Why I’d Like to See Caroline Kennedy Appointed U.S. Senator

It seems that most of the reaction on DU to the possibility of Caroline Kennedy filling Hillary Clinton’s New York Senate seat has been negative. The two main reasons for that negative reaction appear to be: 1) That she doesn’t have much experience and therefore is less qualified to be a U.S. Senator than a lot of other people, and 2) That the decision to choose her would be based more on her name than on merit. First I’ll discuss my thoughts on the experience/qualification issue.


Thoughts on qualifications for U.S. Senator

I believe that, though experience is important, it is far less important than a lot of other things when judging a person’s qualifications for U.S. Senator – or President. If experience was the only important factor, then we would we would be better off sticking with Bush and Cheney for another 8 years. I believe that Barack Obama is eminently qualified to be President. But on paper his “experience” comes up quite a bit short compared to a lot of other people, including George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and John McCain. Despite that, we will be much better off with a President Obama than with a President Bush, Cheney, or McCain.

My single most important consideration for what we need in a U.S. Senator is someone who will provide a consistent and strong liberal voice and vote in the U.S. Senate. But “liberal” is just a label. So, to be more specific, I want us to have Senators who: 1) With respect to domestic affairs believe that government has a crucial role to play in ensuring that all of our fellow citizens have the opportunity for a decent and meaningful life; 2) With respect to foreign affairs believe that our country has no right to interfere with and ruin the lives of the people of other sovereign nations for the benefit of the American corporatocracy; and 3) Who believe that the rule of law applies to the wealthy and the well-connected as much as it does to anyone else, and that public officials who trash our Constitution must be held accountable.

That’s it in a nutshell. Compared to those beliefs, all the experience in the world means very little to me. And electability in future elections, of course, is another important consideration.


The meaning of having a celebrity name

A person would have to be seriously misinformed to believe that people who are closely genetically related are automatically similar to each other in all personality characteristics and abilities. Ironically, the Kennedy family provides one of the biggest proofs against that proposition – at least in one respect. Caroline Kennedy’s grandfather, Joe Kennedy – our former President’s father – was extremely conservative and even a Nazi sympathizer. In fact, President Roosevelt fired him as Ambassador to Great Britain largely because of his Nazi sympathies. Yet he fathered a long line of politically very liberal descendents.

Nevertheless, many personal traits and abilities tend to run in families. The Bush family, for example, appears to be comprised of an unusual number of crooks and psychopaths (I highly recommend Octafish’s many journal entries on the “Bush Family Evil Empire” for more information on that.) How much of that is genetic and how much of it is transmitted socially within families has been hotly debated since the development of the social and genetic sciences – or long before that. But few people would seriously argue against the proposition that personality traits tend to run in families.


The legacy of the Kennedy family

Some people refer to the Kennedy family as a “political dynasty”. I think that characterization is way off the mark. No doubt it potentially could have become a political dynasty. But the most politically successful Kennedy politician was assassinated after less than three years as President. The second most politically successful Kennedy was assassinated just a few months after he became a candidate for President. And the third has been a long term U.S. Senator. Some dynasty! But though the Kennedys have not built up anything resembling a political dynasty, they certainly have been a formidable force for liberalism in our country:

John F. Kennedy
Caroline’s father started off his political career and his Presidency somewhat to the right on questions of U.S. militarism – as were most Americans during the Cold War. He escalated our involvement in Vietnam (which he inherited from Eisenhower), and he began his presidency by invading Cuba. But he exhibited an extraordinary ability to learn from his mistakes.

A few months before he was assassinated, he gave a great and radical speech on behalf of peace that probably seemed terribly threatening to the military industrial complex. Here are some excerpts:


Six weeks later, Kennedy announced to the American people the first nuclear test ban treaty between the United States and the Soviet Union. He then undertook secret negotiations with Fidel Castro in an attempt to come to an accommodation with him. And, he began talking with his close associates about pulling out of Vietnam.

Four months later, Kennedy was assassinated, just short of Caroline’s 6th birthday.

In domestic affairs, JFK is best known for his stand on civil rights. On several occasions he employed federal troops to the South to advance the cause of civil rights. In June 1963, after employing federal marshals to Alabama to confront George Wallace’s attempt to block the admission of two African-American students to the University of Alabama, President Kennedy gave one of the greatest civil rights speeches ever, during which he proposed what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964 following his death. Here are some excerpts:


Bobby Kennedy
Caroline’s Uncle Bobby also began his political career with some rightward leanings, as a rabid anti-Communist and legal counsel for Joe McCarthy.

But as Attorney General during his brother’s Presidency he became a fervent supporter of civil rights, as well as perhaps the most aggressive pursuer of organized crime of any Attorney General in U.S. history. He said in a 1962 interview that Civil Rights was his most important task. Concerning the Brown v. Board of Education U.S. Supreme Court decision, which outlawed segregation in our schools, he said in a speech in Georgia:


Following his brother’s death, Bobby was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York, where he became a national leader in the Civil Rights movement. His Presidential campaign of 1968, during which he was assassinated, was characterized most prominently by his avid opposition to the Vietnam War.


