  That said, this is not going to be an easy office to hold.  Whoever is appointed will have to raise enough money to run again in 2010, and then, enough to run again in 2012.  (At least, that's what I've read elsewhere.)  They Dems need someone with automatic name recognition and the ability to raise a lot of money.  I think Caroline brings that to the table.

    a thoughtful post (5.00 / 3) (#19)
    by Lolis on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:31:17 PM EST
    I agree with you that their are pros and cons but I would support Caroline Kennedy for Senate. Life is not fair and Kennedy does have a leg up because of her name, but that does not mean she wouldn't be a great senator. Practically speaking, she would be able to raise money for two elections and if she were facing a Guiliani, her name will help fight his name. This is the real world where a name will help. Ted Kennedy has been one of the most progressive senators and if she is committed to his legacy I see that as a good thing.

    Plus, it sounds like Kennedy would be more liberal than Clinton on national security issues. I find it paradoxical that many HRC supporters do not like this idea. Many people said the same thing when she ran for the senate about her qualifications and dynasty problems.


    If she wants to be Senator Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:35:01 PM EST
    why doesn't she move to Mass and run for her uncle's seat?

    Not sure if Rudy will run for Senate. I thought it was Gov he would go for. Peter King will be running for Senator though. He "announced" the other day. She may have a name, he does also, along with that lil' thing called "experience".


    wow (5.00 / 12) (#24)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:39:54 PM EST
    Clinton  ran for office and won it, she was not appointed. Do you not see the difference?  Indeed Clinton was involved in politics way back in the sixties before she ever married Bill.  The people who attacker her on the dynasty thing were just being sexist.
    Kennedy on the other hand has never bothered to run for office and her first ever campaign beyond her own family... oh wait there hasn't been one, she has actually just made visiting dignitary appearances with Obama.

    Come on, there are hard working dedicated legislators in NY who happen to be women who have earned that appointment.


    Caroline Kennedy is a longtime (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by Spamlet on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:31:37 PM EST
    NY resident, whereas Hillary Clinton was not a resident of New York before running for the U.S. Senate. And even though there isn't a Clinton dynasty, does anyone really think Hlllary Clinton would even have been considered for the Senate nomination if not for her eight years as First Lady? This is not to disparage her splendid initial campaign, in which she got to know the state and let the voters get to know her, nor is it to discount the fine job she has done in the U.S. Senate.

    For decades, the Senate seat now held by Hillary Clinton has been a sort of "carpetbagger's" perch, as it was for RFK, too. Apparently that has been acceptable to the citizens of the state of New York, so who is anyone else to judge?

    Caroline Kennedy is over 30 and a U.S.-born citizen of the United States. Therefore, she is qualified for the U.S. Senate.

    That said, I don't like to see a Senate seat handed to anyone. I didn't like hearing about Joe Biden's reported machinations to reserve his own seat for his son, and I don't really like this, either. But I think the case against appointing Caroline Kennedy has to be argued on grounds other than invidious comparisons between Kennedy and Hillary Clinton.


    Many longtime NYers ran for office (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:40:39 PM EST
    and some even won, just as newcomer Clinton did.

    So history would suggest that the best for NYers would be either a longtimer who has run for office and won, has experience and a record of serving NY -- say, Carolyn Maloney -- or a newcomer!

    But a longtime NYer who never before felt the yen to run and serve?  Why appoint her?


    She Has Served the Public Interest (none / 0) (#129)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:38:02 AM EST
    just not yet in elected office.

    I feel ambivalent about her being named as our next senator, but if she is, I'm confident she's qualified.


    I think comparisons are fair (5.00 / 2) (#103)
    by nycstray on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:18:09 AM EST
    I know what I like about Hillary and other public officials in NY. And what I don't like. Will I judge their "replacements" against that? You betcha!  ;)   CK may be eligible by age and birth (and maiden name apparently!), but I'll judge her against the others who have that and more(aside from the maiden name that is).

    She can ask Paterson and others (and apparently is!) for the job, but when is she going to ask us and offer up a reason we should support her?

    Oh, and don't forget, Hillary had a bit more experience than First Lady.


    Lois, try thinking, too -- about (5.00 / 10) (#25)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:44:35 PM EST
    the difference between, as you say, Clinton who actually ran for the Senate vs. Kennedy now getting appointed . . . or, in the case of a Kennedy, more like anointed.

    Yes, similar concerns were raised about Clinton's run -- so she ran hard and convinced the voters.

    How has Caroline Kennedy run hard for this post and convinced you?  How?


    Comparing the Concerns About Hillary's Run (5.00 / 1) (#130)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:42:13 AM EST
    and the current concerns about Kennedy is reasonable. Comparing the way HRC won over many of her skeptical opponents through her hard working year plus sweep of all 62 New York counties to where Kennedy stands now is not.

    We're at the beginning of this. We're standing in the hot sun on Moynihan's farm...


    Heck, Why Not Madonna? (5.00 / 9) (#51)
    by Blue Jean on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:57:13 PM EST
    If experience isn't important, and a famous name and the ability to raise tons of money are the only things that matter, then why not appoint Madonna to the Senate seat?  She's lived in NY too.  Besides, she's spoken out on issues far more than Caroline Kennedy has.  Plus, like her or not, she did come up the hard way, while Caroline has had fame, money and advantages beyond 99.99% of average Americans for her entire life.

    Seriously, this whole back stage lobbying thing sticks in my craw. The vast majority wanna be Senators spend their lives slaving over legislation, raising money, listening to voters, crafting platforms, and campaigning. Even then, most never get elected to the Senate.  Caroline makes a few phone calls to her powerful friends, and hey, she's moved to the front of the line.

