Confirmed! Kennedy Wants Clinton's NY Senate Seat.

In the past 30 minutes, Alan Alarkon over at The Hill is now confirming, "from multiple sources," that Caroline Kennedy is quite interested in Hillary Clinton's New York senate seat. Read about it right here: "Caroline Kennedy Interested in Clinton's Seat:"


Caroline Kennedy is interested in filling Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's (D-N.Y.) seat once Clinton becomes secretary of State, according to multiple news outlets.

Kennedy, the daughter of President John F. Kennedy and a campaign aide to President-elect Barack Obama, has talked to New York Gov. David Paterson (D) about the vacant post, according to ABC News sources. New York State Democratic sources told NBC News that Kennedy has indicated her interest in being appointed to the seat, which was once held by her uncle, Robert F. Kennedy (D).

Another Kennedy, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has taken himself out of the running, according to NBC's Andrea Mitchell. Other Democrats mentioned for the spot include New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, Rep. Brian Higgins and Rep. Nydia Velazquez.

Though appointing Caroline Kennedy wouldn't appear to directly help Paterson with upstate voters he needs for reelection in 2010, she could help him win access to the White House and national donors, according to Senate Guru. Kennedy, along with Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.), endorsed Obama early on in the Democratic nomination fight. She was also a member of his vice presidential selection committee.

Yes, the rumor mill's been rife with speculation on this all day...but it's getting a little more interesting by the minute this afternoon. See lead-up diary from DKos, from a couple of hours ago...

"Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary in N.Y.???"

I think this is a really cool story, and that Caroline's just listening to her father's words: "...ask what you can do for your country!"

I'd bet Caroline Kennedy would turn out to be an awesome Senator for us here in the Empire State. Your thoughts fellow MyDD'ers?



Display:


I don't know a ton about her (2.00 / 3)

But I like what I do know.

Also, I would like to see a woman fill that seat, though obviously it's not a requirement.


by Reaper0Bot0 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:11:36 PM EST

Caroline Kennedy's Wiki Bio... (none / 0)

...is right here...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Ke nnedy


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:17:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And, let's remember the history of NY Senate.... (2.00 / 1)

Senator Robert F. Kennedy in the '60s...Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who never held elected office prior to winning the seat...who was succeeded by Senator Clinton...until she was nominated for Secretary of State.

Just saying...New Yorkers like a little bit of celebrity in their Senators...and, holding previous elected office is not necessarily a prerequisite when it comes to getting elected Senator in NY!

(And, before I hear any NY jokes in response...let us not forget Governors Reagan and Schwazenegger in California...not to mention a slew of other candidates in other states...of late...a la Ned Lamont...whose only previous election to office was second selectman in Greenwich, Connecticut.)

So, previous experience in elected office is certainly NOT a prerequisite in terms of leap-frogging to a major presence in that regard, as history has shown us!


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:30:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The unknown unknowns are just too great (2.00 / 1)

to be nominating her to this post. If she wants to be senator, fine, she can challenge the next senator in the primary. Besides bein a Kennedy, she brings almost nothing to the senate.  


by ann0nymous on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:38:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

The unknown unknowns? (2.00 / 2)

Really?

What don't you know that you would like to know about this highly public figure?

Oh wait, it's an "unknown unknown," so you don't know what you want to know, you just know that there could be some area where there's something unpalatable about her.

Ridiculous.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:45:07 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The unknown unknowns? (2.00 / 1)

And what is it about Caroline Kennedy that you think is perfect for the job of New York Senator?

Perhaps you can enlighten us, instead of just calling a healthy skepticism "ridiculous".


by Sieglinde on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:49:19 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Here's my New Yorker opinion (none / 0)

I'm a reasonably aware New Yorker.

I don't know her.

I asked my reasonably aware New Yorker friends, and they can't say they know her.

Apart from her famous family, and her role in the Obama campaign, we can't seem to identify anything she's done specifically, without resorting to an internet search.

So NO, New York doesn't know her.


by Sieglinde on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:09:41 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The unknown unknowns are just too great (none / 0)

I think she is more qualified than many currently in the senate.  A law degree, a member of the bar in NY and DC, and she was a very active member of the Obama team.  She is versed in constitutional law. She wrote the handbook:  "The United States Constitutution -- What it Says, What it Means..."

