home

For Or Against Caroline Kennedy For The Senate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 02:56:13 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The fact that the NYPost endorses Caroline Kennedy for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat is no reason to oppose Kennedy for the Senate. By the same token, the fact that Geraldine Ferraro opposes Caroline Kennedy for the Senate seat is no reason to be for her. Eventually, my friend Al Giordano provides good reasons to be for her:

Caroline Kennedy's campaign has just answered a few policy questions . . . First, Kennedy "supports full equality and marriage rights for gay and lesbian couples." . . . "Caroline opposed the war in Iraq from the beginning. She supports President-Elect Obama's plan to work with our military leaders to begin a responsible withdrawal."

More on issues, less on personalities please.

Speaking for me only

< Citizens' Petition Seeking A Special Prosecutor | Another Wrongful Conviction in Houston >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    For Or Against Caroline Kennedy For The Senate | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    So, they have now given her (5.00 / 9) (#3)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:10:07 PM EST
    some answers to issue questions? How nice! Now when some one asks her about her qualifications/why her, she can say something more substantial than she has.

    If she wants to be Senator so bad, I think she should wait and run in 2010. She needs some seasoning, imo. And I'm sure I'm not alone in wanting to see what she is made of before we send her off to represent us.

    More substantial than (5.00 / 12) (#36)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:36:38 PM EST
    the pathetic answer she gave the other day: "Well, I'm a mother, a lawyer and an author, and I really, really care about stuff"-- but not enough to vote regularly, apparently.  Feh.


    Parent
    I've still got an ice pack on my chin (5.00 / 4) (#68)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:35:11 PM EST
    from seeing that little clip today. But, didn't she say she comes from a family who really, really cares about stuff, and it's finally time for her to do something?

    This sudden surge of not caring much about who we put in charge of the well-being of our country is going to come back to bite. Hard.


    Parent

    It's in the blood. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Iphie on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:43:33 PM EST
    The ability to rule, that is -- originally bestowed by God and passed down through the generations." The Divine Right of Kennedys" is what I've taken to calling it.

    Parent
    Hilarious! (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:50:54 AM EST
    One of my best friends is a lawyer, has run for school board, is a mom, and has co authored a book.  I guess that makes her MORE qualified than Caroline since Caroline has never run for anything.  Unfortunately my friend's last name is not Kennedy.  :(

    Parent
    For someone who has spent her (5.00 / 3) (#65)
    by Iphie on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:18:57 PM EST
    entire life avoiding the public, it is an extraordinary leap to believe that she will now be a champion of the people. Except for some very broad biographical information, we know very little about her, and I'm not particularly interested in taking Teddy Kennedy's, Harry Reid's or Mike Bloomberg's word about it.

    The written questionnaire doesn't really do it for me either, she's been followed by a traveling band of reporters for days now -- they've been trying to get her to answer some of the same questions, and she either wouldn't or wasn't allowed to by her handlers. Why can't we hear from her mouth, her positions on things?

    Anyway, I've laid out my problems with the whole situation here, and laid out some obvious differences between her and HRC, since so many people are trying to present her situation as being very similar to Clinton's in 2000. That comparison, however, does no favors to CK and makes you realize just how little she has to recommend her.

    Parent

    She skipped some of the "tougher" (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:26:36 PM EST
    questions. And saying she's pro-equal marriage is kind of a no brainer if you consider Paterson and Bloomberg. Yet she hasn't said a word about Warren. Or the the HHS rule change, which Hillary has been vocal about since June.

    Parent
    Has Hillary (1.00 / 1) (#71)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:47:24 PM EST
    Said anything about Warren?

    Has Obama said anything about Warren.  

    One thing for sure is that Obama's inauguration is going represent big change from the last one. More heterogeneous than the last one. Also weighted towards the younger set a shift from the boomers.

    The hostility here is like generation gap disconnect. Inexperience is the most leveled charge. Obama and now Kennedy.

    Much of the criticism of Kennedy is exactly like criticisms of Obama. Empty suit, inexperienced. Rather sleep than fend off a terror attack, iow not someone you can count on as a fighter aka dilettante of not committed person, vain.

    Some older people automatically view younger people as inexperienced.

     

    Parent

    I'm younger than CKS. (5.00 / 4) (#72)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:02:27 PM EST
    And yes, Obama has responded to the Warren issue. Not to my liking. Hillary's not the one auditioning for the job, Caroline is and says she's pro equal marriage.

    What are Caroline's creds for the job (aside from name and fund raising ability)? What notable things has she done in her life (with all that family clout/money) that prepares her to get in there and represent us? Hillary was working on Mass Transit/Infrastructure funding, can she? What about job creation upstate? What about NS? The economy? Agriculture issues? Blocking/reversing the HHS rule? Health care reform? Green energy? Food/Import safety (and the total ineptitude of the gov in protecting us), Free vs Fair Trade? Foreign relations?


    Parent

    Baby Boomers (2.00 / 1) (#76)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:02:44 PM EST
    Want reps older then them with more experience. Younger people tend to be OK with a younger candidate.

    It went that way this election. More younger people in the mix.

    Parent

    Yeah, let's talk baby boomers (5.00 / 7) (#77)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:14:16 PM EST
    not any of the issues I listed.

    Aren't Obama and Caroline just the coolest?! I mean considering they are baby boomers, ya know. Like wow, I think they are just so in touch.

    Honestly, I have no problem voting for someone my age. Especially if they have a resume that shows how they would represent my interests . . . Which didn't seem to be a problem until this past year. Just sayin'.

    Parent

    Not so, Squeaky (5.00 / 5) (#79)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:19:13 PM EST
    Baby boomers want people who can do the job. Age is not the consideration. Experience counts, although it doesn't necessarily outweigh other considerations.

    Positions on the issues count. A history of getting things done counts, doesn't have to be as an elected official.

    Parent

    Oh Well (none / 0) (#80)
    by squeaky on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:30:25 PM EST
    Interesting that Obama is getting about the same treatment as Kennedy is for about the same reasons. THey are both unqualified for the job.

    Guess we are in for trouble with such unqualified people in office.

    Parent

    And your point? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by lambert on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 08:55:31 AM EST
    Actually, that's not completely fair.

    Obama acquired  a substantial legislative record during the campaign, first by gutting the Fourth Amendment and the rule of law by voting for FISA [cough] reform, and then by working the phones for TARP (and we still don't know what Hank Paulson's golfing buddies did with the two trillion they've gotten, in toto, because the Fed won't tell us).

    So, for some people, obviously, lack of experience turned out not to be a concern. It just depends, like so much else, on who those people are...

    Parent

    My Point Is (none / 0) (#118)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:14:54 PM EST
    Many of the same people that called Obama an empty suit and unqualified, are saying the same thing about Kennedy.

    Seems that her biggest gaffe was to support Obama.

    Paterson gets to chose who he thinks will be best for NTS.

    If you do not like rule that State Governors gets to fill a vacated Senate seat,  write your congresscritter and lobby to change the law.

    All yammering other than appeals to change the law is basically  PUMA or anti Obama rhetoric and has zero to do with Kennedy or NYS, save that Kennedy is on a hate list.

     

    Parent

    One major difference (5.00 / 2) (#124)
    by Iphie on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:43:18 PM EST
    is that at least Obama had been elected to something before. At least Obama had had the experience of asking for votes and explaining why he deserved the job -- at least the public had a chance to weigh in.

    Oh, and our "congresscritters?" Not the people responsible for setting state law. First rule of asking something from your government is knowing whom to ask.

    Parent

    In New York (none / 0) (#126)
    by daring grace on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:32:48 PM EST
    Our state senate is currently in such disarray themselves--the Dems finally having won a majority are frantically scrambling to hold it amidst cynical defection threats from our 'Gang of Three'--I can understand why appealing to the critters we send to Washington holds more appeal right now...

    The spectacle in Albany among elected officials gives me some reason to consider the value of talented appointees untainted by electoral muck wrestling.

    Parent

    Who To Ask (none / 0) (#132)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:17:02 PM EST
    Kennedy is receiving the same lines, tweaked a bit, that Obama received from the same people. Coincidence? The basic claims are inexperienced, unqualified, lazy, arrogant.

    Replace lazy with dilitante, and arrogant with entitled and there you have it.

    Point is the criticism should be about Paterson's experience, judgement, and whether or not any Governor should be constitutionally allowed to appoint a legislator due to a vacancy.

    The heat that Kennedy is getting seems all about payback for supporting Obama.

    The Seventeenth Amendment can be repealed. It allows for the Governor to appoint a congress seat due to a vacancy.

    Yes, one can also appeal to their state legislature to mandate costly immediate special elections for temporary seats. In most states the governor does have the option to hold a special election.

    Parent

    What a specious argument. (5.00 / 5) (#151)
    by ChrisO on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:28:35 PM EST
    So now if anyone is criticized for being too inexperienced, the criticism can be dismissed by claiming the same thing was said about Obama? So by your reasoning, no one is ever too inexperienced for any office.

    Parent
    I guess it gets even messier when... (none / 0) (#135)
    by EL seattle on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:41:02 PM EST
    ... the governor wasn't elected to his post, either.

    Maybe we can use Eliot Spitzer as a convenient scapegoat for this thing.

