home

A Good Yarn

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:26:25 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Courtesy of Steve Clemons:

The game plan -- whether real or fantasy -- is intriguing. It goes something like this. Caroline Kennedy would be appointed now to the Senate. She would perform well above the very low expectations many had for her and win handily the seat in the 2010 mid-term race in which that Senate seat needs to be contested again. She would then be in place until 2016. [Steve is inaccurate here as the NY Senate seat will be contested again in 2012.] Ted Kennedy's view "may be" that Caroline would instantly out-shine Hillary Clinton in the eyes of New York voters and in the American political scene and that in 2016, Caroline Kennedy would be 59 while Hillary Clinton would be 69.

So the yarn is Caroline Kennedy was going to run for President in 2016. Whoa! That strikes me as nuts. But what do I know.

Speaking for me only

< Arrest In Travolta Tragedy | Sat. Night TV: The X Games (Open Thread) >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    A Good Yarn | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    BTD, I was going to post a link ... (5.00 / 4) (#1)
    by Robot Porter on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:31:15 PM EST
    to that article here.  But I thought you'd think it was nuts.

    ;)

    Hey, watch it (5.00 / 4) (#47)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:56:56 PM EST
    Bill Clinton was a skirt-chasing Governor of Arkansas in 1984, thank you very much.

    Parent
    Public service (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by starsandstripes on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    Which is ridiculous because he record of public service makes the others look impotent in comparison 8 year prior to running.

    I don't know about the others, but in 1984 was on his second terms as Arkansas governor and a very successful governor at that, and had served as Attorney General in Arkansas. I think that's a pretty good record 8 years prior to running for president. YMMV.

    Unless your account of Caroline Kennedy is based on how pristine and ivory-soap-like her personal life is - but I don't think that's only what presidents are elected on.

    Parent

    I am speechless. (5.00 / 6) (#4)
    by Molly Bloom on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:43:59 PM EST


    A Comedy in Three Acts... (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:52:05 PM EST
    too bad the First Act was, um, so, you know, funny that it is unlikely we will see Acts Two and Three without some substantial re-writes.

    Given that we have yet to know whether the Obama Path is one that guarantees an actual successful administration, I think it is pretty appalling that there was this immediate push to replicate it, only this time with a Kennedy.

    Maybe Caroline should consider fixing whatever her personal problems are, ramping up for a House run in 2010, which would then put her in an excellent position to take the torch from Biden  and run as Obama's VP in 2012 - from which, she would be perfectly placed for a run for the WH in 2016.

    Call me crazy, but I would kind of prefer that she follow the Hillary Clinton model - hard and relentless work combined with an unparalleled grasp of and appetite for the issues - rather than the Obama model.  She has time to do that, if she really wants a life in public service, but I won't hold my breath.

    Nailed it (5.00 / 7) (#38)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:19:31 PM EST
    I think they are trying to act like CK is following the Clinton model - woman with a famous name but never held elective office, gets NY Senate seat (once by appointment, once by election in CK's case) runs for pres.

    What they overlook, and what they could never understand that so many of us did not overlook was that all of Clinton's first lady years in Arkansas and in the WH do count for something. At the very least, she was learning and developing expertise in many areas the whole time.

    For that reason, your saying CK is using the Obama model is spot on. And she needs more ramping up even for that.

    Parent

    hillary headed a national (5.00 / 7) (#39)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:20:41 PM EST
    appointed body before she was 30---before she even married Bill.

    Parent
    Exactly - that too (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:35:47 PM EST
    The Chris Matthews version of the Hillary story of course is that people elected her to the senate because they felt sorry for her, and then she ran for president based on one term in the Senate and a few WH tea parties.

    Parent
    And worked at (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:41:55 PM EST
    the Yale Child Study Center; took part in research that is still considered seminal work in the field.  She had also worked for the Senate Watergate investigation, the McGovern campaign and Marion Wright Edelman's group (I believe).
    Big difference.

    Parent
    I think she means (5.00 / 4) (#46)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:50:44 PM EST
    running for president after a relatively short time in the Senate,based on your personal popularity and political skills rather than a long political resume.

    Parent
    No, the Obama model is not just (5.00 / 5) (#51)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 08:51:25 PM EST
    running for president after a short time in the Senate; the Obama model is being groomed, having the path cleared, getting plum assignments ahead of others - that sort of thing.  And the way Clemons is talking about Kennedy suggests the same kind of plan.

    Why is the assumption that Kennedy would have held onto the seat once she got it?  There is nothing in how she conducted herself in the last couple months, nothing in her history, her (non-existent) voting record, that suggests she is well-acquainted with the hard work that would come - should come - with holding onto a Senate seat once it was handed to her.

    I guess I never saw the "there" there that others did, and I suppose that is reminiscent of Obama for me - a lack of substance.  What Kennedy has that Obama didn't is the pedigree, the bloodlines, and then there's the whole Camelot mystique.  Maybe that's enough for some people, but it sure seemed like the people of New York were not as swept up in it as they were expected to be.  I think that's a good thing - we need real people in these jobs, not pretenders.

    We don't even know if Obama will live up to the story that was created for him - why would we want to hand someone - like Kennedy - such an important position on nothing more than a fairy tale?

