In the Arena

Who Plays…Who Pays.

I’ve met Caroline Kennedy a few times and she seems like a good person. Compared to many children of the rich and famous, she has lived her life quietly, modestly, in exemplary fashion. She has worked hard for worthy causes; those who’ve worked with her say she is intelligent and self-effacing. Or was self-effacing. You can’t really say that she is now, having thrust herself into the midst of the selection process for Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. By doing so, she has displayed an eminently New York quality: chutzpah.

Indeed, Kennedy’s play seems very much of a moment recently passed–the dynasty years of American politics, when Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes (and other, less obtrusive dynasties–Udalls, Cuomos) cluttered our public life. There is nothing new about this. We’ve had our Adamses and Roosevelts in epochs past. But the combination of dynasty and celebrity in a too-hot media age has proved a diversion from good governance. That was part of the message sent by Barack Obama’s victory over Hillary Clinton in the primaries–Clinton was, and is, a fine public servant, but she came attached to a moveable media carnival. There was, I think, a gnawing, somewhat subconscious sense that in this difficult time we needed to turn the page from the carnival years. The Era of Big Strange Political Families was over. (That goes for you, too, Jesse Jackson Jr.)

If nothing else, Barack Obama’s transition demonstrates his intent to launch an era of Real Serious Governance. He has chosen well outside the standard political fast-food menu in some cases–James (OOPs: Steven) Chu, the Secretary of Energy comes to mind. And I’d hope that Governor David Paterson might consider a similar sort of selection–an honorary, non-political (but Democratic) appointee, a person of real, world-class, distinction who would never normally serve in the Senate, to grace the seat until the next election–if he hasn’t already been bum-rushed into the Kennedy coronation. Certainly, New York State is filled with extraordinary people. Here are four:

–Dr. Harold Varmus, former head of the National Institutes of Health, now director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering cancer hospital. He could add real value to the Senate’s health insurance debate.

–Geoffrey Canada has spent his life doing extraordinary work with the young people, especially the young men, of Harlem. He would be a strong, African-American voice for the poor.

–Vishaka Desai, president of the Asia Society would be the first member of the Senate born in India. She would bring great knowledge about the world’s hottest hot-spot to the Senate, plus great expertise in the areas of education and culture.

–Judge Judith Kaye, the briliant chief justice of New York’s highest court, soon to retire.

There are dozens of others such. The point is, that the Blagojevich fiasco and now the Kennedy play have turned the selection of new Senators into a skeevy travesty. The best way to change the story would be go in the exact opposite direction–go completely high-minded.

Meanwhile, in a related area, Morton Abramowitz makes the excellent argument that it’s also time for Obama to move past the era of dispensing ambassadorships as baubles to high-rolling campaign contributors. That’s an another semi-corrupt anachronism we can no longer afford.

Related Topics: Uncategorized
  • Latest on Swampland

    Pete Souza / The White House via Getty Images

    Political Picures of the Week, May 18-25

    TIME’s photo editors bring you the best pictures of the past week from the Beltway and beyond.

    Obama Administration Blocks Global Health Fund To Fight Disease In Developing NationsHuffPost Politics

    From left: AP; ABACAUSA

    The Phony War: Obama and Romney Are Debating Character, Not Policy

    More than five months from Election Day, the back-and-forth about Mitt Romney’s record at Bain already feels played out. Unfortunately, there’s good reason to expect the campaign continues in this vein indefinitely. Neither Barack Obama nor Mitt Romney are terribly interested in dwelling on policy platforms. Romney’s plan to slash spending and keep taxes low on the wealthy isn’t especially popular, at least not at any level of detail beyond a blithe promise to shrink the deficit. Meanwhile, Obama’s signature first-term achievements, like health care, the stimulus and Wall Street reform, are all unpopular or tricky to sell. (The Dodd-Frank bill is the most popular of these, but hyping it means offending wealthy donors.) So what we’re getting instead is a superficial duel about character–and, worse, one that’s based on the largely false premise that the better man can better “manage” the economy back to health.

