DECEMBER 16, 2008
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
A couple of things that bug me about the Caroline Kennedy craze:
1.) Why is it that it's gauche for everyone else to campaign for the Senate appointment but we plead with Caroline to do it and, when she finally does, pat her on the head like she's just learned to potty in the grown-up bathroom. As today's Times reports:
Ms. Kennedy ended weeks of silence with a series of rapid-fire phone calls to the state’s leading political figures, including Gov. David A. Paterson, in which she emphatically and enthusiastically declared herself interested in the seat, according to several people who received the calls.
“She told me she was interested in the position,” Mr. Paterson said at a news conference outside Albany on Monday. He added, “She’d like at some point to sit down and tell me what she thinks her qualifications are.”
I see the makings of a master legislator here. This week: a conversation with David Paterson. Next week: health care reform. It's a fairly linear progression.
2.) The same story reports that:
The person, who spoke on condition of anonymity to avoid antagonizing the governor, said that Mr. Paterson also had come to see Ms. Kennedy as a strong potential candidate whose appointment would keep a woman in the seat and whose personal connections would allow her to raise the roughly $70 million required to hold on to the seat in the coming years.
Under state law, Ms. Kennedy would have to run and win in 2010, to finish out the last two years of Mrs. Clinton’s term, and again in 2012, to win a term of her own.
Is that really true? Sure, Caroline knows a low of rich people. And a lot of rich people she doesn't know may give her money. But, even with that kind of network and name recognition, it still takes a ton of work to raise $70 million. Hillary Clinton probably had an even larger personal network in 2006 and even greater name recognition, plus she'd been in the Senate for six years, and she only raised about $50 million for her re-election campaign--and only about $40 million of it in 2005-06.
I have a hard time believing Caroline would come close to that. Fundraising on that scale is absolutely grueling work (just ask Rod Blagojevich), and Hillary was both good at it and willing to throw herself into it. Other than a stint raising money for New York City public schools (in which she didn't have to deal with those niggling campaign-finance restrictions; it's a lot easier to raise money in $2 million--or $50 million--increments than $2,000 increments), what indication is there that Kennedy can match this output, much less exceed it by a huge amount?
3.) The Times companion piece on Kennedy's qualifications includes this curiously worded sentence: "But friends and associates say that Ms. Kennedy, 51, is no dilettante, and that her career is replete with examples of the kind of hands-on policy work and behind-the-scenes maneuvering that could serve her well." Question: If you really weren't a dilettante, would the paper of record have to rely on "friends and associates" to vouch for you? Wouldn't you have, you know, some kind of public record? Current and former employees? Colleagues?
Anyway, here are a few examples of what said friends and associates had to offer:
As one might expect, she is also the consummate insider: When Rupert Murdoch’s young daughter was applying to the Brearley School, Ms. Kennedy, a board member who had attended the school and sent her two daughters there, wrote a letter of recommendation, a News Corporation spokeswoman confirmed. ...
They and several others, described a woman who is surprisingly down to earth: who carried sensible shoes in her bag for the walk home from a dressy event at Tavern on the Green; who declined a lift downtown when caught without an umbrella in a rainstorm, instead heading for the subway in a baseball cap; who does not shirk her periodic safety patrol duty, with its reflective vests and walkie-talkies, as a Collegiate School mom; who is an assiduous e-mailer, if not so fast at returning voice mail; who has a personal assistant, but does not use her as a gatekeeper the way so many not-so-famous people do; and who loves to play Running Charades, a version of the popular parlor game.
As I say, phone calls this week. Next week, the world.
Update: Commenter butchie b makes a good point--it's a little difficult to take someone seriously if they complained about Sarah Palin's qualifications but are now embracing Kennedy. Now, obviously, Palin was running for vice president (and was therefore a possible future president) while Kennedy is up for a Senate seat. On the other hand--and I'd never thought I'd write this sentence--Palin is vastly more qualified than Kennedy. I don't think it's a stretch to say that Kennedy is less qualified for the Senate than Palin was for the presidency.
--Noam Scheiber
56 comments
She hired some PR guru and he's laying it on way too thick - placing a story on the front page of the NYT to talk about school reccomendation letters? Embarassing.
I'm a sentimentalist and wouldn't mind if she got the seat at all, but most of my TNR friends and Noam are right - they talked me down from my Beatlemania tendencies (hattip Channy) and now I agree, it's just wrong.
