Report: Caroline Kennedy Withdraws Name For Senate Seat

Update: It's official. Caroline Kennedy released a statement just after midnight saying she withdrew her name.

Update: Commenters below are saying David Gregory reported on Maddow tonight that the media got it wrong and she has not withdrawn her name.

****With Hillary Clinton confirmed as Secretary of State, it will only be a matter of days before New York Governor David Paterson names her replacement.

It won't be Caroline Kennedy who withdrew her name from consideration this afternoon for personal reasons, specifically, the health of her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy.

Who's left? [More...]

The other declared candidates are Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi, Rep. Steve Israel (D-Huntington), Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-Hudson), former Rep. Elizabeth Holtzman, Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-Manhattan) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-Manhattan).

The Washington Post says Andrew Cuomo is the leading contender. A decision is expected Saturday.

< Kimbrough Decision Means What It Says | Salazar Names Tom Strickland as Chief of Staff >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    This development (5.00 / 0) (#1)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:09:52 PM EST
    certainly lessens the chances of a female replacement but doesn't eliminate the possibility entirely.

    Given how angry Paterson was when (none / 0) (#32)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:40:54 AM EST
    no female judges were suggested to replace one who had to retire, I think it's pretty likely that a woman will still get the seat.

    My money is on Maloney. But I've been wrong before. Alot.


    Toobin doubts the rationale (5.00 / 1) (#2)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:15:10 PM EST
    given, since the Senator was released so swiftly, so the hospital stay was a precaution -- as he is as "desperately ill," unquote Toobin, as the Senator was a week ago or a month ago.

    Toobin says this is the graceful out that Caroline Kennedy was given when she got the word that she was not going to be given the appointment.  So he says.  Makes much more sense, but what do media know. . . .

    I agree with Toobin (5.00 / 3) (#9)
    by Jeralyn on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:50:33 PM EST
    I think she got a heads up.

    Aha, yep -- and here's why. (5.00 / 0) (#53)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:49:08 PM EST
    Says the New York Times:

    ALBANY -- Problems involving taxes and a household employee surfaced during the vetting of Caroline Kennedy and derailed her candidacy for the Senate, a person close to Gov. David A. Paterson said on Thursday, in an account at odds with Ms. Kennedy's own description of her reasons for withdrawing. . . .

    And it goes on to give insight into Paterson's staff against her, etc.

    (Of course, such problems are not causing the Treasury nominee to withdraw.)


    I ewas just going to suggest the same (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:20:24 AM EST
    Withdrawing ones name seems to be what people do this transition period when they have been told they will not be selected.

    graceful (none / 0) (#27)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:02:57 AM EST
    yes and Caro needs to work on the graceful exit aspect as well as her speech mannerisms apparently, the in or out thing doesn't fly in NY...glad this embarassing escapade of nepotism is ovah!

    This reason seems as lame (none / 0) (#50)
    by Slado on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:32:09 PM EST
    as a celeberity going into "re-hab" after getting caught doing something.

    Why not just say after further consideration I want to concentrate on other ways to help the American people, blah, blah, blah


    I said not to bet on Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:15:27 PM EST
    And I don't really agree with the Post that Cuomo is the most likely bet.

    I still think Maloney has a very good shot.

    Misunderstanding or not, I think it would be hard (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by Angel on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:31:04 PM EST
    for Caroline to continue to actively seek the appointment.  The perception is out there that she has withdrawn her name.  Maybe, just maybe, Patterson intentionally misconstrued the import of Caroline's conversation with him....would make an easy out for him.  I think he possibly felt boxed in by the Kennedys, and this gives him a reason to appoint Cuomo or Maloney or whomever.  It has become apparent that New Yorkers prefer someone other than Caroline, namely Cuomo.  She saves face by withdrawing.  

    Boxed in by the Kennedys? (5.00 / 3) (#18)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:42:39 AM EST
    I keep reading stuff like this in blog comments but it makes absolutely no sense to me, first because the only Kennedy with any clout is Teddy, and secondly because I don't know what pressure he could (or would, but that's another matter) put on Paterson other than a good argument.

    Having a lot of passionate supporters who happen to be related to you and share a famous name does not a boxing-in make, IMHO.

    The only thing Paterson has been "boxed in" on is that there are very good arguments for each of several possible appointees, all of whom also have good arguments against them.

    There's a weird fantasy out there about "the Kennedys" that simply doesn't comport with the realities of 2008.