    Parent

    Reason CK was assumed to (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:43:15 PM EST
    have been able to hold onto Senate seat in 2010 was her ability to raise serious $.

    Parent
    Do you mean for herself? (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:52:32 PM EST
    I'm pretty sure she could just buy herself the seat, but I'm not aware that she is known for having raised money over the years helping Democrats get elected.  

    Something tells me that if she had been actively working to get Dems elected, she might just have a better voting record.

    As someone who always votes, who recited the same speech to her kids every Election Day ("voting is the responsibility we have for the privilege of living in a free and democratic society"), I was pretty offended by Kennedy's disingenuous reaction to having been confronted with her failure to do a whole lot of voting.

    Parent

    I wasn't saying I agreed, (none / 0) (#66)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 10:02:04 PM EST
    but that was the reason floating around in media stories, etc.

    Parent
    Hate her? No, not even close, (none / 0) (#119)
    by Anne on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:21:29 AM EST
    sorry.  And please don't lump me in with those who were impressed with Obama's community organizing stint; I wasn't one of them.

    That Obama used Kennedy for his own purposes means what, exactly?  That he knew how to capitalize on the star quality of the Kennedy name?  I happened to be one of those people who was not impressed, was even a little disgusted, at the naked attempt to compare Obama to JFK by surrounding him with Kennedys, and wondered at the time what Caroline was smoking that she could have fallen so hard for a snake-oil salesman.

    If Obama was so enamored of Caroline, why did he not return the favors she did for him and endorse her for the position?  Maybe it wasn't a mutual admiration society after all, just one smart pol taking advantage of someone who wasn't a pol at all.

    As for Caroline's contribution to society and her philanthropy, she is to be commended - as is every other human being on the planet who takes time to help those in need - but when you are worth $100 million, it isn't hard to make those contributions, and it doesn't represent any particular sacrifice, either.  

    If she was truly interested in making a difference politically, she has had years to help aspiring progressive Democrats get elected, and on a much smaller scale, could have taken the time to vote.

    No, I don't hate Caroline Kennedy; I just do not think she was qualified to be the junior Senator from New York.

    Parent

    Thanks Anne (none / 0) (#57)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:30:13 PM EST
    That part of my sorry attempt at expounding on your post got a sidetrack of its own.

    My own bottom line is that this proposed scenario for Kennedy is a lot more like the Obama scenario than the Clinton one.

    That's all I'm going to say about it until any of it actually comes about. By that I mean never.

    Parent

    We have? (none / 0) (#95)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:32:00 PM EST
    "For years now Progressives have been clamoring to get non-politicians in office so we can turn the tide and purge the professional politicians."

    I don't think so. You're mixing up progressives with the know-nothing conservatives who've been agitating for term limits.

    Parent

    Term limits are a right wing (5.00 / 2) (#99)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 05:07:13 PM EST
    Republican idea. It's been that way for ages.

    Parent
    BS (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 05:48:25 PM EST
    I want people in legislatures who actually understand the process, but who are also directly accountable to the electorate. With terms limits, the only people who have institutional knowledge are paid staff and lobbyists.

    Parent
    Um, no (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 06:09:37 PM EST
    You are totally full of it, and this false inference:

    So Lieberman it is - FOR LIFE. Because when you distill it all down that is what it ends up being.

    proves it.

    Unlike you, I recognize that there are a variety of reasons why we vote for or against individuals. There was every reason to vote against Joe Lieberman, but apparently an insufficient number of the citizens of Connecticut agreed.  You want to take away the ability of citizens to re-elect their representatives if they are doing a good job. I do not.

    Parent

    More nonsense from you (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 06:33:35 PM EST
    Do you think it's not relevant that Lieberman lost the Democratic primary? There is a case to be made for "sore loser" laws to prevent future candidates from doing what he did, but not term limits.

    Indeed, nothing you say is an argument for term limits. You just think voters are too stupid to make a choice about who should represent them.

    Parent

    I see! (none / 0) (#114)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 08:33:12 PM EST
    It's the latest incarnation of talex.

    Buh bye.

    Parent

    Quite a few have never held office? (none / 0) (#120)
    by DFLer on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:58:31 PM EST
    I was intrigued by that claim, so I checked.

    I got through the first 50 Senators. (Please do the rest...starting with Sen. Ted Kennedy.)

    In the first 50 (alphabetically) I found this:

    Of the newly appointed, neither Kaufman of Deleware or Bennett of CO have held elective office.

    Of the rest, only Orrin Hatch was elected to the Senate without running for or holding any elective office. Bennet R-Utah was the son of a long term senator, and the Senate win was his first elected office, although he ran for and won a primary (does that count?)

    Collins R-Maine never held office before winning the Senate, although she won a couple of primaries and ran (and lost) as the R-cand. for governor.

    46 others held a variety of offices, including Congressional Reps., governors or other state officers, state legislators, and mayors.

    Parent

    Obama served 4 years in the Senate (none / 0) (#50)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 08:35:56 PM EST
    Yes, he started running after two. But Caroline would have to start running after 6. Yes, 6 is longer than 2. I'll grant you that. Still a relatively short amount of time.