  • bitterpill8

    Unfortunately, we have a ruling aristocracy in our country. The need for massive amounts of money has made it impossible for very capable people to get elected. The basic requirements for a campaign make American elections the preserve to those with name recognition or the ability to arm wrestle funds out of sugar daddies and mummies. Merits: no place. Connections and connectivity is everything. I wish i could pick up the phone and tell a governor I wanted a Senate seat.

  • http://www.ghostnote.com Cookie Puss

    Make it interesting, appoint Spitzer.

  • http://phd9.blogspot.com Paul Dirks

    My best contributions to the subject all come from other threads:
    .
    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.
    .
    Jay’s going to work for Biden reminds me that the actual battle lines in this country aren’t between the right and the left. They are between the ‘serious’ and the ‘unserious’
    .
    If you aren’t part of the solution then you are part of the problem
    .
    In other words, it’s nice of Joe to note that name recognition should not be the first and formost qualification for public office, but one single blog post is not going to begin to dent the culture than not only makes it possible but virtually insists on it.

  • Paul-no not that one

    “but (Senator Clinton) came attached to a moveable media carnival”
    .
    You are being far too modest Joe. You have the relationship reversed.
    Some unserious writers even felt the need to write about her laugh. Hard to believe, I know.

  • teresakopec

    I love how most of the press who spent months decrying political dynasties when it came to Clinton are falling all over Caroline. Good to see an alternate view from you.

    The playing field will never be leveled because money and connections always help. But at least make the effort to run for office rather than demanding it be handed to you.

  • kathy

    Well by definition Joe you are also not self-effacing – in fact, you would be hard pressed to say that anyone who runs for office is self-effacing. what’s your point.
    .
    You think Paterson should pick “an honorary, non-political (but Democratic) appointee, a person of real, world-class, distinction who would never normally serve in the Senate,” Until this week that would have included Kennedy. Hard to see why her actual interest in doing the job should take her out of contention.
    .
    If we’re to have a meritocracy we can’t exclude meritorious people just because they’re related to people who have previously run for office.
    .
    I’m curious why we didn’t see any of these stories when it was RFK Jr who was thinking about running for the office.

  • wvng

    PaulD: Jay’s going to work for Biden reminds me that the actual battle lines in this country aren’t between the right and the left. They are between the ‘serious’ and the ‘unserious.’ And, of course, the ‘serious’ are, by-in-large, the utterly wrong on any issue they are deemed ‘serious’ about and are therefore the only ones the media consults. Drum has a very nice post on that particular issue today: Robert Samuelson’s latest maunderings in the Washington Post.
    .
    And what james said on Monday, December 15, 2008 at 10:20 pm
    .
    Still waiting for that post on the bipartisan Senate report on torture.

  • nibblybits

    To lump all the famous people together, as if they are all alike, is rather insulting, don’t you think? Hillary has a famous name, Caroline has a famous name; they are alike, and they shouldn’t be rewarded like other people should.
    .
    And the recommendation of Harold Varmus is bizarrely absurd. Isn’t this the same guy who stood in the way of AIDS research?
    .
    As for all those others Klein has listed. Have any of them shown any interest in going into politics or wanting the Senate seat? It’s not a medal for good service in another arena. It does require some affinity for the job.

  • Paul-no not that one

    How is nominating someone for “unserious” reasons as you define them less genuine than eliminating from consideration for reasons like “Era of Big Strange Political Families”
    .
    And bonus points for taking a shot at Jesse Jr for reasons we can all assume tie into your dishonest statements about Wright.

  • rose83

    I know this is fighting a losing battle, but HRC helped build the Clinton “dynasty.” Any reasonable person could see that without HRC, there may never have been a President Clinton. OTOH, Dubya and Caroline Kennedy are benefiting from being part of a dynasty they had no part in building. It’s not even close to being equivalent. The people who opposed HRC for dynastic reasons – as opposed to change reasons, which is fair – were always basing their reasoning on a sexist and/or illogical double standard: It’s fine for a President to build his career with the help of his wife (FDR, etc.) but it’s wrong for his wife to then benefit in her own career from the work she did for her husband.

    If Chealsea decides to run for the Senate in 10 years, then she’s a cliche dynasty candidate. But not HRC.