    Amen (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:04:13 AM EST
    I've found it amusing to read all the comments about the vaunted Kennedy clout and how it would overpower Paterson and swing the seat to CK.

    New York state politics ain't so easily susceptible to 'outside' forces even assuming any were being brought to bear.

    There are ample angles for scratching and clawing and bringing pressure to bear right here in our own backyard. We've got not only our own impressive dynasties to contend with (hello, Andrew) and the makings of a really tough hold on Dem power at the state level with the new All-Dem leadership in both houses and the Governor's mansion.


    I don't really think Ted is the Kennedy (none / 0) (#49)
    by Inspector Gadget on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 01:18:33 PM EST
    with the clout for Caroline.

    She remains viewed by many as the last remaining member of Camelot. If she gets special treatment, it's because of Jack Kennedy, not Ted. He may help, but she will always be the daughter of our most recent fallen President.  

    From the beginning, I thought she was only pursuing the job because it was an appointment and void of having to campaign for votes.


    Daughter of Camelot (none / 0) (#54)
    by daring grace on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:24:22 PM EST
    Maybe she really did want the position.

    I don't know. Watching her and listening to the whole campaign for her, it all seemed so...half hearted to me. And serving in this capacity also just doesn't gibe as much with her usual behind the scenes brand of service.

    She has always struck me as a fairly low key sort of celeb--interested in doing the things to burnish her parents' (and her brother's?) place in history, but completely disinterested in politics (and in putting herself forward this way) before. I think she's her mom's daughter in terms of her preference for privacy.

    This never felt like her idea to me. But you're right. Her idea or that of someone standing behind her--the hope was to use JFK more than Teddy to help get there.


    Maybe the Teddy clout is declining (5.00 / 1) (#41)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:10:36 AM EST
    is what this means?  Politics can be cruel, the past is past, you can be yesterday in no time, as you're only as good as what you can do for tomorrow, etc. . . .

    A Congress without Teddy Kennedy -- and Byrd -- is a worrisome thing, with so many wusses in power there.


    He's got plenty of clout (5.00 / 1) (#42)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:36:15 AM EST
    In the two places he should have it, D.C. and MA.  Nothing declining there.

    It's a very worrisome thing - and I for one, am not gonna count him out until they nail the coffin shut.  At which point... hope that Kerry can somehow grow a spine and start paying more attention to the people who put him there.


    Dream on (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:52:09 AM EST
    Kerry has never behaved that way and isn't suddenly going to start.

    No, it means Teddy (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:50:31 AM EST
    has never practiced that kind of hard-edged politics and isn't going to start now.  That's just not the way he operates, even in Mass.  In all my years of living in Mass., following politics closely and knowing a few people fairly high up in Mass. politics, I've never heard so much as a rumble that this or that person got picked for this or that position because of Kennedy "pressure."

    People close to him and in his favor have a leg up, of course, but it's not because Teddy explicitly or implicitly threatens to withhold this or that or help out with this or that.  It's because he's always attracted and kept high-quality people in his circle and others figure, surely correctly, that it doesn't hurt to have on your team somebody who has credibility with and easy access to Teddy and his staff.

    As far as I have ever heard, Teddy has stuck strictly to his own business and his own policy agenda for 35 years in the Senate and doesn't go wheeling and dealing and trying to wield power over other people's business.

    That's also why the whole raft of dark theories about Kennedy's role in Obama's ascension were so ridiculous to me.  He had no role, other than the visible and public one he took on when he decided to endorse hi.


    You missed (none / 0) (#47)
    by Wile ECoyote on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:04:45 PM EST
    Cape Wind.  

    No (none / 0) (#48)
    by CST on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:44:15 PM EST
    Ted's stance on Cape Wind was annoying.  But what gyrfalcon said was:

    "Teddy ... doesn't go wheeling and dealing and trying to wield power over other people's business" emphasis and short-cut mine

    Whatever Cape Wind is, it is certainly his business.  The NY senate seat not so much.


    Exactly (none / 0) (#56)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:57:04 PM EST
    Thank you.

    Non sequitur (none / 0) (#55)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 03:56:40 PM EST
    At best, you simply bring up an example that makes my point precisely.

    Cape Wind most certainly is Teddy's business, for one.  You perhaps have forgotten that Cape Cod and the islands are part of Massachusetts.  You may also have forgotten that Teddy actually does live there.