    Parent
    Actually (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Steve M on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 08:58:56 PM EST
    it is more of the George W. Bush model than anything.  Start with a well-known family name, land a political job for a few years to give the resume some credibility, and go for it.

    Parent
    Who is George W. Bush? (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:31:03 PM EST


    Parent
    Except (none / 0) (#62)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:43:56 PM EST
    CK has been a success at what she has taken on.

    Parent
    Which would be what, exactly? (5.00 / 6) (#69)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 10:37:36 PM EST
    Seriously, what has she "taken on?"  Her directorship with the Office of Strategic Partnerships of the NY City Education Department ended in 2004, and only lasted two years.  Yes, she is credited with helping raise some money, but what has she done lately, other than sit on some boards and get all googly-eyed over Obama?

    For crying out loud, at least Obama has "community organizer" on his resume, and did serve in the Illinois legislature before he ran for the Senate.  And however much help he got to win that seat, at least he actually ran for it, stood for election.

    The woman couldn't even articulate a coherent reason why she wanted the seat in the first place, so why are people acting like it's some huge tragic moment that someone said "no" to - gasp! - a Kennedy?

    Parent

    And it consisted of 1 hr/week on the record (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by andrys on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 02:33:38 AM EST
    She worked mostly from home but the commitment was 1 hr per week.  There is quite a lot of controversy over the $amounts raised, as someone was doing the lead work before she got there and it was well along the way too.  But I don't doubt she was a big help in loosening up that money.

    I do hope Obama hires her for an appropriate job so we can get over this bump and the hard feelings it caused.

    Parent

    I was comparing CK to (none / 0) (#75)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:28:52 AM EST
    W.  Can't say she ran businesses into the ground, expecting to be bailed out.  She's also written several books.  I'm not saying she has the resume on which to base her appointment for Senate, but W she's not.  And despite her haulting speech in public recently, she's highly educated and smart.  She was just woefully unprepared for the political arena.  

    Parent
    I heard this same stuff a short while back when (5.00 / 2) (#7)
    by Angel on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:54:31 PM EST
    people (read repubs) were contrasting the way she was treated as opposed to Sarah Palin.  Some were saying the Senatorial appointment was just laying the groundwork for her to run in 2016.  What a joke.  

    What strikes me as funny about the Clemons (5.00 / 5) (#9)
    by Angel on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:00:22 PM EST
    post is this line:  

    "And while Hillary Clinton, the woman Caroline tried to succeed in the Senate, is now Secretary of State -- it is clear that Obama still has some work to do to get the keys to the Bill/Hillary political franchise -- and that this derailment of Caroline Kennedy removes for the time being a threat to Hillary's longer term political interests."

    How in the world is Caroline Kennedy a threat to Hillary?  Laughable.

    If Kennedy had any political skill (3.00 / 2) (#11)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:07:10 PM EST
    whatsoever, she might have been a strong threat to Clinton's chances of winning a 2016 primary.

    Parent
    That's the problem as I see it: She has no (5.00 / 1) (#20)
    by Angel on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:22:59 PM EST
    political skills.  

    Parent
    Yeah, and (5.00 / 4) (#21)
    by Democratic Cat on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:25:41 PM EST
    if I were six feet tall and thin, I'd be on the cover of Vogue!  

    Parent
    Hardly. Hillary Clinton has (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:48:38 PM EST
    half the Democratic Party...and Bill.

    What does Caroline Kennedy have?

    A name.  And one that will resonate with maybe 25 people 8 years from now...a lifetime in politics...while Hillary (and Bill) will be in the news every single day.

    Every. Single. Day.

    Parent

    Would Obama back Caroline? (none / 0) (#37)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:13:17 PM EST
    That would be the only thing that would balance the scales - assuming, of course, that he is still popular in 2016.

    Parent
    Actually, I somehow doubt it. (none / 0) (#74)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:44:16 AM EST
    Eight years from now, Teddy is likely to be ancient history and Caroline a dim and slightly embarrasing political memory with no more claim on the party or the electorate than she has now...which is pretty slim.  Obama's Kennedy obligations will have been long since paid.

    Parent
    Meanwhile, almost as funny (5.00 / 3) (#10)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    the local news shows Kirsten Gillibrand giving Al Sharpton a big hug. I think she might do a better job at this rollout thing.

    She's clearly more savy about the whole (none / 0) (#14)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:09:35 PM EST
    thing then Paterson "let me just play around with the people of this state for a couple months" has been.

    Parent
    Gillibrand is a pistol (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:37:00 PM EST
    The more I read about her, the more I think she may be a really serious comer and the more I think Paterson might well have decided on her before CK withdrew.  I'm speculating it's possible Paterson kept the guessing game going on so long in hopes CK would withdraw and he wouldn't have to embarrass her by not picking her.

    I had heard that Hillary was strongly backing Gillibrand behind the scenes, which surprised me a bit.  Then I read that G (at that time not having run for office yet herself) apparently literally walked in off the street to HRC's first senate campaign headquarters, asked if there was anything she could do to help, and rapidly became a doggedly hard-working organizational and fund-raising powerhouse for Hillary upstate.

    Among other things, she put a powerful politician in her debt, and at the same time, got to try out her wings and learn the ropes firsthand for a possible run for office of her own.

