Caroline Kennedy clears political hurdle

Source: CNN

Caroline Kennedy appears to have cleared a big hurdle in her quest to replace outgoing New York Sen. Hillary Clinton.

New York Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, a powerful Democrat who has questioned whether Kennedy is the best choice to fill the likely vacant seat, said Wednesday he will support Kennedy should she ultimately be appointed to the post.

"I have determined there's a good possibility she will be the appointee of the governor," Silver told the New York Post. "If she is the appointee of the governor, I will certainly be supportive of her. I will work for her and will work strenuously for her election."

Silver's comments differ markedly from his statements last week, when he suggested Kennedy is too closely allied with Michael Bloomberg, the Republican-turned-Independent New York City Mayor....

In the interview with the Post, Silver acknowledged he is now more favorable of Kennedy than he was last week, and said she will likely help the governor get elected to a full term in 2010 if she is on the ballot herself....

Read more: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/01/01/kennedy-clears-political-hurtle/

All those private lunches, all that glad-handing, back room promises, endlessly reminding those questioning her background that genetically speaking -- she comes from great stock. :sarcasm:

Our founding fathers spin in their graves every time one of these self-appointed American Aristocracy(TM) appoints yet another generation of their own to RULE the masses they are so out of touch with.

You think he was really pissed that his son John Quincy became president?

They certainly would be rotating wildly at the idea that a family might supply father and son presidents.

Which other Kennedy was appointed to anything?

edit: other than Joe Kennedy, ambassador to england.

I'm ok with the point that Caroline's last name (oh and the fact that her father and her uncle were assassinated) gives her an unfair place at the head of the line. The point that somehow Kennedys are always getting themselves appointed to elected office just fails on the facts.

She has played her 'I'm Caroline Kennedy' card. It was always hers to play. She earned it.

I was a New York State resident when Bobby moved in and set up shop. I took a dim view of his behavior, but eventually came to be a Bobby Kennedy advocate.

You can dig up plenty of reasons to not support Caroline Kennedy for New York Senator if you want. But I bet that, when she makes it, she'll do well, and get elected in 2010, after people see what she can do.

Caroline Kennedy will be an upgrade for the Senate
Will help the Democratic Party's torch shine brightly
Will be an excellent Obama ally
And will make the reichwingers turn purple with rage and frustration.

Yes, many DU'ers seem to be having the same rage-and-frustration reaction, but I still think Caroline will do great.

in which representation is mandated, the current mechanism for same being appointment by governors of states or special elections in the event a Senator resigns, dies, cannot serve, or is otherwise incapacitated.

If you are arguing for uniformity in the selection by popular vote for replacement Senators, I applaud the notion but note that in New York State that is not the current mechanism, and that under the current mechanism, 'fame' or 'celebrity' is not a legal or otherwise disqualifyng factor for public office.

No governor who is mandated by law is under any prohibition in selecting replacement Senators save for those indicated in the Constitution.

Caroline Kennedy meets all criteria.

thing!!!

I've been afraid to think about it and
trying to prepare myself for disappointment
if she doesn't.

Maybe she will. Fingers, eys, and toes crossed...

She became not qualified when she said she would not run for any office if she's not appointed to the senate.

She's not committed to public service - will only serve if she's handed the job. Not qualified.

but maybe I misunderstood the story I thought I saw reported.

She will bring back the legacy of her family and help rebuild this country.

I think your post that she will "bring back the legacy of her family and help rebuild this country." is extremely weak beer. if that's what she's offering - no thanks.

She has no commitment to public service. If it's handed to her she will take it. Otherwise, no.

All you have to do is meet the constitutional criteria to be qualified. There are no other criteria. Its not a matter of you having an opinion because this isn't left up to opinion. Its left up to the standard of the law. It doesn't matter what you think, there is no argument to be had.

office, he or she qualifies.

That includes people who are famous and people who are not famous. It includes people who are only locally famous or people who are just kinda famous. It includes people who work in education, welding, garbage collection, insurance, medicine, and the blind woman who tunes pianos in Wichita, all in their respective states, all sanctioned if they meet those Constitutional criteria.

You can argue in New York State tht Moynihan would never have been a U.S. Senator absent his public profile bolstered significantly at the United Nations.

Bella Abzug, as Big Apple a personality as they come, almost defeated Moynihan for the nomination and in the process pretty much beat the crap out of him.

Hillary Clinton, whose seat is coming vacant, was not elected on the strength of her writing. She was elected because the State Democratic party cleared the path for her nomination and because it never hurts to have a husband who was president.

The difference is not that one famous person would be appointed and another elected, because the rules call for Paterson to appoint someone. It could be a welder or a First Lady or a Kennedy or a Cuomo or someone from the Congressional delegation or a piano tuner with red hair and freckles.

Once they meet Constitutional criteria, they qualify for the job.

been for at least 9 years at the time of the appointment if it materializes, and is a resident of New York State.