    If we’re to have a meritocracy we can’t exclude meritorious people just because they’re related to people who have previously run for office.

    Kathy, I can’t tell you how many times I felt the same way during the primaries! Obviously Joe is not explicitly saying that people should be disqualified because of their family connections, but I do think it’s fair to interpret his post that way. And yes, that is ridiculous.

  • rose83

    And bonus points for taking a shot at Jesse Jr for reasons we can all assume tie into your dishonest statements about Wright.

    He may have been referring to the infamous “tears and Katrina” HRC attack, which did suggest an astonishing level of arrogance. There are many reasons to dislike Jesse Jackson Jr.

  • nibblybits

    Jaysus, I hope Klein was squawking about celebrity politicians when Scwarzenegger went from ‘acting’ to Governator back in the day. Talk about an unserious previous career.
    .
    I find a lot of these objections to Caroline rather disingenuous.
    .
    BTW, when can we look forward to Klein’s expose on dynastic nepotism in journalism? The husband/wife, father/son, mother/daughter infiltration of our fourth estate should alarm us all! Why isn’t Klein out protesting Luke Russert and his floppy unprofessional hair?

  • Paul-no not that one

    I doubt it Rose as he added that after “Era of Big Strange Political Families”
    But I do admire your ability to never disappoint.

  • kathy

    rose – and my reasons for preferring Obama over Clinton were not anti-dynastic, or even that being first lady wasn’t a “qualification,” which was a bizarre argument, since she’d been a senator longer than Obama.
    .
    I think Caroline is qualified to be senator. This is quite aside from the question of whether there are others who, for any number of reasons, would be better suited to be New York’s next senator. My points here (and on the last thread)are to argue against the idea that she shouldn’t be senator for reasons of qualifications or dynasty
    .
    .
    It’s also true that I’d be happy to see Caroline in the senate being a champion of education and my privacy rights.

  • kathy

    nibblybits – good point.

  • nibblybits

    rose: I’m supportive Caroline for senator from my state, but if she tries to run for president based on her current resume, or even Hillary’s, I would be against it. She’s not qualified and neither was Hillary IMO. My double standard would be based on the office, not their gender.

  • exile500

    Interesting post. All of these people are more accomplished than Caroline Kennedy.

    .

    I’m a bit surprised you didn’t mention the precedent here of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who hadn’t held office when he first won his senate seat, but had a remarkable career, both in and out of the Senate.

  • queencersei

    I just don’t see what qualifies her for a Senate seat. It’s pretty obvious that if not for her last name and political connections no one would even be considering her. And I do think that for at least the time being, Americans are by and large souring on these political dynasties. However, it would not surprise me if she were to get the appointment. This seems to be the way of the world. My X relative was famous once, therefore I should get to be famous too!

  • exile500

    Interesting post. All of these people are more accomplished than Caroline Kennedy.

    .

    I’m a bit surprised you didn’t mention the precedent here of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who hadn’t held office when he first won his senate seat, but had a remarkable career, both in and out of the Senate.

  • rose83

    I doubt it Rose as he added that after “Era of Big Strange Political Families”
    But I do admire your ability to never disappoint.


    Did I wrong you in some way in another lifetime?? Anyway, you’re probably right. But Jesse Jackson Jr. is not the best person to rest a “dynasties are not necessarily problematic” argument on. Defending him from bad journalism is like defending Geraldine Ferraro from bad journalism: I know it should be done, but I find it difficult to defend people I hate so much.

  • Andy from MA

    Are we done flogging this horse? I think you can view this in two different ways:

    1. What’s best for Obama in the next two years? who is going to support his agenda in the Senate and vote with him?

    2. What is the best situation for the Patterson and the Democratic party in NY state for retaining this seat over the long term? Who has the ability to attract the upstate vote, has name recognition, is politically savvy and the ability to raise large amounts of cash?

    You might not be able to find the same person (i.e., Kennedy) who will address both scenarios.

    I leave the dynasty stuff to the historians. I am not, and probably will never be in that sphere of influence.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla
  • nibblybits

    queencersei: Yes, how astute to point out that if Caroline Kennedy was a whole ‘nother person, we would not think of her as Caroline Kennedy.

  • Andy from MA

    SG: our minimum daily of requirement Joe Lieberman hate has been met for today.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    rose83
    .
    Just for the sake of curiosity, why DO you hate Jesse Jackson Jr?

  • nibblybits

    sgw: Really? Jane Hamsher? She’s as obsessed with Caroline as you are with Lieberman.

  • James, Los Angeles

    .
    Okay, since I don’t live in New York, I’m indifferent about who gets appointed. But Joe, you are being illogical. You suggest Dr. Varmus. Mr Canada, Ms. Desai, and Judge Kaye as fine people who have done worthy public service, and don’t appear to want the job, to serve as caretaker of the seat.
    .
    Then you go on to say that Kennedy has worked hard for worthy causes, intelligent and all that. Kind of like those other people you mention. And you disqualify her because she bears the Kennedy name and because, GOD FORBID! she’s interested in the job. And she has “chutzpah” to want it! Can’t have anyone, who has worked hard for worthy causes and is intelligent but WANTS THE JOB, to get the job. Is that it? Or is it solely the Kennedy name?
    .
    I second the questionable incest in DC journalism too, and even worse the incest between DC journalism and politics. Howie Kurtz has a GOP operative wife. Claire Shipman is about to have a Dem operative husband. Mr. and Mrs. Andrea Mitchell. Lots of them. And that sickening sweet gushy feel-good fawning over Tim Russert’s son. What’s that all about?

  • bensay

    Steven Chu, not James.

  • rose83

    rose – and my reasons for preferring Obama over Clinton were not anti-dynastic, or even that being first lady wasn’t a “qualification,” which was a bizarre argument, since she’d been a senator longer than Obama.

    Kathy, yes I know. I was not referring to you. Sorry if I was unclear about that.

    nibblybits, I don’t see how Obama is qualified and HRC is not, but that’s all ancient history now… If Caroline Kennedy is an amazing Senator for 8 years, then she’s as qualified for the Presidency as Obama.

    SG, I was hoping everyone would know so they wouldn’t ask. It’s nice to leave the primary ghosts behind. Anyway this is why: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNrlSn7ndAA

  • queencersei

    Thank you nibblybits – but what I was trying to put out was that if her last name wasn’t Kennedy, but say Smith, with the same resume she has now, no one would be throwing her name around. It’s really as simple point to grasp.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    nibbly
    .
    Uhmm it was supposed to be a joke. See my post on the other thread. I am still meh about it

  • exile500

    What is the best situation for the Patterson and the Democratic party in NY state for retaining this seat over the long term?

    .

    Look at the results of the 2006 and 2008 elections in NYS and tell me again how you see a Republican winning the seat.

  • nibblybits

    For future reference, can people please warn us when they are linking to f-ing Jane Hamsher? Then I know to immediately dismiss the reference, and I really don’t want to contribute to her view count.

  • http://pourmecoffee.blogspot.com pourmecoffee

    Caroline Kennedy was in charge of the vetting process in selecting Joe Biden as Obama’s VP. I wonder, if she applied that same rigor to the selection of Hillary’s replacement, would she select herself? No way.

  • nibblybits

    Sorry, sgw. This is where emoticons come in handy.

  • sinawava

    “A moment recently passed”?

    Last I checked, Joe, there are still plenty of those names still in the thick of things. Leaving out the Kennedys… Hillary is the incoming Secretary of State with talk of Chelsea’s political future already being bandied about; Jeb Bush is already making noise about a run for US Senate in 2010; Andrew Cuomo, New York’s Attorney General, isn’t going anywhere soon; and two Udalls were just elected to the United States Senate.

    These folks haven’t “cluttered” our past. They’re still very much around.

    I’m not quite sure what you’re getting at when you seem to imply that these families are part of dynasties that have “passed,” if only “recently.”

    They haven’t. Not at all.

    I’m sure the four candidates you mention are intelligent and worthy in many ways. But you try raising money for those names in what could turn out to be a difficult, high-profile race in 2010. And just to be clear, I don’t think Giuliani is truly viable. Nevertheless, he becomes more viable if going up against someone who would have a hard time raising money.