    This is one smart cookie.

    Parent

    One smart cookie in the Hillary (none / 0) (#26)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:51:40 PM EST
    model.

    Working fine so far, for the mentor and for the new senator.

    Parent

    The appear together tomorrow (none / 0) (#72)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:39:34 AM EST
    at a presser in midtown Manhattan. I think Carol McCarthy is going to have to back down, because KG is covering all of her bases.

    Parent
    She has Chuck Schumer essentially (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:11:06 PM EST
    managing her roll out. He's nobody's fool, and probably telling her exactly what to do.

    Parent
    I don't buy the bad roll out excuse (none / 0) (#19)
    by BernieO on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:21:06 PM EST
    as if this debacle was all her "handlers" fault. (What is she a trained animal?)

    Any person who has paid any attention at all to politics, or just has an ounce of common sense would have been friendly to those people Caroline visited in upstate New York and would have taken an interest in them instead of acting bored. That was plain rude. If Caroline is really that shy, she should have faked it.

    Parent

    I found the whole CK rollout (5.00 / 7) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:27:42 PM EST
    to be bizarre. From top to bottom.

    Parent
    I think the rollout was bad but (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:21:16 PM EST
    for several reasons. CK's handlers obviously did not prepare her properly, and she herself, until recently an exceedingly private figure, seemed to think her name and the back of Teddy, and possibly Obama, would be enough to get her the appointment.  All these assumptions proved false.  I don't know Caroline, but I have to guess that she may have thought being appointed Senator from NY would have involved the type of sheltered interaction with the media and the public that she enjoyed while campaigning for Obama. Big difference, however.

    I don't wish her ill, nor do I think slamming her abilities or character is useful.  Wrong place, wrong time and a series of misjudgments that have proved unfortunate, particularly for her.

    2 weekends ago, I read the Anderson biography of CK because I wanted to figure out why this person, who I assumed to have the same intense need for privacy that her mother had, was thrusting herself into a very public arena.  Among other things, the bio indicated that she has rheumatoid arthritis. I don't know how one does the grueling job of Senator with this condition, unless it is in remission.  The bio also indicated that she has always shared her mother's desire for privacy, especially where the press is concerned, and the only times she has disagreed with Teddy, the issue was her desire for greater privacy, as in the case of her refusal to open up JFK jr's memorial service to the public.

    Parent

    Caroline is a million (none / 0) (#33)
    by WS on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:43:31 PM EST
    better than what we eventually got with Gillibrand.  I thought Cuomo would get the job if it wasn't Caroline but that turned out to be a horribly wrong assumption.

    I've read Gillibrand to be "ambitious" but please stay in New York.  She ain't Hillary.    

    Parent

    Hillary is 61 (none / 0) (#59)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:36:55 PM EST
    Gillibrand is 42; give her a chance.

    Parent
    This is about (none / 0) (#112)
    by WS on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:02:40 PM EST
    Gillibrand and not Hillary.  I'll give her a chance, but I don't think I'll ever be enamored of her.  

    But if we want to talk about Hillary, she deserves another shot at the Presidency in 2016.  

    Parent

    Considering the source,... (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Oje on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:50:34 PM EST
    The story is probably being pushed to smear the Clintons for eliminating the competition.

    But, I am struck how well politics - pure unadulterated party politics - may have worked to the favor of Democratic rank-and-file this time. Who would want to place Carolyn Kennedy in a position to become the next President? The current Democratic insiders for Obama's DNC team? (The premise is then that Ms. Kennedy is also a dupe, so of course Clemons blogger-boyz-politically-insiderism ensures that the whole story looks bad for women politicians on all sides. Sexism Now! Sexism Forever!)

    If Gov. Patterson blocked this from coming to fruition, and approved the release of discoveries from the "vetting" process - out of loyalty to the Clintons or to New York political interests - then he has done the party a tremendous favor. Patterson blocked one potential DNC-insider transfer of power in 2016 that would have nullified the possibility of "democratic" primaries (in quotations to acknowledge the fuzziness of the term in the American election process).

    "Sources close to Paterson" (none / 0) (#32)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:33:28 PM EST
    did not release info as to why they think she pulled out and the view she wasn't qualified until after she withdrew.  I don't know why they did this, the pullout was a done deal, and everyone knew her poll numbers were abysmal, so Paterson could have let the reason CK gave for pulling out stand, and proceeded to appoint Gillibrand without further comment on CK. That he allowed information to leak out that more CK look bad indicates to me either (i) he does not control his staff or (ii) he made a seriously flawed calculation that the leaked information was necessary to justify his selection, but it wasn't.  Or, political pique?

    Parent
    Payback for the games played (5.00 / 2) (#88)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:46:44 AM EST
    on Paterson?  The recurring leaks from the Kennedy camp that she had the appointment in the bag were unwise (much as that sort of thing has worked in past, including in the Obama campaign, constantly declaring "truths" that media inanely repeated . . . and that undermined the democratic process).

    The games played on Paterson and on New Yorkers in recent weeks really have been appalling to watch, as one from a state where an opening might arise.  I can just see the Chicago pols in my next-door neighbor state putting on such pressure, and I wouldn't like it one bit.  And I would expect to see my pols doing payback for it, if they could.