    We've spent eight years of the worst presidency ever, after SC appointed a dimwitted hack simply because his last name was "Bush".  During the campaign, we were told over and over again that the country needed "fresh blood" and it would be terrible to vote for Hillary "just because her husband was President" and downright horrible to have "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton".  Now, we're supposed to support Caroline for the Senate, just because her father was President? Without even an election, like Hillary went though?

    If Caroline wants a good job, give her an ambassadorship.  If she's such a great campaigner (though she's never campaigned for office before) then let her get together the staff and run in 2010.  That's the American way.


    Couldnt agree more (5.00 / 4) (#56)
    by Amiss on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:12:17 PM EST
    Seriously, this whole back stage lobbying thing sticks in my craw. The vast majority wanna be Senators spend their lives slaving over legislation, raising money, listening to voters, crafting platforms, and campaigning. Even then, most never get elected to the Senate.  Caroline makes a few phone calls to her powerful friends, and hey, she's moved to the front of the line.

    As A New Yorker (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:08:56 AM EST
    No thanks on Madonna.

    Just in the NY Times today I can see any number of reasons why Kennedy might make a decent senator:

    The article talks about her work on the search committee for a director of the Harvard University Institute of Politics.

    "The university wanted a big-name politician. But Ms. Kennedy argued for someone who would view the post as a career maker, not a career ender, others involved said.

    "Her choice was Bill Purcell, a two-term Nashville mayor. Her uncle, whose voice carried the greatest weight on the board, had fallen ill with brain cancer, and might have gone in a different direction, one insider said. But over six weeks, she patiently made her case and eventually won over members of the institute's board and Harvard officials.

    ""She's not shy about pushing people in a direction, and very good at doing it in a way that people don't even realize they're being pushed," said Heather Campion, one board member."

    She also worked to improve New York City's public school system's private fund raising:

    She was hired in 2002 and "she took on a haphazard operation and gave it a new mission: privately raising seed money to test new reforms, while trying to persuade New Yorkers to get involved in the schools in meaningful ways.

    "By the time she left in August 2004, she had raised more than $70 million for an academy to train reform-minded principals. Nearly 200 city school principals are graduates, the majority in high-poverty schools."

    Schools Chancellor Joel I. Klein stated:

    "She's good in the room, but she's also good at getting people to focus and come together quickly," Mr. Klein said. Ms. Kennedy is now vice chairwoman of the schools' nonprofit fund-raising arm, but she continues to visit schools across the city, with no entourage or press aide."

    "[Her friends and associates] described a woman who is surprisingly down to earth: who carried sensible shoes in her bag for the walk home from a dressy event at Tavern on the Green; who declined a lift downtown when caught without an umbrella in a rainstorm, instead heading for the subway in a baseball cap; who does not shirk her periodic safety patrol duty, with its reflective vests and walkie-talkies, as a Collegiate School mom; who is an assiduous e-mailer, if not so fast at returning voice mail; who has a personal assistant, but does not use her as a gatekeeper the way so many not-so-famous people do;..."


    Exciting (none / 0) (#139)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:01:59 PM EST
    We may have a real winner here. If she gets appointed she could become a major force. Not unusual for women to become more external, and even powerhouses, in the second half of their life.

    I'm Pretty Ambivalent (none / 0) (#143)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    about her as senator one way or the other--a lifetime of electoral cynicism has hardened me (an Obama supporter!) against getting too caught up in the folderol of excitement over any candidate.

    But the very thing that many seem to be citing as one reason she wouldn't make a good senator--that she has not grabbed the spotlight for herself before now--is something that attracts me to her: This article presents a portrait of her as someone who is accomplished at quietly getting things done.

    Would that it were so, she'd provide a great counterpoint for our dear senior senator Chuck ('Ready for my close up, Mr DeMille) Schumer, who is still light years better than ol' Pothole Al...


    Agree (none / 0) (#144)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:24:52 PM EST
    But I can hope for more progressives in Congress..  Certainly not making any bets about her.

    Again, there was/is no Clinton dynasty... (5.00 / 6) (#66)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:29:33 PM EST
    Bill Clinton came from poverty. No previous members of his family had ever held elected office, nor were they from the moneyed class that peddles influence in politics. The same is true of Hillary's family origins.

    On the other hand, there is a moneyed Kennedy dynasty that's been heavily invested in politics for three generations. The same is true of the Bushs.



    par for the course? (5.00 / 8) (#5)
    by txpolitico67 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:04:01 PM EST
    Seems like name recognition or, rather, a family entrenched into politics is all one needs to be a part of for elected office here in the USA (Bush/Kennedy/Roosevelt)  There was a cavalcade of calls regarding the White House going between the Clintons and the Bushes (you canNOT compare the 3 admins but I digress), simply because of "family dynasty" this or "family dynasty" that.

    Now these same people who decried Hillary's campaign/candidacy"entitlement" are all ready to give Mrs. SCHLOSSBERG the keys to the office once held by her uncle.

    If she wants to run, let her run.  But don't give her a seat, I would be willing to bet, that there are far more deserving and/or experienced people should have more of a chance to get.

    Obama can make her an ambassador.  I believe one Joe Kennedy was an ambassador to England.  Let her have that.

    If she wants it so bad (5.00 / 8) (#9)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:11:42 PM EST
    she should challenge whoever is appointed in the 2010 special election. Show us what she's got.

    Really ticks me off she's trying to force it on us. (and that's putting it nicely {grin})


    placeholder (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by Nasarius on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:23:49 PM EST
    Should be the way to go, really. Serve out the rest of Hillary's term, then step aside and let 'em fight it out in a real election.

    So which respected elder statesman is available? Mario Cuomo?