    It is, as you put it, a “too-hot media age”. In a perfect world this wouldn’t exist. But it does. And money, like it or not, drives that world. And me, I’m not willing to gamble on a total unknown when it comes down to possibly putting a wretch like Giuliani in the Senate.

    On top of all that, the bottom line for me is that I think Caroline Kennedy is eminently qualified for a seat in the US Senate.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    nibbly
    .
    Not a problem. Didn’t know you were so pissed with Hamsher. The point was the Lieberman connection which everybody knows how i feel about Lieberman.

  • middlegirl

    #21 Andy from MA:
    I’m with you, for the all the reasons you cited. I think Caroline would be great.

  • Rorschach

    Picking someone just because you think they could get re-elected is a terrible way to make this country a better place.

  • http://smoothlikeremy.blogspot.com/ sgwhiteinfla

    rose83 writes
    .
    SG, I was hoping everyone would know so they wouldn’t ask. It’s nice to leave the primary ghosts behind. Anyway this is why
    .
    Uhmmm rose83 let me first say you have a right to hate whomever you want, but I do have to ask, REALLY? You rail against Triple J in several posts on different threads and say that there are many reasons to dislike him and even say that you “hate” him but you were “hoping” no one would ask you why you feel that way? Now that may truly be the case but let me say that in the future if you really don’t want anybody to ask why you hate somebody, you might want to not keep banging the “I hate him/her” drum.
    .
    Im just sayin

  • stuartzechman

    It’s funny that I agree with Joe Klein apart from the whole business of falling over himself not to suggest that a proven liberal candidate be appointed to represent an overwhelmingly liberal state in the US Senate.

    Sigh…like Dirks, I’ll have to repost a slightly edited version:

    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 care 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 vote 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?
    Because it’s an appointment, not an election, unfortunately (the case against back-room deal appointments is for another thread).
    _
    …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.

  • Paul-no not that one

    SZ- your story about constituent service/response is great. And exactly the opposite I have gotten from my junior (likely soon to be senior) senator Amy Klobuchar.
    I am impressed.

  • Andy from MA

    Stuart — Excellent post.

  • exile500

    A) We want more and better Democrats

    .

    And in what way is Caroline Kennedy better than a former head of the NIH for example.
    _
    B) We want to win

    The live boy, dead girl rule may not apply in NYS for Democrats at the state level, but the live boy, call girl rule probably does. Obama won by 25 points.

    .

    It’s fun to talk tough and act like we need to play hard-ball to win NYS. But we don’t, what we need is a great Senator like Moynihan.

  • prothonotar

    Klein fails to discuss any of Caroline Kennedy’s personal accomplishments, including various education-related charities and public works. Instead, he just talks about her name. Yes, Kennedy is part of a family legacy. Just as that alone should not qualify her to be selected as the senatorial replacement, neither should it disqualify her.

    Then, Klein offers up as alternatives some other people that few have heard about, along with an accomplishment or two of theirs that supposedly qualifies them. I’m sure all of those individuals have done great work, but are any of them interested in being a senator? Are any of them up to the task? Picking a few notable New Yorkers whom Joe Klein admires is at least as arbitrary as picking Caroline Kennedy.

    Klein should be fair by comparing apples to apples here and cite some of Kennedy’s qualifications along side the others. Since he failed to do that, this seems to me like nothing more than a hit piece.

  • nibblybits

    Klein, seriously, are you out of your mind? You put Caroline Kennedy in the same sentence as Blagojevich and call them both a “skeevy travesty” and now Huff Post is blaring it from a headline.
    .
    You should be ashamed of yourself.

  • Paul-no not that one

    Adding SZ– it’s nice to read an affirmative case for a candidate rather than (very light) insults about another candidate’s motivations.

