Caroline Kennedy

Another one the pundits got wrong. Except KT.

Change her name to “Caroline Smith” and try not to laugh when you ask yourself is she is qualified. She is less qualified than Sarah Palin, and anyone with a consistent internal radar ought to say so out loud. No, no, no. Senate seats shouldn’t be put up for sale, nor should they be passed along in estates like favored golden music boxes.

Well, pourme, there’s qualified and then there’s qualified. I mean, have you ever met Sen. John Cornyn of Texas?
.
But the evening TV reports did focus more on how this would maintain the Kennedy ‘dynasty’ than what talents Ms. Kennedy would bring to the office.

@dave – Cronyn, and others, at least had to work for it. Kennedy wants it gifted – like an heirloom.

Caroline Kennedy is qualified. She went to Columbia and Harvard, has worked for the Met, has sat on several boards, has worked on education. She also is over 30 years old. A senate seat is not the Vice Presidency.
.
I am not in favor of her being picked. I think there should be a caretaker for the next 2 years. That being said, I get infuriated that people suggest she isn’t “qualified”. She has a wonderful resume outside of elected office. This may shock some people, but occasionally non previously elected people sometimes run for and win Senate seats.
.
I believe they should give the seat to somebody like Mario Cuomo for 2 years if he is willing and able to take it. Then let anybody who wants it in 2010 to run in a primary.

**She is less qualified than Sarah Palin,**
**
She has degrees from Columbia and Harvard, and has co-authored three books on the Bill of Rights and civil liberties. I don’t like dynasty politics either, and as KT’s article suggests, nothing about her bio suggests she’s actually prepared for the grit of a campaign where she’s the candidate and not The Very Special Guest Star.
But “less qualified than Sarah Palin”? Come on.

Fascinating. Now how about that Senate report?
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735

(I keep getting an ad for Cartier’s. Some of you guys just knock me right out of ad demographic for this blog. Wattayoo? Romneys? McCains? )

Ok…anyone out there wondering if Hillary gets confirmed? Interesting how she hasn’t resigned her seat. Are we headed for another cloture vote to prevent an up or down vote? If Hillary was sure she’d be confirmed she’d have resigned her seat.
.
Is Caroline Kennedy qualified? Who knows. She could be the next George Mitchell, or the next Bob Corker. There are plenty of qualified people in NY other than her. There could be worse choices.

If it weren’t for her last name, she wouldn’t be on anyone’s Top 100 list, and no one would take her call. She has zero public record and hasn’t put a moment’s effort into earning an election at any level. She’s not qualified to me. Let her run and earn it not use her influence to be given it.

Cliff, I really don’t think the violations of human rights and alleged crimes against humanity belongs in a blog like Swampland.
.
What were you thinking when you posted that link?
.
Oh…you were thinking. Oops, my bad.
.
Must be the water in the Swamp.

Coffee: I am ambivalent about Ms. Kennedy. I understand your point. To great degree I agree. I just can’t get too excited about this, other than to consider she’ll probably vote 100% with Obama, and perhaps that is worth the appointment.

Unlike a lot of people who seem to have an opinion about this, I actually live in New York, so I get to vote on who our own senator should be (and rather resent out-of-staters who don’t know who the alternatives are telling me who should represent my interests). I have no problem with Caroline Kennedy, probably the only Kennedy I don’t have a problem with. I prefer her to Andrew Cuomo, who is likely to be the alternative, or Anthony Weiner, the Brooklyn a-hole who is a Schumer wanna-be but a-holier.
.
Hillary didn’t have elective office before she carpetbagged into our state, and despite some initial grumblings she made her place. Caroline has been described as a workhorse rather than a showhorse, and I’m willing to believe that. Plus, she’s outside of the Schumer/Rangel/Clinton machine, which is a plus for me, even if she will have to work with them.
.
Whomever is appointed will have to defend the seat in 2010 and 2012, perhaps against Giuliani, so what NY Dem name is big enough to go against a former presidential candidate (even if he is a buffoon)? She can raise the money and win. She is beloved. She will work hard. She is reliably supportive of Obama. She’s got my vote.