But alas, I still wouldn't mind. She just needs to nuke this PR guy or at least reign him in, he's backfiring.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 12:19pm
This drives me absolutely out of my mind. Not only is Kennedy "qualified" merely on the basis of her money, name and connections, but she apparently can't be bothered to talk to the media. The credentials she floats are laughable, or would be if a Senate seat weren't in question.
From the Times, it also appears that the Kennedy family only just now realized that Ted is going to die one of these days, and that without him they MAY NOT HAVE A MEMBER IN THE SENATE! They seem to feel...what's the word, entitled to a seat, for some reason.
Why don't we just make her a duchess, and be done with it?
- drdannyu
December 16, 2008 at 12:36pm
I dunno about Caroline Kennedy, but I fully support Carrie the Crossing Guard.
- ratnerstar
December 16, 2008 at 12:37pm
Hlllary Clinton may have been a reverse-direction carpetbagger, but at least she was qualified for the office. To pick Caroline Kennedy over any of the 100,000 or more New Yorkers who are equally qualified for the job (let alone someone like Andrew Cuomo) would be to spit on the concept of meritocracy. Between NY and Illinois, the Dems are doing the GOP's job for them: imperiling what should be safe seats.
- Lymon1
December 16, 2008 at 12:41pm
Last night I heard an interview on NPR in which a journalist for the NYT was asked to list Ms. Kennedy's qualifications. He proceded to list them as:
1. She's smart
2. She's a great fundraiser
3. She's pretty
I think there may have been a forth qualification after that, but I didn't hear it because I couldn't stop laughing.
- mmussman
December 16, 2008 at 12:52pm
mmussman- I remember listening to that same interview, and having the same reaction you did, but I assumed I had misheard him. I thought maybe he said gritty? Because otherwise, that's about the dumbest thing anyone's said on this subject so far.
- ratnerstar
December 16, 2008 at 1:06pm
Another qualification that Caroline has, for what it's worth, is that she is, as far as I know, unsullied by the cesspool of New York politics.
- nbarry
December 16, 2008 at 1:26pm
"unsullied by the cesspool of New York politics."
I sort of agree, but I have to say that this seems to be the biggest DISqualification among the nay-sayers.
As for not having a "public record", you need to remember that this is the woman who escaped pretty much all forms of media attention while being one of the front people for Obama's VP selection committee. Seems to me she has a knack for staying out of the media spotlight, although the media seems to be using that against her now.
- GSpinks
December 16, 2008 at 1:45pm
The more is reported about Caroline Kennedy, the better she makes George W. Bush look. Embracing the family legacy of public service in middle age and jumping in at the top? As full of bathos as that is, it's a hell of a lot less pathetic at the age of 40 than at the age of 51.
On a personal level, I've turned down rides only to walk to the subway in the rain in a baseball cap. And I don't just bring sensible shoes to soirees, I wear sensible shoes all the time. I take my shifts in neighborhood and church volunteer committees, and I'm also reasonably good about returning email but not so much with voicemail. I love to play several parlor games, including the Name Game, and I'm nearly unbeaten, lifetime, in Trivial Pursuit. I'm kind to children and animals and I have a pretty voice. Can I be senator now?
- rhubarbs
December 16, 2008 at 2:15pm
Don't know about y'all but I'm giving everyone reflective vests this Holiday Season!
And sensible shoes!
And public transportation passes!
I always give myself a present, however, so as usual I'm saving the best for me: a tattoo for my lower belly with a downward-pointing arrow below the words "Suck this, Camelot."
- williamyard
December 16, 2008 at 2:24pm
GSpinks, if she wants to avoid all the icky and unseemly aspects of retail politics, then she shouldn't make a go at a Senate seat. If she expects public support, then she should be willing to submit to public scrutiny. And, since she HAS managed to avoid scrutiny all this time, and is expecting to land one of the most prestigious and powerful offices a person can hold in the United States, she should face MORE of a spotlight as compared to someone with a lengthy public record.
Or shall we just rename the Senate the House of Lords?
- drdannyu
December 16, 2008 at 2:28pm
No doubt y'all realize that if she gets a seat, all that disingenuous claptrap about Palin not being qualified goes right into the crapper.
Imagine that.