Maybe we'll get a senator who has actually read the constitution.


by calwoman on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:18:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! (2.00 / 6)

I think this would be about the ultimate in nepotism.  She seems like a good person, but she's done virtually nothing in politics aside from having the right last name.  At least Andrew Cuomo, no poster child for pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps himself, went out and got elected to something on his own.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:18:01 PM EST

Yeah... (2.00 / 1)

I have mixed feelings about this. I can't say I harbor any ill will towards Caroline Kennedy. I just think it may be better to pick someone like Nydia Velasquez or Carolyn Maloney for Senator, someone who has some legislative experience & who has the kind of resume that would help her inspire the confidence of the voters to reelect her in 2010 & 2012.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:32:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Nydia Velasquez votes "correctly..." (2.00 / 1)

...but, as a campaigner, she would leave much to be desired. She's a really poor public speaker. And, as the pundits have said around these parts, extensively over the past few weeks, (the CW is) she'd have an awful time getting elected when her appointed term expires.

Kirsten Gillibrand (D, NY-20) would be perfect, but the CW on her is that the Dems would more than likely face an uphill fight winning Cong. Gillibrand's House seat in a special election.

Cong. Higgins, (D, NY-?) is considered the "safe" choice, but recent reports have him more interested in moving up the seniority ladder in the House.

Maloney's frequently mentioned in the same breath as Nita Lowey, (NY, D-18), as being a bit too past their prime to make a good candidate for election come time for that. But, more importantly, both are considered (again, I'm just repeating the CW I've been reading) as being too "downstate oriented" to pull off a win else where in the state.

Personally, I think Maloney and Lowey would both make good choices, but I'm just reporting what I'm hearing here.

And, I think Caroline would be a damn good choice, too...for the record.  


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:42:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Yeah... (2.00 / 1)

I've heard a few people suggest that Congresswoman Velazquez might have trouble getting reelected statewide.  I kinda think that's code for something, and I'm not sure how much validity there is to it in any event.  I would certainly support her for the seat.

I'm also intrigued by the idea of nominating an Upstate candidate for the seat.  NYC tends to dominate politics here, for obvious reasons, but the state is bigger than just one city.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:42:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It's not "code...." (none / 0)

...for anything.

Velazquez has been noted by many in her district, and elsewhere, whose quotes I've read over the past few weeks, as being one of the more mediocre members of the NY congressional delegation, in terms of job performance. She has some seniority, and she keeps getting re-elected, however.

It's also been noted that her public speaking skills leave much to be desired, and she'd be a hard sell upstate come re-election time.

I also want to add that many/much of the CW has focused around finding a good candidate outside of the metro NYC area, which would preclude the following from consideration: Velazquez, Lowey, Maloney, and Kennedy...among others.


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:55:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It's not "code...." (none / 0)

I believe Nita Lowey already took herself off the list.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:04:03 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes, she did... (none / 0)

Nita Lowey isn't in the running.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:40:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Probably... (none / 0)

That she's a Latina & she has an accent. Sad. I'm sure a speech coach can help her with the accent. If that's the concern over her "campaign skills", that's lame.

But if there are other gripes over her, I'd like to know. If Velasquez has too much baggage, I'll understand if she's passed over for someone else.


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:39:22 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Well, it's my understanding that... (none / 0)

...her public speaking skills/issues have as much to do with her style as anything else. I only heard her speak once, and then very, very briefly; but, apparently, she has quite a few bad habits above and beyond the ones one would consider to be making "generalizations" about. I'm told she just doesn't enunciate well, in general, in public, regardless of what language she's speaking.

Second-hand, I've been told--I haven't referenced this so it is only hearsay--she's sponsored very little legislation (co-sponsored a bit, but sponsored, not so much). And, she doesn't spend a hell of a lot of time out and about in her district, in comparison to other congresscritters.


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:28:00 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well, it's my understanding that... (none / 0)

Nydia Velasquez has been quite impressive in hearings on economic issues. She has asked very insightful questions to Greenspan in the past and nailed Paulson as well She was quite tough on Hank when he tried to patronize her by trying to rephrase her questions She is the only one who had the courage to tell him off.


by rocky on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:29:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! (none / 0)

If we're going to knock her down, can we at least get into a discussion that includes concrete specifics as to why she'd be a lousy Senator?

Regarding the debate over her talents as a politician, I think she's as progressive as liberal politicians come, and I'm curious to see what she could do in the Senate, despite my "deep concerns" that this "nepotism" she might infect the state of New York.


by West of the Fields on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:18:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! (none / 0)

Considering she has no political experience and hasn't even run a campaign, I have absolutely no clue what her weaknesses would be.  I imagine she'd vote as a good liberal in the Kennedy tradition, and she certainly wouldn't be the end of the world.  But I don't exactly agree that the burden is on me to say "oh well, I know nothing about her, I guess I can't possibly object!"  There's lots of folks on the Democratic bench in New York who have proven track records as public servants.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:11:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! (none / 0)

Who would you like better from the NY legislature, exactly?  The burden is on you, unfortunately, since you say that there are many folks from the NY bench that have proven track records, but you still offer no ideas as to who could represent New York on a national level.


by West of the Fields on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:07:58 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Cuomo milked his name for all it's worth (none / 0)

he ran, he won, he's established is OWN name.


by swissffun on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 10:05:22 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Horrible pick (1.00 / 2)

I would rather have some qualified Latino Dem politician take the seat rather than a crony who is not going to challenge the new President on even a single issue. I am sorry being a Kennedy is not a qualification for such an important job.


by ann0nymous on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:19:56 PM EST

Re: Horrible pick (2.00 / 5)

Crony?

Get the fuck out of here.


by obama4presidente on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:26:28 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Yes... (2.00 / 2)

That was awfully inappropriate. A "crony" Caroline Kennedy is NOT. While she's not on my favorites list for NY Senate pick, I do recognize she's an accomplished woman in her own right & is no one's "crony".


Want to defend marriage equality in Maine? Ask me how!
by atdleft on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:37:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Not enough to be NOMINATED (none / 0)

Sure, if she wants to cmapaign in a primary on that she is more than welcome. As for being well like respected and accomplished New York has several of those and (in terms of accomplishment would be easily beaten).  


by ann0nymous on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:28:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: and the Governor many choose her (none / 0)

I think a famous last name should be seen as a detriment when appointing someone. Not disqualifying by any means -- but even the suspicion of nepotism (and aristocracy) must be combatted, not just nepotism itself.

As I said: not disqualifying, but a minus. Her name gives her an advantage of recognizability: let her use it when campaining to be elected.


by Aris Katsaris2 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:03:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How about (none / 0)

How is she "involved in many important issues in NY?"

I live in NYC, Caroline Kennedy is simply not the first person that would ever pop into my mind as deserving of being a Senator from NY.

What, besides her Kennedy name, her fame, her connection to the Obama campaign qualifies her?


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 05:53:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

President-elect Obama would differ... (2.00 / 2)

...with your assessment, since he's already called upon her to play an integral part in regard to naming Biden to the ticket!

So, your difference of opinion with Barack Obama's sentiments is duly noted.


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:20:40 PM EST

Re: President-elect Obama would differ... (2.00 / 2)

Your refusal to use the reply feature often makes it very difficult to determine who you are responding to.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:30:55 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! (2.00 / 2)

I don't think it's a horrible pick by any stretch of the imagination, according to the Wiki bio Bob posted above, she is a lawyer, has experience working in both DC and NY, she certainly has the liberal creds, and might make a great senator.
We've put less experienced people in Senate seats (John Tester, Jim Webb, etc), why not give her a chance if New Yorkers support it?
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:24:33 PM EST

Re: Confirmed! (2.00 / 5)

Jon Tester was the president of the State Senate!


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:28:58 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! (none / 0)

Yes, he was, though Montana's state senate meets about 100 days out of the year, if I remember correctly.
So you would rather have another experienced politician to replace Hillary? Who else is up for consideration, does anyone know?
I'm open for suggestions, I just don't think that Caroline Kennedy should be dismissed simply because she lacks legislative experience.
"Who are you for? That is the wrong question. It should be who is for you?" HRC
by skohayes on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:13:48 PM EST
[ Parent ]

But he's not a Kennedy! (none / 0)

DUH!


I'm a Rick-o-phobe.
by psychodrew on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:37:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

And Jim Webb was Secretary of Navy! (1.00 / 2)

Besides, do not forget that these were put in by the voters while the new New York Senator will be NOMINATED by one person. As for being a liberal lawyer, New York is full of liberal lawyers. Why choose her?


by ann0nymous on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:32:20 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! (none / 0)

wow, what a dumb comparison. Tester?


by swissffun on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 10:06:57 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy Wants Clinton's NY Senate S (2.00 / 4)

Time to bring out the big guns.

I love the idea.


Yawn.
by spacemanspiff on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:27:14 PM EST

I figured she'd take her uncle's spot (2.00 / 2)

I'm a little surprised that she hasn't been set up to inherit Ted Kennedy's seat when he's eventually forced to resign due to ailing health.  I can't think of anyone in Massachusetts that would whisper a single word against that.

I'm normally not in favor of legacy candidates, but Caroline is an accomplished woman in her own right, and has already done a yeoman's service in vetting the VP.

I wouldn't rank her among the top speakers in the country, but being a senator isn't all about speeches as much as knowing how to work closely and well with people who don't necessarally see eye-to-eye with you on every issue.  On that mark, I'm sure she'd do just fine.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:30:41 PM EST

Re: I figured she'd take her uncle's spot (2.00 / 1)

A yeoman's service in vetting the VP?  And that, in addition to her other qualifications (a list I'm not familiar with, by the way) would qualify one to become New York Senator?


by Sieglinde on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:47:25 PM EST
[ Parent ]

It would take a few seconds to find out. (2.00 / 1)

Since you've no interest in looking it up on your own, a slice of her accomplishments, per 1 minute looking her up on Wikipedia:

President of the Kennedy Library Foundation
Director of the Commission on Presidential Debates
Director of the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund
Co-authored 2 books and authored 1 more
Edited 4 NYT best sellers
Co-chaired Barack Obama's Vice Presidential Search Committee

What, exactly, are the qualifications to being a Senator from New York?  30 years of age?  Residency?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:06:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It would take a few seconds to find out. (1.33 / 3)

What qualifies one to be a Senator from New York?  From your list, I'm guessing your answer is next to none.

Seriously, do you really think that that list qualifies Caroline for the seat?

Regis Philbin is far more accomplished, not to mention a thousand other New Yorkers.


by Sieglinde on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:09:57 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0)

Regis Philbin has done someting as significant as helped choose a vice president?  I'm impressed.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:24:18 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Interesting (1.50 / 2)

So that's the one qualification you think puts Caroline over the top?

Please.


by Sieglinde on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:26:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: It would take a few seconds to find out. (2.00 / 1)

The idea the framers had was that ordinary Americans could represent their states.  If we insist that anyone filling an elected office be experienced in elected office we are guaranteeing nothing but career politicians in office.  Not a good idea IMO.


That One is the Right One for 2008.
by GFORD on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:07:21 PM EST
[ Parent ]

So what were the quals of the previous senators? (none / 0)

So what made the previous senator more qualified?


by lolo08 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 10:55:52 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy Wants Clinton's NY Senate S (2.00 / 3)

(1) Has a famous last name.

(2) Has lady parts.

(3) Supported Obama.

This has gotta be confusing for some folks.


Change has come to America.
by the mystical vortexes of sedona on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 03:47:51 PM EST

I'm all for it. (2.00 / 3)

..unless there's an indisputably better candidate than the names I've seen floated so far. Leadership is about more than wonkery.

Being famous and highly regarded won't hurt her re-election prospects at all. She may not have the campaign machinery now, but I can't see how her famous family would abandon her in that department by the time the 2010 campaign rolls around.


Avoid the word "socialism" when conversing with me, and I'll avoid the term "ignoramus" when responding to you.
by Sumo Vita on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:25:15 PM EST

It is only a matter of time that Caroline Kennedy (2.00 / 1)

will be active in politics.  At this point, she seems to be good choice. But only time will tell, how she will perform as a politician and people's representative. Folks upset over her support for Obama early in the primaries aren't been fair.


by louisprandtl on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:35:05 PM EST

mixed. (2.00 / 2)

i like her - but i almost want her to stay away from office since this family seems cursed everytime it does...

so my final analysis is:  good?