    Parent

    That's what I think (5.00 / 2) (#96)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:39:37 PM EST
    And really, there's no question about the nasty stuff about Caroline coming from someone in Paterson's top circle, and it's inconceivable that it could have been without his approval.  This aide spoke several times over several days with various different nuggets of "information" and put-downs to numerous reporters.

    He/she spoke directly to reporters, first-hand stuff, so no chance it was a misinterpretation or a rumor or something of the sort.

    Parent

    I'm not ready to blame Paterson yet (none / 0) (#76)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 08:21:16 AM EST
    for leaking information about Caroline.  From what I've read, he had at least one aide who spoke out.  I'm not sure who she talked to, whether the statements were based on several sentences spoken to someone who was assumed to be a confidante, etc.  You know how the press can blow things out of proportion.

    The reason I give him the benefit of the doubt is that it seems like he went to great lengths to keep this whole process under wraps and to respect the confidentiality of the parties involved, and the numerous others who I'm sure were hounding him.  He was dealing with some of the most powerful families/groups on the left and we all know they had to have been putting all kinds of pressure on him.

    In the coming weeks, I think we'll find out more about how this whole thing went down.  The worst part of it all is that it was a no win situation for Paterson.  No matter what he did, he was going to make some powerful enemies.

    All that being said, I think he made a dreadful choice in Gillibrand.  Of all the House members out there, he had to pick a blue dog?  Does he realize how much trouble and divisiveness the blue dogs in Congress have caused in recent years?  And if he was worried about experience, why did he choose someone with only four years experience in Congress?  

    Sometimes I wonder if we'll ever be able to improve our situation in the Senate.  The Senate is and has been for a long time, one of the biggest problems in this country.  

    Parent

    Stereotyping Gillibrand (none / 0) (#117)
    by andrys on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 03:11:58 AM EST
    "he had to pick a blue dog?"

     She has a 100% rating from the ACLU (though one column said it was maybe 90%, with immigration reform being the problem).

     People agree that her political history (and voting) shows support for civil unions on the federal level and she believes that gay marriage itself should be won state-by-state.  She also supports stem cell.  All this while representing a conservative section of the state.

      But it's easier to put people into little boxes?  

    Parent

    If this is true, it is too bad for Obama's (5.00 / 3) (#41)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:32:21 PM EST
    succession dreams that he hooked up with the wrong branch of the Kennedy clan. I think RFK's kids are a lot more capable and politically involved. I would have been very happy to see RFK Jr. get that seat. I did not follow Kathleen Kennedy Townsend's career very closely, but at least she ran and got elected once.

    I don't think that there are (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by eric on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 08:56:11 PM EST
    any viable Kennedy presidential candidates left.  JFK Jr. was.  RFK Jr. is great but that won't work, I think, because of his condition.

    Caroline can't speak very well, that is her problem.  I am sure she's great, but one needs to be a better speaker.

    You think THAT'S a story. . . (5.00 / 2) (#56)
    by LarryInNYC on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:20:21 PM EST
    from the Times:

    This was the case even as other Democrats said Mr. Paterson's decision left Mr. Cuomo with no clear path to the White House in 2016, an aspiration many party officials believe he firmly embraces.

    Geez -- didn't we just have a Presidential election?

    Perpetual elections (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 08:58:07 AM EST
    drive me crazy and I think they are ruining this country.

    Then again, I wonder who those "other Democrats" were and if this isn't just someone trying to create a ruckus that media so loves to report on, particularly when it's a Democratic ruckus.  "Other Democrats" could mean the report him/herself and the person sitting next to him/her.  

    If Cuomo really did bemoan the effect on his political career and blame it on Paterson... he needs to come back to the reality-based world and look at all the troubles around him, and focus on doing something about it.

    Parent

    perpetual elections ar BS to be sure (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by sleepingdogs on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:59:27 PM EST
    but I guarantee that the person who will be our next president is already thinking about it, making plans for it, and arranging his or her career and life around it.

    Parent
    MoDo.....CDS in Spades (5.00 / 1) (#73)
    by NYShooter on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:42:49 AM EST
    "Paterson's five weeks of dithering let the jealous vindictiveness of the Clintons and friends -- still fuming over Caroline's endorsement of Obama and Teddy's blocking Hillary from a leading health care role in the Senate -- poison the air. With his usual sense of entitlement and aggrievement, Bill Clinton of Arkansas did not want Caroline Kennedy of New York to have the seat that Hillary Clinton of Illinois held."

    I don't think it's a yarn in that I think (2.00 / 1) (#34)
    by ericinatl on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:45:57 PM EST
    the Kennedy's really wanted this to happen.  Dynasties die hard, and the Kennedy's were the most powerful political family of the late 20th century.  But that appears to be over now, unless Caroline finds some political skills and runs for representative.  But I think her problem was not necessarily the lack of skills, but the fact that people could sense she really didn't want it.  At best, she was ambivalent.  That isn't going to cut it.

    Sadly, I think John John would have been a political force.  Not because he was smart (god knows, he was not), but he wanted it.  He hungered for it.  That, combined with his good looks and family power could have landed him the Presidency.