Caroline pays tribute to Uncle Ted at the 2008 Democratic National Convention

Caroline’s tribute to her Uncle Ted at the 2008 Democratic National Convention, during which she also spoke in support of Senator Obama, shows very well what she thinks of the legacy of her father and his brothers, and what she thinks are the most important attributes of a U.S. Senator:



Commitment to our Constitution

Caroline earned a law degree from Columbia Law School. In 1991 she co-authored an excellent book, titled “In Our Defense – the Bill of Rights in Action”. I learned more about our Bill of Rights from reading her book than anything else I’ve ever read. Here is an excerpt from the introduction to the book:



Other Achievements

Caroline is one of the founders of the “Profiles in Courage Award”, and she wrote a book called “Profiles in Courage for our Time”. She was chief executive for the Office of Strategic Partnerships and helped raise $65 million for NY City’s public schools. She is President of the Kennedy Library Foundation, and Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.

In addition to speaking at the 2008 Democratic National Convention on behalf of Barack Obama and her Uncle Ted, she gave an electrifying speech (in my opinion) at the 2000 Democratic National Convention on behalf of Al Gore, which again shows us what is important to her:



Concluding thoughts

I’m not saying that I know that Caroline Kennedy is the best choice for the job. I don’t know enough about New York state politics to say something like that.

But I do strongly believe that our country needs a Senate that is substantially to the left of where it is now – one that will much more consistently represent the views and the needs of the American people. If there is another candidate who is likely to do that better than Caroline Kennedy and who also seems likely to be as electable as her in 2010, then fine.

I have heard some say that it is hypocritical to be in favor of a continuation of the Kennedy “dynasty”, when we would be horrified if, for example, Jeb Bush was to become our next President. But my objection to Jeb Bush being our next President has nothing to do with the fact that his brother and his father served as President for a total of 12 years. If their Presidencies had left our country better off than they found it, I wouldn’t have any automatic objections to another Bush Presidency. Or if, given the abysmal records of the two Bush Presidencies, Jeb Bush had spoken out against them or otherwise indicated that he was prepared to fight for the values and goals that I believe in and that I think our country needs, instead of having led voter purges that stole a Presidential election in 2000 and attempted to do so again in 2004, then I would be happy to consider voting for him if he ran for President.

Because I have a great deal of respect for Michael Moore, I’ll end this post with some of his views on this issue. I haven’t heard him weigh in on Caroline’s potential appointment to fill the New York Senate seat. But he did enthusiastically recommend her to be Senator Obama’s running mate, in an open letter:


And how wonderful it would be to have more U.S. Senators who respect our Constitution enough to vote against such abominations as the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006!

K&R

to fill the NY State Senate Seat. Enough dynasty and nobility! Camelot was a fantasy, we need REAL People who know what it's like to scrimp and save. Hell, I'd rather Fran Dresser fill the slot because she's not had every damn thing handed to her since birth. :thumbsdown:

So I assume you believe all of these current and former office holders should not have been elected because they weren't "real" people -- they were people who got their start in politics largely because of their name and family connections.

Nepotism: Favoritism shown or patronage granted to relatives, as in business.

This is not nepotism, unless Governor Patterson is a relative of hers.

Sure, let's be RULED by the power elite who are FILTHY RICH and do not truly understand the plight of the poor. :( :thumbsdown:

He inherited enough money that he probably didn't have to work a day in his life. That didn't stop him though.

the middle class in America's 21st Century.

WHY do you disrespect yourself to the point that you BELIEVE that those who have never had to hold down a minimum wage job OR worry about making ends meet should be pushed "to the front of the line" ahead of equally EXPERIENCED Americans who would serve the NY Senate Seat PROUD? They can RELATE to us, the rich and powerful will merely fight to keep the "status quo."

Or worked in a minimum wage job?

for the middle class, and, for that matter, for the poor than does Ted Kennedy.

And naive if people think the 'regular' folks will work harder for 'regular' people.

FDR: Most astute, Time for Change!
ER: Yes, Time for Change is such a dear.

No thanks.

I'll take a smart, effective, progressive person like Caroline Kennedy any day.

Even minimally, in a political context?

Hey, but why should you worry. You're not from NY.

her. At this point in time, twice as many New Yorkers support her proposed candidacy as support any other candidate (Cuomo being the 2nd highest).

She was effective in campaigning for Obama. And she has been highly effective in her job as the chief fundraiser for the NY City public schools.

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/12/12/could-caroline-kennedy-be-in-line-for-hillary-clintons-senate-seat.html?s_cid=rss:could-caroline-kennedy-be-in-line-for-hillary-clintons-senate-seat

"A lawyer, bestselling author, and champion fundraiser, Kennedy could have asked Obama to name her ambassador to France or to the U.K. (the latter a post held by her paternal grandfather), Andersen adds. But he observes that there is more to her than meets the camera lens capturing her handing out a "Profile in Courage" award in memory of her father or dazzling the crowd at an American Ballet Theatre gala. "She's a tremendous worker. She has tremendous stamina. In the way that Hillary is kind of a policy wonk, she is kind of a nonprofit wonk." She has helped to raise $350 million for New York Schools, among other causes."

It is.

U.S. News must have attributed every dollar donated to the NYC public schools since 2002 to her, even though she was only in that key fundraising position between 2002-2004, and has since been involved with a separate group (less demanding job) that raises money for the schools independently.

And that "best-selling author" is hilarious. Profiles in Courage for Today is the only book with which she's been involved that anybody's heard of (barely), and she only edited that.

Real non-profit "wonks" do exist, and they are interested in and aware of how bills affect their cause. Their organizations' websites encourage people to advocate certain position with one's members of Congress or State Legislature. Her group simply asks for money.

She did graduate from law school, but never practiced law.

I truly hope the appointment is not between Kennedy and Cuomo. Andrew Cuomo was surrounded by massive corrution while head of HUD. Some people see indications that he was involved in creating a housing bubble during that time.

Of the people who haven't removed their hats from the ring, I support Rep. Caroline Maloney.

from democrat's mind you, or one who claim to be anyway, that ANYONE Kennedy was the devil themself, and Caroline just seemed to fuel some kind of insane rage in quite a few DU'ers, I saw and expected it at the hate sites like dkos and freeperville, but was hoping for at least reasonable discussion of it, but it quickly degenerated into troll fests. nice compilation you put up there, I bookmarked it for reference later :)

:puke: :grr: :thumbsdown:

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I see no evidence that Caroline Kennedy is that interested in the political arena. While her credentials as a constitutional scholar are evident, she strikes me as someone who would not exactly thrive in the rough and tumble political swamp that is the U.S. Senate.

What I mostly see in the above presentation is an assumption that her family connections are sufficient to make her a Senator. And I honestly don't think that's enough.

My point is not at all that her family connections are sufficient to make her a good Senator.

This has little to do with family connections. My main point is that she believes in the values that I think our Senators and Congresspersons need to steer our country in the right direction.

The reason for discussion her family legacy is that she has obviously absorbed the values that made her father a great or potentially great president (if he would have lasted long enough to carry out some more of his plans) and her uncles exceptional Senators.

As far as someone who would "thrive in the rough and tumble political swamp", it's true that we don't have much of an idea how she would do with that. But that's not exactly at the top of my list either. I would MUCH rather have someone who fiercely believes in the values that I hold than someone who is skilled at playing political games. And maybe that's where her name would come in handy in relieving her of the need to play political games.

in an ideal world where her values would shine like a beacon and lead the others in the right direction. In reality, being in office means engaging in a series of compromises. And I doubt she has ever had to do that in her entire life. Being skilled at playing the political game is crucial to being an effective legislator. It doesn't mean that a politician must be corrupt -- Blagojevich is the extreme example of what none of us want. However, her name would not relieve her of any need to play political games during the actual work of being a Senator and passing legislation.

It would be nice if it were otherwise, but it's not.

Those are some of my favorite Senators

I'm not aware that they they have any particular expertise in playing political games. Maybe they do, but it certainly doesn't stand out.

Maybe one could say that they haven't been very effective because most of the rest of the Senate is way to their right, so their views seldom prevail. But as far as I'm concerned, that's why we need lots more senators like that. Our country is starting to move in a more progressive direction. A few more really liberal senators, and we just may reach a tipping point.

Wellstone) effective Senators means that they were very good at playing political games.

The one politician who probably plays the least games is Kucinich, and he, alas, isn't as effective as I wish he were.

I think the problem here might be in how each of us understands "playing political games". I see it as the wheeling and dealing that always goes on to pass legislation. It's the calculations involved in how the politician decides to vote on a particular issue or bill. To what extent he (or she, obviously) goes along with the party leadership on certain items.

It is not, in my opinion, simply grandstanding. It is exactly what every single elected official needs to do to succeed in office and to get re-elected. Now, if Ms. Kennedy winds up only serving until 2010 when a special election is then held to fill that seat, then she has absolutely no need whatsoever to do anything that remotely resembles "playing political games", regardless of how either you or I define that. But, if she accepts the appointment with the intention of remaining in that job, then she will need to learn how to play the game.

Her Uncle Ted is probably one of the very best at playing the game, which is why he is so good and effective a Senator. He's also, for the most part, dedicated to certain principals of service and championing the disadvantaged. I also admire him as a Senator tremendously, despite his less-than-perfect personal life. That doesn't matter to me when I think of what he's accomplished. He has also, for the most part, made the citizens of Massachusetts happy with what he's done for them, which is why they've returned him to office since he first ran in the special election in 1962.

In any case, I'm enjoying this dialog, especially since I finally figured out that we may be talking about slightly different things.

"The very fact that they are (or were, in the case of Wellstone) effective Senators means that they were very good at playing political games."?

You're right that these things need to be defined better. When I use the term "political games" here, I'm talking about taking positions that are to the right of what one really believes, in order to maintain their electability.

That is something that Wellstone rarely if ever did, and yet he got elected two (or three?) times, and was on the verge of being elected again (although it may have gotten him killed). Same thing with Feingold. Kennedy doesn't have to play political games like that because, as far as I can recall, his Senate seat has never been in jeopardy -- though he didn't do that when he ran for President either.

I think it has been proven that, at least in some cases, Senators don't have to do that to maintain their electability. I want to see a lot more of those kinds of Senators, and it is my belief that if we get enough of them we'll reach a tipping point where they will prove that it isn't necessary to suck up to corporate interests to get re-elected. The point is that the Senate is way to the right of the American people -- because of the corrupting influence of money in politics. If enough of them had the courage to stop playing these games, they could put an end to this, and we would have a much better country.

Caroline's gone out of her way to steer away from matters involving legislation.

She's worked hard at raising hundreds of millions of dollars for the NY public schools, in addition to other jobs. No one gets to be a 50 year old adult, working both as a lawyer and in other responsible positions, without learning to compromise.

So far she's been a stay-at-home mother who's headed the low-demand Kennedy library with a full staff to deal with the details. She's also regularly brought up her address book to call her wealthy friends to donate to mostly apolitical causes, until she tapped them this year for Obama. Then she asks Obama to swing the Senator position for her as though she thinks she paid for it!!

of Education, raising over $350 million dollars. She didn't accomplish this by calling up a few of her wealthy friends.

the OP of this thread is $65 million. And that was from 2002 until now. Do you have a link for your #?

But the issue was whether she had ever held the type of job that needed negotiating skills like those required in the Senate. Or ever took on a tough, many-faceted task. Can't see where what you just posted applies.

In fact, she's avoided those hands-on, policy-related jobs, and wants instead to jump into the highest-level position, where, if she prefers, she can continue to act as a figurehead, following the Dem leadership in her votes, making speeches, and cultivating her donors.

NY deserves better.

What kind of "tough, many-faceted task" has he had?

Most people would think that raising even $65 million as the NY Dept. of Education's chief fundraiser would be a significant accomplishment -- requiring plenty of arm-twisting and other negotiating skills. But she has raised many times more than that.

Here's the link you asked for:

http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/politics/2008/12/12/could-caroline-kennedy-be-in-line-for-hillary-clintons-senate-seat.html?s_cid=rss:could-caroline-kennedy-be-in-line-for-hillary-clintons-senate-seat

A lawyer, bestselling author, and champion fundraiser, Kennedy could have asked Obama to name her ambassador to France or to the U.K. (the latter a post held by her paternal grandfather), Andersen adds. But he observes that there is more to her than meets the camera lens capturing her handing out a "Profile in Courage" award in memory of her father or dazzling the crowd at an American Ballet Theatre gala. "She's a tremendous worker. She has tremendous stamina. In the way that Hillary is kind of a policy wonk, she is kind of a nonprofit wonk." She has helped to raise $350 million for New York Schools, among other causes.

radio show. The choice and interviews of his expert guests, and his commentary showed a "wonky", impressive grasp of wide-ranging public policy issues. He freqently related those issues to his own lower middle class childhood, and sometimes the poverty-stricken childhood of his wife.

Although he steered clear of using any material from his shows in his campaign for fear the opposition would take other parts of the show, and use them out-of-context, large segments of urban MN had heard him, and knew where he stood on a variety of issues. If there were anything comparable from CK, I'd be rooting for her.

I have seen no evidence that she thinks "she paid for it". If you have such evidence, hard evidence, pleast post a link to it.

"The reason for discussion her family legacy is that she has obviously absorbed the values that made her father a great or potentially great president"

Not obvious to me. She praised two other leaders for their accomplishments, but has been strikingly silent herself on the biggest issues of our time. If Obama starts to drag his feet on withdrawal from Iraq, as some have claimed his recent remarks presage, or if he opts to expand our military actions in Afghanistan way beyond the hunt for Al-Quaeda leaders to appease Blackwater et. al. thus continuing the ruinous cost, where would she stand?

http://www.barackobama.com/2008/01/26/caroline_kennedy_endorses_bara.php

"And when it comes to judgment, Barack Obama made the right call on the most important issue of our time by opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning."

She writes an excellent book on our Bill of Rights, and she gives speeches at Democratic National Conventions in which she clearly expresses her political views, and yet you accuse her of being "strikingly silent on the issues of our times."

she's not denying interest now.

I think you're underestimating her.

There are many good reasons for Governor Patterson to have offered Caroline Kennedy the position. While there are other good choices if she does not accept the position, those who are posting the anti-Caroline bits on DU have not identified a single good reason that she should not serve in the position.

BTW, Paterson is not courting a reluctant Caroline. She put out feelers for it. He doesn't seem to feel it's as much of a no-brainer as you do.

You support another candidate, and that is fine. Caroline Kennedy was not my first choice; I like Rep. Hinchey. But I understand the thinking that others have put into this. There's nothing I've said that would indicate that I think it's a "no-brainer," and tossing out things like that suggests the respect that I have for others' opinions is not found in everyone else's thinking. However, the truth is that Governor Patterson has offered the seat to Ms. Kennedy, and if she accepts the offer, I will support her 100%.

if that choice says anything about her critical thinking or her commitment to justice, we need to find someone better.

I'll say one thing for her-she stands a good chance of holding the seat against all comers in 2010 on name rec only. better than giulliani any day.

I have not read that book, nor the chapter on Ford. As a matter of fact, I recall seeing it in a book store a few months ago, and I was considering buying it, but when I saw that Ford was one of the recipients -- for his pardon of Nixon -- I decided not to buy it.

The fact that that particular chapter was written by Bob Woodward further decreases the chances that I might change my mind after reading the article. But I suppose it's possible that I might.

Anyhow, even if it does represent a lapse in judgment on Caroline's part, if we disqualified all our Congresspersons on the basis of a single lapse in judgment, we'd have precious few left.

You say in your earlier reply, "My main point is that she believes in the values that I think our Senators and Congresspersons need to steer our country in the right direction."

Now you say that upon looking at whom she decided to award with a "Profile in Courage" in her compilation, you're not sure you agree with her value judgements.

And yet you, who isn't a NYer, were motivated to write an advocacy article for NY DUers to read that tried to make it appear as though there is hard evidence that she would follow in her illustrious father's and uncles' footsteps. (People do write their Governor about momentous choices like this one.)

What were you thinking??

I say that I disagree with one judgment that she made -- the inclusion of an article in a book she edited that I think I disagree with (though I haven't read it), and for that I'm supposed to think that she is therefore disqualified for public life? I refute the perfectionist attitude that you seem to have that says that a single mistake or misjudgment disqualifies a person for public office. Nobody has a record that you seem to demand. Our greatest Presidents -- FDR and Lincoln --have made misjudgments.

As far as not being a New Yorker, that doesn't disqualify me from expressing my opinions on this. Most of what U.S. Senators do affect all Americans just as much as they affect the people from their own state. As far as my own Senators are concerned, I would much rather have Senators who do their job with concern for the national interest, and not just narrowly focused on their own state.

and her writings predict behavior that will follow the values of her father and uncles. Then in the only political act we can use to find out if that postulate is true (since she has a lifetime of avoiding political involvement), she breaks with those values. She decides to honor the exact opposite of defending the Constitution--defending the Constitution being her strongest suit according to you, based on her co-authorship of a book on the Bill of Rights. As a writer of the occasional OP myself, that would give me pause.

Yes, the best of our elected leaders have made a couple of real lulus in the course of their long and public careers. But those awards and her public support of Obama are the only times she stepped out into the real world making choices that show how closely she ties her actions to her espoused principles--how well she connects the dots. Given the tremendous variety of people, including tens of thousands of college students, who were early Obama supporters, her support of Obama tells me little other than that she considers herself a Democrat who wants an end to racism, and has decided that at this time in her life that she wants to be politically active. So far, so good. However her celebration of Ford's pardon of Nixon shows that she shares what legions of progressive NYers consider Obama's weakest tendencies--sometimes valuing bipartisanship above important policy considerations, and a willingness to think that victories of the power elite are inevitable, as in Obama's FISA vote and his failure to seek a hearing of economists and change in the bank bailout bill prior to its passage.

New York is a particularly blue state with a large majority opposing widespread militarism in the Middle East (even though we want Israel defended). If Obama drags his feet on the Iraq withdrawal, giving in to the interests of big oil, I think most NYers want a Senator who will pressure Obama to keep his campaign promises. We want the robowingers who are lawyers in the DOJ simply because they agreed to persecute Democrats rooted out so that the department can enforce the law free of bias into the future, not just kept tame while Obama is President. We want a rollback of the last minute anti-environmental regulations and recategorizing of partisan high officials as civil servants. And we want a Senator who has the know-how and political sophistication to fight for these things, even if the President wavers.

She also first has to know these problems exist. I've seen no indication that Caroline Kennedy has been keeping a close eye on the doings of government--that she's been a political junkie like, say, DUers. Quite the opposite. Until last spring she seems to have considered herself too busy with non-political charitable work and her family to have time to take political positions on issues. The average Hollywood star has made more political statements than she has.

Kennedy is demonstrably devoid of political tactical experience, and probably ignorant of most of the details of policy and policy history, and, as the saying goes, the devil is in the details. She would have to learn both these enormous areas of expertise on the job, unlike any member of the House, head of a large NYS dept., or even president of a public interest NGO. You tacitly acknowledge this by saying you base your support of her on the reliability of her values. Then, when she fails in the only public test of those values--who to commend with her awards--you not only retain your support, you take it upon yourself to build a case for her in a forum that includes NYers who may phone the Governor to call for her appointment based on your skewed article.

That is what I am saying.

I haven't even read Woodward's article. Maybe Woodward disagreed with Ford's decision but thought it was courageous anyhow. Or maybe Caroline Kennedy thought it was a courageous act, even though she disagreed with the pardon. Or maybe she was abhorred by Nixon's disregard for our Constitution but felt that uniting/healing our country was a more important consideration than prosecuting Nixon for his crimes. I have no idea about this since I didn't read the article.

I do believe that she has a great deal of respect for our Constitution because she co-wrote a book about it. How many people can say that? She might have even voted against the PATRIOT Act had she been a Senator at the time -- which would have doubled the total of Senators voting against it. But you're right, I really don't know. But I'm certainly not going to hold against her her including Woodward's article in her book, not even having read it. Nor would I generally change my opinion about a person because of one thing that I disagreed with them about. I have disagreed with Obama on several issues, and I have expressed my opinion on them, but I still believe that he will make a fine President.

My article was not skewed. I clearly stated my reasons for why I would like to see her as a Senator. You disagree with my reasoning, fine. But you exhibit an extraordinary degree of arrogance and intolerence to other peoples' opinions. You can't accept that someone else may honestly see things differently than you do. My opinions of Caroline Kennedy are based on hearing what she has said and reading what she's wrote and yes, by the example that her father and her uncles set for her. You think that none of that is important. That's your right, but I find your certain knowledge that she would be a poor Senator because of her lack of experience in the things that you consider to be important to be arrogant.

be in over her head. Being a Senator isn't something a basically apolitical person picks up like learning a language while living abroad.

The more I learn about her, the more I think that she will be a powerful force for the people of New York, and for the values of her father and uncles.

ed: to make "uncle" plural.

I'm of the John Kennedy generation. As a kid, I was moved by his
spirit and I felt energized by what he said. Yes, I wasn't a cynical
adult like I am today.

I view Ms. Kennedy, his daughter, as a symbol of what JFK seemed to me
to set out to do, along with his brother--both brought down by cynical,
military, and corporate interests.

So, I'm emotionally biased, I admit.

If Ms. Kennedy would not just be a back bencher, but an active voice,
a rallying voice and spirit for Progressive values, then I'd want her
to serve in the Senate. The Senate, which has become the 'stupid and biased'
upper house of Congress--dominated in the past by the mean spirited Republicans,
who have detested American citizens so much that everyone today realizes it.

If, on the other hand she plans to be a silent 'peer Senator,' then no, she should
not serve and let someone with passion, drive, and vision, represent New Yorkers.

I think it is up to Ms. Kennedy to decide if she has the strength to prod, poke,
and lead, then let her in!

imho.

it is unusually for a first term U.S. Senator to play much of a leading role.

If she turned out to be close to the caliber of either of her two uncles, I say let her in. I think that she has enough admiration for them that she would make every effort to do that.

to determine if they, themselves, are up to the job?? It says a lot that her activities so far don't reveal to outsiders if she is. It means that this 51 yo, privileged, well-educated woman has chosen to stay aloof from decisions about which candidates or what legislation would benefit her favorite causes.

It's even impossible to tell how smart she is. She had a "co-author" for one book, was only the compiler for the other. In the world of politics one never knows how much input the orator has had in their speech. For someone traveling in the moneyed pinnacle of society, fundraising with the help of a personal assistant is not terribly challenging.

I think you nailed it when it comes to the big "If", but since her lack of political or closely related experience keeps us from knowing which way she'd go, it seems seriously wrong-headed to put her in to this powerful post. She needs both to learn in a less critical situation, and to demonstrate her capabilities. The fact that she's avoided getting into the nuts and bolts of legislation so far, even from an NGO position, suggests that she'd behave as the figurehead she's been so far, leaving it to others, most likely Obama and the Senate Democratic leadership, to determine the details of her choices, rather than wade in and weigh for herself the various impacts of legislation on NYers.

The vibrant, complex state of New York deserves better.

You write, "And how wonderful it would be to have more U.S. Senators who respect our Constitution enough to vote against such abominations as the PATRIOT Act and the Military Commissions Act of 2006!" New York has Members of Congress, such as Jerry Nadler, who did vote against those bills, and against the Iraq War Resolution, too. I respect Caroline Kennedy but my preference is for someone who's proved himself or herself in the legislative arena.

I said

"I’m not saying that I know that Caroline Kennedy is the best choice for the job. I don’t know enough about New York state politics to say something like that.

But I do strongly believe that our country needs a Senate that is substantially to the left of where it is now – one that will much more consistently represent the views and the needs of the American people. If there is another candidate who is likely to do that better than Caroline Kennedy and who also seems likely to be as electable as her in 2010, then fine."

It seemed inconsistent with your headline.

I read the headline as "Caroline Kennedy is my pick for the job." Perhaps I should have read it as, "If she's the appointee, I'll be happy, but there are also other appointments that would make me happy."

We can trust Paterson not to appoint some right-winger. Whether it's Kennedy or someone else, the odds are that the next Senator from New York will be better than the average Senate Democrat.

I'd be happy if she was appointed because I believe that she would follow in the footsteps of her father and uncles, which would be very good for our country.

I don't know enough about others who are under consideration to say the same about them.

I'd like to see Kennedy get this and, there's so much I don't know about the issue, such as who is in the pool of contenders, what the political considerations are for them and so on.

I never knew how active Kennedy was and certainly didn't know how much she's raised for New York schools. Thank you, TFC.

Time will prove that. Wisdom is justified by her children.

but I don't really see the appeal of Senator Caroline Kennedy. Also we don't know if she could run a competent campaign, a factor that is more important than actual competence IMO.

She has more money than G-d, and can buy all the expertise she needs. As a NYer, I kinda think on-the-job competence has more than a little importance. She would have to develop that on the job, and no one knows how long that would take or if she even has what it takes to do so.

The intricacies of legislation, and the dance needed to be listened to in the Senate, are not things learned by fundraising from a billion dollar address book or making a few pretty speeches.

You have a couple of paragraphs speculating whether she is likely to be similar politically to her uncles. There's no way to know, because she hasn't been politically active at all save recent fundraising for Obama. She hasn't even had a working position in an issue-oriented NGO. Hillary Clinton had been counsel for two NGO's (and believe me if you're going to defend a group in court, you have to know the issues), been on the independent counsel's staff for the Nixon impeachment, and advocated for three major measures before Congress during the Clinton Presidency before she ran for Senate.

For lack of anything else to point to, people make a big deal of her fundraising for NYC public schools. If she'd been at all politically savvy, she would have known that the main reason for the schools' dire straits is that NYC has had 2 terms of a mayor who has spent $1/2 billion on Yankee Stadium between subsidies and the interest on tax-exempt bonds, and about the same on refurbishing the Jets Arena, and won't tax large developers and big real estate cos. appropriately. Bankrolling a serious opponent to Bloomberg's second term would have helped the schools much more than charity. Finding a few $million for a cause takes about as much effort and expertise for someone with her wealthy friends as it would take for you or I to collect for a used clothing drive.

She made a choice not to be involved all these years. It's fine to prioritize mothering, but mothers who expect to end up in the Senate when their kids are teens, make time to get hands-on experience and learn enough about important issues to take positions.

We don't even know how much of that Bill of Rights book so many years ago was written by her and how much was her co-author's.

Even worse, she went to Obama, not Paterson, first to "express interest" in the position. That already indicates tone-deafness to ethics issues. She gets him a lot of money and then asks for the highest political position below President w/o any visible qualifications. People like her are normally rewarded by the new President with an ambassadorship.

The fallout for NYers is a little more important to us who live here than for you or Mr. Moore. During this time of crisis we simply can't afford a Senator who is not well enough informed and too beholden to be able to distinguish between NY's well-being and Obama's.

As for things Kennedy might miss in terms of NYS's interest, that, say, Rep. Maloney, would not, I'll give a couple of hypotheticals.

Let's say the head of Obama's jobs stimulus plan decided that industry revitalization money for the Northeast should all go to the Rust Belt states that have a history of industrialization, and omit upstate NY, which only has a history of abject poverty. A novice might find that perfectly reasonable.

Or let's say Obama's plan for SCHIP didn't allow coverage for adults above Medicaid but still impoverished due to NYS's high cost of living. Would Kennedy even know that NYS has already been funding that, and desperately needs federal help with the cost?

These exact things might never come up, but others like them probably will.

Let her show her competence in a couple of jobs where a newbie mistake would be less disastrous, and then stand up for the Senate, like Barbara Boxer did when she decided her children were old enough for her to go into politics.

I don't think the position of Senator from NY should be bought, and I rather resent out-of-staters telling us NYers that it should.

Now you claim that I'm proposing that the US Senator position from NY should be bought. On what basis? Because you don't agree with my position. I'm not aware that she's tried to buy the position, and if I was aware of that, I wouldn't approve of it. Where is your evidence that she's tried to buy the position?

Do you think that if she decided to pop out of her apolitical woodwork when Clinton was first named most likely to get SOS, without Kennedy having gathered piles of money for Obama, the powers that be would have given serious thought to her interest in the Senate spot? That name recognition and her limited background alone would have been enough?

Even now, the US News article supporting the appointment that was cited above, says that "she could have asked to be named ambassador to France", tacitly acknowleging the usual reward for a member of high society who is a mega-fundraiser for a winning Presidential campaign.

I think she'd make a wonderful ambassador to France.

How the hell do you know that she's only being considered because of her fundraising for Obama? I've asked you several times for evidence for your unsupported assertions. But you just ignore that and continue spouting the same thing over and over again.

possibly be called "apolitical"?

Maybe she is too "high society" for those grassroots activists that populate the Senate?

not because the city had no money, but because it had a mayor who prioritized sports stadiums over education, and who wouldn't tax real estate magnates appropriately, and for her not to back a serious opponent to his 2nd term to correct the root cause. And it is apolitical to be "working for the schools" and not use a high-profile name to advocate for the efforts in Albany and D.C. to advance measures to improve the situation, such as federal funding for "no child left behind" mandates. People may differ on which approach is best, but her choice to go the apolitcal route is undeniable.

While fundraising for the NAACP is admirable and shows sympathy for equality of opportunity, again she did not, for instance, write an op-ed to the NYT in support of continuing affirmative action, or otherwise go out into the public or legislative sphere on their behalf. She has intentionally limited her activities to those which are not applicable to the duties of a Senator, although I'm sure she'd be superb at raising funds for her campaign. That's not snark, it's just a factual assessment.

or for working for the NAACP.

You are mistaking your way for someone else's way. Someone else's very effective way, for that matter.

She did not "write" Profiles in Courage for Our Time, she edited it. She is not "Director" of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, she is a director of those organizations which normally means the person goes to a board meeting once a quarter, lends one's name to the letterhead, and sells a some high-rollers benefit tickets once or twice a year.

Yes, she did give those speeches for her uncle Ted and for Gore. She did not choose Ted Kennedy's list of accomplishments; his staff would have provided the list of his greatest achievements, so they are no indication of what she would want to or be able to accomplish herself. The Gore speech indicates she is sympathetic to rich people sharing their wealth with those less fortunate--nice, and a great improvement over the sentiments of the Bush cabal. However no speech is a substitute for experience with the hands on give and take of getting things done in the complex world of politics, or even public interest lobbying. It's just so special that you want NY citizens to accept a total legislative neophyte--she doesn't even have a summer as an intern in her resume--as Senator because her heart may be in the right place.

Michael Moore was wrong in saying she was in charge of Obama's VP search. She was given the responsibility for vetting the candidates who the campaign was considering, meaning that she used her important name and social graces to get people to answer uncomfortable questions the campaign wanted answered to make sure there were no unwelcome surprises later.

I'm going to have to read your future OP's with a lot more careful eye than I have in the past.

You call me a liar because I say she wrote a book instead of edited it (even though she wrote other books). Ok, excuse me, I mis-spoke that. I've edited and wrote a book myself, and I can tell you that as far as I'm concerned editing a book is more difficult than writing one.

And you're not willing to give her any credit for the speeches she gives because they may have been written by someone else. So your point is that you can't tell anything about a person by the speeches they give. That's absurd. I guess then that there is no point in listening to what anyone has to say, or what they write, because some of it may have been written by someone else. You say that her speeches are NO indication of what she believes. That's one of the most ridiculous things I've ever heard. What planet are you from?

And do you actually believe that Americans citizens have no right to be interested in or concerned about or say anything about Senate candidates from other states -- as if we have no stake in the matter?

as well as saying she wrote a book she didn't. (She was the editor because she solicited the contributions and her organization published it. She may or may not have come up with the simple conception. I don't think she did the copyreading or abridging herself, and I doubt you think so either.) That's not "mis-speaking", but perhaps you merely got carried away in your advocacy, as your previous articles seem pretty accurate as far as I can tell.

I've made it clear why I feel her speeches reveal little about her qualifications. Reciting a list of a renowned relative's most respected achievements as provided by the relative's staff, doesn't mean she'd take those same actions herself. She was not making a political speech outlining her goals. If she were, I'd give tremendous weight to what she said.

In the Gore speech you called "electrifying", she was representing her family, and the speech itself was generically Democratic in the principles it voiced. I've heard them dozens of times at county conventions made by low-level party leaders and candidates. It was even tone-deaf to the reality that some of the delegates and others in the audience weren't among the privileged, and were in fact among those who are barely getting by.

I make much of the fact that though her primary fundraising has been on behalf of education, she hasn't gone to Albany or Washington and taken advantage of her name to make speeches on behalf of measures important to education, such as demanding federal funding for the mandates in "no child left behind". I would have given them tremendous weight.

What I say is that she has been almost allergic to political activity until now, and now she wants to jump in to represent NY in the country's most powerful deliberative body. And your case for her is so weak that you felt you had to misstate it.

because of her fundraising for Obama.

to whom to appeal for action on issues important to us including for our basic well-being. While it is possible that Caroline Kennedy could do the job competently, her life not only shows no related experience, but indicates that she has avoided all public tasks other than fundraising from other ultra-wealthy people like herself. Articles about her emphasize that she has "jealously guarded her privacy". That is until campaigning this year for Obama. She still has no experience in the nitty-gritty of issues and policy.

So there is the certainty that she would have to learn the relationship of each bill to the welfare of NYers and to measures in existence in NYS law, as they come up. There is the certainty that she would have to learn the art of political horsetrading (getting a better count on how a bill stands than your colleague has, so you can trade what you know will be a useless vote for a valuable vote from your colleague) and how to drive a hard bargain in the interest of her constituency. At this time of crisis on many fronts, that means a certainty that there will be important opportunities missed.

Then there is a real possibility that as someone who would owe her position to the support of the new President (almost no one with clout in NY politics has recommended her), and who is not politically experienced, she might, how shall I say, be overgenerous in accepting Obama recommendations uncritically. During the rush to the bailout, I gave a Schumer staffer links to articles from prominent economists that I believe led in part to Schumer's consistent, forceful demands to limit the bailout in amount, and to break it up to allow Congress to withold much of the money if the first installment showed that approach was wrong. He got much less than what he asked for, but not through lack of trying. And this even though Wall St. is a portion of his constituency. I think I have good reason to fear that if progressive NYers similarly try to provide evidence to Kennedy that an Obama proposal would be bad for NY or the country, she would be unreceptive, truly believing the new President to be above making an error of any importance. This is especially worrisome given that Obama still clings to the failed banker Rubin and protegees as a major source of advice.

There is also the obvious possibility that she may not end up being good at the job. Her appointment would be basically a crapshoot in a way unprecedented for a Senator from a major state.

It's pretty unimportant whether I've surmised rightly or wrongly that her fundraising for the campaign was the major reason for the Obama camp's support. I do have to wonder, if they think she is so competent to deal with policies and issues, why hasn't he appointed her to a high-level position on education?

What you don't seem to understand is why I object to your post. Frankly, it hsn't been arrogance, it's been fear. Fear that less informed NY DUers, remembering your very informative entry on the connection between outsourcing government functions and authoritarianism, would substitute your article on Kennedy for independent research on both her and the alternatives, and generate a couple hundred calls in favor of her to Paterson's office, and that that might be enough to tip the balance.

You know that your OP is not an even-handed comparison of Kennedy with the other possibles, and does not include what might be the consequences if she doesn't turn out as you expect. And it matters that while it isn't your state, you've tried to sway DUers in favor of someone you can't even be confident will turn out well. It's not your representation being discussed. You don't have as much at stake.

Fortunately, as of Friday afternoon, I've read, our opinions have been moot because Gov. Paterson has said he doesn't feel Ms. Kennedy has the temperament needed to fight effectively for what NY needs during the current NYS budget crisis. He's also not convinced that Andrew Cuomo's pushiness would be exercised in the interest of the state. The appointment seems to be narrowing down to the House representatives. I think he's a very good judge of character.

Exactly. And so does anyone else who read my post. I specifically said:

"I’m not saying that I know that Caroline Kennedy is the best choice for the job. I don’t know enough about New York state politics to say something like that."

How much more clear could I be about that point?

Obviously, much of the incentive for my post was stimulated by my feeling that the Kennedy family has been heroic in its service to our country, and it was ruthlessly stamped out by those who feared it. Whether or not that heroic attitude has been transmitted to Caroline is a matter of opinion, and it can't be proved either way at this time.

The two factual mis-statements that you pointed out in my post comprised a very minor part of my argument, and I can assure you they were not done purposely. If they were, I don't think that I would have provided the links that showed that I had mis-stated those two points. That's one important reason why I provide links in all my posts to make my points. If I inadvertantly mis-state something, the evidence is right there for people to discover.

No mention that "Gov. Paterson has said he doesn't feel Ms. Kennedy has the temperament needed to fight effectively for what NY needs," as you mentioned above, which would be an astonishing thing for any politician, let alone Patterson, to say.

"Is Caroline Kennedy the right replacement for Hillary Clinton?"
BY ELIZABETH MOORE | elizabeth.moore@newsday.com
10:04 AM EST, December 14, 2008

http://www.newsday.com/news/local/politics/ny-stkenn14,0,6174336.story

From a column, "PATERSON COOL ON CAROLINE" by Fredric U. Dicker of the NY Post



http://www.nypost.com/seven/12072008/news/regionalnews/paterson_cool_on_caroline_143109.htm

I fear he is being TOO HOPEFUL. We are in for a long cold winter of Depression. It will take people who at least have emerged from the middle class to help pass SANE legislation that will benefit those of us within the non-investor classes.

Something that's been largely missing from the councils of government for 45 years.

Thank you for another outstanding, must-grok post, Time for change.

She won't be sending billions Halliburton's way.

she'd be a breath of fresh air in that body

She's been a Democrat all along. That counts for something doesn't?