Those are the only 3 Constitutional qualifications for the position.

Caroline Kennedy meets all criteria.

The idea that someone can get in on last name only is Republican to me. If someone nominated Jeb Bush for the Senate because he's related to one president and one resident select, we'd all be screaming bloody murder.

If Obama's serious about unity, he should put a stop to this. It's bad when Republicans are beating their war drums over an issue and they actually have a point to it. CK's only marginally better at communicating than the Chimp is, and I for one refuse to believe that the identity of the man who impregnated her mother is a sufficient resume bullet for such a post.

Put Bill Clinton in instead; I'd like to see someone with equal or greater qualifications and accomplishment than Hillary's. The arrogance of CK really pisses me off; I've seen nothing to indicate she's more qualified than any New Yorker on DU.

Those for this job are in the Constitution.

CK meets all criteria.

I consider the public work of Caroline Kennedy and regard her as absolutely qualified. She is a Constitutional lawyer, by the way, not a bad thing to be after 8 years of the Bush administratin's callous disregard for the rule of law.

There are many ways to serve and therefore various persuasive 'qualifications' for a given post.

appointed to fill the seat vacated by their dead husband..

serve the public. Instead, she just wants to be a Senator.

Not qualified.

Why is she referred to of late as "Caroline Kennedy", not "Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg" ... which she was in the late-80's/90's ...


:shrug:

She never actually changed her name after she got married. So while some people, or even herself, may have referred to her as "Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg," legally she's just "Caroline Kennedy."

someone for the office of a Senator, it cannot be introduced as a disqualifying factor.

:shrug: What does that have to do with my question? :shrug:

She is a celebrity choice - and good for the party. Jesus, her dad was/is my hero, she is a good liberal. Further, she will have an AUDIENCE!! Imagine Arnold Snot-an-actor: he gets press because of his celebrity.

I don't give a damn.

All of us baby boomers hear "Kennedy" and we think of Camelot and glory days. That was then, this is now. Here is a scary thought: there might actually be people out there who might consider these to be the good old days.

I certainly think that CK is qualified to be Senator from New York, besides you know the repukes will say "why did they bitch about Sarah when they appoint CK" BUT we will have CK on our side and they will only have sarah, in their dreams the repukes wish they had someone as golden as Caroline Kennedy. I think the lot of you that are bitchin about her are "gone in the head". Who would YOU Like? Andrew Cuomo? He is a joke.

n/t

considered. ("were" considered, in Palin's case)

You may prefer other candidates in a given race. You may prefer other people not even running for office.

But Palin and Kennedy are green-lighted by the Constitution for their respective public service aspirations.

Kennedy is not committed to public service... that disqualifies her in my opinion.

I understand the distinction you are making, but it is not the one at hand for Governor Paterson.

There are three specific qualifications for that job. Caroline Kennedy meets all of them.

She said she won't run for public office unless she is appointed Senator.

That's the definition of unqualified: she doesn't want the job if she has to work for it.

she would not tie his hands or force his decision and that she would endorse his pick.

She's been working a long time, robcon. I doubt if that will suddenly stop this January or any time in the far future.

I don't think a characteriological case against Caroline Kennedy can be made.

Two wrongs don't make a right. Palin wasn't even remotely qualified, and neither is CK. They were simply both eligible for their prospective positions, not qualified. Neither seems to be able to speak much better than W, either.

Shouldn't we be at a higher level than the Repugs instead of sinking to theirs?

If you really have no problem with this, then don't bitch when someone appoints Jeb Bush or one of Tancredo's or Coburn's kids to the Senate, because it's not as if the Repugs will sit back and say "well, we really learned our lesson with the Kennedy thing, no more unqualified nominees for us, by golly!" They fight fire with fire with the best of them, whether they started the whole mess or not.

hope she joins toastmasters for awhile

With Clinton and Obama in DC, her bumbling communication skills will get real tired really fast.

reassert that a progressive woman in the United States should be considered a plus and not a minus. I do not see any reason why we should not have more, rather than fewer, progressive women. For most of its history, the Senate was a boys club. Let's liven the joint up a bit.

Additionally I am enthused that Caroline Kennedy, were she to be appointed to that seat, would be a loyal and vigorous ally of the new president. Change is almost always an uphill climb and it seems to me that she would almost certainly be a strong supporter of Obama's agenda.

I think she would handily carry the statewide election in New York in both 2010 and 2012, not only on the basis of her political celebrity but also on the notion that fundraising, an unpleasant but necessary element of politics, would simply not be a problem for Caroline Kennedy.

optimistic here:fistbump:

Happy New Year, Old Crusoe:party:

to appointments based on last name.

Bad example.

Caroline Kennedy is a constitutional lawyer, author, fund-raiser, etc.

which makes her infinitely more qualified for the job than the whiny idiots who falsely state she isn't.