    Parent

    Why? (none / 0) (#137)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:58:01 PM EST
    I do not think Paterson's position really makes any difference. If people have trouble with the rules they should lobby to have them overturned.

    I am quite happy that Paterson is at the helm, and cannot imagine having a problem with whoever he picks, from Kennedy, Maloney, Velazquez. I do not like Cuomo, but if Paterson thinks he is best, I defer to his judgement.

    If he appoints Velasquez or Maloney a special election would have to be held to fill their respective seats. He does not have power to appoint House members.

    Parent

    No, her biggest gaffe was hiding (5.00 / 5) (#128)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 02:13:03 PM EST
    all these years and not being more of a public servant before deciding she wanted to be appointed Senator from NY.

    Nothing to do with Obama, Pumas etc on my part. I want a qualified person who can hit the ground running, already knows our issues etc. We have a few of those here. You actually sink your own argument by attributing the opposing opinions to "PUMA or anti Obama rhetoric".

    Parent

    A veritable compendium of OFB-ese (5.00 / 3) (#155)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:37:49 PM EST
    The usual smearing of "many people," so much like Bush's "some say..."

    The usual smearing of anybody who isn't on the Obama bus as a PUMA...

    The usual smearing of anybody who isn't on the Obama bus as filled with hate...

    Honestly, we know all the talking points now. Why persist?

    Obama's a politician like any other. When he does the right thing, I give positive feedback. When he doesn't (FISA, bailout), I inflict pain as best I can. I don't see why this is so hard to understand.

    Personally, I have no reason to dislike CK -- it's just Paterson has plenty of other choices from people who've actually faced the voters, and are known to be sound on policy.

    Parent

    Is that your generation? The Baby Boomers? (5.00 / 2) (#94)
    by MoveThatBus on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:47:56 AM EST
    I'm right there with the earliest boomers and all the ages above them. Never once did I ever think, or hear, any boomer (or older) say one word about age.

    I can't think of any candidates, or potential appointments this election that I would actually call young. There may have been several episodes that showed a lack of maturity, which is entirely differentm though.

    Experience comes from the activities one engages in. Caroline most likely can boast some solid leadership experience from her role as a mother, but she decided having written a book would resonate more favorably with the reporters. She's 52; not young.

    Parent

    Let's not stigmatize! (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by lambert on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:38:51 PM EST
    Plenty of young people aren't like squeaky!

    Parent
    Obama v McCain Demographics (none / 0) (#98)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:08:31 AM EST

    18-29 years old     66%          32%   
    30-44 years old     52%            46%   
    45-64 years old     50%         49%   
    65 years or older    45%                53%   

    Wiki

    Parent

    Hate to break it to you, Squeaky, (5.00 / 10) (#74)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:38:36 PM EST
    but Caroline is a baby boomer, born in 1957. Not much of a generational shift there. And, seriously, it seems reasonable to expect that a 51 year old seeking a US Senate seat would have a considerable list of civic accomplishments, particularly if seeking to be appointed to that seat rather than elected.  Caroline's already meager list is proving to be somewhat less than meets the eye.

    Parent
    Youngest voters were most age-biased in '08 (5.00 / 1) (#177)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 09:31:50 PM EST
    [Using the Wiki stats] The voting patterns of Baby Boomers don't reflect any age bias in the 2008 Election. Similarly, there is only a 7-8% age bias among voters over 65, and voters aged 30-44. Only the youngest voters (18-29) demonstrated an overwhelming bias toward the younger candidate.

    *Baby Boom Voters (born 1946-64) split evenly, with a 1% edge to Obama at 50%; McCain got 49%.

    *Voters over 65 gave an 8% edge to McCain at 53%; Obama got 45%.

    *Voters aged 30-44 years old gave a 6% edge to Obama at 52%; McCain got 46% .

    *Voters aged 18-29 years old gave a 34% edge to Obama at 66%; McCain got 32%.    

    Parent

    Inexperienced 50-year-olds (5.00 / 1) (#115)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:31:42 AM EST
    and 48-year-olds, both of them baby boomers, hardly serve as good evidence for your last sentence-slash-slam, squeaks.  

    Caroline Kennedy's children have good reason to not have sufficient experience to serve as Senators.

    As for Caroline Kennedy, she has had time to build at least some political experience to serve as a Senator, but she has opted time after time to not even serve as a voter-slash-citizen and go to the polls.  Or even, to avoid paparazzi, to cast an absentee ballot.

    As for Obama?  Yes, after serving as a state legislator, he certainly had sufficient experience to serve as a Senator.  On that, we can agree.

    Parent

    Funny, just today I told my 26 year old son (none / 0) (#73)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:07:32 PM EST
    that it was probably his youth that caused him to not see CK's political experience.  

    Some older people automatically view younger people as inexperienced.

    I'd say that more than some older people are quite aware of how to determine the skills and inexperience of those younger.  

    O/T- Just saw where a Boeing 737 has crashed at Denver Int'l Airport.


    Parent

    You just scared the p!ss out of me (none / 0) (#83)
    by sj on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:40:37 PM EST
    My son is flying out of DIA tonight.  His flight appears to be on time, however.

    Parent
    But she won't run in 2010 (none / 0) (#5)
    by Spamlet on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:12:29 PM EST
    because no one will want to oppose the Democratic incumbent (that is, whoever gets Paterson's appointment) in the primary.

    Parent
    Well then maybe she should start (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:17:57 PM EST
    somewhere else (other public office here). We'll have a primary in 2010, right? What's the point of a special election if nobody runs?  Remember her 2 main "features" are name recognition (she's a celebrity!!!) and the ability to raise lots and lots of money for a statewide campaign. Let's see her put those out there and prove why she's the best for the job against other NY Dems . . .

    Parent
    I really like Caroline Kennedy (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by Spamlet on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:11:19 PM EST
    And I try to make myself be realistic about the realities of politics.

    But, darn it, I still find it impossible to sanction "legacy" seats in our legislative bodies. Sorry.

    Process Even More than Personalities Seems the Key (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by daring grace on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:22:52 PM EST
    to why many oppose this: That is, that someone many people see as inexperienced but privileged may be handed the seat.

    I'm agnostic on this subject. I like what I know about her and believe she might make a good senator. And I'm unmoved by the argument that someone who has held other elected office deserves a leg up in the process over Kennedy merely because they've done that. There are many hacks in elected office (as we all know so well) and many, many talented people in the private sector.

    But if she is passed over, I won't mind either--as long as the person who is ultimately picked actually has some chops and isn't being anointed based on any of the myriad other reasons favoritism is shown in politics.

    It's not just process (5.00 / 3) (#38)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:43:00 PM EST
    it's political competence.  I have no doubt she would vote pretty close to 100 percent the way I'd like a senator to vote (I see she -- or her spokesman -- says she's for full marriage rights for same-sex couples, which is fantastic), but there's a heck of a lot more to being an elected representative than just casting votes for stuff.

    Parent
    Agreed (none / 0) (#54)
    by daring grace on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:32:41 PM EST
    And from what I've seen of her over the years, I think she has what it takes.

    But so do a lot of other people. That's why I'm kind of ambivalent. My main point is it wouldn't bother me at all if she gets the appointment, because I think she would do a great job.

    Parent

    While many factors (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by KeysDan on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:41:47 PM EST
    enter into a voter's decision-making including personalities, policies and positions should be foundational. Up until now, the latter needed to be gleaned by inference--a Kennedy, Democrat and advocate for Obama.  An election campaign would flesh out this skeletal beginning as well as give an indication of the ability of the candidate to get ideas transformed and  accomplished. It seems a little odd, in the case of a gubernatorial appointment, that Ms. Kennedy would have a campaign, but at least some entity, if not her, so far, can provide information. This is a particular need in this case, since there is scant evidence of public service and no record to review as an office holder.   What the campaign reports does sound good.  However, it is my bias that appointments made to elected posts should be made to someone who is a solid citizen and elder statesperson , just to fill the unexpired term and with the understanding that the individual will not stand for election.

    Dynasty (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by koshembos on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:44:54 PM EST
    Caroline only claim to the senate seat is being a Kennedy. We live in a democratic republic; dynasty is not the way to climb up.

    Gosh, she and I agree on the issues (5.00 / 9) (#19)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:52:22 PM EST
    . . . so I'm just as qualified for the Senate.

    I even have an Irish name.

    Of course, I'm not in New York.  

    But let's have Russ Feingold for Attorney General -- and then get me appointed to the Senate!

    After all, if we're basing it on the issues, my lack of experience doesn't matter, either. . . .

    Hey, I'm in NY!!! (5.00 / 7) (#24)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:02:35 PM EST
    The Gov can appoint me!!! I even have some issues I'm passionate about and not shy voicing opinions on them either {grin} Would being part Scots help? Not quiet Irish, but I have been to Ireland :)

    Also, I'm a tad scrappy*, so floor fights sound good to me . . . .

    *My depending champion FFL team is the Scrappy Strays  ;)

    Parent

    Im just not sure... (none / 0) (#39)
    by Thanin on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    how much money names people dont know could raise for the special election.  Also her and Cuomo basically have an instant base of people who'll vote for them solely based off of name recognition.

    Parent
    Cuomo has a record also (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:01:12 PM EST
    I think in a primary, a few NYers could do well against her based on their experience. The state is more blue now also, which will help in the general. And there is a Clinton or 2 that can help raise funds for a NY Dem.

    If she develops a strong voice and shows some fight, I could get behind her, but right now . . .  I need more.

    Parent

    lol!~ yeah well (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:17:17 PM EST
    I'm sure my passion for issues has caused a few to wonder about "my issues" {grin}

    Parent
    No appointment in WI. (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:27:42 PM EST
    The seat remains vacant until a relatively speedy special election can be held.

    You'll have to beat me in the Primary. I propose a series of debates Lincoln/Douglas style, one a day, on the steps of County Courthouses. No time limit, no moderator, no amplification.

    Parent

    You read my mind! (5.00 / 7) (#34)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:34:25 PM EST
    I, too, agree with Caroline's positions.  Ergo, I, too, am qualified. Hey, let's all contact Gov. Patterson and tell him we are ALL interested in the seat.  

    Just kidding.  I am not surprised at Caroline's positions at all.  I have no doubt she is progressive.  My problem with her is that I don't think she EVER held a real job.  I don't see that she has EVER had real adversaries.  She has had hardship, without doubt, but that is different.  

    In the Senate, you need a real advocate, not just an informed, well-intentioned representative.      

    Parent

    You mean tragedies? (5.00 / 1) (#70)
    by MoveThatBus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:45:56 PM EST
    I think of losses of security and fortune and home and job when I think of hardships.  Had she experienced something like those hardships, I'd say she would be closer to being able to relate to the people who she would be serving.

    It would not surprise me if she gets the appointment, and it would not surprise me if she spend a lot of time with Uncle Ted on the phone once she gets there.

    Didn't she once work at an art museum?

    She's still really, really private. You don't see her husband or children with her....ever.


    Parent

    Horrible job (none / 0) (#104)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:58:45 AM EST
    Politics is a horrible business for someone who is really, really, private!  What on earth is she thinking?!  

    Parent
    Me, too. Me, too. (5.00 / 6) (#46)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:04:55 PM EST
    I'm for equality and marriage for LGBT folks. I'm pro-choice. I opposed the Iraq War from the get-go. And I come from an Irish Catholic family with long ties to the Democratic Party.

    A bonus: I've voted in every election, even water district and primaries, since I became eligible to vote in 1971.

    I don't live in New York, but, if appointed, I will move there.

    Parent

    She neglected to even vote (5.00 / 9) (#23)
    by Amiss on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:02:03 PM EST
    for the seat she seeks in the senate. According to Board of Elections records, she missed several Democratic mayoral primaries in 1989, 1993, 1997 and 2005.

    She also skipped the 1994 general election, when Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was running for re-election. It is the same seat she hopes to take over if Clinton is confirmed as secretary of state in the new administration.

    Would she follow the same policy and not show up to vote if she is appointed? If I were a citizen of New York, I would at least want someone with enough interest in the state to vote.

    I found it to be interesting that (5.00 / 4) (#27)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:08:06 PM EST
    my voting record in the state is more solid than hers. And I'm a native CA gal  ;)

    She's just been so silent over the years here and never lending her voice (and family clout) to issues. We've got celebrities (actors etc) with more of a public voice and hands on work helping NY than her. Along with non-celebrities. And she's a bleepin' Kennedy!

    Parent

    She didn't even bother to vote (5.00 / 2) (#63)
    by Iphie on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:51:32 PM EST
    in Cuomo v. Pataki -- which was a rather important election, especially considering that Pataki bears a great deal of responsibility for the financial mess we're currently facing. But hey, it's not really that important to vote, is it?

    Parent
    The absence in the voting booth (5.00 / 4) (#35)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:36:11 PM EST
    is very troublesome, I agree. Why would she even do that, as a Kennedy??  I suspect she never had any political interests at all.

    Parent
    Totally agree! (5.00 / 2) (#105)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 02:04:45 AM EST
    There is NO excuse for not voting.  I've known lots of people who were seriously ill and still exercised their right, and responsibility to vote.  

    Let's face it, she's never been interested in politics.  She's never worked for the democrat party.   She's a very, very, private person.  She's an introvert.  She's not a good speaker nor does she seem to enjoy public speaking.  My question remains:

    Why is this woman campaigning for a job that she will hate?  And why does anyone want her to have the job?  

    Parent

    No question on FISA/PATRIOT (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:30:02 PM EST
    on either the Times' or Politico's set of questions. Boo.

    And on (none / 0) (#82)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:36:31 PM EST
    torture?
    Q: On issues other than gay rights, does she have what it takes to oppose Obama positions?
    What does she offer to upstate New Yorkers?

    Parent
    it doesn't really matter what you, i (5.00 / 1) (#33)
    by cpinva on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:33:26 PM EST
    or anyone else thinks, only what the gov. of ny thinks. whoever he appts. will have to stand for re-election in 2010, that's when all the citizens of ny have a say.

    geez, she couldn't be any worse than some of the dullards already occupying seats in the senate.

    "Better then McCaskill" isn't a (5.00 / 4) (#42)
    by tigercourse on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:55:25 PM EST
    terribly wonderful endorsement.

    Parent
    lol!~ yup, as a campaign slogan (5.00 / 1) (#45)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:02:33 PM EST
    that one pretty much sucks!

    Parent
    No kidding. Fugedaboudit!.. (5.00 / 5) (#48)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:21:57 PM EST
    McCaskill took Emily's List money from people like me and then endorsed Obama, the opponent of Emily's candidate.  Talk about brazen.

    Caroline abandoned her senator as well to endorse the opponent in the primary.  She, of course, wouldn't need Emily's List.

    She'll need votes, though, if she's appointed.  Her opponents will make her the poster girl for "fugedaboudit!"  The Rs will have a field day..."she didn't vote, why should you?"  To all the Dems who break their damn necks to GOTV every election, she is an embarrasment.

    What will Caroline's line be?  "Don't do as I do, do as I say?"

    How's that for an issue?

    I like the song, though.  We'll no doubt be hearing it endlessly...

    Parent

    McCaskill and Klobuchar (5.00 / 3) (#86)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:06:57 PM EST
    Two EMILY'S List candidates who turned their backs on the first viable female candidate in the history of the US.  They each took my money  when they were running and they each turned around and dumped on Hillary Clinton.  They each received a letter from me which outlined my disappointment.  And neither of them has replied.

    But I digress.  Caroline Kennedy certainly won't need EMILY'S List and it's a good thing, too.  If they were to endorse her, they would lose me and many others.

    Parent

    Add Gwen Moore (5.00 / 2) (#87)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:22:50 PM EST
    -- my Congresswoman, a major beneficiary of EMILY's List . . . among many who will not get my money anymore.

    Parent
    Yeah, (5.00 / 2) (#89)
    by Radiowalla on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:30:36 PM EST
    I'm making a list.... and checking it twice..

    Parent
    Does Caroline Kennedy take her (5.00 / 3) (#52)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:30:11 PM EST
    kids' advice?

    Parent
    Why, yes, yes she did. (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:42:18 PM EST
    Caroline decided to endorse Obama after listening to her 3 teenage children. I've read (sorry, don't remember where) that Caroline, having been persuaded by her children, then persuaded Uncle Teddy to climb on the Barack bandwagon.

    Parent
    And don't forget Maria. (none / 0) (#56)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:43:13 PM EST


    Parent
    Maria, who married a wierdo (none / 0) (#92)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:48:21 PM EST
    Republican and pretends she's a journalist on the side.

    Three strikes on Maria.

    Parent

    I'm agnostic about (5.00 / 4) (#57)
    by WS on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:00:00 PM EST
    Caroline Kennedy.  She's a wonderful person and would make a wonderful Senator.  

    But when she came out against Hillary along with most of the Kennedy's really hurt me.  She must have only decided to run for Senate fairly recently since a political pro wouldn't have done what she did during the primary when she went against her home state Senator.  Now she's facing the consequences of her actions, a less than smooth Senatorial appointment roll-out that is in danger of sinking.    

    Looks like the Endorsement paid off (5.00 / 5) (#61)
    by rooge04 on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:22:34 PM EST
    handsomely!

    Isn't there something to be said for the fact that Ms Kennedy publicly went against her DEMOCRATIC NY Senator and endorsed Obama?

    You know I thought it was conspiracy theories flitting about when I heard that Obama appointed Hillary to get her out of the Senate. Now with this....hmm...maybe not so much.

    And Harry Reid said she's perfect? well, color me I don't care.  Harry Reid was part of the cabal telling Hillary she was going to tear the party apart if she didn't drop out rightthisveryminute.

    I don't like this one bit. It looks like she bought and paid for that seat with her Obama endorsement.  

    She's a rich, connected mom.  To compare her to Hillary is to insult Hillary's work over the last 30 years.

    Puzzle (5.00 / 5) (#81)
    by cal1942 on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:32:29 PM EST
    I wonder why she's doing this.  Has she ever shown any interest in public affairs before supporting Obama this year?

    She's kept herself away from the public.  She could have had influence on public matters and given her name would have attracted a great deal of attention but chose to stay aloof.  She really doesn't appear to have much of a record regarding civic matters.  Why did she skip voting? Did she have no interest or understanding of the effect of an election? Was she above it all?

    Given her avoidance of public contact I wonder if she'd be up to a rough and tumble political campaign come 2010. A few appearances for Obama simply doesn't compare with an actual campaign. Losing a Senate seat in 2010 would be like snatching defeat from the jaws of victory.

    If Paterson appoints an experienced Democratic politician to Clinton's seat then a victory in 2010 would be a slam dunk.

    Personally I believe that aspirants for high office should have paid some dues.  I don't see that here at all.

    I wish she wouldn't do this.

    All Valid Questions and Points to Consider (5.00 / 2) (#95)
    by MoveThatBus on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:02:31 AM EST
    I wonder why she's doing this.  Has she ever shown any interest in public affairs before supporting Obama this year?

    She's kept herself away from the public.  She could have had influence on public matters and given her name would have attracted a great deal of attention but chose to stay aloof.  She really doesn't appear to have much of a record regarding civic matters.  Why did she skip voting? Did she have no interest or understanding of the effect of an election? Was she above it all?

    JFK, Jr. wrote about politics, and I don't recall much from him, either, in civic matters. Actually, their mother was never a "servant" of the public or noted as one who dedicated time to charitable activities. Caroline, though, has been even more reclusive than her mother.

    Uncle Ted appears to be involved. Not clear if his is a supportive role, or if he's pushing this, though.

    If she's sincere in her desire to make things better in the country for those much, much, much less privileged than her, then she certainly has the connections to get some changes made. Though, she could do that from a position outside the Senate, as well.


    Parent

    Jackie Kennedy (none / 0) (#117)
    by Iphie on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:12:25 PM EST
    was very involved in protecting and preserving many landmarks and cultural institutions. Without her help, Grand Central Station would have been torn down, she played a major role in the restoration of Central Park, she pushed for the revitalization of Pennsylvania Avenue, she worked to ensure that historically important buildings and architecture would be protected, even when owned by private entities, she got Lafayette Square in DC protected and refurbished, she was very involved with the NY Public Library both in terms of their collection and their property. She brought the importance of protecting our historical landmarks to a national audience and gave the movement increased clout -- without her, many of our cities would look very, very different.

    Jackie Kennedy definitely devoted time to charitable activities -- if you've ever marveled at the ceiling in Grand Central Station or utilized the NYPL, then you have directly benefited from her good works.

    Parent

    Which "voice of the right" will be... (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by EL seattle on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:04:41 PM EST
    ... the first to start a CK Presidential Campaign Countdown?  Once she's appointed, pretty much everything she does can become part of this cruel narrative, suggesting that for her, time in the senate will never been anything more than a calculated and prefabricated step on her destined path to becoming the First Female President(tm) of the United States.  

    (Unless, of course, she really digs in and starts doing tons of mucky uninteresting and often thankless legislative work for the taxpaying people of New York state.  I think that would smother the right's glib narrative under substance and accomplishments.)

    "Cruel narrative?" (none / 0) (#116)
    by oldpro on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 11:54:11 AM EST
    Didn't seem to hurt Obama.  The joke making the rounds was that he stopped by the senate to get directions to the White House.

    Anybody able to picture Caroline at 6 am shaking hands at the gate of some manufacturing plant in upstate New York?  Once, maybe...for a photo op for television ads.

    The "cruel narrative" won't be anything that mild.  I've already heard that speculation from pundits on TV.  No...it will be personal and ugly.  Check out your supermarket tabloid...

    Parent

    Amiss pretty much made my point (5.00 / 1) (#88)
    by rghojai on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:29:51 PM EST
    Were this someone in NY without the name who had accomplished about the same or more, zero consideration.

    Too, it may or may not be an issue in the how-she'd-vote sense, but what's transpired to date is not encouraging.

    She addressed issue via her campaign providing answers to written questions?! She can't sit down with the NYT people or similar and, you know, speak--answer questions and articulate her positions?

    I noted in recent days she was somewhere in the state, reporters tried to ask her questions, she started to answer one and her people escorted her away, into a waiting vehicle.

    Also noted that "her people" would not say if she's ever set foot in Syracuse, Rochester and Buffalo.

    She's doing little to dispel thoughts people might reasonably have that this is more a royal appointment of royalty than the best person being selected.

    Experience? Feh. (5.00 / 1) (#97)
    by MyLeftMind on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:04:47 AM EST
    She's against the war, she for marriage equality and equal rights for gays and lesbians, she's smart and she cares about other people.  She's not anti-choice, and I'm guessing she's not going to be outed or caught having sex with prostitutes.  What more do you want?  What good is all that "experience" we currently have in the Senate if all they can do is suck our economy dry with a stupid war and now even stupider bailouts that our grandkids will be still paying for after the banks rip us off and go out of business anyway?  That what our "experienced" people in Congress give us now.  Let's try something new.

    We are trying something new (5.00 / 4) (#101)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:14:47 AM EST
    The least experienced president in history!

    Sorry, I'd like a tad more than a last name representing me as a NYer and an American.

    Parent

    Objectivity or Bias? (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:00:25 AM EST
    I wonder how much of the criticism of Caroline comes from her endorsement of Obama? If experience was the criteria for office, then McCain should be our next president.

    Elections are run and won with money. The days of someone coming out of nowhere and winning are long gone. I would think NY will require a ton of money to keep the seat. Who would be better equipped to deal with that reality?

    Finally, although I'm not from NY, I have no problem with a Senator that stands up for gay marriage and was against the Iraq war from the beginning. We don't need any more phoney Democrat's in the Senate. There's already too many in there now.

    If there's another candidate out there that can bring more to the progressive agenda and have the ability to hold the seat in the future, fine. But because she supported Obama isn't a reason to slit our throats.

    What if we imagine that... (none / 0) (#111)
    by EL seattle on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:43:10 AM EST
    ... instead of apparently offering the Obama seat to the highest bidder, Rod Blagojevich had bypassed all of the expected candidates and selected a wealthy newcomer who was better known as a media figure than as a politician, and was someone who hadn't even supported Obama for president.  

    Jesse Jackson, Jr.? - No way!
    Tammy Duckworth? - Get outta here!
    Emil Jones? - Uh-uh.
    Someone with a proven track record that shows a commitment to helping the taxpaying voters of Illinois? - Nope, not what we're looking for at the present time leave your resume at the front counter and we'll call if anything comes up thank you.

    If that was the case, there might be the same sort of skepticism in Illinois that we're seeing with the CK appointment.

    Caroline Kennedy is a fine person, but I think that some of the voters in New York state (the people that she'll be actually be representing) might be looking for deeds not words, and she might not be at the top of their list for senator replacements.

    Parent

    And let's imagine that Obama needs (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:45:13 AM EST
    votes in the House for his big plans -- like the votes of many hardworking members of the House from the great state of New York who may see themselves and/or be seen by the people of New York as more deserving of elevation to the Senate.

    And that's based on their track record of hard work for these same issues -- and their track record of voting on these issues not only in the House but also at the polls in the great state of New York, where Kennedy could not be bothered to go vote in many elections.

    Not voting can be an indication of a low-info voter. . . .

    Parent

    I hate it when... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by pluege on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:25:41 AM EST
    democrats act like republicans

    Doesn't matter Kennedy's positions - I have great progressive positions and decided I want the seat. Should I be considered too? No matter how good Kennedy's positions, if she gets the seat it will be bad:

    • it will validate that Democrats are as much an aristocracy as republicans instead of being a meritocracy.
    • it will look like a craven 'who you know, not what you know' give away
    • it damages all Democrats, the Democratic name

    furthermore, you mean to tell me there are no other Democrats who has actually worked for the people that are worthy? Give me a break!!!!

    Not thrilled by Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. (5.00 / 3) (#114)
    by snstara on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:54:07 AM EST
    But it is Governor Patterson's appointment, and he is likely to appoint her.  Certainly, it would bring the Kennedy clout behind him when he seeks re-election. Also, it could bring additional income and attention to the state at a time when both would do New York good.  

    But let's not pretend that she has any of the necessary experience to represent New York State at this time.  It is flat-out nepotism, a gift to the Kennedy family and to President Obama.  

    Simply, Patterson has to weigh whether New York will do better with special attention from people with power and/or money, or whether he needs an experienced legislator in the senate.  He also has to determine who will do him the most good in the long term.  If he appoints her, and it is a misstep, he still benefits politically in terms of donations and connections because hey, he gave her a shot.  

    It is New Yorkers who would suffer from her learning curve.  However, you could take the view that every Democrat around her has a vested interest in her success.  Her history as the daughter of one slain icon and the niece of another, and her connection to her Uncle Ted, certainly carries weight with Democrats.  Guaranteed that most people in congress would overextend themselves to make the transition easier. And she could be a success: she is an intelligent person, and part of a politically active family.  She may have skills here we have not seen.

    But this is the point: if she has skills, we have not seen them.  She has never campaigned on her own behalf, or presented herself and her qualifications for public scrutiny and approval.  Who is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, in her own right, and why should she be your senator?

    Who is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg? (none / 0) (#149)
    by slr51 on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 07:54:18 PM EST
    Well, since Caroline Kennedy never took the name Schlossberg, maybe you could tell us? Whoever she is she is not the person being discussed here.

    Parent
    the competence and fairness factor (5.00 / 3) (#122)
    by S on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:27:05 PM EST
    I have an novel idea...when all the power of choosing a Senator is placed in one person's hands as is with governor Patterson...why not at least have one debate for the public between the interested candidates...

    I would love to see a debate between Caroline Maloney, Andrew Cuomo and Carolyn Kennedy...

    ...who do you think would represent and know the issues the best in that arena???

    of course that will never happen...that would inject some semblence of fairness and actually have constituents have the chance to hear their next Senator speak...

    in Carolyn Kennedy's case she is going to try to slip in on her name and answering some submitted written questions...

    I fear Caroline Kennedy is not prepared to debate a republican, probably peter king, in the 2010 election

    ...as someone else said upthread...why doesn't she try some local elected position before plunging ahead into the Senate...

    maybe Blumberg would endorse her for Mayor...(joke!)

    If Carolyn Kennedy put together a campaign for 2010, got to know the voters and issues, went to the state fairs and farms, etc and got elected that would command respect...otherwise this is just business as usual...the well connected jump ahead of everyone else, even the more qualified and prepared...ho, hum...

    Oh oh, you're a concern troll! (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:17:32 PM EST
    So said squeaky when I suggested here, days ago, that there be a debate for appointments as well as for elections.  At least it would allow the voters of New York to feel that they had a role -- and it might get Kennedy to answer the questions that she wouldn't address from the press.

    C'mon, squeaky, express your serious and sincere concern about concern trolls again. . . .

    Parent

    Concern Troll With A Black List (none / 0) (#142)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:50:32 PM EST
    OK, concern trolls abound in this thread. Seems to me S is somewhat more honest than you because s/he admits that it is pure entertainment he or she is looking for in the debate ( kennedy getting humiliated or crushed) as opposed to your reasons for debate:

    It would seem the people of NY ought to know a bit more about who they're getting

    Aw, how nice that you are concerned about us here in NYS, cough, cough.

    Clearly both you, S, and other are all worked up because Caroline Kennedy backed Obama. It is not even so much that she is a Kennedy per se but mostly that her Uncle really went to bat for Obama. Oh the outrage, some here said that he sold out all the women of his state by that endorsement. He became a sexist pig, and all of a sudden his progressive accomplishments and fights were neutered by disafected Hillary supporters. Ted was on a black list, as well as Caroline.

    The essence of a concern troll is one who acts all concerned about one issue which has zero to do with their real concern.

    This seems all about PUMA black lists. Your concern for the people of NYS is a utter crock, imo.  

    Parent

    Jeez, but you got a PUMA bug (5.00 / 4) (#143)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:56:05 PM EST
    From what you have here, there, and everywhere, you know nothing at all about me and my motives -- nor about those of others here who have said so to you, too.  Yet on and on you rant again about some vast conspiracy of women out to get you, etc.

    Your rants offer some entertainment value, but not enough to make it worth our while.  For your health, get over it.  

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#147)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:17:59 PM EST
    Although I think people who have a vendetta and a list as you claim to have should be exposed when they act concerned about something that is tangential to their motives.

    I do not think that there is any conspiracy of women out to get me, not even in my wildest dreams. I do know that that there are many disaffected Hillary fans are still inconsolable and act out on these threads.

    You are the one who consistently refer to the fact that you are part of a group of like minded people and that you keep a list. You even bragged about holding an 800 year grudge, and that you will offer payback to anyone who has slighted you.

    This kind of puffery is pathetic, imo. It speaks more about you than any fears I may have.

    Parent

    I just figured it out!!! (5.00 / 2) (#148)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:57:51 PM EST
    You seem to be sufferin' from HFDS with a bout of PDS thrown in!! (uh, Hillary Fan Derangement Syndrome and PUMA DS) {grin}


     I do know that that there are many disaffected Hillary fans are still inconsolable [lol!~] and act out on these threads.

    I see it tends to effect vision and judgment  ;)

    Parent

    Ye goddess, you have NO (5.00 / 2) (#167)
    by Cream City on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:56:09 PM EST
    sense of humor, either -- you don't even know how to read an Irisher like me writing about the Brits.  And the rest of your misreading . . . again: Get help.

    Parent
    Humor? (5.00 / 1) (#168)
    by squeaky on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 01:24:23 AM EST
    What, you thought there would be (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Cream City on Wed Dec 10, 2008 at 06:16:28 PM EST
    no consequences?  I'm Irish.  We still hold grudges about what the Brits did 800 years ago.
    Forgive but don't forget has worked just fine for me.  Took me ten years once to get back at a bigshot who dissed me coming up in my career, but he still doesn't know why he didn't get a job he wanted when I became a bigshot.

    Took only a few years to get back at another guy who acted outrageously and illegally toward me, but I prefer not to litigate, when I can just move forward with my life -- while waiting for the chance to retaliate.  He really ought to have checked whether anyone related to me was on the hiring committee for that job he wanted last year, yet didn't even make the first cut.

    And I've still got more names on my list -- including anyone who messes with my kids.  I work for the largest employer in a large town, and they're sure to cross my path someday. . . .

    Does not sound funny to me..

    Parent

    Again, we should hire harassers? (5.00 / 1) (#170)
    by Cream City on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:58:58 PM EST
    You and others who reacted so idiotically to this would hire people who create hostile environments?  Do you even understand the real world these days?

    That's the way it is in the small world of many a business, industry, academe, etc. -- word gets out, and they don't get hired again.  And that's the way it always has been for problem people.  It's just that harassers finally are considered problem people.

    The solution is to not be a problem person, squeaks.

    Parent

    Are there commentors here at TL (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:01:48 AM EST
    who have become "harassers" in their own right?

    Parent
    Kitchen Too Hot? (none / 0) (#174)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 12:32:30 PM EST
    Persecution complex?  Perhaps you should stop inviting conflict if that is not what you want. Or carry out your threat and leave us.. boo hoo..

    But please spare us your egoistic fantasy about being harassed.

    I've started spending more time at Shakesville and find their editorial stance more radical, ribald, and more in keeping with my own politics and sensibility. We'll see.

    Seems like a great blog..

    Parent

    No (none / 0) (#175)
    by squeaky on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 12:54:54 PM EST
    You seem correct and most if not all would act accordingly, save for Ghandi and his ilk.

    I reacted because you seemed to boast about your power and brag about a list..  And there was no humor meant as far as I could tell..

    Parent

    squeaky, speak for yourself, not me... (5.00 / 3) (#153)
    by S on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:54:00 AM EST
    Squeaky, you are entitled to your opinion and I am entitled to mine...and mine has nothing to do with being a concern troll...

    I may have used irony or a bit of humor/sarcasm in my comment, however the sentiment was clear...I do not think CK is ready and/or prepared at this time and I would respect her if she put together a campaign and ran in 2010...if she could communicate HER substance AND get out there with the people and win...that would be FANTASTIC...otherwise this is just business as usual...and it does ring of Palinism...

    I am not a PUMA or any other stupid label you would like to use to define me...

    and I hardly think you can read my mind...

    ...you got one thing correct in your analysis of me...I am honest...and I call them as I see them, whether 'my side' are being the hypocrites or the 'other' side are...

    in fact, that is one of the things I respect about BTD...BTD doesn't spin, he is a straight shooter and lets the chips fall where they may...

    ...that's the kind of Dem I am and will always be...and there are things about the Democratic Party that I am not happy about...I don't do blind faith or make excuses because of the D...

    ...at the very least I think the voters are entitled to hear what their next possible Senator (who suddenly appears out of the wilderness and coveted life of privacy) has to say...and frankly it is insulting for CK and her PR group to put out vague written answers on CK's behalf and in third voice...talk about handlers and a bad rollout...

    ...I think as Dems we deserve a bit more respect...and what is the word, oh yeah, TRANSPARENCY...to go along with all our new change and hope...

    I could turn the table and say that your are a supporter of CK so you have lost your objectivity...put someone you do not like in this set of circumstances and then see if you would be responding the same...

    CK needs to get prepared for the 2010 race as Gerry Ferraro so accurately said...'this is not the time for 'on the job training'...especially for New York...especially...

    Parent

    You Do Speak Clearly (none / 0) (#157)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 12:42:03 PM EST
    Almost every comment you have posted here on TL is about Hillary the greatest, and Obama the unqualified (at best).

    In that context, which is all I have to go on, it seems disingenouous that you are all concerned about the well being of the people of NTS and their representative.

    Geez you were even shilling for Palin against Obama in some of your comments, hoping for a debate between them. The unstated payoff for you would be to see Obama crushed and humiliated by Palin.

    It is my opinion that your concern about Paterson's appointment, has little to do with Kennedy and NYS, and all to do with the fact that Caroline Kennedy and Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama.

    Parent

    you project what you want to believe (5.00 / 3) (#159)
    by S on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:21:36 PM EST
    and assume you know what others are saying, thinking and believing...

    as I said...speak for yourself...do not presume to speak for me...I am quite capable of doing that for myself

    Parent

    Not Assuming Anything (none / 0) (#160)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:28:39 PM EST
    Your context at TL is only Hillary v Obama. Everything you have written here, with the possible exception of some small talk, is bound by that topic.

    I think it strange that you would pretend otherwise as all your comments are available for all to read in the TL archives.

    Parent

    new topic...election is over...moving on... (none / 0) (#162)
    by S on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:34:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Not assuming anything about you? (5.00 / 1) (#172)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 04:11:19 AM EST
    S, this was "assumed" about you by the mind-reading commentor himself, who just wrote above in comment #160:
    The unstated payoff for you would be to see Obama crushed and humiliated by Palin.

    The other day somebody remarked that there seems to be a castration complex in play...

    Parent

    Phew (none / 0) (#173)
    by Politalkix on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 08:31:42 AM EST
    I know that HRC supporters like to brag about her [you know what]. However nurturing a complex imagining that she was "castrated" during the primaries is taking it a bit too far in my opinion :-).

    Parent
    The meaning of your response is unclear... (none / 0) (#176)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Fri Dec 26, 2008 at 03:36:22 PM EST
    My remark recounted a comment from somebody who had suggested there is a castration complex among some of the men who compulsively bash Hillary Clinton and her female supporters.

    You know, some of the guys who defend Jon Favreau, and put down women as 'bitter old PUMA hags'.

    Parent

    you are too quick to jump to your conclusions (5.00 / 2) (#161)
    by S on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:33:16 PM EST
    btw...if you read the rest of my comments you would see that you have no idea what I think or mean and are completely off base...

    as for your analysis you seem to be in 'tunnel vision' and perceiving everything from obama land...he won, he is going to be the president...now there are other things going on...try getting into present time...the election is over...

    as I mentioned down thread I actually think CK is better suited for the Supreme Court...she has researched and 'knows' the constitution and I think her quiet, research type personality would be a much better fit there...

    she seems like she would be a passive player in the Senate role while having a vote...but is she equipped for the rough and tumble and total loss of privacy and tabloid world and long, hard hours of work and down to earth with everyday people that will be needed, especially since she has no experience at all with that intensity...because that is what she is walking into...

    let her put a campaign together and run in 2010 and prove her mettle...then SHE will get the credit of her achievements...

    ...in the future try to refrain from telling others what they think and what their motives are...sounds so reactionary and frankly, a bit immature...

    Parent

    Obama Land? (none / 0) (#163)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:58:24 PM EST
    Have you determined that from my comments here?  

    Never been crazy about Obama, voted for Hillary who I also was not so crazy about. They seemed about the same to me, both to the right of where I prefer.

    I did like the fact that one of them was bound to make history. And I was extremely happy about the GOP moving toward the dustbin. Also I like that Obama seems to have excited a new generation of Democratic voters.  Hope he can keep them on the hook.

    Strange that your attempt to "move on" as you phrase it, falls in line with a favorite Hillary cult theme, Kennedy bashing.

    Not very convincing, but I look forward to your comments reflecting your stated intention.

    Parent

    you do not read or listen very well (5.00 / 3) (#165)
    by S on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:16:19 PM EST
    you are the one that keeps telling commenters that they are bashing because Kennedy supported O...even when many posters are saying something completely different...that is your position...

    I am not Kennedy bashing...obviously you have not read all my comments on this thread because I have suggested other avenues I think CK is better suited for and if she ran a camp for Senate in 2010 and won I would be the first to say 'You go, girl'...bravo

    btw...was just thinking about an archive interview CK did with ET that they replayed a few nights ago...where CK is directly asked about her interest in running for 'elective' office...and her own words are No, and she does not have the personality for that...

    hard to fit a circle into a square...and vice versa...

    as I said before, right now she is appearing too shy, too fearful, too protected and too amateurish...those are my reasons for my reservations....right now she is the 'token' kennedy and being considered because of her name, not her accomplishments...

    signing off now...things to do besides going around in circles...

    Parent

    Your Opinion (none / 0) (#166)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:32:39 PM EST
    That I am somehow missing your point. I am not, I just wholeheartedly disagree.

    And calling CK lacking in accomplishments, aka unqualified, only riding on her name, and implying that she is a dilettante,  is bashing imo.

    Parent

    Oh, And (none / 0) (#164)
    by squeaky on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM EST
    I would love to see her on the SC. Not an option at the moment. But I think that the idea that professional pols wind up better reps than newbies so to speak, has no historical basis.

    CK seems more than qualified to me, but that is rather beside the point, imo. Paterson seems more than qualified to pick someone that will best serve NYers.

    Parent

    interesting read on CK and her 'resume' (none / 0) (#158)
    by S on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 01:19:11 PM EST

    http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/12/okay_it_would_b.php

    she does not sound like she has enough energy for a full time senator

    Parent

    Quit griping (5.00 / 1) (#127)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:49:19 PM EST
    Caroline Kennedy would be a fine appointment.  She has actually written serious and well-respected books on the Bill of Rights and the Constitution.  We could use a few Senators who know something about the intellectual underpinnings of our country.

    No, she shouldn't be picked just because she's a Kennedy, but she shouldn't be opposed simply because she's a Kennedy either.

    She has co-written 2 books (5.00 / 2) (#129)
    by Iphie on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 02:34:40 PM EST
    in her 51 years. I would oppose just handing over a US Senate seat to anyone who had only two co-written books to recommend her -- Kennedy or no.

    There are other Kennedys who would make fine senators -- Kennedys who have spent their lives (actual careers) working for the public good, Kennedys who have worked to effect change, Kennedys who have rallied and informed the public in an effort to do good, Kennedys who have shown great passion and commitment to the major issues of our day. Robert Kennedy, Jr. immediately comes to mind, Kerry Kennedy, too, but unfortunately, Caroline Kennedy is not one of those Kennedys.

    Parent

    Run For Governor (none / 0) (#133)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:22:37 PM EST
    Win a seat, and you can use your good judgement to appoint another Kennedy or whoever you like.

    Or vote against Paterson for doing something you think is foolish.

    Parent

    Did Patterson run for governor (5.00 / 1) (#136)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    or for lieutenant governor?

    For those of us old enough, like Caroline Kennedy, to remember the '70s -- it's the problem that we faced when we had a president that we had not even elected as vice president, and then his first act was to pardon his criminal predecessor.

    With all the talk of whether Kennedy could get elected in her own right in a couple of years . . . the question also ought to be whether acceding to the wishes of the Kennedys could hurt Patterson's chances for election in his own right as well.

    Parent

    Paterson's Bio (none / 0) (#138)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:10:56 PM EST
    At the age of 31 in 1985, Governor Paterson was elected to represent Harlem in the New York State Senate, becoming the youngest Senator in Albany. In 2003, he became the minority leader of the New York State Senate, the first non-white legislative leader in New York's history. He made history again in 2004 when he became the first visually impaired person to address the Democratic National Convention. He became New York's first African American Lieutenant Governor in 2007 and is now New York's first African American Governor.

    link

    If you do not like the system, lobby for change. And I agree, whoever Paterson picks, it will be his sole responsibility. Whoever it is will reflect on Paterson's judgement and will certainly have some effect on his bid for election in 2010. I am sure that he is fully aware of that and will appoint accordingly.

    And as far as Paterson being elected Lieutenant Gov, I would say that he was:

     

    Paterson was selected as running mate by then New York Attorney General and Democratic Party nominee Eliot Spitzer in the 2006 New York gubernatorial election.[3] They were elected in November 2006 with 69 percent of the vote, and Paterson took office as Lieutenant Governor on January 1, 2007.[4]

    wiki

    And FWIW: in 1985 Paterson was elected the state senate seat that his father once held held.


    Parent

    Great! (5.00 / 2) (#141)
    by Iphie on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:45:00 PM EST
    And I agree, whoever Paterson picks, it will be his sole responsibility.
    I'm sure we are all relieved to know that you agree with state law.

    And FWIW, Paterson was elected to the state senate seat his father once held -- he wasn't handed the position -- that is the big difference, one that you seem to think is a minor difference, but really, that's a huge difference.

    Parent

    State Law? (none / 0) (#145)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:00:43 PM EST
    Sorry, it must be my poor writing that made you bring up state law. I was agreeing with Creme City that Paterson will bear the responsibility of how his appointee will perform. That decision will be on voters minds in the 2010 election. If Caroline makes NYers democrats happy, it will reflect well on him, if she performs poorly he will pay.

    Parent
    Elected not selected? (none / 0) (#139)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:40:03 PM EST
    And FWIW: in 1985 Paterson was elected the state senate seat that his father once held held.

    ;)

    Parent

    But I like Patterson and want him to last (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:00:36 PM EST
    and don't want this lobbying blitz on him to bring him down.  You apparently don't care that this could hurt him -- but it matters to many of us who is governor of one of the most powerful states, which has an impact on the economy on many others.

    Yes, duh, I know he was elected lt. gov. -- that was not the question.  It was whether he ran for gov, and now you clarify that he did not . . . which makes your previous comment messy, but that's not new.

    As for changing this law, we did so here in my state.  I heartily recommend that you get to work to do so in yours.

    Parent

    False Statement (none / 0) (#146)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 05:06:57 PM EST
    You apparently don't care that this could hurt him --

    It does not follow that if I have no problem with Paterson appointing CK then I do not care about Paterson.

    I disagree with your take on Kennedy, and also your take on Paterson's judgement. Obviously you think that if Paterson appoints Kennedy he had poor judgement.

    Yes there are always risks involved with making decisions. I do not see this decision as particularly risky.

    Parent

    It does seem that maybe (5.00 / 1) (#150)
    by MoveThatBus on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 09:40:16 PM EST
    Caroline wouldn't be doing the right thing for herself by choosing the opportunity to enter politics when being appointed through favors and promises is the golden key to entry.