"Democracy! Bah! When I hear that word I reach for my feather Boa!" -- Allen Ginsberg
by canadian gal on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 04:46:54 PM EST

You can't live in fear. (2.00 / 3)

I don't believe in curses.  Yeah, the family's had some bad fortune (to put it mildly), but they wouldn't be the people we remember if they just buckled at the thought of following where others of their clan had fallen.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:10:43 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! (none / 0)

Count me against this one.  Yes, I think it does smack of cronyism if someone without any of the ordinary qualifications but with a famous last name is appointed as a Senator.  Hillary Clinton also rose in good part on her family connections, but she went out and ran for the seat.  I think people would have found it very odd if Hillary (who had much more substantive prior experience, including being involved in the Watergate hearings) had been initially appointed as a Senator, and I find it similarly odd that a Kennedy who has never held a political office would be appointed as a Senator.


by markjay on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:28:13 PM EST

Come on now (2.00 / 1)

Appointees have never been required or expected to have held political office before.


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:30:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (none / 0)

It would be interesting to compare her qualifications to those of other people who have been appointed as Senator previously.  I think, beyond not having held an elected office, we would see a big mismatch.  If she weren't a Kennedy, this would never happen.  And yes, the advantages of a famous name are not limited to her (think Clinton, Gore, Bush, etc.), but at least most of the others actually went out and ran for a major office.  It just strikes me as odd for somebody to be appointed to one of the top offices in the country almost exclusively because of their family connections and name.


by markjay on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:02:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Come on now (none / 0)

The most recent appointments to the US Senate were Roger Wicker (long-time Congressman), John Barrasso (state legislator), Bob Menendez (long-time Congressman), Lisa Murkowski (state legislator and daughter of the person who appointed her).  I might be missing someone...

It's certainly not unprecedented to have a nontraditional appointment, but it would be a little surprising in a state like New York, where you have a very deep Democratic bench.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:19:40 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Ummmm....think again... (2.00 / 1)

Moynihan was elected to the Senate (exact same seat, too) without any previous experience in elected office, as was Clinton.

One other thing...how could anyone who supported Clinton's election to the Senate in 2000 argue against the electability or appointment of Caroline Kennedy?

Then there's Caroline's Uncle Robert, also elected Senator from NY in the 60's.

And, before we start with the NY jokes, what are your thoughts on people like Arnold Schwarzenegger, Ronald Reagan, and even Ned Lamont (who did get elected second selectman in Greenwich, Connecticut, however, many years before deciding to run for Senate in that state)?


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:36:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummmm....think again... (none / 0)

If Caroline Kennedy were running in an election I doubt I would have a problem voting for her, but keep in mind that there would be a long campaign which would give me some idea regarding her positions and her fitness to hold office.  The question on the table is not whether someone can be elected to the Senate without holding office before, the question is whether she ought to be foisted on us when there are so many experienced candidates on the Democratic bench in New York.

And by the way, it's a pretty ridiculous bit of spin to dismiss Sen. Moynihan as a guy "without any previous experience in elected office."  He had an important policymaking role in presidential administrations of both parties, he was our ambassador to the UN, he was our ambassador to India.  I doubt there was a soul alive who felt that he didn't have the experience to run for Senate, whether or not he had been in "elected office."  So come on, make a serious argument.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:50:26 PM EST
[ Parent ]

How could anyone who supported Clinton... (2.00 / 1)

...in her 2000 Senate bid in NY rationalize that Caroline Kennedy isn't capable of representing NY in the U.S. Senate?

I really hope nobody even thinks about trying to rationalize an argument to this question. Because there is no rational argument.


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:57:01 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How could anyone who supported Clinton... (none / 0)

This is a free country, and anybody with the minimal qualifications can run for any office. And if they win, it's hard to argue that they are not deserving of the office--because they entered the contest and they won it.  Indeed, there were many who said that Clinton was not appropriate to be a NY Senator, or that Obama was not qualified to be President.  However, both Clinton and Obama proved themselves by winning the support of the voters in a primary and/or general election.

Don't you agree that there's a big difference between somebody who may lack traditional qualifications RUNNING for an office and BEING APPOINTED to an office?  For example, if Michelle Obama decides at some point to run for Senate, well more power to her.  But if she were right now appointed to fill her husband's seat, people would be justifiably upset.


by markjay on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:07:31 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: How could anyone who supported Clinton... (none / 0)

I think I explained the difference between an election and an appointment pretty clearly.

With Caroline Kennedy, the issue isn't a lack of experience in elected office, as you keep trying to frame it, it's a lack of any substantial experience with politics, period.

I'm not saying it's the end of the world if she gets appointed.  I'm just saying I'm not particularly thrilled by it.  In the end, I doubt it will happen.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:17:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummmm....think again... (none / 0)

So what part of New York do you live in?


by venician on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 08:46:38 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummmm....think again... (2.00 / 2)

Uh... how is this your business exactly?


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:12:36 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummmm....think again... (1.00 / 2)

If you don't live in the state then it really isn't your business, now is it? Just because you're a fan of Hillary's doesn't mean you get to decide who replaces her. The citizens of N.Y. should have a say not her fan club.


by venician on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:26:41 PM EST
[ Parent ]

New Yorkers Only? (2.00 / 1)

If comments on this diary are to be restricted to only New Yorkers, that should be stated at the outset, or better yet, be placed on a New York (only) blog.

The citizens of NY will only really have a say in 2010, when the appointed senator or someone chosen in the primary runs for election.  As of now, only the governor of NY decides.

Democrats across the nation, who have worked and donated across state lines to insure Dem majorities in Congress, have an interest in seeing the best Democratic candidates advanced and needn't be admonished on MyDD for expressing that..
 


by susie on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:46:12 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Ummmm....think again... (none / 0)

At least Lamont was a successful in life based purely on his merits rather than a famous last name.


by Quinton on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:44:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Qualifications (2.00 / 1)

Dean Barkley's qualifications included helping Jesse Ventura win the governorship in 1998.

Arthur H. Vandenberg was a newspaper editor before his appointment.

Edward Douglass White served in his state senate for less than a year and another year as a State Supreme Court justice in addition to his military service.

Xenophon P. Wilfley had one year of being the chair of the St. Louis election commissioners.

Do I really have to bludgeon Wikipedia to death some more for you to get the point that it isn't always about political/elected experience in cases like these?


You can't stop the signal.

President "That One"

by Dracomicron on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:22:06 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Qualifications (none / 0)

The last two had held political office so they don't really prove your point.

As to the first two, Barkley was appointed to fill a 10-week gap until the next person (elected one week after Barkley was appointed) could fill the position.  Vandenberg was appointed more than 80 years ago, when I expect the political context was quite different (and was also appointed to complete a term of less than a year).


by markjay on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:16:02 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (none / 0)

How about an appointment of Michelle Obama to fill Barack Obama's seat in Illinois (where Michelle has lived a long time).  Wouldn't you find that weird?


by markjay on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:19:27 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Well (2.00 / 1)

Uh, YEAH?

She's gonna be kind of busy as the First Lady?


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:25:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Weird (1.75 / 8)

Remember all that talk about political dynasties during the primaries?

The Clintons aren't a dynasty.  The Kennedys are.  I don't know what qualifies Caroline Kennedy to the high office of New York Senator, other than her name.

I'm sure there're dozens of New Yorkers that have more extensive public service resumes than Caroline.  Unfortunately for them, they don't have a name like Kennedy.


by Sieglinde on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:44:35 PM EST

I totally agree (1.75 / 4)

I think this is BS frankly.

Caroline Kennedy? Why?


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 07:31:24 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Weird (none / 0)

Funny some Obama supporter tried to zero this.   They hate being shown as hypocrits and sell outs now that the election is over.  


by RichardFlatts on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:31:03 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy Wants Clinton's (2.00 / 1)

As I wrote in the front page article, I'm a little ambivalent.  I have to assume that there are public servants who have a proven record who would be superior choices.  Obviously she's very intelligent, but her Wiki bio does not clarify her independent qualifications and achievements very well - she's a lawyer who has served on a number of boards, several of which are family-related.  Maybe she is the best nominee, it's just that this doesn't seem like a slam-dunk choice to me.


by rfahey22 on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:48:58 PM EST

Boo for legacy politics (2.00 / 1)

I really dislike how having a famous last name is half the battle in American politics.


by JJE on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:49:50 PM EST

I'm mixed on this.... (2.00 / 1)

There is probably a good chance she would win if she ran for it, but a bit conflicted that she gets appointed her first try at elected office.