    Somewhere in hell, Joseph Kennedy is shedding a tear.

    you are so wrong (5.00 / 1) (#53)
    by eric on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 08:58:24 PM EST
    JKF Jr. never ran for anything.  And never said he would.

    Telling us that Joseph is in hell earns you a 2 and I am not even Catholic.

    Parent

    The Anderson biography of CK (none / 0) (#63)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:45:13 PM EST
    indicates that John Jr was interested in entering politics eventually.

    Parent
    He always said he was (none / 0) (#97)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:41:52 PM EST
    He just wasn't quite ready yet.  But he said he was heading that way.


    Parent
    I'd read that JFK Jr was interested in the Senate (none / 0) (#118)
    by andrys on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 03:16:58 AM EST
    ... He might not have bene 'brilliant' but he was a smart guy, spoke well, and with the rest of it (looks and charisma + the Kennedy thing) he probably would have gone pretty far.

    Parent
    I might be nuts, but I thought it was a (none / 0) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:31:55 PM EST
    possibility. It would have been hard to resist putting up the first Kennedy in decades (ever?) that didn't have a bunch of baggage.

    President Gillibrand (none / 0) (#3)
    by daring grace on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:39:22 PM EST
    And some of the new senator's friends are already floating that trial balloon for her.

    Maybe presidential expectations come with the seat though, thankfully, her two most recent predecessors--Sweeney and Solomon--never seemed to have that aspiration.

    I'll tell you what (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Steve M on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:12:39 PM EST
    She is an impressive politician with all the tools.  She can definitely go places.

    Parent
    I could imagine her winning in 2010 (none / 0) (#18)
    by andgarden on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:19:59 PM EST
    while Paterson loses.

    Parent
    According to a report (none / 0) (#67)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 10:08:51 PM EST
    in the NY Post, Thurs night Paterson was at some type of gathering and indicated there that the source of his pique at CK was that he couldn't get through to her to find out what she had decided to do.  Paterson reputedly said he felt CK has shown him disrespect.
    If Paterson's skin is this thing, he will surely lose in 2010.  I thought he handled himself well all along, but taking his time to decide or announce, and not allowing any leaks.  Then his post-pullout trashing of CK.  Truly ill-advised and impulsive.

    Parent
    She's Definitely 'An Impressive Politician' (none / 0) (#89)
    by daring grace on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:49:18 AM EST
    I've known that since watching her come from relative obscurity (but incredibly muscled political connections) to win her congressional seat TWO YEARS AGO.

    Mostly, I lament that the Dems don't get to hold that seat longer than that, because what I see shaping up is a pretty certain Repub re-take.

    I'm even willing to bet who might be the Repub candidate who does it: John Faso.

    Parent

    Thanks for the link (5.00 / 6) (#31)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:27:32 PM EST
    Very interesting article. Gillibrand majored in Asian studies and speaks/writes Chinese. Worked for HUD, has travelled with her mother to Asia.
    She is someone to watch.

    Parent
    Well, she has a passport. Sterling. (none / 0) (#81)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:40:55 AM EST


    Parent
    Very, very strange. (none / 0) (#5)
    by Fabian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:44:00 PM EST
    There have been some Cinderella stories in politics.  Heck, Obama is one.  It usually requires the backing of multiple powerful people, plus significant natural talent.

    Caroline Kennedy doesn't appear to have the full package.  The right pedigree and some backing, yes.  The talents and skills any politician needs - not at the moment.  

    Why do people want to believe in such a narrative?  Do we really need a presidential candidate to be pure and unsullied?  (Even if it were possible.)

    I think she may have it (none / 0) (#79)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:16:20 AM EST
    but it remains to be seen.  In my opinion, just from observation and intuition, I think what we were seeing in Caroline was doubt.  I also think that perhaps the time just wasn't right for her personally.  I'm not yet convinced that she doesn't have what it takes.  If she decides she really wants to make politics her thing, and carry on the Kennedy legacy, so to speak, then we could see a transformation in her.  There was no passion in her during this pseudo campaign.  This little skirmish might be the thing that lights the fire in her, or it could be the thing that makes her say "I want no part of all of this."

    I didn't see any real political ambition in JFK Jr. either, but if the stories are true, it was there, but he had chosen to take his time with it.

    If she does decide to go for it at some point in the future, I hope that it is on her terms, when she's ready.  

    Parent

    Passion makes up for a lot. (none / 0) (#80)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:33:08 AM EST
    People love passion and conviction, even if they don't agree with a candidate's politics.  

    Parent
    So true (none / 0) (#83)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17:42 AM EST
    It will be interesting to see how it turns out.  I didn't have a strong opinion on this situation.  I think I purposely avoided having one.  I do feel great compassion for her though, and I don't think she deserved what she got from the media (both traditional and blogs, etc.).  I really didn't believe that she did this out of some sense of entitlement.  All the Kennedys were brought up to have a very strong sense of responsibility for public service, and from all the stories, they lived, ate and slept politics.  Even though Jackie Kennedy aimed to shelter her children and raise them differently, there was no escaping the culture of the clan.

    The passion wasn't in her eyes or if it was there, she hid it well.  In fact, just the other day, when I saw a clip of her walking on TV, I wondered if she had inherited some of her father's health issues or something.  Then recently I read that she had a condition - rh. arthritis I think.  Maybe what I was seeing in her was the chronic pain that comes with that -- something I can relate to.  It's really hard to be passionate when you're in pain every day.