    Cuomo's around (none / 0) (#17)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:28:57 PM EST
    but if we want to have some fun, how about Koch?!  lol!~

    yeah, a placeholder would be nice, otherwise they're going to need to start running for re-election pretty quick. I think if they placed an experience person in the job, we could prob forgo the special election. But since we can't forgo it . . .  {sigh}


    fwiw (5.00 / 1) (#14)
    by denise k on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:22:55 PM EST
    I read somewhere that she did not take her husband's name, so she is still Caroline Kennedy.

    I have seen her name in the press for years (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by hellskitchen on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:40:02 PM EST
    as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg.

    If she's dropped Schlossberg, it's relatively recent.


    For what it's worth, Wikipideia sez: (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Don in Seattle on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 08:58:50 AM EST
    "Although she is often incorrectly referred to as "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg", she did not change her name when she married."

    The Kennedy name (5.00 / 4) (#6)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:05:17 PM EST
    has not been all that helpful to the second generation. The cousins'  success in seeking elective office is spotty, at best. Patrick Kennedy has his House seat from Rhode Island, and is the only one currently holding an elected office.

     Joe Kennedy was essentially given JFK's old House seat. His hope to run for Massachusetts' governor was dashed by his marital problems.

    Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the governorship of Maryland. One of the Shrivers lost his contest for a seat in the Maryland legislature.

    The vaunted Kennedy family machine barely hung onto Teddy's seat in MA, and it required campaigning by both Clintons to keep him in the Senate.

    It is foolish to count simply on the "magic" of the Kennedy name to keep this senate seat on the Democratic side of the aisle.

    Ted's seat (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by CST on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:13:26 PM EST
    He "barely hung onto" with 58% of the vote, once in a looooong carreer.

    I know he struggled that year against Mitt, but most Dems would be so lucky to "need help" with that kind of margin (I know he was losing in some polls - but still).


    Exactly (none / 0) (#135)
    by daring grace on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:13:47 AM EST
    The Kennedy name is irrelevant to how well she will fare as senator. Her credentials of service over the years are. So the fortunes of her relatives matter not a whit in determining whether she can do the job effectively and hold the seat for the Dems.

    had she ever run for office (5.00 / 12) (#11)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:13:29 PM EST
    I would be okay with it, but she has not and to appoint her over the heads of dozens of more qualifed NYS legislators is an insult to women.

    Not only has she not run for office, but (5.00 / 3) (#105)
    by hairspray on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:50:41 AM EST
    she has been an extremely private person. Just how would this rather aloof and shy (?) person behave in the senate?  Coming right on the heels of the Blago fiasco in Illinois gives the whole Democratic party a smell of the old days.

    Strongly disagree. (5.00 / 15) (#13)
    by Joelarama on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:19:25 PM EST
    This is strictly a matter of dynasty and it is completely undemocratic.  

    We have had Colin Powell's son at the FCC.  Cheney's daughter at State. Julie Meyers at Homeland Security.  Those are Republican appointments.

    In the media, we have Chris Wallace, Tucker Carlson, Bill Kristol, even Tim Russert's son.

    In DC, every other big lobbyist is a spouse or other family member of a powerful politician.  The largest law firms are dotted with partners who everyone knows are there because of powerful family connections.

    Democrats should stop buying into this.  Ridiculous symbols like Joe the Plumber have resonance with working people -- and many other voters -- because of this kind of bullsh**.

    Jane Hamsher has said it well.  Caroline Kennedy has been too shy to express her opinions in the past and she has not in the past made any effort to make a case to New York voters.  And, yes, she has a distinguished resume as (very) private citizen, but let's not insult each other's intelligence:  if she gets this appointment, it is because her last name is Kennedy.  

    She needs to stand before the voters and be tested, preferably for a lesser office, before she is simply handed a place in the U.S. Senate.

    Sweet little Caroline (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by maddog on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:24:37 PM EST
    Hopefully the Democrats select someone with more experience.  This would be as bad as McCain selecting Sarah Palin as his running mate.  At least Palin has government experience.  I could name 100 people in NY with as much experience as Caroline.

    Much worse, frankly I am tired of the lame (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by TeresaInPa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:30:13 PM EST
    attacks on Palin.  I do not agree with her on many issues, but she is a Governor of one of the States and frankly, besides the fact that she is right wing and I am left, that makes her more qualified than Obama, much less Caroline Kennedy.
    Can we please stop mistaking partisan loyalty with reality?

    Really? (5.00 / 1) (#23)
    by Lolis on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:38:29 PM EST
    You really think that Palin is more qualifed than Obama? Wow.

    I guess context really doesn't matter for you. Palin's state is smaller than Fort Worth, Texas and about the same size as Obama's district where he served for eight years before going on to the U.S. Senate.

    But sure she is the governor of a state for less than two years, and executive experience always trumps legislative experience. Let's not look at what the people have actually accomplished. This lack of complexity is truly bizarre to me.

    For the record, I think we should have more diversity of backgrounds and experience in the Senate. I think it would be helpful to not have career politicians rule the roost. I think pretty much anyone with knowledge and passion should be able to serve in the senate.


    Alaska is smaller than Ft Worth (5.00 / 6) (#34)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:30:36 PM EST
    and the same size as Obama's legislative district?


    I keep reading about how American's are geographically illiterate, but I never saw it demonstrated quite so vividly before.


    Size matters (5.00 / 0) (#46)
    by denise k on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:35:21 PM EST
    when talking about population rather than square acreage.  If seals and caribou could vote then I would give you size.  Alaska is one gigantic small town.  Kennedy has loads more political savvy than Palin.  Plus she is a whole lot smarter!

    You think the only thing (5.00 / 3) (#53)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:06:01 PM EST
    that matters in governing is the number of people?  Another wow.

    Just for starters, I would suggest that it's a whole heck of lot harder to provide an effective government for folks scattered far and wide rather than concentrated in one easy to reach area.

    And the complications of the multiple, multiple issues of land and resource management-- including, btw, those seals and caribou you think are so funny-- of a state like Alaska alone are vastly, vastly more complicated and far-reaching than those of, just for example, Fort Worth or the Hyde Park district in Chicago.

    The lack of thought in your post here is really pretty stunning.


    Term limits (none / 0) (#111)
    by Wile ECoyote on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:03:33 AM EST

    Palin's nomination was a joke (5.00 / 2) (#92)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:56:15 PM EST
    She was McCain's attempt at a Hail Mary pass and nothing more. She couldn't even name a supreme court opinion she disagreed with -- Caroline Kennedy has co-authored two books on constitutional law -- and she has a law degree and is a member of the bar of two jurisdictions. She probably has used her passport more than twice as well.

    Palin is now only a footnote which is what she was should have been all along.

    The topic is Caroline, not Palin, so please drop this discussion.


    I wish I still lived in NY (5.00 / 0) (#22)
    by indy in sc on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:38:15 PM EST
    because I'd be thrilled to have Caroline Kennedy as my senator.  Junior senators have little sway unless they have some thing about them that calls attention to the issues they find important.  New Yorkers had that with Hillary and would continue to have that with Caroline Kennedy.  The issues Caroline has focused on in her life are ones that could definitely use more champions in the Senate.

    By most accounts Hillary did not "use her name" once she got in the senate--but rather rolled up her sleeves and did the necessary work.  Is there any indication Caroline wouldn't do the same?

    In two years, New Yorkers can decide whether the appointed Senator they have is worthy of additional time.  If Caroline is the one and she stinks as a Senator, throw her out then.

    replying to: I wish I still lived in NY... (5.00 / 0) (#82)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:16:26 PM EST
    I agree with your thoughts. This is a different time we're in than in many, many years and as hard as it can be to swallow, a "dynasty" choice might be the smartest. At least in the sense that, here's a person with instant reconizability, who can be a great help in putting forward Obama's and the Democratic agenda. She's not "owned" by anybody that she'd feel compelled to skew votes. She doesn't need anyone's patronage money-wise. Her political understanding would also be an asset to a shortened on-the-job training period. She has direct knowledge of many important issues of the day, including education. Her credentials as a lawyer, writer, foundation director -- and respecter of our nation's founding documents and the principles they outline -- would serve her well as New York and the other states partner with Washington to dig the country out of the hole GWB has left us in. And, you're right. If Caroline doesn't "perform" well, especially up against the successful example Hillary set in the NY seat, it's a relatively short hop to the next election when there'll be others waiting in the wings. IMO, Gov. Patterson could do a lot worse than in chosing her to serve at this difficult moment.

    Do you really think the Democrats (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by hairspray on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 01:07:45 AM EST
    in 2010 will boot Caroline out if she fails? No I think the Republicans will mount a solid woman candidate more in the Hillary mode which will take the seat away from Democrats. No Democratic candidate will be able to overturn the "crowned kennedy seat".

    Palin? (2.00 / 1) (#108)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 01:48:34 AM EST
    I welcome that challenge.

    Obama was (none / 0) (#33)
    by maddog on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:17:18 PM EST
    the junior senator from Illinois.  Now he is president elect of the US.  But they really don't do anything.  So I guess we will have a president that has done nothing as the Junior Senator from Illinois.

    Just being devils advocate.  


    I didn't say junior (none / 0) (#36)
    by indy in sc on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:34:45 PM EST
    senators don't do anything--I said they have little sway--that was true for Obama in the senate.

    What is the (none / 0) (#116)
    by maddog on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:35:18 AM EST
    difference between having little sway in a legislative body and doing nothing.  Oh I get it, he voted for bills, served on committees, etc.  Having little sway means you do nothing in a leadership sense.  I guess that is what I meant.  I could serve on committees, meet with constituants, vote on legislation, etc., but does that make me qualified to be president?

    The fact that Caroline Kennedy has never done any of this, is she qualified to be a Senator?

    You may not want to respond because you will argue yourself into a circle.


    I'll take my chances. (none / 0) (#121)
    by indy in sc on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:06:42 AM EST
    The difference is working, but not necessarily on the issues that are most important to you.  Having to "pay your dues" by helping others get their pet projects through before your own get the spotlight.

    I don't view being the most powerful person in the senate as a qualification for president, so I find your premise faulty--that not having been a senate leader somehow disqualifies one for president; that not having been in the senate or other legislative body disqualifies one from being a senator.

    I view the qualifications for these positions more broadly than you.  There's a reason that the only constitutional requirements for these positions are age and citizenship.  People can be qualified in many different ways.  


    Ooh, ooh. I've got it. Caroline (none / 0) (#132)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:04:08 AM EST
    Kennedy wants to be junior senator from NY as a springboard to becoming the first woman President.

    We're told her expertise is education (5.00 / 9) (#26)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:47:54 PM EST
    and that's all, apparently.

    But that's a lot, when running for school board, say.  So she could start there, where a lot of good pols did to gain experience to then run for city council . . . and then state legislature . . . and then the House . . . and then the Senate.

    That's how it's done in a democracy, not an autocracy.  Didn't we have a revolution a couple of hundred years ago to do away with nobility who got political positions not by running for them but based only on their names?

    I'm willing to (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by rooge04 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:50:15 PM EST
    bet a lot of the people that thought Hillary was a bad choice for Prez due to the "dynastic" nature of her possible win have no such issue with the "dynastic" nature of Caroline Kennedy taking her seat.

    Oh, irony!


    Diff is she ran (5.00 / 9) (#35)
    by gyrfalcon on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:33:52 PM EST
    for it, campaigned hard, and convinced the voters-- as anyone, including Caroline, including you, is entititled to do in America.

    Caroline wants the seat handed to her on a silver platter over a whole huge raft of first-rate people who started paying their dues-- and learning the issues-- just a wee bit before Caroline suddenly got interested in following Obama around.

    I've always thought I liked Caroline Kennedy, but my regard for her has just dropped into the cellar.


    but let's give caroline (5.00 / 5) (#100)
    by sancho on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:07:59 AM EST
    credit for being part of an endorsing and decison making process that would eventually allow her an uncontested senate seat. that shows some wash. insider savvy. the kennedys suport obama and then obama appoints hillary to his cabinet and then, voila, senate seat for the family dynasty. i'm sure none of this occurred to anyone until it happned. as soon as caroline came out for obama i wondered whose seat she was going to get or which office she was going to "run" for. i was too dumb to figure it out until it happened.

    a kennedy for office? yeah, that's change.


    Now that's cynical. (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:11:11 AM EST
    Cynicism I Can Believe In! (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by Fabian on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 02:43:26 AM EST
    It's probably not accurate, but politics is about appearances and what does this look like?

    I welcome Caroline Kennedy to run for whatever elected office she would like to.


    which part? (none / 0) (#119)
    by sancho on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 08:35:10 AM EST
    i'm not kidding when i say how dumb i can be.

    The part about appointing Hillary Clinton (none / 0) (#133)
    by oculus on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:05:51 AM EST
    to the cabinet so her Senate seat is available for Kennedy.  

    Yep. The operative word is (none / 0) (#123)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 09:42:26 AM EST
    'taking'...as opposed to 'earning.'

    Seems like endorsements pay off! (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by rooge04 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:49:18 PM EST
    I don't mind the idea. I like the Kennedys generally.  

    However, it would look suspicious...the one that endorsed the Senator from Illinois when her Senator ran for President.  Way to look out for New York there Caroline!

    Seems like it would look like currying favor to me.

    Please NO. (5.00 / 9) (#31)
    by ThatOneVoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:10:03 PM EST
    Enough dynasties!!!
    You know, there never was a Clinton dynasty, but there is a Kennedy dynasty. There are better qualified people, and it sends a bad message to choose yet another Senator  based on her name.
    If she wanted to run for election, I would have no criticism of the voters if they decided to elect her, but appointing her would reek.

    I've been around long enough (5.00 / 10) (#32)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:14:56 PM EST
    to have a sentimental attachment to Caroline Kennedy.  I believe she is a fine woman who has led her life in a dignified, thoughtful way.  I believe she is well educated and well spoken.

    That said, I will be very dismayed if she is appointed to that senate seat.   If she wants to be a senator, then she should RUN for the seat the old-fashioned way.  

    Is she the best choice? (5.00 / 5) (#37)
    by Democratic Cat on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 07:36:26 PM EST
    given the reality that the appointee faces a statewide election in 2010 and again in 2012? Whoever is appointed should have ideals and viewpoints that reflect the state.  But they also have to be able to learn the Senate ropes and master myriad policy issues so as to be an effective leader for their state and run for election twice in four years.  I have a hard time thinking that a political novice is the best choice. (And by novice, I mean someone who has not run for any elective office nor served in a political position. Obviously she comes from a political family and has probably learned and absorbed a lot from her family and her non-political activities over the years.)

    Blather. (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by wurman on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:04:32 PM EST
    Some appointed US senators have been the wives of deceased incumbents. Some appointed salons have been of the party opposite to the retiring, resigning, or decomposing vacater of the seat.  Some governors appoint themselves.

    And, over the years, I've been the unfortunate, hapless resident of some states where the governors appointed a few of the dumbest, most incompetent, hacktastic fools to ever stand in the well of the senate. Caroline Kennedy is a gift horse by comparison.

    In other words, she (5.00 / 3) (#40)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:08:59 PM EST
    exceeds the already low standards?

    I'm still firmly... (5.00 / 1) (#50)
    by kdog on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:55:56 PM EST
    in the Fran Drescher camp.

    Though it would be nice to have a senator who appears to have a semblance of respect for privacy and rights, and she's as qualified as any of the other clowns in congress, I'd much prefer someone not so accustomed to how the gears are greased in the halls of power.

    A couple bonuses with Drescher...born and raised in Queens, and that voice would be a little karmic payback for all the suffering congress has wrought.    

    I'd love to see that campaign! (none / 0) (#125)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:10:42 AM EST
    Fran vs. Caroline.

    Fran would wipe the floor with Ms. Kennedy IMO.


    Caroline Kennedy should (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by WS on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:57:29 PM EST
    continue Ted's great work in the Senate.  I think she'd be a wonderful addition to the US Senate if she is appointed.  

    In two years, if she is the pick, Caroline Kennedy will find out if the people of New York want her to continue as their Senator.  I think she is up to the task.  

    Then she can run for Teddy's seat. (5.00 / 7) (#55)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:10:36 PM EST
    We'd like someone to continue Hillary's work for us.

    Hey, what makes you think (none / 0) (#69)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:38:52 PM EST
    Massachusetts would want Caroline??  

    Because she does family visits there? (5.00 / 3) (#75)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:55:06 PM EST
    Sorry!!! I know I shouldn't off her on another state, but if they are going for "keeping the Kennedy tradition" going, Mass gets her  ;)

    Or for that matter, anyone from another state that has a seat open, who thinks we should give it to her, should take her  ;)


    Has Caroline ever had a real job? (5.00 / 4) (#80)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:11:58 PM EST
    I really know nothing about her other than she used to speak with a prep school accent that I found terrbily irritating. You know what I mean, like her teeth were somehow stuck together while she spoke.

    So, we know she has a JD (not sure she was admitted to a bar); she co-authored at least two books; she has been a stay at home mom; has stayed out of the limelight; she has been active in the Kennedy Library and Profiles in Courage awards; then suddenly she appears in commercials for Obama and stumps for him, telling all that Obama reminds her of her father.  

    Next, Sen. Caroline Kennedy? Technically, of course, she is qualified.

    I just wish I knew more about her.  

    I feel especially badly for those politicians who have worked so hard and earned serious consideration for the Senate seat.  More than anything this bothers me.  

    She has worked in education here (5.00 / 2) (#85)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:22:02 PM EST
    after Bloomberg fired the school board and brought in Kline, she was also part of it. Raised a lot of money, if I have my info right. But she basically stays in the background, so how else/actively she is involved, I'm not sure. Most of the people on the street interviews you see about the senate seat and her, never mention it. All name based responses. Her need for privacy may actually bite her. She hasn't been out there on the front lines for issues she cares about. So we don't know them, her passion for them and the work she's done in regards to them. Most importantly, we've never seen her passion to fight for an issue. Remember who's seat she wants  ;)

    Buying and Selling Senate Seats it is all illegal (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by SA Johns on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:45:26 PM EST
    Why would it be considered alright for the Kennedy's to buy the new york senate seat.  If it's illegal for one to sell it, it must mean that it is illegal for the other to buy one.  Of course if the Kennedy's are exempt from the same ethics then shouldn't that be explained to us.  

    I have ... (5.00 / 3) (#93)
    by CoralGables on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:16:19 PM EST
    no problem with it at all. The State of New York grants the Governor the right to replace a Senator. Likewise, there is a similar rule with Illinois and many other states should the need arise, my own state of Florida included. There are no rules saying anyone has to "pay their dues" by being previously elected to public office.

    It's entirely up to Govenor Paterson, and if the people of New York don't like his choice they are welcome to elect someone else in 2 years.

    I have no opinion, which is good, (none / 0) (#95)
    by oculus on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:31:52 PM EST
    as I don't live or vote in New York.  But, if I did, I agree w/you!

    Awful idea (5.00 / 4) (#115)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:22:58 AM EST
    Come on, there are hard working dedicated legislators in NY who happen to be women who have earned that appointment.

    Yup, and one of them is Carolyn Maloney, who happens to be a supporter of HR 676 (Medicare for All), and was actually elected to her position.

    The same people who routinely lambasted Sarah Palin for her supposed lack of qualifications are now falling all over themselves to justify this appointment.

    I find Caroline Kennedy's power grab disgusting, frankly, and I wonder when we decided that royalty was A-OK.

    The voice (5.00 / 1) (#117)
    by DancingOpossum on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 07:37:48 AM EST
    she used to speak with a prep school accent that I found terrbily irritating. You know what I mean, like her teeth were somehow stuck together while she spoke.

    Ah, the infamous "Long Island Lockjaw." Embodied for the ages by Joanna Barnes in "Auntie Mame," a performance that remains the gold standard for that particular accent.

    For many of us who supported Clinton, (3.00 / 2) (#44)
    by lorelynn on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:31:44 PM EST
    this would be seen as an insult and a slap in the face. I'm tired of feeling that way about the new Democratic president.

    If this administration wants to leave behind the antagonism of the primary, then they need to leave it behind. Appointing Kennedy, who so rudely and needlessly insulted Clinton, would exacerbate the division.

    Find someone who either endorsed Clinton or did not endorse anyone, but picking Caroline for Clinton's senate seat would demonstrate just how dismissive the Obama camp is of Clinton's supporters. He is going to need us, and this makes it less likely that we'll be willing to stand on his behalf.

    Lorelynn, (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:41:09 PM EST
    I "get" your point.

    But we don't have to revisit that moment in time.  Let's just judge Caroline Kennedy on her merits.

    Sentimental: 10

    Experience: 3


    I know we're on the same side. (4.33 / 6) (#60)
    by lorelynn on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:21:53 PM EST
    But I don't oppose her choice on the grounds of her qualification - she is minimally qualified. I oppose her selection on political grounds.

    There is one other really ugly aspect to appointing her to the seat - it expands our national discourse on the corruption in the Illinois process to include the New York process. The Mighty Wurlitzer will use this as evidence once again of the Chicago machine cheating on behalf of the Kennedys. Caroline ostentatiously endorses Obama over Clinton and is rewarded with a senate seat.

    Obama loses more ground with former Clinton supporters, the tales of 1960 corruption get rehashed and reinforced, and David Patterson gets inappropriately smeared in the process - all on behalf of a bright, well-educated, minimally qualified woman with a dynastic name who has never shown any interest in running for office.

    I don't see the upside here, but I do see a big, big, big downside.


    How Absurd (5.00 / 3) (#67)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:33:07 PM EST
    The fact that she endorsed Obama makes her lose ground to former Clinton supporters? Do you think that Paterson should appoint someone that endorsed Clinton just for appearances?

    And to even suggest that this has anything to do with Chicago is really a stretch. "Cheating"? It is an appointment, plain and simple. Paterson gets to make the call.


    Most (all?!) of the other names mentioned (5.00 / 4) (#74)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:50:10 PM EST
    did endorse Hillary, didn't they? Just like Il did for Obama. Many (most? all?) here stayed faithful to the end.

    I do think her being appointed would look a bit off in light of Il issues, but if the Il issues weren't present, I'd still think her appointment was off. It's not so much that she is in any way connected to the Chicago Machine, it just kinda highlights appointments of favor over hard work and experience.

    Honestly, if we weren't in the dire situation we are in now (and maybe if we were), I would be fine if she RAN for the office. But a blind (for us citizens) appointment doesn't sit well with me. We are not a state short of qualified legislators. I would prefer a woman, but most of all, I want experience, backbone and fight. If it comes with male parts, I'll live ;)


    Hmmm.. (none / 0) (#65)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:27:51 PM EST
    I hadn't thought of all those aspects.

    Good points all.

    (p.s.  I haven't seen you around much and I hope you are well)


    While I'm not totally sold, (none / 0) (#20)
    by Ben Masel on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 06:33:27 PM EST
    any other prospect shouyld be required to demonstrate that they can spell "Privacy."

    Why above Cuomo? (none / 0) (#39)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:06:29 PM EST
    Just curious.  As a non-New Yorker, I don't know that much about his service as Atty General.

    He hasn't been AG for long (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:33:25 PM EST
    but so far I like him. He was a little full of himself before, but seems to have readjusted. Here's his media page for a quickie overview.

    As much as I would like a woman to take Hillary's seat, I would prefer qualified, male or female.


    He Is Horrible (none / 0) (#57)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:13:27 PM EST
    No way would I want him as my senator.

    He hasn't bothered me as AG (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:22:04 PM EST
    and those weren't always my thoughts about him.

    I have people I would prefer over him, but I'll take his experience etc over Caroline.

    I don't like the fact that people are removing themselves from consideration without legit reasons. This whole "appoint me I'm a Kennedy" is just disgusting, imo.


    OK, but why? (5.00 / 1) (#63)
    by Radiowalla on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:25:22 PM EST
    You Can Start (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Wed Dec 17, 2008 at 02:07:06 AM EST
    Here.  A close friend of mine has worked for the NY AG for a long time. She told me that all Cuomo does is muck things up and that he is basically a moron. I will provide you with more details later.

    Spitzer was great, Vaccio was the pits, and Abrams was great. Cuomo is a loser. His father on the other hand is a legend.


    A True Democrat (none / 0) (#42)
    by mmc9431 on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:26:56 PM EST
    With Caroline, we would have an advocate for the left which is more than could be said of many current Democratic Senators. Hopefully she'll carry on the banner for Ted.

    How do you know (5.00 / 4) (#62)
    by caseyOR on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:25:10 PM EST
    that Caroline is an advocate for the left? I can't find anything about her that gives an indication one way or the other. All we know is that she supported Obama. Well, so did lots of people, including quite a few Republicans. So, that is not indicative of a leftish political view.

    Being a Kennedy is not a guarantee of her political views on the myriad of issues facing us today. If I was a New Yorker, I would want a whole lot more information about her positions and beliefs.


    As a NYer I do want more info (5.00 / 7) (#68)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:38:17 PM EST
    Hillary made a point to dig into the issues outside of NYC. Rolled up her sleeves and dug in. Carrying on the "Kennedy magic" is not what I'm looking for right now. I'm looking for someone who will look out for our health and safety, promote small farmers, farm to fork programs etc, health care reform, continue to fight for the 9/11 workers, security, job creation, speak LOUDLY for women's equal rights and reproductive care, and on and on. Caroline has been quiet for so long on so many issues with such a powerful name and family at her use. Where are her priorities? What will she fight for? Where is she "invested" (not monetarily) in the state? Nation? She won't just be representing and working for Nyers, she'll also be faced with the nation's issues. How is she on economic issues? Armed Services? Mass Transit? Infrastructure? I'll give her Ed and the Environment (via RFKjr), but we need more than that, imo.

    How about a series of debates (5.00 / 2) (#98)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:42:39 PM EST
    for the appointment?  Why debates only for elections?  It would seem the people of NY ought to know a bit more about who they're getting, if it's going to be a newcomer to office.

    So set up a series of debates among the contender, newcomer or oldtimer, and then let the gov pick -- after he gets to hear some reaction from the people who will be represented.


    Concern Troll? (2.50 / 4) (#99)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:47:05 PM EST
    Are you all of a sudden now worried about the poor people of NY and their representation?

    Or are you fixated on your black list of paybacks? And Kennedy happens to be on that list.

    This is Paterson's play, and he. and only he will be responsible for how his appointment turns out.


    About as concerned as your type is (4.25 / 4) (#112)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:05:38 AM EST
    again and again about the poor people of Alaska and their representation by that awful, awful governor, hmmmm, squawky?

    Or weren't you concerned about its corrupt representation by Stevens?  Aren't you concerned about Illinois' corruption in its process of appointment to replace its Senator?  You have plenty of opinions about other states . . . and that's only the fifth-most populous state.

    New York is our most populous state, and its representation matters immensely in the power plays of politics that affect us all -- as you might have noticed its significance in our national history.  And that includes as a springboard to a larger stage.

    Beyond that, corruption in the process in any state can spread.  And there is considerable change coming in my state soon -- at the least, owing to a retirement from the Senate, so I hope that it waits until the end of the term to be done by election.  But there also is talk of payback to my gov for his backing Obama, and that would cause a shuffling of the deck here again, as happened when one of our govs was rewarded by Bush and brought to Washington -- in that case, a relief for us to be rid of him, but only for him to be foisted on you all.  

    And then that idjit of ours ran for president, even from my middlin'-sized state -- because we're the United States, and we all ought to be concerned about this process in any state.  Except for you, balkanized as you are?  Bah.  

    Why don't you care about other states, and especially about our most populous and powerful state?  Why are you a Lack of Concern Troll about this country?  Where are you squawking from, anyway?


    Squeaky. You're already on her list.

    She is a published author (did you know that?), so clearly there's no telling how far her powers to do you ill may extend. Who knows? Someday you might apply for a job -- maybe even for a job you want -- and not get it, and not know why. But someone will know...

    And whatever you do, don't mess with her kids!


    lol (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    I would not put it past her. As long as I have been commenting here I have never seen someone so invested in payback. Very macho in a mobster sort of way. Oh well, one more person that I have to watch my back from will not tip the scale..

    Oh My (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:52:01 AM EST
    Cream City has resorted to name calling. lol

    And I am concerned about filling the Senate with as many Democrats as possible. Kennedy seems fine to me, and I think we may have a long time winner here.

    Oh and I have no problem with Palin being Governor of Alaska. They elected her and she was very popular, at least before the VP run.

    Have you switched to GOP and are against Kennedy because you think Paterson should appoint Giuliani?

    It is exciting to see Kennedy start, and I hope that she has a loooong illustrious career fighting for progressive values. That is if Paterson appoints her.


    terrible system, isn't it? (none / 0) (#104)
    by ThatOneVoter on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 12:19:04 AM EST
    Not Really (5.00 / 2) (#107)
    by CoralGables on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 01:32:04 AM EST
    Statewide special elections are very costly. Illinois has suggested it would cost at least $30 million and upwards to $50 million to hold a statewide special election for Obama's Senate seat. I suspect for New York it would far exceed the $50 million dollar price tag. That is the simple reason many State Legislatures give the power to Governors...and one of the few times fiscal responsibility is shown.

    In addition, a state that opts to hold a special election will also be taking away seniority from their future Senator while leaving the Senate chamber and their own State representation one person short for months.

    Paterson is the Governor. It's one of the perks of the job. Like it, don't like it, but that's the rule book as handed down by the NY legislature.


    wasn't there a different (none / 0) (#47)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:36:44 PM EST
    Kennedy that was being talked about for this seat when Clinton was first named as Sec of State?  What happened to him?

    Honestly, I'm more interested in who gets the Illinois seat.  I just don't want that seat to go to Jesse Jackson Jr or Emil Jones.

    should have googled it first (none / 0) (#49)
    by TimNCGuy on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 08:53:01 PM EST
    It was Bobby Kennedy Jr that was talked about for this seat as soon as the talk of Clinton becoming Sec of State became public.  And, he said at the time he would consider it.

    So, of course he wouldn't get the seat because he endorsed Hillary for President.

    But, maybe he actually decided he didn't want it.


    replying to: should have googled it first... (none / 0) (#73)
    by Roosevelt Fan on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:48:31 PM EST
    Apparently, Bobby Kennedy did "consider" it and ultimately said he didn't want the appointment to Hillary's seat. He surely wouldn't have been denied it because of his endorsement of Hillary, especially since Hillary herself wound up in the 3rd top spot with the "enemy" (that's meant as a tongue-in-cheeker). As a matter of fact, RFK, Jr.'s name was (& likely still is) on the Obama lists for either official or advisory work with the admininstration (most likely something invovled with the environment). Additionally, it was reported that when Bobby removed himself from consideration, he suggested Caroline as Hillary's replacement.

    Sounds OK To Me (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 09:17:20 PM EST
    And most of all I trust Gov Paterson on this. He is a smart and very experienced pol. It it passes the smell test for him, I can get behind it.

    Squeaky, the thing that doesn't pass the (5.00 / 3) (#79)
    by Teresa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:11:57 PM EST
    smell test, or at least bothers me the most, is that every article I have read makes it seem like the appointed Senator will run as some kind of "package deal" with Paterson and will need to raise lots of money for him/them.

    That bothers me if the seat goes to the highest bidder (in that she would probably raise the most money).


    Doesn't that sound like (5.00 / 6) (#81)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:14:02 PM EST
    Obama's seat in Illinois??  Just take out the profanity of Blago and the dialogue would be eerily similar.

    All Apointments (5.00 / 1) (#86)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:22:59 PM EST
    Are politically motivated, that does not mean that they are breaking federal and state laws in the process.

    Does not sound similar to me at all.


    I agree (none / 0) (#96)
    by befuddledvoter on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 11:37:19 PM EST
    That has consistently been my position with Blago.  Take the profanity out and I think you get regular political dealing.

    Maybe (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:21:11 PM EST
    I am all for Paterson remaining Governor of NY. It does seem appointments are politically motivated. If Paterson does wind up appointing her and she is lousy milk toast, than it will be a black mark against him.

    Not sure he would be willing to risk it for just the money.


    He seems to be in a tough spot no (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by Teresa on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:25:58 PM EST
    matter what decision he makes. I'll bet he wishes Hillary had turned down that job.

    I've always like Caroline, as least what I know about her. I just hate this for any other candidates who are qualified and have worked hard for their political futures. She will hold that seat as long as she wants it and something just doesn't seem fair about that.


    Isn't his approval rating ok? (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by nycstray on Mon Dec 15, 2008 at 10:29:00 PM EST
    I really don't think he "needs" her. And if Rudy runs against him, heh, I think Paterson will be fine  ;)

    Concern troll about New York governor? (none / 0) (#113)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 05:08:23 AM EST
    Why?  You don't care about its Senator, or you say the rest of us who are not New Yorkers ought not be -- so why worry about the future of its Governor?  Illogical.  Explain.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#136)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 11:44:24 AM EST
    But I like Paterson a lot, wish he would take the Senate seat, and am extremely happy that he is my Governor. I will vote for him in the next election, and cannot imagine being unhappy with whoever he picks to fill Hillary's seat.

    Your claim that I do not care about my Senator is absurd.


    Up from the ranks is (none / 0) (#126)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:19:40 AM EST
    how I prefer my senators...tried, tested, elected and reelected.

    Patty Murray.  Maria Cantwell.

    Caroline Kennedy?  No even close.

    NOT even close. (none / 0) (#127)
    by oldpro on Tue Dec 16, 2008 at 10:20:40 AM EST
    More coffee...