  • rose83

    Uhmmm rose83 let me first say you have a right to hate whomever you want, but I do have to ask, REALLY? You rail against Triple J in several posts on different threads and say that there are many reasons to dislike him and even say that you “hate” him but you were “hoping” no one would ask you why you feel that way? Now that may truly be the case but let me say that in the future if you really don’t want anybody to ask why you hate somebody, you might want to not keep banging the “I hate him/her” drum.
    .
    Im just sayin

    SG, wow you completely misunderstood my comment! Try reading it again. My point was that I didn’t like bringing up one of the most horrible incidents from the campaign. Therefore I was hoping that everyone would know what I was alluding to so there would be no necessity for finding that horrible YouTube clip again. Seriously, you need to calm down a little and stop immediately interpreting comments in the most critical way possible. Of course I don’t resent someone asking why I dislike a particular politician – why would I? That would be crazy – it’s just that I don’t like focusing on unpleasant incidents from a past campaign.

  • rose83

    stuart, great post. And it gets to the heart of where this discussion should be: the question isn’t whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified for the Senate, the question is whether she’s the best choice.

  • nibblybits

    Correction of my post #8. Googling doesn’t confirm my impression that Varmus was the guy I was thinking of, in terms of AIDS research. My embarrassing error.

  • http://swampland.blogs.time.com/2008/12/16/caroline-kennedy-nine-enemies-and-one-ingrate/ Swampland – TIME.com » Blog Archive Caroline Kennedy, Nine Enemies and One Ingrate «

    [...] Clinton, and has shown herself at several occasions to be an underwhelming speaker. Finally, as Joe points out, we are entering an age of relative meritocracy and anti-dynasty, a trend that is only highlighted [...]

  • stuartzechman

    Thanks for the supportive comments, everybody.
    _
    The carnie-barkers want us to talk about this through the frame of “Who do we like/not like?”, but of course that’s more of the same clique crap that degrades our politics.
    _
    Instead of necessarily tearing down CK, let’s talk about the specific reasons we want our favored candidate to be chosen by my Governor, i.e. what we think that person will actually accomplish if given a Senatorial office. The Villager will yawn, and then we’ll finally have a decent opportunity to form a consensus that revolves around what we’re trying to do, not who they like to talk about.

  • stuartzechman

    …and did I mention that this thread-and-conversation-destroying pagination is one of the more idiotic new “features” of this blog?

  • Paul-no not that one

    Other than the media(and some bloggers) working everyone up over the name of one of the candidates why does the NY open senate seat suck so much oxygen I wonder.
    NY is a likely “hold” for the Democratic party. In other states that isn’t always the case so the appointee would seem to be worth more attention.

  • nibblybits

    Paul-not: You would think that NY is a gimme for Dems, since we’re apparently all sodomites and flaming communists, but that’s not the case. If Bloomberg (less likely) or Giuliani make noises, it will be a tough race. Don’t forget that we had charisma-free Repub Pataki in the governor’s chair for 12 years. He was an upstate guy.
    .
    My guess is that there is some anti-NYC sentiment in the state, especially after all this bad Wall Street news. Don’t know how that will reflect in the polls. Patterson has to be careful.

  • Paul-no not that one

    From a distance 9iu11ani seems to be so off his rocker that he doesn’t seem credible but that’s an outsiders view.
    What I have seen of Patterson I like a lot.
    Someone last week, you maybe, suggested that a “holder” pick might make sense and then have Patterson run for that seat in 10 or 12.

  • ncatty

    Nero selected his horse to be a Roman Senator. She is qualified.

  • dorywilson13

    Caroline was raised by a woman who understood the crazy self-entitled side of the Kennedy clan and kept Caroline away from them.

    She’s bright, hard-working, exceptionally well educated, public-minded, reserved, and she’s not a crook. She appears to have no interest in lobbyists as she doesn’t need them so she can serve entirely in the public’s interest. And unlike most politicians of Senate rank, her ego doesn’t drive her behavior.

    What is the problem here?

  • daveh58

    Stuart makes a great case for Carolyn Maloney. I also would be happy with Caroline Kennedy or Andrew Cuomo. It is quite hypocritical for Clinton people to trash Caroline. I am puzzled by the Kennedy clan’s treatment of Andrew. Last night Kerry Kennedy was on with Larry King to support Caroline. Larry asked her about the candidacy of Fran Drescher, but not her ex-husband Andrew Cuomo. She must have insisted that his name not be mentioned. Larry should not have allowed her on the show with that condition. Has the Kennedy family forgotton that that divorce was caused by her cheating? One solution to this whole mess would be for Gov. Patterson to appoint Mario Cuomo with the condition that he serve only two years. Then all contenders can run for the seat on equal footing.

  • 1arsky2

    Gosh, I’m pretty sure I don’t belong here, but oh well. So here is what I learned today.

    HRC was attached to a moveable media carnival, but Barack Obama was not. Sure fooled me on that one.

    Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be a U.S. Senator, I guess based on star quality and name recognition and doggoneit because people like her. Good for her.

    BUT HRC and Caroline are not qualified to be president.

    But Barak Obama with considerably less experience than HRC at most things and about the same star quality as Caroline is qualified to be the President of the United States.

    And not mentioned, but I think it is time…..There really is a tooth fairy and it is called the U.S.A. Treasury. Wait until it knocks your teeth out and then put all of them under your pillow and in the morning there should be a large check there for your dental work or health care if you were otherwise hurt. And don’t forget about plastic surgery modification, that should be included and then maybe you can be a star too and get a job in government. Ain’t it great.

    What a wacky and fun array of comments surrounding a non-meaty article by OL Joe. Well, Off to bed for this totally confused old independent.

  • pelhamite1

    It’s not that Carline Kennedy isn’t a graceful, intelligent woman who probably do an OK job if named. She is. It’s just that – how the hell do you give her the position? How do you look a Carolyn Maloney, a Nydia Maloney, a Louise Slaughter (just to mention the women) in the eye and say, “Yes, I know you’ve been a hard working member of Congress and schlepped down to Washington every week and sacrificed your family all these years, but, well, she’s a Kennedy! It’s not fair to them and, in a way, its not fair to her (she would instantly become the poster child for undeserved privilige). More than anything else, New York needs an upstater in that position because that is the distressed part of the state.

  • http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/12/one-sen-kennedy-too-many/ One Sen. Kennedy too many | WE Blog

    [...] to consider. Declaring the “era of big strange political families” to be over, Klein writes: “Kennedy’s play seems very much of a moment recently passed – the dynasty years of [...]

  • http://www.commentarymagazine.com/blogs/index.php/rubin/46941 Commentary » Blog Archive » Flotsam and Jetsam

    [...] Kleins agree: thumbs down on appointing Caroline Kennedy. She’s nice, but enough with the dynasty [...]

  • http://pamelalyn.hypocrisy.com/2008/12/17/ten-good-reasons-not-to-dismiss-caroline-kennedy-so-quickly/ Ten Good Reasons Not to Dismiss Caroline Kennedy So Quickly : Coffee, Tea & Hypocrisy

    [...] a recent article for Time, columnist Joe Klein wrote: ” I’ve met Caroline Kennedy a few times and she seems like [...]

  • http://www.neoconstant.com/2354/correctly-political-im-for-caroline-and-other-stentorial-ruminations/ Correctly Political: I’m for Caroline! and Other Stentorial Ruminations | NeoConstant

    [...] Caroline Kennedy is classy, she has wide acquaintance with issues of public moment, she has as long a view of American politics as is possible for a 52-year-old to have, and she has the United States Senate in her bones. If anything, she’s OVER-qualified for the Senate in the terms the Founders and Framers expected, not under-qualified as Joe Klein superficially argues. [...]

  • http://photomaniacal.com/blog/dynasties-and-double-standards-melissa-mcewan Photomaniacal » Blog Archive » Dynasties and double standards | Melissa McEwan

    [...] Kennedy, an extremely accomplished, well-informed and intelligent woman, was suddenly being discussed as though she were Paris Hilton – just some heiress with a fancy name who pranced in with an [...]

  • http://www.senateguru.com/archives/296 Wednesday Rundown | Senate Guru's Blog

    [...] Leader Harry Reid is reportedly pushing for Caroline Kennedy.  Elsewhere, Time’s Joe Klein identifies four extraordinary New Yorkers who merit consideration based on experience and knowledge background – just an interesting [...]

blog comments powered by Disqus