    I do see that passion in Patrick Kennedy though.  Though I don't like to think about it, I wonder if Ted Kennedy will resign his seat because of the critical importance of Dem Senate votes.  Somehow I don't think he'll have the luxury of an extended recuperation period like Johnson did, because the situation has changed so much.  If he does step down, is Patrick a possible appointee?  Caroline?  Neither live in Massachusetts.  It could be said that they both live there part time, and I suppose exceptions could be made, but I really don't have any sense of who his successor would be.  It seems unlikely that there isn't a plan for this.

    One thing I do feel pretty confident about is that if she did win a Senate seat at some point, she would be light years better than at least half of our senators, and she would be reliable, and we need that badly in the Senate right now.

    Parent

    rheumatoid arthritis (none / 0) (#86)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:34:45 AM EST
    ow.

    Some health issues do not do well with increased stress.  Definitely something to consider if you have health problem.

    Parent

    Oh, please (none / 0) (#94)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    I can just imagine the scene in Massachusetts if Patrick decided to give up his House seat in RI and move there in order to run for Ted's.  Or Caroline move in from NY, for that matter.

    Listen, whatever folks outside the state think, Kennedys are not interchangeable, the Mass. Senate seat does nto belong to a Kennedy by birthright, and the state is crammed with first-rate, frustrated liberal pols who haven't been able to even dream about moving up because the two Ks have pretty much got locks on their Senate seats.

    Teddy actually looks pretty good, despite the occasional seizure, and he's getting new treatment, as I understand, that has a lot of promise.  So speculation about his imminent retirement is exceedlingly inapt.  He knows more about his health and prognosis than any of the rest of us, and he's certainly not sounding like he thinks he's going to have to quit and go home and die anytime soon.

    When he does retire, Massachusetts voters will take care of replacing him without any outside help from his relatives in other states.

    Sheesh.

    Parent

    LOL n/t (none / 0) (#107)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 06:16:32 PM EST


    Parent
    Difference with JFK Jr. (none / 0) (#93)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:18:56 PM EST
    is that he actually had thought about a lot of things, had opinions about them and was able to articulate them.  Caroline is what, 20 years older than JFK Jr. was when he died?

    Parent
    About half of that (none / 0) (#108)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 06:18:26 PM EST
    He was born in 1960, died in 99.  She was born in 1957.

    Parent
    The X Factor (none / 0) (#8)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 04:57:18 PM EST
    I think what many people are ignoring--or are just too polite to say---is that if her brother John was still alive, he would have been in the mix. Given that he's not, I can't help but feel that part of Caroline's motivation was in memory of her brother.

    I will never forgive---or forget---Paterson for this.

    Are you kidding? (5.00 / 10) (#13)
    by Anne on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:08:59 PM EST
    John's been dead for, what? - close to 10 years now?  If Caroline were motivated in her brother's name, she could probably have started by voting once in a while, don't you think?  And maybe shown some interest in politics and public service, or sleeves-rolled-up work raising money for progressive candidates.

    It's not like she doesn't have family galore who could have shown her how to do it - but the simple and obvious truth is that she didn't want to.

    How that becomes Paterson's fault is beyond me; I applaud his resistance to being steamrolled into anointing someone who just plain did not deserve it.

    Parent

    I agree- (5.00 / 4) (#48)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 08:12:02 PM EST
    The not voting thing really bothered me a bunch. As to John Jr, I believe he would have actually had a better chance of being appointed. BUT, he also was in the public eye a lot and had the celebrity status plus the name. He spoke at one of the conventions once and the crowd seemed in awe of him as they remembered his Dad and saw him as a potential up and comer. His life ended too quickly. I think CK enjoyed being around the political arena this year helped spur her on but she should have and should start out running for office rather than go for an appointment to be a Senator.

    Parent
    I did seem, though, (none / 0) (#82)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:41:11 AM EST
    like she may have been doing this for someone else.  Otherwise I agree with much of what you're saying, but I don't think you're judging her fairly.  It isn't fair to say that she was not interested in politics or public service.  She had a lot of responsibilities in representing her family, not only at state functions but for foundations, and she had her own causes.

    Best of all, in my opinion, is the interest she has taken in NYC Public Schools.  


    From 2002 through 2004, Kennedy worked as director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education. The three-day-a-week job paid her a salary of $1 and had the goal of raising private money for the New York City public schools.[22] In that capacity, she helped raise more than $65 million for the city's public schools.[23][3] She currently serves as one of two vice chairs of the board of directors of The Fund for Public Schools, a public-private partnership founded in 2002 to attract private funding for public schools in New York City.

    ...

    She is a member of the New York and Washington, D.C. bar associations. She is also a member of the boards of directors of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and is an honorary chair of the American Ballet Theatre.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kennedy#Public_career

    Plus, she's raised a family, gone through her mother's long, terminal illness, lost all of her immediate family at a relatively young age, and basically she seems to be the one who has had to take on the responsibilities for the JFK legacy for close to two decades now.

    About the voting, well that's something I really can't understand.  

    Parent

    You're mad because (none / 0) (#12)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:07:33 PM EST
    Paterson got in the way of a personal dream of the Presidency? Did I read you  correctly?

    Parent
    So... (none / 0) (#15)
    by delandjim on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:09:40 PM EST
    You wanted Caroline to be Senator?

    Parent
    Yes (none / 0) (#35)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:50:07 PM EST
    As a Long Islander, I had no problem with Caroline for Senator. My distaste for Paterson is solely for the way he and his staff has trashed Caroline in the past few days. That is what I find inexecusable. He didn't want to appoint her, fine. But that's no reason to drag her through the mud now.

    Parent
    Do you think it's OK for (none / 0) (#55)
    by ruffian on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:13:51 PM EST
    Kennedy's supporters to trash Paterson and Gillibrand? Lawrence O'Donnell in The New Yorker:

    "Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people," Lawrence O'Donnell says. "What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with."

    It's politics,not a garden party.

    Parent

    When did O'Donnell's piece (none / 0) (#64)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 09:49:30 PM EST
    appear in the New Yorker?

    Parent
    O'Donnell ceased being relevant (none / 0) (#87)
    by shoephone on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:43:20 AM EST
    the day "The West Wing" went off the air.

    Parent
    Fire With Fire (none / 0) (#78)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:03:58 AM EST
    And now Paterson is slinking off to Switzerland on a junket? Again, what a slimebag.

    Parent
    A Good Yarn? Really? (none / 0) (#27)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 05:55:12 PM EST
    Strikes me as nuts, too.  A fairy tale.

    Do all the Kennedys live in a bubble?  Don't they learn anything from their own political history and experience?

    If Teddy couldn't make it through a primary, how in Hell could Caroline?

    Yes.  It's nuts.

    I want some of whatever they're smokin'...

    I was being polite (none / 0) (#28)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:04:29 PM EST
    to a friend. Yes, I call Clemons a friend. Despite his enchant for Mo Do parties.

    Parent
    And despite his CDS. (5.00 / 2) (#30)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:24:40 PM EST
    Sigh...OK.

    You evidently have a more generous set of qualifications for friendship than I do, which means you no doubt have more friends!  Nice, when summer rolls around and invitations to picnics and barbecues start rolling in!

    Parent

    You think Clemons has CDS? (none / 0) (#36)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 06:53:34 PM EST
    I don't really see that. His commenters are another story. The regulars there are some of the most paranoid idiots in the blogsophere.

    Parent
    Yes, sad to say. (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by oldpro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:46:23 PM EST
    For some reason he sees anyone else's success as somehow a threat to Obama, whether it's the Clintons, Biden...anyone.

    He should have more confidence in Obama.  Even in junior high, kids usually learn that you can't build up one person by tearing down another.  Maybe it's catching from the commenters on the site.

    Obama doesn't need friends like Clemmons to defend him from the people he has chosen for his own team.  This year, and next, rooting for Obama means rooting for the Clintons and Joe Biden...and vice versa.

    Otherwise we're back in the circular firing squad.  The competition is over - at least for now.  Time to govern.

    Parent

    Well, his site is interesting-- (none / 0) (#45)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 07:48:16 PM EST
    it's a bunch of Arianna stuff with some good reporting.
    Anyway, he has refused to moderate comments, except only glancingly, which means that a certain paranoid fool dominates almost every thread.

    Parent
    urg (none / 0) (#68)
    by lilburro on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 10:14:39 PM EST
    reading through this thread, and all the machinations therein on the part of Patterson, Cuomo, Gillibrand, Kennedy...

    it just makes one sick.  I don't think the President is going to come from NY in 2016.  Though I still think Hillary has a chance.  18 million votes ain't nuthin.

    Might actually happen, sort of. (none / 0) (#70)
    by DaveOinSF on Sat Jan 24, 2009 at 11:21:26 PM EST
    Gillibrand '16

    And (none / 0) (#71)
    by TomStewart on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:20:02 AM EST
    She want's to bring back the Fairness Doctrine!

    Clemons gives no named sources (none / 0) (#84)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:36:53 AM EST
    and even after referring to shadowy sources, he admits that even they were speculating.  Then he implies that the Clintons were the overlords in the appointment.

    Why should I believe a word he says?


    Some of Ted Kennedy's loyal retainers have conveyed to me privately that the Senator... believed that Caroline needed to stand up and play the role he had given his deteriorating health. But the plan Ted "may have had", they say, had little to do with the New York Senate seat. It had to do with succeeding Obama in 2016.

    ...

     have no idea whether Ted Kennedy owned this narrative. All I know is that his friends and many key pillars of Kennedy Land believed that something along these lines is what animated Ted's highly strategic approach to Caroline's political future.

    ...

    And while Hillary Clinton, the woman Caroline tried to succeed in the Senate, is now Secretary of State -- it is clear that Obama still has some work to do to get the keys to the Bill/Hillary political franchise -- and that this derailment of Caroline Kennedy removes for the time being a threat to Hillary's longer term political interests.
    Plus (none / 0) (#85)
    by joanneleon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:37:29 AM EST
    he got Paterson's first name wrong.

    Parent
    A Good Yarn | 106 comments (106 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment