Caroline Kennedy for HRC's Senate seat?

[Anonymous]

I'm inclined to agree with Marie Coco on this one.

Even a Kennedy Should Earn the Title
By Marie Cocco
WASHINGTON -- As a former New Yorker, I am occasionally obliged to ask impertinent questions. Such as:

How can Democrats, who ridiculed Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin as an inexperienced political wannabe, now embrace the idea of elevating Caroline Kennedy -- who hasn't served a day in public office -- to Hillary Clinton's New York Senate seat? How, indeed, can the same "progressives" who opposed Clinton's election as president because they were repelled by the notion of extending the "Clinton dynasty" now be keen on perpetuating the Kennedy dynasty through an appointment?

As a longtime admirer of Sen. Ted Kennedy, I am embarrassed.

The iconic Massachusetts senator and others in the family are actively promoting John F. Kennedy's daughter -- who famously shunned the gritty political world for the sanctuary of public service through her private endeavors -- to take the Senate seat once occupied by her late uncle, Robert F. Kennedy, and now held by Clinton. A decision on filling the vacancy should Clinton be confirmed as secretary of state is up to New York Gov. David Paterson, who could be forgiven, in moments like this, if he fleetingly wishes that he'd not ascended to the office after predecessor Eliot Spitzer's indiscretions.

What, exactly, is the case to be made for Caroline Kennedy?

Certainly she would bring her family's Rolodex, which is one route to credibility in a state where campaigns are extraordinarily costly -- a total of $96 million was spent on the 2000 Senate race.

An argument is also made that Kennedy would keep aflame the liberal dreams her father ignited decades ago, and which her Uncle Ted has ably nurtured throughout his career. No doubt she is bright and committed to public service.

But if these are the sole qualifications, plenty of New York Democrats meet them.

They are, as a group, a famously liberal bunch. None can plausibly argue that Attorney General Andrew Cuomo and members of the New York congressional delegation who are said to be interested in the seat aren't sufficiently committed to public service; they've spent their lives in it. As for naming a woman to the job, as Paterson is being pressured to do, New York has a trove of experienced political women who've proved themselves in the trenches. Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg isn't one of them. She's never taken the risk of running for office or sullied herself with the day-to-day messiness of public life.

Comparisons to Clinton's 2000 Senate bid are invalid. Clinton ran for the office, doggedly visiting all 62 counties and campaigning through long days and nights that took her from African-American churches in Brooklyn to Hudson Valley apple farms to agricultural fairs upstate. Her Republican opponent outspent her. The media coverage was relentless. Clinton won by a double-digit margin.

For all its cosmopolitan aura, New York's politics are defined by ancient grievances and clannish alliances. Ethnic and racial rivalries boil. There's an enduring rift between upstaters who resent New York City's dominance of state affairs, and downstate city and suburban residents who send most of the tax money to state coffers. Cuomo, one of Kennedy's chief rivals for the Senate appointment, is the former husband of one of her cousins.

Arcane squabbles routinely throw New York politics into utter turmoil. Example: Since Election Day, when Democrats wrested control of the state Senate from Republicans to gain full power for the first time since the New Deal, Albany has been consumed by a threat of three Democratic lawmakers to throw their support to Republicans, thus denying their own party the right to preside over the Senate chamber. Paterson was forced to broker a power-sharing solution to placate the dissidents -- a deal came just days ago.

A U.S. senator doesn't have to get into this swamp, but it's good to know how to navigate around it. Kennedy doesn't. Not that she couldn't learn.

In fact, if she wants to be senator, there is a path to the job -- the special election necessary to fill the Clinton seat in 2010, no matter who gets the interim appointment. A campaign would allow Kennedy to prove her mettle. Voters could take the measure of her as a potential leader, not as a celebrity.

I'm sure those in the far corners of the state would welcome her, just as they welcomed Clinton. A Kennedy is a big draw. And there isn't a county chairman alive who would pass up the chance to make the annual rubber-chicken dinner a certain sellout.

[Anonymous]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,24779771-2703,00.html

There’s always the nanny.

[Anonymous]

I do not think it is fair to compare C. Kennedy to Palin. CK is not trying to become VP.
That said, I hope that MS. Kennedy knows what she's in for.
I do however like the idea of more women senators, especially ones who have raised their kids. They bring a nice perspective to things.

[Anonymous]

Some may forget that Ted Kennedy was not always the grand old man of the Senate; he was the beneficiary of a situation similar to Beau Biden's. When Jack was elected, his college roommate was appointed to hold the seat until Ted was old enough to qualify. However, unlike Beau Biden, with experience as Delaware's AG, as well as Iraq service, Teddy had no visible background for the job. At least Caroline is not a callow thirty-year-old.

That Ted could start out as nepotism's poster-boy, go through Chappaquidic and a failed attempt to grab his paty's nomination from a sitting president, and end up as one of the great senators makes him a real come-back kid.

[Anonymous]

While I like Caroline, I also agree with the article. Caroline is an intelligent and accomplished woman, but I'm sure there are plenty of intelligent/accomplished women in NY who would also make good senators.

Besides her name, what makes her more qualified to be Senator than anyone else interested in the job/and the other intelligent/qualified women in NY? It just seems like she should have to do something to earn it rather than it being handed to her.

[Anonymous]

Agree. If CAroline wants it she should run. As a lifelong Democrat, I'm embarrassed by this possibility. But I have a question-- who is it that thinks this is a great idea?

Is it a generational thing? Is it other women who left the workforce and want their on-ramp straight to the top (not a slam, I'm a SAHM, but I know my career took a big hit because if it, we make choices, I guess unless we're Kennedys.) Aside from the folks who just want an Obama insider in there he can count on (like the got in Delaware) what is the legitimate argument for this appointment? It reeks of injustice, especially for those women who have slugged it out in NY Politics all these years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Agree. If CAroline wants it she should run. As a lifelong Democrat, I'm embarrassed by this possibility. But I have a question-- who is it that thinks this is a great idea?

Is it a generational thing? Is it other women who left the workforce and want their on-ramp straight to the top (not a slam, I'm a SAHM, but I know my career took a big hit because if it, we make choices, I guess unless we're Kennedys.) Aside from the folks who just want an Obama insider in there he can count on (like the got in Delaware) what is the legitimate argument for this appointment? It reeks of injustice, especially for those women who have slugged it out in NY Politics all these years.

OP here. There is no legitimate argument for the appointment, PP. But apparently Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid thinks it's a great idea. He called Governor Paterson to say so. Ted Kennedy is pushing it; he wants to have a Kennedy in the Senate when he's gone. I feel that the whole thing reeks not only of injustice, as you said, but of the entitlement that is so characteristic of the Kennedy family. Ted's Senate seat is one of the most flagrant examples, and then there's JFK appointing RFK attorney general when Bobby had never tried a single case in court. Not to mention the whole brother thing. I wondered what was up when Caroline dropped Schlossberg from her name. She's still married, of course, and until this year she went by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. Now she's just using Caroline Kennedy.

[Anonymous]

Just a short comment: What a handsome man her brother was!!!!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: I wondered what was up when Caroline dropped Schlossberg from her name. She's still married, of course, and until this year she went by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. Now she's just using Caroline Kennedy.

Is there a story there?

[Anonymous]

Yeah there's a story. Kathleen Kenndey Townsend lost her elections until she added Kennedy back into her name. Her recent dropping Schlossberg was indicative of her newfound interest in politics. 14:41 it bothered me too! I have followed her "career" as a Kennedy fan, wishing she would make something of herself, since the boys in her family all snatch up their advantages (as you pointed out). But I didn't want it this way. I wish she would run for real, not appointment, or do something else with all the opportunity she was handed. I am sick hearing people who haven't followed her wasted potential say she's "accomplished"-- are you kidding me? Sitting on boards and editing a few fluff books is not accomplished. And so many women in NY are actually accomplished and would be great Senators.

[Anonymous]

Is this really a surprise to anyone? You don't think we actually live in a meritocracy do you? Just think of all the money Caroline can bring to the Democratic party with her famous name and connections. No other candidate will have a chance against a woman who can have a fund raising clambake at Hyannis. This isn't a lot different from the Blago incident except that in that case, the candidates were better qualified. The NY seat is being sold for fame. Do we really need another Bush, Cuomo, Clinton or Kennedy in office?

I also get sick of hearing Caroline talk about her "lifelong commitment to public service" like it's been some huge sacrifice on her part. Well, she has two luxuries that 99% of the population do not have - a famous name and a huge trust fund. Wouldn't many of us rather spend our time doing good for others and attending galas instead of toiling away to provide for our families? Give me a break already.

[Anonymous]

Does anyone know what her net worth is? It must be huge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what her net worth is? It must be huge.

OP here. No, I don't know her net worth. JFK actually left Jackie and the children with comparatively little money, because his parents controlled the Kennedy pursestrings. Now, "comparatively little money" is a LOT of money to you and me (or at least to me ), but Jackie's marriage to Aristotle Onassis came about at least in part because she felt she needed a great deal more money to shield her children in the years following JFK's murder. That's where much of Caroline's current fortune came from, though she and John Jr. later received Kennedy family money. (And yes, John Jr. was just gorgeous!)

I guess part of what bothers me is that JFK had a family retainer tapped for his Senate seat -- his Harvard roommate, no less -- and that guy held the seat for 2 years until Ted was old enough to run for it. Similarly, Joe Biden has arranged for a placeholder for his seat until his son, Beau, can take it upon his return from Iraq in 2 years. And now we are going to get Caroline Kennedy, in large part because Ted wants it to happen. The comparison everyone is making is to Britain's House of Lords. But as Charles Krauthammer points out today (and I have agreed with him maybe three times in my reading of his column over the years), our Senate is turning into a House of Lords with House of Commons power. And it bugs me that my own party, the Democrats, are promulgating this so strongly. Ugh. But I have long been tired of the Senate being a rich man's game, with the Kohls and Corzines of the world buying seats, or buffoon entertainers like Fred Thompson and now Al Franken serving or seeking to serve there. Can't they at least confine themselves to the House, like Fred Grandy and Sonny Bono?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Does anyone know what her net worth is? It must be huge.

OP here. No, I don't know her net worth. JFK actually left Jackie and the children with comparatively little money, because his parents controlled the Kennedy pursestrings. Now, "comparatively little money" is a LOT of money to you and me (or at least to me ), but Jackie's marriage to Aristotle Onassis came about at least in part because she felt she needed a great deal more money to shield her children in the years following JFK's murder. That's where much of Caroline's current fortune came from, though she and John Jr. later received Kennedy family money. (And yes, John Jr. was just gorgeous!)

I guess part of what bothers me is that JFK had a family retainer tapped for his Senate seat -- his Harvard roommate, no less -- and that guy held the seat for 2 years until Ted was old enough to run for it. Similarly, Joe Biden has arranged for a placeholder for his seat until his son, Beau, can take it upon his return from Iraq in 2 years. And now we are going to get Caroline Kennedy, in large part because Ted wants it to happen. The comparison everyone is making is to Britain's House of Lords. But as Charles Krauthammer points out today (and I have agreed with him maybe three times in my reading of his column over the years), our Senate is turning into a House of Lords with House of Commons power. And it bugs me that my own party, the Democrats, are promulgating this so strongly. Ugh. But I have long been tired of the Senate being a rich man's game, with the Kohls and Corzines of the world buying seats, or buffoon entertainers like Fred Thompson and now Al Franken serving or seeking to serve there. Can't they at least confine themselves to the House, like Fred Grandy and Sonny Bono?

i have but one rebuttal to this. If congress turns in a house of lord/commons we have only ourselves to blame. Afterall we do have elections. Caroline will have to run in 2010 and the voters of NY will have the chance to have their say (assuming she get the job in the first place).

[Anonymous]

I don't necessarily mind having someone be a place filler (like with what happened with Ted and will with Beau Biden) because the candidates (Ted and Beau) will eventually have to campaign for the seat anyway.

With Caroline, it's just being handed to her without her having to do anything. If she is truly interested in the seat, she should at least get a place holder to keep the seat warm until 2010 and then run for it.