It’s one thing for people from political dynasties to get elected. But appointed? By an unelected governor? I’ll be angry if this happens.

Outside of the Schumer machine? Pay attention.

Andy: Yeah, you’re right. I was just sitting around huffing glue and I thought to myself, “I know! I’ll post that link!” And that was really about the only thought I had for the next ten minutes.

pourme: I said she has to work with them, but she isn’t Schumer’s. Her name and stature are bigger than his.

“Unlike a lot of people who seem to have an opinion about this, I actually live in New York, so I get to vote on who our own senator should be (and rather resent out-of-staters who don’t know who the alternatives are telling me who should represent my interests)”
.
That line came up last week. So you won’t chime in on any races outside of the ones you can vote in? I would hope not.

When it comes down to Dem vs. Repub, I probably have an opinion.

Cliff,

The glue, what brand? Need thoughts… No wait I think I’ll go to bed. Nevermind….

It’s ultimately New York’s call, but let’s take a little snapshot of this moment in time: two Udalls just elected, Biden by all accounts warming his seat with a placeholder for Beau, Jeb Bush poised to run for Martinez seat, talk tonight that Salazar’s brother is under consideration for his appointment if he goes to Interior, Hillary freshly moved from the Senate to State, the Governator, Al Franken, Tweety … everybody’s got their own opinion and mine is that we could do with a little less ascent to power with family and fame as such a key ingredient in the mix — particularly when it’s a matter of discretionary appointment.

For what it’s worth, this guy makes a strong argument that Kennedy would be an inspired appointment:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/caroline-kennedy-no-drama-no-drama-was-cool

That’s silly nibbly-a lot of people had opinions and even gave money in primary races that were outside their district/state. Lamont/Lieberman being an obvious example.
Better Democrats Please and all that.

How the hell is she qualified outside of her bloodline? I thought we got rid of the whole political power passes from parents to children when we kicked out the monarchal British back in the 1770′s.
-
I vote no. Appoint someone who’s qualified in some way besides nepotism. The government is still recovering from the damage done by a bunch of people selected for reasons other than ability by Bush/Cheney and Co. The Democrats don’t need to repeat that mistake.

Paul-not: I admit that I have a bit of annoyance about this directed at Jane Hamsher who was mouthing off on HuffPost recently, even though she lives in DC. Mostly because IMO her braying is about ginning up own publicity rather than having a real opinion about it.

Which does Caroline not meet. You might not like them but this is all she needs to do to qualify.
.
Qualifications
.
Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution sets three qualifications for senators: 1) each senator must be at least 30 years old, 2) must have been a citizen of the United States for at least the past nine years, and 3) must be (at the time of the election) an inhabitant of the state they seek to represent.

I read a strong debunking of Jane’s piece in comments here-was that you? Point by point.
.
There is a difference between counter arguing and dismissal by geography.

” I thought we got rid of the whole political power passes from parents to children ”
.
Sean I may have you confused with someone else but did you not vote for Bush in 2000? If so that’s a pretty ballsy thing to write with such outrage. If you didn’t never mind.

If the reaction is not a Kennedy, the next question is, then who? If the alternative is a Cuomo, would the same objections apply?

nibbly, how do you feel about Liz Holtzman? She actually ran for the senate before? Also are you a Jets, Giants, or Bills fan?

Cliff and Newfloridian: Maybe that huff-ington post site can help you out.

I’m with nibbly and gunny. According to the Constitution, Kennedy is more than qualified to run OR to be appointed, and it’s up to the people of the good (even great) state of New York to decide if they want her to serve. I think it’s not at all constructive to make some kind of a big issue about this. We have bigger fish to fry, for crissake.
.
Railing against Kennedy is just noise that drowns out the REAL issues that we need to be heard on, like the contents of the Senate report that Cliff links to. Instead, the story is “leftists up in arms about Caroline Kennedy.” Cue Scarborough, who sets the agenda for cable news, who sets the agenda for the entire MSM. Once again, no one talks about Bush’s torture presidency, except Greenwald and Sullivan. How is that helpful?
.

Andy: I don’t even know who Holtzman is, which considering that I follow the news more than the average bear, is not good news for her, having to run back-to-back campaigns almost immediately.
.
No Jets, Giants or Bills. The Bills suck balls, and the Jets and Giants play in Jersey. I’m a lifelong Steelers fan.

If she votes with Obama 100% of the time how could you be against her as a Senator? Who knows who will emerge from Illinois? Obama needs senate votes he can count on. So move me to the Kennedy column.
.
It could be Senator Patterson, who knows?

I like Caroline. Qualified? As blue a blood as a Catholic zillionaire can be. Educated to the gills. Class? She gots it. So, I am in favor, I guess. We proletairans love royalty.

I can’t afford that Cartier watch btw.

nibbly, she was on the house judiciary committee when Nixon was president. If you want to talk about qualifications:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Holtzman

She has a resume.

Cuomo has sought and earned electoral credibility. He’s held significant governmental roles, in the Cabinet as Sec. of HUD,and in the state as Attorney General. He’s also fought hard for N.Y. votes in an (unsuccessful) run for Governor. I’d roll my eyes a little over the nepotism, but Cuomo and Kennedy aren’t comparable in terms of experience. Holtzman held multiple municipal positions, was in the House for close to ten years, and ran for Senate. I don’t know the rest of the players, but I’m sure there are lots of people who are not relying primarily on family/fame. No one is arguing “qualification” in terms of Constitutional eligibility — that’s a rebuttal in search of an assertion. There’s a position to be filled and a discussion about who is best to fill it. The existence of other important issues does not nullify the discussion.

Coffee: I can’t draw any distinction between Cuomo and Kennedy. His dad was Govenor Cuomo. He married (and divorced)a Kennedy. Another nepotistic choice.
.
If you’re a geezer like me, who remembers Holtzman, she would be a good choice. She has blazed trails as a woman and a politician. She would be a thinking person’s pick in NY, and a politically safe one for Patterson.

coffee, I get what you are saying, but none of what you list is an automatic qualifier for the Senate. Senate doesn’t require significant governmental roles, executive experience, or anything of the kind. Maybe Cuomo is OVERqualified to be a Senator.
.
Personally I don’t give a cr@p one way or another, but really, if you look at the median quality of Senators, you don’t come up with anything approaching extremely talented people. Mainly I’m concerned is whether she knows and respect the Constitution of the United States of America, and will cast every vote in its defense. If she commits to that, I’ll contribute to her campaign. Last I took count, we only had 25 Senators who would do that.
.

Cuomo is also dating Sandra Lee, who makes food out of cans and pretends that she’s “cooking”. His judgment is in question.
.
Holtzman is from the Nixon era? That would explain why I don’t know her. She might have a tough time getting name recognition from anyone not getting Social Security.
.
pourme: There are several possible names. Alec Baldwin was pushing Carolyn Maloney. She’s a good candidate, achievement-wise. The problem is that the person has to run back-to-back campaigns, starting almost immediately, and raise big money for them. They have to get instant name recognition in a large expensive state. The challenge is daunting.

Yeah, pourmecoffee, Constitutional requirements are so minimal as to have caused a mess of things.
.
I would be happy with Cuomo. I would have been happy with his daddy years ago, and still don’t understand why he didn’t step up to serve our country. Whatever.
.
It’s all a crap shoot, a beauty contest. We are in such a mess that we hope for something better, may it be Caroline or Andrew for NY.

I’m ambivalent about CK’s appointment, at best, but the histrionics of some of her critics–Hamsher’s screed was unreadable, Kos talks like she’s a dingbat socialite looking for a new hobby, “less qualified than Sarah Palin”–are so over the top they drown out other arguments against her. And every other candidate has pros and cons as well. Cuomo and Holtzman have run for statewide office. Okay. They lost. Louise Slaughter is fantastic. And eighty years old. I’ve seen a lot of arguments in favor of Nydia Velasquez. She’s very impressive. Can she raise $50 million, twice, in 2010 (with Schumer getting the Wall Street money, and Paterson running a statewide race at the same time) and again in 2012?
Democrats want to win and hold the seat, and their looking at the big picture, from a partisan perspective. What else do you expect them to do?

I don’t have a strong opinion about candidates other than Kennedy. In fact, I’m inclined to mind my own business and leave that up to New Yorkers. I only care about Kennedy because she fails to meet my threshold for Senator as someone who has never sought or held public office in her entire life, and lacks any meaningful public record on the issues.

@Jim – Cuomo won a statewide office. The one he’s in.

Senators voting against MCA
Akaka D
Baucus D
Bayh D
Biden D
Bingaman D
Boxer D
Byrd D
Cantwell D
Clinton D
Conrad D
Dayton D
Dodd D
Dorgan D
Durbin D
Feingold D
Feinstein D
Harkin D
Inouye D
Kennedy D
Kerry D
Kohl D
Leahy D
Levin D
Lincoln D
Mikulski D
Murray D
Obama D
Reed D
Reid D
Sarbanes D
Schumer D
Wyden D
.
.
Voted against warrentleess wiretapping and telecome immunity
NAYs —28
Akaka (D-HI)
Biden (D-DE)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Brown (D-OH)
Byrd (D-WV)
Cantwell (D-WA)
Cardin (D-MD)
Clinton (D-NY)
Dodd (D-CT)
Dorgan (D-ND)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Harkin (D-IA)
Kerry (D-MA)
Klobuchar (D-MN)
Lautenberg (D-NJ)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Menendez (D-NJ)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Reid (D-NV)
Sanders (I-VT)
Schumer (D-NY)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Tester (D-MT)
Wyden (D-OR)
.
.So there you have it.

Nydia Velasquez recused herself from consideration.

Agreed, Hamsher and Marcos have become insufferable and unreadable.

I nominate me. I’m also from NY, not a Kennedy _or_ a Cuomo – probably accurately described as a “mutt,” so I don’t have “dynasty” baggage – I care about the Constitution, and I once ran for and won a seat on our local school board. I know how smash-mouth politics can be.
‘
Vote for me: Mr. Nice Guy…

Raise money in NY? Is that a joke? We will all drown before there is not money to be had in NY.
.
pourme, I understand what you say, and am somewhat in agreement, but, you are arguing a losing battle against Caroline. She may be appointed or not, but her life is emotionally embedded in the minds of America. Just be happy that you don’t have to argue against the appointment of her brother.

Mr. Nice, you got my vote. It might be illegal in NY though.

Do people in NY pay attention to legalities? Even on Wall Street?

We shouldn’t overlook the fact that Andrew Cuomo is a frigging moron.

formerly, ouch. But, yes, some of us – primarily those of us who don’t feel “entitled”; there are a few of us left – still respect the law.

Some people really need to learn the other meanings of the word “qualified.” For example, Palin is constitutionally qualified for the Presidency, but she is inexperienced, ignorant and intellectually average. Therefore it’s fair to say she’s not qualified to be President.
–
About Caroline, she always seems nice and intelligent. And she’s probably experienced enough (the “socialite” arguments seem kind of sexist). But is she knowledgeable enough to be a good Senator? Good Senators have to be policy wonks. BTW, that’s why I always thought the right-wing argument that Palin was as qualified for the Presidency as Obama was crazy: He knows stuff, she doesn’t. That has to count for something. Also, being able to raise money will help her reelection, but there is absolutely no evidence that she can run a good campaign, which makes her a high-risk choice for the Democratic party. But if she does open forums and interviews and shows she’s knowledgeable, a tough debater and capable of running a solid campaign, then she’s a reasonable choice.

I have to admit I am pretty meh about Caroline Kennedy. But I will throw out a few notes on the subject. One reason a person might not agree with Caroline Kennedy being selected for the Senate is the fact that she hasn’t held public office before. Yes I know all about her family pedigree in public office but the funny thing is nobody brings up that pedigree when talking about whether or not her brother would be a good Senator. As a matter of fact, when HIS name was floated initially there was a lot MORE push back than there is about her. Now why is that I wonder. But more to the point, we are in the midst of a tipping point in our nations history. The times are surely more perilous than ANY politician is letting on. Therefore there is a sense that we are going to need the most experienced hands on deck to help guide Obama’s agenda through Congress. There is also the matter of legitimacy. If she is seen as just an acolyte of Obama’s she will lose all legitimacy not just for herself, but for the Democratic party in NY. I know its a stretch to think she would lose to a Republican in two years but thats only if we assume that things have turned around by then which inho isnt very likely. There is also the matter of her not having a record. For all those who are endorsing her to be picked I would just like to ask you where does she stand on immigration? where does she stand on labor? Where does she stand on nuclear proliferation? Where does she stand on homeland security? Where does she stand on healthcare? Does she favor single payer like her uncle or is she more towards a hybrid like Obama? Where does she stand on gay marriage? Where does she stand on economic issues? These are things that would be nice to know about a person who will be helping to right the ship.
.
Now I know she has the educational back ground and that she has written books and she has done some good work on education and the arts. But none of that is necessarily a recipe for her being a good Senator. As far as literal qualification, I would qualify to be a Senator but I for damn sure wouldnt vote for me. Now I am not saying Cuomo or anybody else in particular would necessarily be a better candidate JUST because they have held elected office, but I do think its some what disengenuous to dismiss her lack of legislative background. Before the Obama comparisons come up I will remind everyone that he got smacked down the first time he ran for the House of Representatives and I think we would all agree that he has a great educational pedigree just like she does. But even he needed a little more seasoning at the State level before he was ready to run with the big dogs on a national level.
.
Ok I am done with my meh input on the subject.
.
Will the Minnesota recount EVER end?

PNNTO,
-
Yeah, I did vote for Bush in 2000. I also learned from my mistake. Kids /= parents.

About Caroline, she always seems nice and intelligent.

.
rose83 that seems kinda sexist.

SG, is that a joke?

yes rose, but I have noticed that you find sexism in some of the most honest and innocent remarks. Literally that remark about her being “nice”, which the last time I checked had nothing to do with a qualification for someone being a Senator, could be seen as just as sexist as someone saying she is a Socialite which by every definition she has been. Would you comment on whether or not Andrew Cuomo seemed nice?
.
Just revealing the other side of the mirror, thats all.

Literally that remark about her being “nice”, which the last time I checked had nothing to do with a qualification for someone being a Senator, could be seen as just as sexist as someone saying she is a Socialite which by every definition she has been.
–
Um… my point was that all I really know about her is that she seems nice and intelligent. The socialite thing wasn’t a criticism of acknowledging the obvious – many of her activities are very typical of “socialites” – it was a criticism of people who are citing her social and charitable activities as an active disqualification for the Senate. For example, Obama’s a good basketball player. But he’s not just a good basketball player and it would be absurd to dismiss him as merely an “athlete.” That said, I’m not going to criticize people for pointing out the obvious: he’s a good basketball player.
–
Would you comment on whether or not Andrew Cuomo seemed nice?
–
Well, if that’s all I knew about him, then yes. I literally have virtually nothing else to say about Caroline Kennedy.

.
Okay, the alarm about Palin not being qualified was that she would have been first in line to the Presidency. Not so with a Senator. That is a false equivalence equal to something that Chris Matthews would bring up. Totally bogus comparison.
.
It isn’t rocket science to be a Senator. As for her positions on issues, one could ask, I suppose. I’ll bet she has strong positions on the major issues.
.
I don’t get the animosity about it here. That anti-dynasty stuff seems like a hold-over from the anti-Clinton obsessives especially for those who didn’t wring their garments over the Bush Dynasty. All of a sudden relatives of prominent Democratic politicians can’t go into politics because it’s a “dynasty”? It smacks of that old inbred rightwing irrational hatred of the Kennedys, which existed even before obsessive anti-Clinton. That’s how insidious rightwing propaganda sinks into the consciousness of susceptible people.
.
The whole fooferal is a big waste of time. It’s superficial and embarrassing.
.

I guess what I’d ask is where is the Carolyn Maloney TIME article? The one about Nydia Valazquez? Kirstin Gillibrand? (The last is my prediction.)
.
These are all people who are more qualified than Kennedy, people who have been elected, proven their legislative capability, much better people to serve out a term than a celebrity who gets immediate TIME coverage.
.
It makes me laugh to see the educational qualifications claimed for Kennedy. Yes, she went to Harvard as an undergrad. But like many (not all) of the other 20-30 percent of that class who were legacy admissions, that doesn’t mean anything. Caroline XYZ from Bronx Science or Boston Latin would be a different story. As Nydia is a different story.
.
IAC, this is a media storm. Kennedy brings no chits to Paterson. If she lived upstate, then there would be a better chance. But I’d be really surprised to see him pick someone from Manhattan.
.
If Kennedy were serious, she’d primary Schumer in 2010. Then all this fundraising prowess would come into play. Then she could make a real progressive difference.
.
She’s not serious. Her kids are grown. She wants her legacy. Pfui.

I find it interesting that the same folks in the press who were crying foul about Hillary running for dynastic reasons (running, not being appointed) are so thrilled about this, i’m looking at you Chris Matthews and Melinda Henninger.

jayackroyd, I hope by upstate you mean someone significantly north or north by northwest of Westchester county.

Ugh, please no. Caroline Kennedy is an admirable person, but we need to end the dynastic approach to politics.

“It isn’t rocket science to be a Senator” followed by “It’s superficial and embarrassing.” Alrighty, then. This batch of Senators got us into an unjust war, contributed to our economic collapse, and committed a thousand others sins of commission and omission. I want a better class of Senator. If Caroline Kennedy can run and win that seat, fine. If we’re handing it out, however, the only reason she’s even under consideration is her name and wealth. It’s time to treat these roles as rocket science and it’s superficial and embarrassing to do otherwise.

Okay, so what do you guys think are the qualifications for the senate? That you’ve held elective office? Apparently that didn’t apply to Hillary. Caroline has worked gratis for the city of New York school system for ages, raising 70 million dollars. That isn’t a qualification? She wasn’t in it for her own aggrandizement. All of us who care about privacy issues would find no one who knows more about privacy issues. That doesn’t count as a qualification?
.
It seems like the problem is not qualifications, but that you’re piqued that she wants to be appointed rather than elected (and/or piqued that she dissed Hillary, who she was apparently “supposed” to endorse).
.
Joe Klein is on m. Joe right now being anti-dynasty. Let’s see all of these people say Jeb Bush shouldn’t run for senator in Florida because they’re anti-dynasty.

This will be a test of Hillary’s remaining power in any political arena. She’s done with the national stage having accepted Foggy Bottom, so New York is all she has left. If Caroline gets the gig…HRC will be sooooo done.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Caroline has worked gratis for the city of New York school system for ages, raising 70 million dollars. That isn’t a qualification?
.
No, that’s an argument that she’s more effective as a private citizen. The power of public appeal and celebrity, marshaled for a good cause like that, is a unique skill.
.
The Senate comes with its own purse attached — the U.S. Treasury — so those skills are meaningless. What you need there is someone with skills in the wonkish details of policy, administration, and oversight.

Gillibrand’s district

Jay, good location. I hope you’re right.

Kathy–
.
I was unhappy with Clinton carpetbagging here as well. Fate paid her back, at least to some degree, because if she had waited for the more appropriate Illinois seat to open up, she’d probably be president right now.
.
No, raising 70 million dollars for charity is not a significant enough achievement in NY to justify being a Senator, especially when you don’t otherwise work.
.
As I said, Schumer’s seat is up in 2010. Let her run for his seat. Have her spend the two years and the voter contact required to earn the seat. To give Clinton credit, she did that. She went all around the state, and became knowledgeable about the constituency. Without the pressure of a campaign, Kennedy won’t ever leave the LGA-DCA axis.
.
And then she’ll lose a primary in 2010 to someone who will work for the job.

Forgot to mention. Front page of NYT as well.
.
[throws up hands]
.
Andy-
.
I don’t love this choice. She’s to the right of the majority of the state’s voters. But I think choosing her will serve Paterson best.

I guess what I’d ask is where is the Carolyn Maloney TIME article? The one about Nydia Valazquez? Kirstin Gillibrand?

Here we face the classic chicken and egg problem. Do we write about ‘celebrities’ because people are interested in them or are people interested in them because they’re written about? When you consider the compensation differential between stars and all the thousands of other people who are equally talented but haven’t busted through the radar, you realize how utterly arbitrary the whole process is. MSM outlets like Time would do us all a valuable service if they actual took educating their readers about non-shiny objects seriously, but in today’s world, that’s probably too much to ask.

Here’s the story Jayackroyd has been looking for, in Salon, not time.

http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/15/caroline_kennedy/

Not fair to call Caroline a “celebrity”, which is somewhat pejorative. Celebrities crave the spotlight (uh hum… Schumer) and do ridiculous things to remain in the public eye. That is the opposite of how Caroline Kennedy has lived her life. And that makes all the difference, at least to me.
.
Whoever is chosen will be on the bottom of the seniority ladder. No matter how deserving or accomplished, in the Senate that person will be at the bottom of the totem pole…except for Caroline Kennedy. Her voice will be heard. The other senators will pay attention to her. She is a serious thoughtful person with the ability to capture the spotlight and get the media to focus on whatever she is championing. That’s good for New Yorkers.
.
Whatever biases you have against ‘dynastic’ rule, which I share, I’m willing to make an exception for her. From what I can tell, she’s never used her famous name for self-aggrandizement; only to good of whatever worthy cause she believes in. I believe her heart is good, and that she is a hard worker. Reason enough for me.

Thanks, Andy.
.
But:
.
After that, it’s a loooong fall-off to get to Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown (6 percent), followed by Lydia Velazquez and Kirsten Gillibrand (4 percent) and … everybody else.
.
Her name is Nydia.

“http://www.salon.com/politics/war_room/2008/12/15/caroline_kennedy/”
.
That blurb was so ridiculously condescending, it just makes me think the writer of it is a moronic a-hole.

It seems like the problem is not qualifications, but that you’re piqued that she wants to be appointed rather than elected (and/or piqued that she dissed Hillary, who she was apparently “supposed” to endorse).
–
Kathy, I think the latter complaint is ridiculous. I can see not wanting someone who had unfairly attacked HRC in the primary – like Jesse Jackson Jr. – but Caroline Kennedy was a supporter of Obama, not an opponent of HRC. That said, it seems that most of the people here who don’t think she’s the best choice for the Senate were Obama supporters. And a lot of the reasons people are opposed to Kennedy now are the same reasons why people were opposed to HRC. The issue is more that people don’t see her endorsement of Obama as a sufficient qualification for the Senate.
–
And isn’t there a qualifications spectrum? Sure $70 million is impressive. But it doesn’t seem as impressive as the accomplishments of other candidates. IMO, her best qualification is that Obama wanted her input on the VP decision.
–
She’s not serious. Her kids are grown. She wants her legacy. Pfui.
jayackroyd, that may be true. But she knows numerous other politicians, and perhaps she feels qualified to do their job and she wants a position that allows her to better contribute to society. Maybe it’s not an entitlement issue. The problem is I don’t see how she can prove you wrong without actually campaigning. At times, these “dynasty” candidates have a higher bar to reach. HRC reached it by campaigning and proving her knowledge. Of course, HRC actually knew stuff from being one of the most important WH advisers. Kennedy has no equivalent experience, so I’m very skeptical that she could similarly impress people with her knowledge.

rose – I also think that those who have not “followed” Caroline really don’t know what she’s been doing with her life. You said you don’t know much about her, e.g. I think you’ll find she’d more qualified than you’re aware she is.

Kathy, true. I’ve read some of the numerous articles about her recently, and I no longer think she’s absolutely unqualified for the Senate, like Palin was for the Presidency. It’s quite possible that as I read more about her I’ll become even less concerned about her experience. That said, she has to prove she’s a. better than the other candidates and b. she knows enough about policy. Also, I understand people who want a Senator with more of a track record on immigration, the war, FISA, marriage equality, etc. That’s fair.

A) We want more and better Democrats
_
B) We want to win
_
In my mind, Carolyn Maloney is the perfect choice (I would vote for her if this were an election).
_
Check out Maloney’s record in the house, people.
She’s exactly the kind of Democrat we want in the Senate.
There’s no guessing, there’s no “Is she slightly to the right of Obama?“, there’s a real record there of how this person votes on key issues –and she comes down on our side nearly 100 percent of the time. You want more and better Democrats in the Senate? Then you want Carolyn Maloney in the Senate.
_
As far as name recognition goes, this New Yorker thinks that the same advantage down the road is one side of a double-edged sword called “carpet-bagging”. Since there’s no real record to speak of in CK’s case, not being a “real New Yorker” is an attack that has a good possibility of sticking. I’m also wary of the “aristocrat” label sticking, especially in (relatively) hard times in the state (and city). For each point of name recognition, there’s at least as much, if not more attack points to be gained by a determined opposition, IMO. Meritocracy seems to be gaining a lot of ground as a winning idea in my area, especially after Bush Jr. As we’ve seen from some unfortunately-named candidates (somebody with the initials “BHO” comes to mind), the internets can raise a whole lot of money for a candidate who has taken a strong stand for the principles in which we believe. I’d love to see “911-machine” Rudy run against Carolyn Maloney in two years –and get his sanctimonious, scandal-plagued head handed to him by all of the New Yorkers who were as offended as I was at his exploitation of our suffering. How much money could be had from a competent web/ground game, if those were the candidates? Certainly enough to get the message out, and win, I believe.
_
The fact of the matter is that the name Kennedy gives the cable news carnie-barkers more oxygen in their endless quest to trivialize and ruin our political system. Already we’re being given a glimpse of the “Kennedy-Clinton Family Feud” specu-bation on Tweety’s daily house of intellect-horrors. There’s no reason on earth that I can think of to feed the twisted freaks at Versailles any more dynastic drama apart from winning in two years, and an overwhelming case for Kennedy’s inevitable electoral win (vs anybody else who’s up for the job) against Republican X has certainly yet to be made to me. Polling data would be useful in this regard, for sure.
_
Why Carolyn Maloney?
_
Because nobody can beat Bloomberg, almost everybody with two years of incumbency name recognition (and no gossip sheet nonsense) can beat Rudy, and because doing the right thing for your constituents and your country over the past eight years day in and day out, from voting against funding the occupation to voting against the FISA abortion, from voting against the bankruptcy give-away to credit card companies to voting for expanded health coverage, should matter to us if “more and better Democrats” means anything.
_
Every time in the past eight years that I’ve sent an email to my representative from an online petition, every time I’ve clicked “sign here” to let my government know that I am upset with where they’re taking our country, every time I’ve use the web and begged Democrats in Congress to stand up to the Administration, every time I’ve typed into a little comment box at the bottom “Please please please don’t let this happen!“, Carolyn Maloney has responded. She has had her office email me or literally print and mail me a letter telling me how she’s going to (or has) voted. Every time. And every time she’s written me back, she’s told me essentially “I’m on your side of this one. I agree! I’m voting the way Democrats should. I’m voting the way people elected me to vote.”
_
Why on earth would we in New York pass up and pass by a woman who’s proven herself over and over again, in favor of someone who was lucky enough to be born the wealthy daughter of a beloved President?
_
…Nothing against Caroline Kennedy, but I have yet to understand how this individual’s record can compete with the excellent record of a clean, qualified, properly-aligned Democrat who’s been elected to national office over and over again in my state. If the best argument for her appointment is that the Village will fawn over her, then that’s not Change I Can Believe In.

Kathy, I think the latter complaint is ridiculous.
.
It demonstrates that she is not a loyal Democrat, and doesn’t understand party politics. Nobody in the NY delegation supported Obama. Just as with the Illinois delegation and Obama. Particularly, an appointee should be a reliable party member.
.
jayackroyd, that may be true. But she knows numerous other politicians, and perhaps she feels qualified to do their job and she wants a position that allows her to better contribute to society. Maybe it’s not an entitlement issue. The problem is I don’t see how she can prove you wrong without actually campaigning.
.
True enough. Let her contest for the seat in a primary in 2010. Or run against Schumer. That’s what Clinton had to do. She had to contest an open seat and proved she could run an effective campaign in one of the toughest states to run in. Not as tough as OH, but close.