She seems very intelligent, and certainly a liberal and a good democrat.

But, I also am bothered by the dynasty thing a bit, and also by the celebrity/name thing.

Of course, Cuomo has the same name recognition, which is a big deal in politics...and, he has already served in government officially.

I would have trouble choosing, but I would lean towards Cuomo, and if Caroline wants to hold office, let her run for congress someplace.


Support the separation of Church and State: Vote YES on WA R-71!
by WashStateBlue on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 05:53:01 PM EST

Some are saying Cuomo's not a slam-dunk. (none / 0)

There was a pretty intensively negative piece done on Cuomo in the Village Voice a few months ago by muckraker (and I say this with some positive connotations by that word) Wayne Barrett, "How the youngest Housing and Urban Development secretary in history gave birth to the mortgage crisis."

And, while I feel strongly that Barrett's piece was unduly harsh, and a bit over-the-top, it provides lots of fuel for any Republican fires that he would face if and when he would run for re-election.

That being said, there are a lot of people in this state that would support Cuomo if he ran. Hell, I'd probably vote for the guy, myself.

But there's a lot of focus (per the CW) on whomever gets appointed being able to run successfully for election in the special election that will be held in 2010, with folks like Giuliani lining up on the Republican side as a potential frontrunner, among others. Does Kennedy's name trump the reality that she's a "downstater"? (A trait widely considered to be a negative for most mentioned candidates in terms of their electability in 2010.) That remains to be seen. But, Cuomo's definitely perceived as a City-guy, albeit with a well-known/respected Democratic tradition in his own family, too.


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:10:16 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: I'm mixed on this.... (none / 0)

I have to wonder what kind of a campaigner she'd be.  Caroline is rather soft-spoken and doesn't come across as particularly forceful. Although I'm sure she has strong opinions, she hasn't led her life fighting for particular issues.

Do I see the Ted Kennedy hand in this?  He may not be as active in the future in the Senate as in the past, and may be "passing the torch" to keep Kennedy family influence alive
 


by susie on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:19:56 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re:Kennedy Wants NY Senate Seat. (2.00 / 1)

And she should accept the appointment if it is offered to her. Her qualifications include many national, state and city efforts where she effectively brought together a wide range of people to accomplish different tasks. It's ironic how the greatest and nastiest comments seem to be coming from supporters of other Democrats being  considered for the appointment. Upstate New Yorkers and city dwellers would support her in huge numbers based on her ability to access whoever she needed to access to represent and provide for the needs of New Yorkers. She has no partisan baggage or enemies I'm aware of, except maybe those who would support Giuliani or some Republican or another Democrat. She's smart and appears to consider herself suited to the job. As do I.


by Jeter on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:26:00 PM EST

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy Wants Clinton' (2.00 / 1)

She seems like a very nice lady. But let's try to discourage dynasties. I find it hard to believe there isn't a single qualified democrat from that area.


by Pravin on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 06:47:05 PM EST

Seems Like (1.00 / 1)

The support for her and dissent are split between pumas or semi puma's and obama supporters. Still arguing experience is hilarious. I say the less experience but the more intelligent and good judgment a person has should be the qualification. I see Clinton clingers are arguing experience again, your arguments lost in the primaries and in the election too. Give it up and get over it. plus she helped Obama select his VP and was a close confidant in his team. as far as I am concerned that is a lot more experience than some no-body names that are being floated.

I am sure if obama wants her in the senate, she will be the next senator but we don't know if that is true yet.


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:11:10 PM EST

Obama likes the idea! (none / 0)

I don't have the links here, but I believe you'll find them without much effort...Obama's been quoted as very much liking the idea of "Senator Kennedy!"


by bobswern on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 09:27:33 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Seems Like (2.00 / 1)

Some people have a real problem accepting that others simply have a contrary opinion.  Instead they have to resort to this lame ad hominem stuff.  Pointless really.


"Another problem we have...is that in election years we behave somewhat as primitive peoples do at the time of the full moon." --Harry Truman
by Steve M on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:16:47 PM EST
[ Parent ]

She deserves it.. (none / 0)

After all, Her father was presdient and two uncles were/are senators.  What other qualifications would we need to know about.