- butchie b
December 16, 2008 at 2:37pm
Sheesh. Why are we even talking about this? Even the people who are being paid to do it can't seem to come up with any real arguments in favor of gifting this woman a senate seat.
- selish70
December 16, 2008 at 2:41pm
butchie, I have no argument against what you say. While the stakes for VP are a lot higher than for one Senator out of 100, the substance of your point stands.
- drdannyu
December 16, 2008 at 2:59pm
Rhubs: Before the internet you'd have my support for senator, but now we have an online Name Game: http://cox-tv.com/namegame/
- Lymon1
December 16, 2008 at 3:04pm
I have an argument with butchie's comment - the assertion that saying Palin was unqualified was "disingenuous."
- MichLib
December 16, 2008 at 3:20pm
You people are seriously comparing a woman who wrote books on consitutional law to Sarah Palin? Man, the venom level is high on this site...
- CBGIslington
December 16, 2008 at 3:28pm
butchie, the cases are entirely different. No one is pushing Caroline Kennedy because they find her to be unusually physically attractive (I hope). That was Palin; Kennedy is all about the family connection. Palin was a token pick, whereas Kennedy would be a legacy pick, and though those are on the same coin, they're opposite sides. (I'm against them both, and they both piss me off, because for about 90 percent of the women in politics in either party, I would be inclined to support them purely for the sake of advancing the careers of women in politics. But instead of the many hundreds of actually qualified and deserving women in politics, the past couple of years have given us a president's wife, a one-bit town scold, and Caroline Kennedy.)
The thing about Palin was that she had a record of elected service, however paltry and embarrassing, by which reasonable people could form an opinion as to whether Palin would have been up to the job of being president. But there exists no evidence by which a reasonable person could even begin to form an opinion about Kennedy's qualifications for the office in question. Witness such absurdities as fawning reports that she knows how to use email and deigns sometimes to let rainwater touch her coat. We have every bit as much evidence that Caroline Kennedy would be a good plumber as we do that she would be a good senator. And so anyone who thinks it's a good idea to appoint her to the Senate but would not call her first if his toilet overflows is bullshitting us.
- rhubarbs
December 16, 2008 at 3:55pm
ratty, mmussman- I thought the guy said "gritty". It is true that I initially heard "pretty" but convinced myself otherwise.
"Gritty", by the way, is only a marginally more important qualification than "pretty" for being Senator.
And channy- Palin would still be unqualified. As is Kennedy.
- boneill
December 16, 2008 at 3:56pm
ratty, mmussman- I thought the guy said "gritty". It is true that I initially heard "pretty" but convinced myself otherwise.
"Gritty", by the way, is only a marginally more important qualification than "pretty" for being Senator.
And channy- Palin would still be unqualified. As is Kennedy.
- boneill
December 16, 2008 at 3:56pm
Here's another difference between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin... One is intelligent. Guess which one? :)
- MichLib
December 16, 2008 at 4:04pm
One crucial lingering misconception remaining from the Palin fiasco is that Sarah Palin's problem was her lack of "qualifications" to be vice president. Unlike ancient Rome,the US has no cursus honorum, a prescribed set of prior offices that "qualify" one for higher office. In the US,for better or worse,candidates put themselves forward for the offices they choose and voters make the judgment. Palin's problem wasn't a lack of qualifiications. Being a governor makes you "qualified" to be Vice President. Her problems were a lack of intelligence and a lack of relevant knowledge. Most writers, Noam Scheiber evidently included, considered not nice to say this and preferred to hide behind the "qualifications" dodge. This will cause endless trouble in the future, as it doing now, people debate Caroline Kennedy's qualifications to be a senator. As best I can tell, Caroline Kennedy is intelligent and knowledgeable. That puts her light years ahead of Sarah Palin. I have no view on whether she should be appointed senator but we please bury this "qualifications" crap before Sarah Palin returns, four years more "qualified' but just as stupid?
- Peterconn
December 16, 2008 at 4:15pm
Ok, how about Lou Reed? Larry Kramer?
Or how about ME? I'm a civic minded gal of the people and quick learner. I'm ready for my interview with the Gov. I can make my case (but I can't raise 70 mill).
Sarah Palin's views are mid-evil, science denying hooey and every word out of her mouth is a lie. Caroline is an unqualified dilitant yes, but she's at least got a brain in her skull.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 4:27pm
Yes, Wandrey, so far as we know, but so do I and millions of others. Caroline Kennedy is a dilletante, pure and simple. She has never, not once, evinced any interest in elective office. Oh, that's right, this isn't elective - yet.