    Secondly, there was nothing even remotely underhanded or hardball about his opposition to that project.  He spoke out repeatedly vehemently against it, but he made no threats about funding or anything else if he didn't get his way on it.

    You suggesting he's not allowed to take a position on something, especially if it's quite literally in his back yard?

    You really haven't a sufficient grasp of logic to try to play gotcha games, so I suggest you give up trying.


    He (none / 0) (#68)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:39:31 AM EST
    does represent 100% of the 14% against it.

    Kennedy Machine (none / 0) (#58)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:48:22 PM EST
    Just recently you were complaining about the Kennedy Machine bullying Paterson to appoint his niece.

    Now that it is clear that this was fiction, your implicit defense of last weeks position is that the Machine, which invented Obama, has all of a sudden lost power as political machines are wont to do?

    Wow, talk about moving the goal posts.

    And now you are worried about Kennedy being gone?  Nice to see that you are at least moving on in your preemptory mourning for the guy.


    Stop stalking. (5.00 / 2) (#59)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:13:07 PM EST
    And start considering the possibility that some of us are capable of changing with new information,  squeaky.  Sadly, you are not so.  You are stuck, stuck, stuck in a time warp of six months ago.

    My Point Exactly (1.00 / 1) (#60)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:28:13 PM EST
    And I grant you that maybe it is somewhat face saving, for you to inject a notion that that Kennedy is losing clout rather to admit that there is no Kennedy Machine running around blackmailing other state politicians, whether it be to get Caroline appointed or Obama elected, but it is hardly honest.

    Moving the goal posts is hardly changing ones opinion.

    Eulogizing the living is a stretch as well, but hopeful.


    Oh no, it's the other Squeaky again (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 05:57:53 PM EST
    using the same computer.  Or the United States of Squeaky?  Whichever, go play with yourself. . . .

    Having Delusions? (1.00 / 1) (#62)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:02:32 PM EST
    Or just sputtering incoherently?

    "Boxed in".... (none / 0) (#33)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:43:36 AM EST
    I am not sure I would use that particular term but I think I understand what the posters who use that term mean. Teddy might be the only Kennedy with a lot of political clout but I am sure he and most of the other Kennedys have plenty of friends who have a lot of clout and money and influence.
    The firm my BF works at routinely hires the children of CEOs even if there are other qualified canditates for the position because they know it gives them better access and the edge on getting contracts/favorable treatment.

    Sure, and (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:54:28 AM EST
    that's the way the world works, isn't it.  But the key is that your firm does that on its own in hopes of gaining access, whether said CEO puts pressure on them to do it or not.

    Yes, that is the way that...... (none / 0) (#57)
    by vml68 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 04:05:52 PM EST
    the world works.
    Sorry my earlier post was a little disjointed, I had to take off.
    When I talked about influence and access, I was referencing the comment by Ted about legislation from NY getting the fast track if Caroline was made Senator because she had the right connections. I am sorry I don't have time to find the exact quote right now but I will dig it up later tonight. Anyway, when I read it, it felt like Teddy was "pressuring" Paterson a little.

    I saw the end (none / 0) (#16)
    by jar137 on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 11:22:19 PM EST
    of Kennedy's chances when Patterson started saying he has to consider the ability to be re-elected.  I read that as a cue that Kennedy was out (her poll numbers are low and many of us NYers are not keen on her coming out of nowhere to take such a prominent position (I believe NY has only had four senators in the last thirty years).  I have nothing against Caroline (and would probably happily vote for her), but as many have stated there are plenty of people ahead of her in line.  It would be great if Nadler got the job (and now would be a good time for his liberal politics), but he has a snowball's chance.

    I heard a report earlier tonight (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by shoephone on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:34:08 AM EST
    (on NPR?) that specifically mentioned Gillenbrand as a possiblity.

    The plot thickens...

    So Caroline Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:08:05 AM EST
    has withdrawn without asking permission from David Gregory.

    As someone who doesn't live in NY, (4.83 / 6) (#10)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 09:03:15 PM EST
    I really don't have a dog in this fight, but...it just never seemed plausible to me that Caroline Kennedy was the appropriate person for the job.  The more that came out in the media - her absence from her desk in the education job, the abysmal voting record - the less plausible it got.

    If she has a real desire to enter public service on such a scale, she can run in 2010, either for the US Senate or for the US House.  She can get down in the trenches of NY politics and service and show the people that she wants to be there for the right reasons - to serve the people - and not just to be a torch-bearer.

    It's really not about her, after all - or it shouldn't be - it's about the people.

    And about the many people (none / 0) (#11)
    by Cream City on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 09:20:59 PM EST
    who have been representing the people of New York very well, looking at the list.

    Throughout this, I find myself wondering what would be the reaction of some commenters telling us non-New Yorkers if the tables were turned.  If, say, it was my state replacing a Senator.  If, say, it was Senator Feingold -- whom many certainly would miss in Congress if he had been named to the Cabinet.  And a Senator who matters to many across the country. . . .  But it would be okay for our gov to just find someone named La Follette?:-)

    Anyway, I've looked at the bench behind him in my state, and there are interesting possibilities -- but not necessarily with the strength of some of the names for New York.  

    (Btw, keep in mind that this well could happen if our other Senator in my state, who is said to be more than ready to step down, would do so midterm to give the Dem gov a chance to get another Dem the gift of incumbency.  My pick would be someone more politically involved for decades than Caroline Kennedy has been for even a day.  My pick would be someone who is a prominent progressive.  My pick would be someone who actually has run for the Senate seat here.  My pick would be, obviously, Ben Masel.:-)



    When you consider that replacing a (5.00 / 5) (#14)
    by Anne on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 10:30:49 PM EST
    Senator in this manner - by appointment, instead of by election - means that one person gets to choose for millions, it behooves the governor to carefully consider those millions of people when making his selection.  And, if he's smart, he has to know that his own chances for re-election may depend to some extent on how his choice acquits her- or himself; if it doesn't go well, the people will remember who's responsible.

    Paterson strikes me as someone who does not go quietly into the corner; that the floor is wet with someone else's paint doesn't seem to matter to him.

    In the end, the respect he garners from the people for not allowing himself to be used as it appeared was the plan, will not just serve him well, it will serve the people of NY well.


    Very well said, Anne (5.00 / 1) (#19)
    by gyrfalcon on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 12:44:38 AM EST
    And I love the paint on the floor metaphor.

    right on (none / 0) (#26)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 08:58:31 AM EST
    beautifully put Anne, I am SO glad I gave Paterson a standing O at the HRC fundraiser last week, i was sending all my positivity to that man...(and all the calls I had every friend and family member make to NOT appoint Caroline Kennedy and to pullleze give NY Carolyn Maloney instead)..

    The AP story that she had it in the bag was clearly a pressure move on Paterson to embarass him into not embarassing her or PEBO, they pull that crxp all the time, SO SO glad to see Paterson not play the game!

    NY needs a tiger and one who 'gets it' on the economy, Maloney is that person, Cuomo too for that matter but I prefer Maloney who just got tapped as Chair of JEC in Congress....see my comment below...



    Rachel Maddow & David Gregory (none / 0) (#4)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:20:47 PM EST
    announcing CK has not dropped out. Guess we won't find out tonight.

    Gotta love NBC (none / 0) (#30)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:24:17 AM EST
    Always on top of things.

    Interesting (none / 0) (#5)
    by scribe on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:21:54 PM EST
    Holtzman was really prominent years ago - IIRC she had a lot to do with the Nixon impeachment.  Then, for some reason she just kind of dropped out and out of sight.

    Gillibrand was a Red to Blue House winner in '06 who's been going Blue Dog and whose district will revert (almost certainly) to red if she moves to the Senate.  IIRC, her opponent was the Congressman who went to (and got photoed at) frat parties, and then got pummelled when the NY State Police leaked a domestic violence report on him and his wife shortly before the election.  That leak was a part of a good-sized scandal of which the allegation that Spitzer was using the NYSP to follow various Repugs was a part.  As it seemed to have turned out before dying out in the aftermath of Spitzer's career demise, the NYSP had some current and former members making themselves into their own little KGB/Rabkrin to take care of keeping pols of all flavors in line.

    Nadler is a hard-core liberal whose district includes the WTC and who opposed Bush-Cheneyism from jump.  If he moves up we keep a liberal in the House as his replacement will almost certainly come from Downtown, and we get an effective, loud liberal voice in the Senate.

    Cuomo is just climbing the ladder on the strength of his name and doing just enough at each stop to have his resume filled out.  He's taken the AG office back to SleepyLand, almost where it was before Spitzer put some life and teeth into it.

    Suozzi is from Long Island and would probably tend Blue Dog, but I don't know enough about him to really say one way or the other.  Israel the same thing.

    Brown from Buffalo?  Never heard of him.  When was the last time NY had a Senator from upstate, let alone Buffalo?  I have no idea....

    IMHO, Nadler is the best of the bunch on merits and issues, with Holtzman second.

    Maloney (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 08:53:46 AM EST
    maloney!! cubed!! she has ALL the necessary experience, the economic chops, 13 years in Congress serving NY and is also a woman which would be a big plus to keep a woman in this seat...provided of course she is appointed on MERIT and not nepotism or favors....a-hem :))

    yeah Carolyn Maloney is ALL that AND a bag of chips!!


    If Gillibrand is picked over (5.00 / 0) (#36)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:06:32 AM EST
    Maloney, it will be because the math shows that picking an upstater will give a bigger boost to Paterson in the 2010 election.

    I forgot all about Liz (none / 0) (#15)
    by jar137 on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 11:16:32 PM EST
    Holzman was a rising star in NY politics, although she always had a bit of an abrasive personality.  She was big on ethics and did a great job as Brooklyn DA (esp. when compared to Joe Hynes).  I cannot remember the specifics, but she got caught up in some campaign finance problem, which essentially ended her career.  I think it was a case of schadenfreud- ha, the mighty ethicist falls.  I always liked her and would actually appreciate having her in that position, but I think she has been out of the political limelight for too long.

    Not so fast another breaking news (none / 0) (#6)
    by Saul on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:23:37 PM EST
    On MSNBC just now David Gregory and his sources have  said that Caroline has NOT withdrawn her name for Senator.   David Gregory said his sources say that it was a misunderstanding. David said he was talking to some of the family members in the Kennedy family.  

    Glad MSNBC is no longer (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:25:09 AM EST
    one of my news sources!

    political rivals (none / 0) (#7)
    by diogenes on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 08:23:50 PM EST
    Paterson wants Cuomo out of the way so he won't run for governor.  That's why he'll appoint him as senator.  That's why he was so mad when Caroline put in for the seat.

    Steve Israel (none / 0) (#12)
    by Nasarius on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 10:16:08 PM EST
    As a former constituent, ugh. Please no. He's like a slightly less odious version of Joe Lieberman.

    I think he's (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 10:23:44 PM EST
    much better.

    Personally, I've found him to be very accessible. I'm not a constituent, but he's a GW alum, and was there answering questions almost every year I was.


    Now Official (none / 0) (#17)
    by CoralGables on Wed Jan 21, 2009 at 11:43:06 PM EST
    ALBANY, New York - Caroline Kennedy said she has withdrawn her name from consideration for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, in a statement released early Thursday morning.

    Sounds like (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:47:55 AM EST
    she did the right thing. She was never carefully mentored like for example Chelsea -- who has been with her mother almost EVERYwhere since she finished her Masters at University College, Oxford in International Relations.  

    Didn't Chelsea (5.00 / 1) (#37)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:08:00 AM EST
    go to work for McKinsey and then a hedge fund, before joining her mother on the campaign trail?

    Yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by weltec2 on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:12:43 PM EST
    It seems to me your right.

    I can't help but think that this is the (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:09:43 AM EST
    political equivalent of "You can't fire me - I quit!"  Or maybe it's more like, "Oh, you know, nevermind."

    Someone who has such a strong need to withdraw to save the later embarrassment at not being selected does not have the real stomach for the election process.

    And this way, she doesn't have to worry about remembering - or caring enough - to vote in the next election.


    Carolyn Maloney (none / 0) (#22)
    by sarany on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 07:07:07 AM EST
    experienced, hard-working, intelligent and a woman who is a feminist

    See Digby's post from 12/30:

    And a more recent post that is a Q & A:

    oh ches!! (none / 0) (#28)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:05:59 AM EST
    glad to see that, I too have been all over Maloney for this seat since December :0)

    posts here, scroll down to the first IN support of Carolyn Maloney post for some of the many youtubes of Maloney in action doing the peoples work...


    right on carolyn maloney!! WOOHOO!! (none / 0) (#24)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 08:51:37 AM EST
    Ecstatic over here!! happy dance!! want Maloney to get it sooo badly!! she was named chair of joint econ council of congress yesterday too!!


    story here

    But I wonder (none / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:39:08 AM EST
    I don't know much about what the Joint Economic Council does, but is this a case where if Maloney moves from the House to the Senate, she gives up the power of chairing an important committee to become 1 of 100 Senators with no real clout?  It might not be best for New York even though I think she is the best candidate overall.

    She' really out (none / 0) (#34)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:46:47 AM EST

    Caroline Kennedy announced early Thursday that she was withdrawing from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, startling the state's political world after weeks in which she was considered a top contender for the post.

    Ms. Kennedy on Wednesday called Gov. David A. Paterson, who will choose a successor to Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, to inform him that she was no longer interested.

    "I informed Governor Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate," Ms. Kennedy said in a statement released by her public relations firm.

    Ms. Kennedy did not elaborate, but a person who spoke to her suggested that her concerns about the health of her uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who suffers from brain cancer and was hospitalized after a seizure on Tuesday, contributed to her decision.

    I don't believe the story about her uncle's health - he has a wife and family (and she isn't going to care for him from NY, when he lives in MA and VA).  Besides, wasn't that one of the original reasons for her name being floated?  That Ted wouldn't last long in the Senate and it would keep the Kennedy streak going?

    I'm glad she won't be appointed.  Give it to someone more deserving - Gillibrand or Maloney.

    Color Me Disgusted (none / 0) (#38)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:33:15 AM EST
    This Long Island gal and her family will never vote for Paterson nor his "appointment". What a Mickey Mouse charade.

    I tend to lean (none / 0) (#39)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:49:45 AM EST
    towards the behind the story storyline.

    While most folks were under the impression Paterson was under the gun to appoint CK, there were many opposing stories saying it was Kennedy's "if she wanted it". Indeed, many politicians in NY had come out recently in support of her nomination, even those that initially opposed it, giving credence to the opinion that a decision had already been made.

    With word out of Albany last night that the Governor's office was caught off guard by the CK announcement, the truth may lay more in whether CK was actually the one under pressure to take the seat by family and friends and then got caught up in the resulting hoopla.  

    With the confirmation of Clinton yesterday it was time to put up or shut up, and CK realized that in truth she really didn't want it. She probably had no interest in giving up the life she has made for herself in exchange for the public spotlight in DC. She doesn't need the money. She has never sought the limelight. Perhaps in the end, headed back home may be what deep down she wanted all along.

    Joining in the guessing game, (none / 0) (#51)
    by KeysDan on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:42:06 PM EST
    I go with Carolyn Maloney.  Not Ms. Kennedy, so no Mr. Cuomo--those family matters seem to have spilled over into harmonious family living in the New York Democratic party.  Caroline Kennedy has bowed out for personal reasons, and, Andrew Cuomo, will bow out due to his deep commitment to his present duties.  Ms. Maloney will do a great job if appointed by the Governor.

    More news (none / 0) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 02:47:57 PM EST

    The New York Post, lead sled dog on the Caroline exit fiasco, is now reporting Kennedy never had a shot -- and that she ducked out because of potential tax trouble with her nanny and other issues surrounding her husband Edward Schlossberg.

    Haberman and Dicker:

        Kennedy was "mired in some potentially embarrassing personal issues," the source said, citing tax liabilities and worker compensation liabilities connected to the employment of a nanny.

        The source also said the state of her marriage may have presented a problem as well.

        "She has a tax problem that came up in the vetting and a potential nanny issue," the soruce said. "And reporters are starting to look at her marriage more closely," the source continued, refusing to provide any specifics.

    This dovetails with our earlier reporting -- namely the fact that Paterson's legal team had grown frustrated with Kennedy's apparent resistance to directly answer all questions posed to her -- and her insistence on using lawyers to act as intermediaries.

    Could be (none / 0) (#63)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:28:12 PM EST
    PIX11 News has learned Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand is the choice of Governor David Paterson to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton.  Two Congressional sources tell PIX News that the Governor will make his announcement in Albany at noon tomorrow.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#64)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 06:41:17 PM EST
    That's what I read. Although Paterson seems to be playfully throwing dodges to get the hounds off the scent, and enjoying it despite contrary reports.

    I loved the NYT reports that had close confidants to Paterson, saying completely opposite things. Guess he knows how to keep a story in play.


    Here is enough reason (none / 0) (#66)
    by CoralGables on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 08:20:44 PM EST
    for me to not be thrilled with this pick.

    From her own website:

    She has been an ardent opponent of legislation that will curb the Second Amendment for responsible gun owners and currently has a 100% voting record with the National Rifle Association (NRA).

    PIX reporting it is Gillibrand.... (none / 0) (#67)
    by jedimom on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:27:11 PM EST
    story here