She would join an illustrious group of dynasty pols--let's just look at the senate:

John Sununu (son of governor)
Judd Gregg (son of governor)
Olympia Snowe (wife of former gov.)
Ted Kennedy (brother of president)
Chris Dodd (son of senator)
Hillary Clinton (wife of president)
Bob Casey (son of governor)
Mary Landrieu (daughter of New Orleans mayor)
Evan Bayh (son of senator)
Lisa Murkowski (daughter of governor)
Mark Pryor (son of senator)

sen-elects:

Tom Udall (son of congressman and Interior secretary)
Mark Udall (son of congressman)

and that's off the top of my head--and just the senate!  A look at the House would knock you out, but for starters:

Patrick Kennedy
Niki Tsongas
John Sarbanes
Kendrick Meek
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Rep. Schuster (R-PA)
Dan Boren
John Salazar
Stephanie Herseth
Mary Bono
Ben Lujan
Ben Chandler
Russ Carnahan

Is this democracy?  I think not--how about oligarchy and/or plutocracy.

I think Caroline Kennedy is a fine person, but the most qualified to be senator?  Only if influence and connections to fund-raising sources constitute the most importatn criteria, and that says a lot about how badly we need campaign finance reform and public funding of elections.

And don't get me started on Andrew Cuomo.  
George H.W. Bush (son of senator);
George W. Bush (son of above)
Ted Kennedy


by Thaddeus on Fri Dec 05, 2008 at 11:25:57 PM EST

Re: She deserves it.. (none / 0)

Doesn't matter what the family links are. People elect them and vote for them. Karoline has to be elected in 2010 too if she is selected.


by YourConcernsAreNoted on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 12:20:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

I got an idea (none / 0)

I say appoint an out of work auto worker or steel worker.   Put a real human being in there AND help lower unemployment.


by RichardFlatts on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:32:59 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy Wants (2.00 / 1)

i'd be happy having JFK's kid in the Senate. But pumping her resume as in this diary and thread is just silly. there a MANY more RELEVANTLY qualified people - maybe not were her name, and but probably not without any public record to use against them.

My feeling is this would be a gift given her prominent promotion of Obama in the primary. THAT is not right at all when deciding a Senate seat.

I think she'd be well suited based on her resumé to serve as head of the NEA.


by swissffun on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 10:11:46 AM EST

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy (none / 0)

No more dynasties! ... Right?    I seem to remember a lot of no more dynasty talk during the campaign season.

I for one think she is totally unqualified to be Senator, I don't care who thighs she popped out from between all those years ago.


by RichardFlatts on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 11:28:03 AM EST

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy (none / 0)

But what you really mean to say is No Caroline, because she supported Obama and anyone who supported Obama doesn't deserve to take Hillarys seat.


by venician on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 02:32:39 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy (none / 0)

No I am just looking for an ounce of consistancy from Obama supporters.


by RichardFlatts on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 06:27:05 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy (none / 0)

... And from Obama.


by RichardFlatts on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 06:27:29 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Confirmed! Kennedy Wants Clinton's NY Senate S (none / 0)

So much for the dynasty argument used to bludgeon Hillary in the primary. Obama's Palace Progressives are just amazing.


by superetendar on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:30:43 PM EST

hmmm... (2.00 / 1)

I'm not entirely thrilled by this. I want someone with the gravitas of Hillary Clinton, which is why I like Cuomo. He has earned his place in public services as HUD Secretary and winning a statewide election. I wouldn't mind someone from LI or upstate either. All the female candidates I have heard of just does not excite me.

Give Caroline Ambassador to the U.K. and then UN Ambassador if and when Obama wins a second term.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 03:43:04 PM EST

Next we're going to see (none / 0)

Oprah being tapped to replace Obama.

Honestly, it could happen. I actually think she's more accomplished than Caroline Kennedy to be a Senator.

Politics of fame, money, influence, cronyism and nepotism.

Don't do it Governor Patterson.


"Life is too short, time is too precious, and the stakes are too high to dwell on what might have been." Hillary Rodham Clinton - June 7, 2008
by twinmom on Sat Dec 06, 2008 at 05:55:29 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.