I'm no Palin fan, but she has the gumption to run for office. Which is a lot more than I can say for Ms. Kennedy. And I do love the endearing liberal tic that says that as long as you have an advanced degree, you're qualified for high public office (unless, of course, your name happens to be G.W. Bush).
- butchie b
December 16, 2008 at 4:39pm
Thank you for reminding me "Palin was running for vice president (and was therefore a possible future president) while Kennedy is up for a Senate seat.". But didn't John McCain dilute the accepted qualification? His decades in Washington meant nothing during a single week in the middle of September and each week till election day Barack seemed more qualified or were we wrong?
No, Palin wasn't discounted because of her resume. She failed to earn respect the few times she was called upon to comment on prove she was thoughtful. Had Sarah done well for three months instead of flubbed every opportunity we'd not include her in any comparison.
But just to be sure, I took a quick look at the qualifications of the Republican Senators who behaved shamelessly last week. No, I can't claim they weren't qualified or that's why they walked away from the domestic auto industry. We can debate the value of seniority once one is elected. I believe Barack might argue that what he needs in the Senate are as many votes he can count as his.
When I think of who would be able to represent Obama's policies in the Senate, from health care to organized labor and education, to energy, the environment and all he's likely to present? Yeah, Caroline Kennedy will cover his back and that's the only qualification she needs for the next two years.
Then again, if hanging with hookers is not a disqualification I know of one New Yorker who has a great resume.
- michael
December 16, 2008 at 4:45pm
I like the plumber parallel, Rhubs. If Kennedy is serious about this seat, and actually deigns to acknowledge the concerns of people who will (one way or another) be voting on the matter in a couple of years, the least... the VERY least she could do is sit down for an interview.
As of now, that's the biggest parallel between her and Palin. Both are vying for offices they have/had no business seeking, and neither seems to think that it's important to talk with the press. I wasn't impressed last time, and I'm no more impressed now.
- drdannyu
December 16, 2008 at 4:49pm
butchie and Noam: The main problem with Palin wasn't her relative lack of experience in politics, and *I* certainly never said it was. She was a governor of a small state, after all, just as Bill Clinton had been. Indeed, many argued that Obama's qualifications were lacking, and I argued the opposing view. The main problem with Palin wasn't her resume but that she was obviously a moron who had never seriously or intelligently engaged with any important issue facing the country and showed no capacity to do so in the future. I don't know much about Caroline Kennedy's life and career. I know that she co-authored an excellent book about the Bill of Rights, which sits on my shelf. I know that she's an attorney involved in various philanthropic activities related to education. Beyond that, I know very little, and I agree that that's a light resume if there's not much more to know. But, let's be honest. She's not a dummy. She's not a bimbo. When I hear her speak, I don't want to blow my brains out. In fact, I like the cut of her jib. I find the spectacle of Palin winking and flirting and Jesusing her way to a national ticket to be far more grotesque than Kennedy lobbying for the (less-than-2-year) Senate appointment, which she would thereafter have to earn in a campaign. So, in not expressing what seems to me to be excessive outrage at the prospect, and in expressing horror at the prospect of a second-rate spokesmodel being a heartbeat away from the presidency, I'm not being inconsistent. Sorry.
- jhildner
December 16, 2008 at 4:51pm
Thank you Peterconn for saying much in few words: "I have no view on whether she should be appointed senator but we please bury this "qualifications" crap before Sarah Palin returns, four years more "qualified' but just as stupid?"
- michael
December 16, 2008 at 4:59pm
I will give you that butchie - Palin did run for office. In a state with the population of the Upper West Side, but still. She did run and win. She supported Pat Buchanan and ran up 27 million in debt in a town of 7000, but hey - she ran (I can't help myself butchie, I'm sorry).
I think Caroline is underestimated, she's highly respected here in the city for her work - which has been very smart, tightly run and innovative, especially in education.
But I can't make any sort of case for her based in logic, so I won't. This whole thing is just wrong and I know it. She'd best try for city council or mayor first, and then do it well. This reaction does remind me of the reaction to Hillary running for Senator though, check the record - she was lambasted in the same way, with the same words in fact. And those against Hillary were right too, using that family name and connections to so shamelessly line jump! The nerve? What did she know?
By all accounts, Hillary has been an outstanding Senator.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 5:04pm
I'm with you Michael, Spitzer is so wasted, he'd make a perfect Senator from NY. He's stupid, but he's brilliant.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 5:06pm
butchie is some kinda Palin lover for sure. It's not the advanced degree that's the qualification, it's the ability to FORM A SENTENCE!!!! How many times and ways must it be said that Sarah Palin is absolutely stupid and has nothing but her good looks and lack of shame to propel her forward?
- MichLib
December 16, 2008 at 5:16pm
I see a wave of comments here saying the same thing about Palin v. Kennedy -- that qualifications were never Palin's problem. It was her stupidity. I would add her meanness. I'm a pretty basic guy. I like smart people. I like nice people. I like honorable people. Palin proved to be none of those things.
- jhildner
December 16, 2008 at 5:36pm
No Butchie is a remarkably smart man who holds his cards close AND is a Republican, they do exist, but nobody knows it, the good ones let people like Kristol and Newt be the face of their party for some weird reason. They need a new set of media friendly, smart leaders. So far so bad,
I don't sense a huge support for Palin from Butchie, but a fair distaste for Dems somehow thinking they are above it all because, well - they're Dems. Well, we aren't above it all, although I'm as guilty of thinking we are as anyone.
We do skeevy moves all the time, but they are OUR skeevy moves. I just think when you throw Palin in to any conversation, the degeneration begins and its a free for all - one which I heartily enjoy jumping in to, but objectively all the man did was compare Palin and Kennedy's electoral experience, he didn't hail her as the second coming. And Kennedy has no electoral experience. Does is matter? That's another conversation, but its a fair point.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 5:40pm
How about a new blog-posting rule. It's similar to the "don't compare someone to Hitler" rule, except replace Hitler with Palin. (Did I just break the don't-compare-someone-to-Hitler rule? Unintentional. As Wandrey said, Palin is only "mid-evil," not full on evil.)
- jhildner
December 16, 2008 at 5:50pm
As someone who might become one of Ms. Kennedy's constituents, I am appalled at the prospect. I won't bother repeating all the excellent points that have been made.
One can argue about how Caroline's qualifications compare to Hillary's before Hillary was a senator. The important difference here is that Hillary got elected senator - not annointed.
"unsullied by the cesspool of New York politics"?!?! Over the years, I have had the opportunity to vote for two convicted felons and one corpse. That's why Hillary fits in so well here - she is originally from Illinois.
Speaking of felons... I am tired of all this crap about the magic of the Kennedy name. After John and Bobby, the gene pool thinned out considerably. Since 1968, the Kennedy name is much more closely associated with avoiding felony convictions than with public service. Given that background, I would argue that Caroline is much more qualifie to be a consigliere than a senator. And the good news is that consigliere is always an appointed position.
- felons
December 16, 2008 at 5:51pm
Ok felon, you make a food case.
It's just that all of the fund raisers and money people, all the local precinct workers, local public officials, the whole web of New York electoral politics simply moved over to Hillary on demand. Her way was greased in a way no other Senator could ever dream of.
It was as close to being handed to her as it could get. Now, it was not guarenteed because of the upstate farmers and I give Hillary enormous credit for patiently cultivating them, not to mention thier conservative representatives. She couldn't have won without them. But the idea that she started from scratch in any way is just not so. Hillary shoved aside several very qualified long term elected officals who had made their way up the ranks. At least Caroline has lived here her entire adult life.
But in any case, Caroline is not Hillary, the public barely knows her.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 6:11pm
sorry for my typo/spelling mistakes, I'm always in such a hurry, I don't make enough time for editing. Apologies.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 6:24pm
Wandreycer, you are right about the way the skids were greased for Hillary's first run. When Senator Moynihan first announced his retirement Congresswoman Nita Lowey - my representative at the time - announced her candidacy. She would have made a wonderful senator but for the fact that she was pressured to step aside for Hillary.
In the general election, one might argue that Hillary's celebrity ran against her. After Rudy Giuliniani dropped out of the race for health reasons, a disorganized GOP selected unknown Long Island Congressman Rick Lazio to oppose her. Notwithstanding the short time to organize, a lack of name recognition and a shortage of funds, Lazio came very close to winning. In fact, if not for that one huge gaffe at one of their debates, he very well might have won. Which brings me back to my point. With all of her celebrity and connections, Hillary still had to win the seat.
If we must have a celebrity appointed to fill the current vacancy, I prefer Fran Drescher to Caroline Kennedy.
- felons
December 16, 2008 at 6:31pm
Wow, Your juices are flowing again. Not only can we slam a new woman, but it will be OK to go back and tear up Sarah and Hillary. You know, I could get over this feeling that most of you really enjoy ripping up women who are interested in stepping up to the pollitical fray, if you would just show as much lip smacking glee at piling on a male ( or are they all perfect...no that's not it. Admit it . It's not as much fun.) Deb
- debbrodie@optonline.net
December 16, 2008 at 6:39pm
I hear you felons, I remember all that. If it makes you feel any better, I am the lone person open to Kennedy in the entire universe as we know it, probably even the Milky Way. I wouldn't say I'm an advocate, just nuetral to open. Literally everyone else is ready to riot in the streets and I support them too.
Reid just came out in support of her. What is that? Its getting weird out there.
P.S. Rick Lazio was really handsome and easily flustered by Hillary - remember when she threw him completely by telling him how handsome her staff found him? He turned purple.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 6:50pm
debbrodie - I am a woman and I find drivel like that to be an utter disgrace to feminism.
It's knee jerk vicitmology crap like that that has driven women like me, lifelong feminists, away from the whole simpering excuse making circus. The one thing I give Palin credit for is having nothing to do with this dead end thinking. Grow up.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 6:54pm
In fact Deb, you're the sexist - demanding the women be held to a different standard of behavior, have their sense of judgement be discussed politely although no man in politics has that luxury, demand that women be handed kid gloves because the patriarchy is so mean. That is the most sexist thing I have ever heard. Yes there's a patriarchy, yes there is white privledge, its unfair we should fight it and do etc. But the best way to fight it is to succeed anyway like so many of us do. Obama has done more to fight racism than any American ever has and he rarely, if ever mentions race and certainly not in an accusatory, poor me way. You bet he fought and fights racism, but he changes the field of play by succeeding anyway.
The worst thing to do is accuse people of sexism who are doing no such thing, insinuating that people love attacking women in a thread because it suits your biases and knee jerk whining. Ugh! You drive more people from you movement with that sexism and narcissim than anything else.
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 7:07pm
I dunno, just to piss everyone off, go Caroline Kennedy, I hope she gets the seat. Yeesh, it is a 2 year appointment, how many times have wives of Senators who drop dead get the seat out of sympathy. Caroline Kennedy lost all of her family, was forced to live (not by her choice) in the media spotlight her enitre life. Give her the frigging seat already, if she does fine vote for her in 2 years, if she bombs then I am sure someone else will run against her in the primaries. Most likely she will muddle along, be renominated and win and do so again 2 years later. As long as she votes Democratic I don't care at all how "qualified" she is.
- blackton
December 16, 2008 at 8:07pm
Well said, blackie. I don't quite get the anti-Caroline sentiment. I hear the arguments and understand them, but hey don't seem to justify the vitriol I'm hearing, or very strong emotions of any kind. Since when has politics been a meritocracy, free from any sort of last-name-related boost? As for the "anti-democratic" charge, *every* appointment is undemocratic. It's kinda how the system works. I guess I don't get what folks are afraid of here. This idea is hardly *repulsive*. I like her, so what the fuck?
- jhildner
December 16, 2008 at 8:43pm
Deb,
I disagree with the "Caroline dumping," but come on. It's not okay to pick on sister Sarah? Shit. Is there no woman it's okay to harshly criticize in your view? Men come in for it too, as far as I'm concerned. Bush is a male Palin, and I have happily ridiculed him for years. When you perceive any attack on a particular woman as an attack on all women, the problem is you.
- jhildner
December 16, 2008 at 8:47pm
As usual, jhildner and blackton make points better than I. I agree completely with you both - gracias!
- Wandreycer1
December 16, 2008 at 8:52pm
blackton, did I miss something or did the power of incumbency suddenly disappear? Yes, it's a two year appointment. But, once enthroned, she will hold the seat for as long as she wants it. Unless, as you suggest, she turns out to be a world class screw up. In which case, why does she merit consideration in the first place?
jhildner, why the vitriol? Because in all the discussion, I have seen absolutely nothing to indicate that she is qualified for the office. I have seen plenty of discussion about why she might not be unqualified, but that is hardly the same thing. She is being considered for one reason and one reason alone - her celebrity status. This would be like Paris Hilton or Joe the Plumber being appointed to an open Senate seat. I respect your opinion if you don't find that offensive. But it shouldn't be that much of a mystery why it is offensive to many.
I understand that even a meritocracy isn't all that meritocratic. Family connections, racism, wealth, sexism, the right school, etc. all skew the system. Perhaps you've never been denied a promotion - as I have - because a less qualified candidate came from a better school. Or perhaps you've never been denied a promotion - as my wife has - in favor of an unqualified male. I know that's how the system works, but it doesn't make it any less infuriating. Until someone can explain to me how this proposed Senate annoinment is any different, I reserve the right to let my blood boil.
- felons
December 17, 2008 at 2:27am
This is like the Iraq War, I agree with everyone.
- Wandreycer1
December 17, 2008 at 6:55am
"I hear the arguments and understand them, but hey don't seem to justify the vitriol I'm hearing, or very strong emotions of any kind.'
For my part, it's because a person like Nita Lowey or Nydia Velazquez - someone who has been doing the job well for years and may actually deserve a "promotion" - will suffer if this nonsense is permitted to happen. That is a little repulsive to me, yes.
- selish70
December 17, 2008 at 8:15am
Wandrey, thanks for the kind words. Glad I have you to interpret GOP speak to the rest of them.
No, I don't think all that much of Palin. I much prefer my guv, Crist (now married) and Jindal. Even Pawlenty. But I think y'all go a little overboard. If she is serious, she can study the issues. And yes, she can complete sentences. Her debate performance was OK. And like it or not, she is a rock star to many, and the more y'all look down your Dem noses at her, the more indies may decide to be on her side.
But all that's a long way off.
Why not Maloney, or some other non-Kennedy,/non-dynast?
- butchie b
December 17, 2008 at 11:14am
Wandre: may be late in the thread for you to see this, but Palin did not support Buchanan in that primary as was reported early-on, she supported Forbes.
- Lymon1
December 17, 2008 at 11:35am
felons: It's different, because politics doesn't resemble in any way, shape or form, the job market, and certainly not a mythical *fair* job market. Politics is literally a popularity contest. It always has been. We call it democracy. A career in politics must either be greased by preexisting connections to power (Bush) or else come from assiduously cultivating those connections from scratch (Obama). In no way does it resemble an open application process where, ideally, such connections are irrelevant. If any of this is new to you, I hope you're sitting down, because there's more. Andrew Cuomo is considered by many to be qualified, and yet he's where he is because of his last name. Hillary Clinton was considered by many to be qualified, and yet she's where she is because she was married to the president. Richard Daley obviously would not be mayor of Chicago if his name weren't Richard Daley. Ditto Illinois's attorney general, Lisa Madigan, who was ridiculed for not having enough experience and being a nepotism candidate (her father is the powerful Illinois speaker). What those people have in common is that they jumped the line because of their family connections and background and turned out to be widely seen as good choices. I never had a problem with Bush because he was a Bush. I never had a problem with Palin because she was a cutie-pie. The problem with those two is that they were idiots. You can't say the same about Caroline Kennedy, who is smart, has obviously spent a lot of time around politics and policy, has spent a lot of time raising money, and has her heart and mind in the right place on the issues, as far as I can tell. What's more, I think she would be very concerned with carrying on what she views to be the Kennedy legacy, and will want to do a good job. In all these respects, she is certainly not merely a celebrity, and I think you know that the comparison to Paris Hilton or Joe the Plumber is silly.
- jhildner
December 17, 2008 at 1:04pm
I spent part of today giving Kennedy grief for her Palin-esque stiffing of the press. But, now that I
- Anonymous
December 17, 2008 at 6:14pm
Hi, jhildner,
Your original question was why the vitriol. My answer was that it is infuriating when unqualified people get pushed ahead of more qualified people. So, I repeat the point I raised in my earlier post. Nobody, but nobody, has yet been able to explain why she is qualified. I have heard is a lot of assumptions - your most recent post for example. I have heard a lot of lame reasons about why she isn't unqualified - she wrote a book, she's a mother, she raised money for the school system. But not one word about why she is qualified.
My understanding of your point is that this is how the world works, so accept it. It's a reasonable position and I can see how someone could get there. I choose not to accept it. That's why the vitriol from me and from others. Why is this hard to understand?
As to your current post...
I understand that connections matter, family or otherwise. However, your response proves my point. All of the examples you cited were elected, not appointed. In fact, Richard M. Daley, the current Chicago mayor first won his seat in a special election where he defeated an appointed incumbent. You might have also mentioned David Paterson, the current governor of New York whose political career started when he was elected to the state senate seat once held by his father.
You wrote, "... Caroline Kennedy, who is smart, has obviously spent a lot of time around politics and policy, has spent a lot of time raising money, and has her heart and mind in the right place on the issues, as far as I can tell. What's more, I think she would be very concerned with carrying on what she views to be the Kennedy legacy, and will want to do a good job.' How would you know? The fact is that she has no public record on which we could even speculate what her positions are on anything. Does she have more intellectual curiosity than Sarah Palin? Are there skeletons in her closet? Is she more like her father or more like her cousin, Steven Smith? Nobody knows because she has avoided the public stabe for most of her life. Well, at least until recently when she decided it was time to fulfill her destiny.
Like you, my problem with Bush isn't the nepotism. It is his invincible resistance to thinking. If Caroline Kennedy had a public record of service, I wouldn't oppose her because of her family connections. I would judge her on the issues. The problem is that she offers nothing else but her celebrity. Which makes her exactly as qualified as Paris Hilton and Joe the Plumber.
I know plenty of smart people who have written books and have raised money. Why aren't they just as entitled to consideration? For that matter, I have run a business for twenty years and was president of my co-op for thirteen years. I think that record makes me less qualified than Sarah Palin. But more qualified than Caroline Kennedy.
- felons
December 18, 2008 at 12:19am
Okay, felons: I will admit that I basically like the cut of her jib, while Joe the Plumber and Sarah Palin make me want to, in the memorable phrase of Homer Simpson, "vomit in rage." I think that my impression, while formed on the basis of casual accumulated contacts with media reports, is probably on the mark. I could be wrong, and given the concern with her qualifications, I do not object, as Noam does, to her giving a few interviews today. But, let's be serious. We know what her basic policy orientation is. She's a Kennedy and a firm Obama supporter. There's no use in feigning bewilderment about that. At the very least, she will very likely be a reliable vote for Obama in the Senate. Other people would be too, of course, but suggesting that we have yet to take the measure of her positions on the matters of the day strikes me as reaching. We know from her books -- which are hardly trivial crap and much more than most politicians have ever produced -- that she's on the right side of civil liberties. We know from her family legacy-related activities that she's very invested in the family legacy. We know from the books she's edited that she's something of an idealist when it comes to public service. We know that being around her family at the very least means that she's "spent her life around politics." We know that that experience and her work on education in New York means that she's spent a lot of time around policy. We know that she's not a blithering idiot, unlike that more "qualified" Sarah Palin. Indeed, the fact that you could make an argument that Palin is more "qualified" for the vice-presidency than Kennedy is for the Senate proves my point. There's a danger in fetishizing resumes in politics, in that you might miss the forest through the trees. I would be far more concerned with appointing a qualified jackass than a less qualified decent sort.
There are always more "qualified" picks available. Most of the Democrats running in the primary were far more qualified than Obama, yet it was clear to me that Obama was the best choice. You object, "But Obama and all those other people you mentioned were elected." So they were. But election isn't an option this time for anyone. Your rule apparently is that, in the absence of an election, resume should take on much greater significance than it routinely takes on in elections. I'm not sure why that should be the case. I don't think I would have minded, for example, if Hillary Clinton had been appointed to serve less than two years the first time around. This is the governor's call, and he will have to take responsibility for it. If he's convinced that she would make a good choice, and defends the choice to the public, the public can accept it or reject it when she and/or he is up for reelection.
This seems to really grind people's gears because they see her as just some rich dilettante. I don't get that impression -- that she's merely a celebrity, and is otherwise vapid -- not by a long shot. So, this doesn't piss me off.
- jhildner
December 18, 2008 at 10:41am
jhildner - I think we have agreed to disagree. And I think we could both agree that Paterson could appoint some people who are a whole lot worse. Al Sharpton comes to mind for me. Anyway, Happy Holidays.
- felons
December 18, 2008 at 3:59pm