    If she really, really wants to serve the people of New York this way, the office will be voted on in 2010. That gives her two years to get a good campaign going, fill it with funds, and prove to the country she can do this without the easylift rise to power her name and her uncle are offering her.


    Parent

    Just because she's a Kennedy? (5.00 / 4) (#130)
    by caseyOR on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 02:52:05 PM EST
    I haven't seen anyone opposed to Caroline simply because she is a Kennedy. People cite her lack of electoral experience; her lack of sustained and meaningful public engagement; her inability to get to the polls to vote; her very private and reticent nature that seems at odds with what is needed to successfully campaign for and serve in the Senate; the absence of any deserve, until last week, to hold elective office.

    Her last name only figures in when discussing Uncle Teddy's pretty blatant attempt to bribe Paterson with an offer to take care of New York's needs in Congress.

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#134)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    Have you not been following the thread?

    for example:

    Caroline's cool on the issues (none / 0) (#113)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    But nepotism is not right.

    It's in the blood. (5.00 / 2) (#69)
    by Iphie on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:43:33 PM EST
    The ability to rule, that is -- originally bestowed by God and passed down through the generations." The Divine Right of Kennedys" is what I've taken to calling it.


    Parent
    So you haven't read any other comments? (5.00 / 2) (#140)
    by Iphie on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 04:42:37 PM EST
    Or, at least any other of mine? If you had, you will see that there are many reasons to be opposed to CK being handed the senate seat -- that's the point, if it weren't for her name, she has nothing else to recommend her for the job.

    Again, it isn't because of her name, it is because of her complete and total lack of qualifications.

    If her name were Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. I'd be all over the idea of putting that person in the senate. Or, wait, maybe you think people are opposed to her because her name is Caroline*?

    *That's snark, in case you're wondering, just like the comment that you have quoted above.

    Parent

    send CK to the supreme court (none / 0) (#152)
    by S on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 10:47:41 AM EST
    CK sounds better suited for the Supreme Court...she knows the constitution and her personality is much better suited for that environment...CK does not seem prepared for the rough and tumble that will await her...many public appearances, fairs, farms, workers, DEBATES...tabloids and public scrutiny...

    in all seriousness, CK and SC are a match

    Parent

    Actually you had me when (2.00 / 1) (#90)
    by Baal on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:38:35 PM EST
    you mentioned Ferraro's opposition.  I was a bit hesitant before, now I am fully in favor.

    Actually, in all seriousness, I still have misgivings from the perspective of fairness (some other people may have paid more dues).  However, I always knew she was a middle of the road Democrat.  I'm sure she will be a perfectly reasonable senator.

    You're kidding, right? (5.00 / 2) (#91)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 11:45:35 PM EST
    some other people may have paid more dues


    Parent
    What do you mean you always (5.00 / 1) (#120)
    by Iphie on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:22:23 PM EST
    knew CK was a middle of the road Democrat? Are you privy to information that the rest of us are lacking? Caroline Kennedy has spent her entire life sequestered from the public, she has not shared many of her political beliefs either in word or deed. Your assessment of her as perfectly reasonable is certainly not based on the facts at hand.

    You may feel that she will do a good job, but as we have very little in the way of concrete accomplishments to go on, your feelings about her are about as meaningful as the people who felt that George Bush was an all 'round good guy, and perfectly equipped to be president.

    Parent

    CK is too shy and passive (5.00 / 0) (#154)
    by S on Mon Dec 22, 2008 at 11:28:45 AM EST
    truthfully, her presence as a Senator from NY feels like she would be more of an assistant with a vote...

    Is she ready to put in the time and devotion needed...the longs hours, the travel, etc...reports I have read state she has never had a full time job...ever...her finances have never been revealed and her volunteer work has amounted to a few hours a week and alot of fundraising....

    as i have said a few times now, if she really has the 'fire in the belly' to be a Senator from NY, then by all means, put together a campaign and run in 2010...if she goes out and proves herself, at the very least, introduces herself to her consitituents, communicates her talking points out there, participates in debates...and then wins...well, then I say...you go girl...you earned this and you deserve to be the NY Senator...you put yourself on the line and she would earn enormous respect as an individual...

    so far, this is amateur hour...

    ...if she slips in with an appointment under these circumstances...with a PR firm putting out vague answers speaking on her behalf...I say 'no way, jose'  

    Parent

    I have no dog in the fight (2.00 / 1) (#93)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:47:18 AM EST
    and will be happy to support whoever Governor Paterson appoints. We can legitimately argue issues and experience all night, but in all honesty I know of no one under consideration who has paid more dues than Caroline Kennedy.

    Parent
    What dues has she paid? (5.00 / 1) (#96)
    by nycstray on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:02:54 AM EST
    Not what her family members have paid, which she had to live with, but dues where she put herself out there and made sacrifices as an adult and public servant? Seems to me she did her best to stay out of the public, including being actively involved in causes here in NY and across the nation.

    Parent
    Caroline's dues paying (5.00 / 3) (#99)
    by caseyOR on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:10:50 AM EST
    What dues has Caroline paid? Are you referring to the deaths of her father and uncle? Terrible losses for Caroline and all the Kennedys, but not what I would call political dues paying.

    Are you suggesting she is owed this seat because of her suffering? Isn't that very much like the argument that McCain was owed the presidency because of his time as a POW?

    I didn't buy it for McCain, and I don't buy it for Caroline.

    Parent

    I'm not (3.50 / 2) (#102)
    by CoralGables on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:42:25 AM EST
    suggesting anything as to who deserves the seat. No one "deserves" the seat.

    Someone will be appointed and, unless you have Governor Paterson on speed dial, what you or I think about who might best serve in that capacity is meaningless. The only person that that has an opinion that ultimately matters is Governor Paterson.

    Again I'll say, argue away on experience or issues for anyone under consideration....but dues? Sorry, no one has paid more.

    Parent

    Actually, (5.00 / 2) (#123)
    by Iphie on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:33:42 PM EST
    I don't think what I think on the issue is meaningless -- I may not have Governor Paterson on speed dial, but he does have a number where I can call and let him know my thoughts on the subject. And according to the guy who took my call, I was far from the first of his constituents calling to express their concerns.

    Paterson may not care what I think individually, but he faces an election in 2010, too, and if enough of us communicate our preference, he is not going to ignore us just so he can do Teddy Kennedy a solid. Teddy Kennedy won't be voting in NY in 2010 (odds are, neither will Caroline).

    Parent

    What dues has she paid? (5.00 / 1) (#100)
    by shoephone on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 01:12:44 AM EST
    Seriously. Losing family members to assassins is horrible and tragic, but how does that equate to paying dues?

    She's written some good books (the first one, "We the People", I keep next to my desk for reference) and she's done great fundraising work for schools.

    This equates to paying dues?

    If so, the concept of "paying dues" has been turned inside out.

    Parent

    So, what you're saying is (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by Iphie on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:24:24 PM EST
    that you know nothing about any of the other people being considered. Do you even know who those other people are?

    Parent
    And then run for President in 2016 (none / 0) (#106)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 02:08:03 AM EST
    Got it.  

    Will Obama make her his VP for his second term, so she can just slide into the Presidency?  

    Parent

    Exactly what I said in the first place (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 02:59:32 PM EST
    Issues are what do it for me.

    Issues (none / 0) (#6)
    by SOS on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:15:44 PM EST
    No shortage of those. The only problem I have with issues is issues have become to much of an excuse to not put the nose to the grindstone and find real solutions to real problems and to take action accordingly. We can leap from one issue after another without ever solving a real problem.

    I discovered this during my Corporate years and it frustrated the hell out of me.

    Parent

    What I am (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by SOS on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:19:18 PM EST
    saying is it got to the point to where I said are we going to discuss issues or solve problems?

    I'm truly amazed I was never "let go" for asking such things directly to my immediate "superiors".

    Parent

    Dazed and Confused (none / 0) (#2)
    by SOS on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:09:45 PM EST
    The main problem is the power players have learned to dance with the MSM. Everything has to be "branded" properly for public consumption. Niche marketing, image management, perception, scripts, etc.

    As glad as I am to see the Party That Wrecked America leave the door I've still become very cynical of the whole political process.

    Is Caroline is goal oriented and able to produce the results? Or is it just another political grab?

    She's the only one who can ultimately clarify that.

    Well (none / 0) (#10)
    by SOS on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:23:57 PM EST
    She looks good. And the names familiar!

    LOL sorry just being a jerk.

    How bout someone (none / 0) (#11)
    by SOS on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:29:17 PM EST
    without an Ivy League Law Degree for a change?

    (No offense Jeralyn. LOL. Everyone should have a smart and competent attorney.)

    Dynasty (none / 0) (#12)
    by Joe the carpenter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:31:57 PM EST
    At least those who had the seat before had fought for it, RFK and HRC, Could the governor appoint a caretaker for 2 years and let it be fought for in 2010
    I have a feeling (none / 0) (#13)
    by jen on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:32:42 PM EST
    Hillary will not be approved as Sec of State and that seat will not be open. The big deal made to get the donor list for President Clinton's Foundation gives Obama the perfect out. How sad and disappointed he'll be to announce that there are just too many conflicts for Hillary to be in that position.

    Caroline should sit tight and wait to be appointed to Uncle Teddy's seat as it seems logical that he will soon be stepping down.

    You describe perfectly why (5.00 / 1) (#47)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:05:44 PM EST
    those who base their political judgments on their feelings should find another hobby.

    Facts are our friends.

    Parent

    I will believe (5.00 / 1) (#131)
    by jen on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 02:57:47 PM EST
    Hillary is going to be Sec of State when she is confirmed. Until then, I have great doubts. My feelings have everything to do with what I've seen PEBO do in the past. I trust him not.

    Parent
    carpetbagger (2.00 / 1) (#26)
    by diogenes on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:05:22 PM EST
    Then she'd be a carpetbagger (like Hillary was in 2000 when she got the Democratic nomination unopposed, and thus the election, in NY) who would also be a legacy.  How many of the people here who oppose Caroline Kennedy were vocally telling Hillary in 2000 to run for the senate in Arkansas or Illinois?

    Parent
    I wasn't too keen on the idea of (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:14:08 PM EST
    the Clinton "drama" coming to NY. BUT, Rudy was running, so it wasn't too hard for me to support/vote for her. Once he dropped out, I was pretty much neutral about the whole thing.

    BTW, check her resume prior to her run. It wasn't too shabby for an "inexperienced" person. CK hasn't offered up much in comparison. And Hillary did the ol' roll up the sleeves and go out and talk to as many NYers as possible. She really works for things.

    Parent

    sorry, but Caroline is not Hillary (5.00 / 3) (#37)
    by befuddledvoter on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:39:18 PM EST
    Not even close.  

    Parent
    Yes and Hillary's (5.00 / 2) (#84)
    by BackFromOhio on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 09:41:23 PM EST
    record as Senator from NY is a very tough act to follow.  Hillary has ardently and effectively represented interests of all New Yorkers. Her 69% win in 2006 was testimony to how hard (and competently) she worked for all of us here.

    Parent
    Ooh, dueling Kennedys (none / 0) (#14)
    by caseyOR on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:36:01 PM EST
    Caroline would have to move to the Bay State to compete for Uncle Teddy's seat. And, she would have to go toe to toe with cousin Joe Kennedy. Does the family allow that? Or would the cousins be required to draw straws or flip a coin? Family dynamics are so interesting.

    Parent
    Well if Joe is going to land Teddy's seat (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:39:57 PM EST
    why do we need Caroline to "carry on the tradition"?

    Parent
    Not a chance (none / 0) (#107)
    by BrassTacks on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 02:12:21 AM EST
    That Hillary won't be confirmed.  I'd bet the farm on it.  Obama's not so dumb as to pull this stunt.  

    Wouldn't Caroline have to live in the state that she represents in the Senate?  Not to say that the voters of MA wouldn't LOVE to have her represent them.  

    Parent

    She running mainly on the name. (none / 0) (#18)
    by Saul on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:50:26 PM EST
    I like Caroline but if she was true to cause then she should run using her married name.  To me that would prove she was really running for the senate seat like everyone else and not on the coattails of a celebrity family.

    There was a guy in Texas who was running for the Texas Supreme court.  No one ever heard of him but he just happen to have the same name of a famous movie start  Gene Kelly.  He never held a public office before.     He won overwhelming just because of the his name.

    A guy in Wisconsin got his name changed (none / 0) (#20)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:53:46 PM EST
    to La Follette and got elected to office. . . .

    Parent
    Happens in PA with "Bob Casey" (none / 0) (#22)
    by andgarden on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:57:29 PM EST


    Parent
    You talking about Doug, the Sec. of State? (none / 0) (#30)
    by Ben Masel on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:23:09 PM EST
    It's his real name, he just never mentions he's only a distant cousin.

    Parent
    Nope, there was another guy (none / 0) (#58)
    by Cream City on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:00:54 PM EST
    years ago who got the name change and got elected.  Early '70s, I think.

    Yeh, I hear that Do-Nothing Doug is a bona fide La Follette.  Just goes to show that DNA isn't enough.

    Parent

    That's a good name to have, imo (none / 0) (#21)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 03:56:39 PM EST
    When I hear it, it makes me smile and I can't think of anything bad about the guy :)

    Parent
    I thought to myself (none / 0) (#25)
    by lilburro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:05:03 PM EST
    (I'm not a NY resident so it doesn't matter all that much) if Caroline supports gay marriage, I'll be totally behind her bid for Senate.

    So she works for me!  I hope she will not just support but fight for these issues though.

    Is she Pro-Choice? (none / 0) (#29)
    by BarnBabe on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:16:01 PM EST
    I know she is a devout Catholic against divorce, etc. I do not know what her position is on Abortion. I would like to know this and how she has shown her beliefs in situations before.

    No Kennedys (none / 0) (#40)
    by gyrfalcon on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:49:12 PM EST
    are anti-choice, and I can't imagine she is.  I doubt she's all that seriously anti-divorce, either, given the marital messes of various kinds in her family.


    Parent
    There's pretty much no way that she's (none / 0) (#41)
    by tigercourse on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:54:30 PM EST
    anti-choice. Patterson would never consider her if she was.

    Parent
    Speaking as a wanna-be New Yorker, (none / 0) (#43)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 04:57:25 PM EST
    why is this particular special appointment to Congress getting so much more scrutiny than many, many others.  I'm thinking of Hal Bogg's wife, Wally Capps' wife, Sonny Bono's wife, and lots more.

    I can think of a whole bunch of reasons (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:23:07 PM EST
    and that alone says something  ;)

    But seriously, look who she's following, look at the impact the economy is having on our state, look at our options of experienced people for the seat, look at her history here in public service, just for starters. We need someone (as does the country) who can do some heavy lifting and her recent appearances on the news don't inspire a lot of confidence, imo. I'm not sure I would be so opposed if it was a House seat, as we have more representation there, but as Senator? Also, once in, is she a lifer?

    Parent

    Timing. And, Carolyn (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:24:36 PM EST
    isn't replacing her dead husband...

    Those spouses had sympathy and party support.  Caroline?  Not so much.

    Parent

    I should think the death of (none / 0) (#53)
    by oculus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 05:31:58 PM EST
    her father, uncle, and brother would generate some sympathy.  Too long ago, I guess.

    Parent
    Sympathy as a little girl who (none / 0) (#59)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:19:20 PM EST
    lost her dad & uncle still exists, of course, though her brother's hapless death doesn't generate sympathy to the same degree for obvious reasons, except to underscore the Kennedy curse in dying young and inexplicately.

    Not to underrate her suffering, it appears she has survived well.

    I'm glad.  The Kennedy women had a lot to bear.

    Parent

    Sheesh...inexplicately/inexplicably. (none / 0) (#60)
    by oldpro on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:21:03 PM EST
    Whaterver.

    Parent
    Um, issues over personality? (none / 0) (#62)
    by blogtopus on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 06:32:51 PM EST
    If this were the case we'd have President-elect Clinton right now. I'm not expecting anything different from the Hope crowd.

    The same arguments against Kennedy were the ones that Obama's primary supporters claimed were 'inconsequential'. Gawd, I love seeing hypocrisy in action.

    Not that I think Kennedy should be Senator; I just think the loudest arguments against it so far have been hilariously inept and off target.

    As far as the Dynasty argument goes, nobody should be disqualified because of their family name alone. Joe Montana's son is growing up to be an amazing quarterback, but you're saying he shouldn't be allowed to play football because he might be forming a dynasty? Pfah. If you don't want someone to be a politician because you think their family has had their 'fair share', then you are being extremely lazy in your decision making. Find a better reason other than 'th-th-their family is too powerfullll!!'

    Is Joe's son just going to be (5.00 / 6) (#64)
    by nycstray on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:11:58 PM EST
    handed a starting QB position with a contending NFL team without ever having to play HS or College ball? Does he get to skip team tryouts and the whole 9 yrds? I'm sure he will, right? He's Joe's son after all. He doesn't even need to step on the field before we grace him with a primo QB slot. What's that argument again? Oh yeah, he grew up at his daddy's knee learning about football . . . . no need to practice and apply what he's learned.

    Parent
    Or even to see if he took to the lessons. N/T (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Iphie on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 07:21:20 PM EST


    Parent
    Family name also should not be used (5.00 / 5) (#75)
    by Amiss on Sat Dec 20, 2008 at 08:41:48 PM EST
    to "qualify" anyone either, if she were not a Kennedy, she would not even be considered, period.
    As far as the Dynasty argument goes, nobody should be disqualified because of their family name alone.


    Parent
    Um just exactly (none / 0) (#169)
    by jondee on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 08:58:06 AM EST
    what the hell has Lady McSpringboard done in my state that I missed that warrants a reality-based assessment of her as being any more about "issues" than most other candidates?

    Lets see the rundown.

    Parent

    Caroline's cool on the issues (none / 0) (#113)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 10:53:37 AM EST
    But nepotism is not right.

    And, really, Al Giordano? Please.

    Nepotism? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Dec 21, 2008 at 12:18:32 PM EST
    Was Paterson an illegitimate Kennedy child? Did not know that, glad that his secret is finally out, must be a big pressure off his mind.

    Parent
    For Or Against Caroline Kennedy For The Senate | 176 comments (176 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment