Here’s a potential senator, from outside the political world, who has an impressive set of qualifications and achievements. She’s a woman, and a former chair of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under President Bill Clinton. She doesn’t have a famous name, but she holds 45 honorary degrees and she’s the first African-American woman to receive a doctorate from M.I.T. – in any subject. She is one of the first two African-American women to receive a doctorate in physics in the U.S. NY Daily News columnist Errol Louis makes the case for Shirley Ann Jackson:
But instead of kicking around the same old names, as pols and pundits have been doing, Paterson should think outside the box.
Right outside Albany, for instance, is Shirley Ann Jackson, the president of Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute – an extraordinary woman who would be great for New York.
Jackson, one of the first two black women to earn a doctorate in physics, served as chairwoman of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission under President Bill Clinton.
Since taking the helm of RPI in 1999, Jackson set an ambitious plan to raise $1.4 billion for the school – and surpassed the goal in October, nine months ahead of schedule.
Jackson, who holds 45 honorary degrees, also hired 225 professors and launched research centers dedicated to solar energy and biotechnology.
Politically speaking, she’s a quadruple asset: a black woman from upstate who can raise money like nobody’s business.
There is something wrong with a political process that doesn’t cultivate and recruit raw talent of the Jackson variety.
Dr. Jackson’s full profile is posted on the Rensselaer website.
You neglected to mention that important tidbit.
I don’t know if she’s interested, but if I were David Paterson, I would certainly ask.
<
p>Laurel, I hope your argument isn’t that Caroline Kennedy is the only person who is remotely qualified that actually wants the job. For a senate seat, “she’s the only person in New York who would take the job” doesn’t make it.
but your argument seems to be that if you can name someone else who is qualified, they naturally would allow themselves to be appointed. it slays me that you talk up someone without even finding out whether they would even accept the job. it also slays me that you seem to assume that paterson isn’t considering anyone other than kennedy. do you know that for a fact, or is that just one more bit of frivolous research you cast aside on your anti-kennedy spree?
My argument: Caroline Kennedy is a poor choice for US Senate. Her resumé is pitifully thin, she has no record of achievement in the public domain, and she doesn’t even bother to vote in lots of elections.
<
p>You respond: All you people with the anti-Kennedy posts are just so negative, you can’t name anyone who is more qualified.
<
p>When I try to respond with anyone’s name, you ask if they actually want the job. Laurel, as far as I am concerned there are thousands of New Yorkers who have better credentials and records of achievement, thousands of people who would make a better senator than Caroline Kennedy. I sincerely believe half of the local elected officials in New York State are more qualified and would be a more effective and knowledgeable senator, scores of whom are also wonderful mothers (in case that is a central requirement).
<
p>My challenge to you, Laurel, because you are one of the most intelligent and articulate BMG posters, is to actually make a substantive case that Caroline Kennedy is the best choice for a senate appointment from New York State. And don’t be upset when people challenge your argument, because I don’t think anyone can make this argument effectively.
So I will not take you up on your challenge. I don’t much care who is appointed as long as a) New Yorkers seem to like them, b) they can do the job, and c) they are as progressive as can be.
<
p>Part of being qualified for a job is being available and willing to take it. If you find that both are true for the woman you profiled above, it might be interesting to take the time to review her creds more. But until then, why bother?
<
p>Makes me not want to participate in the conversation at all; it’s so out of whack as to be offensive. She has plenty of achievements, including in the public/nonprofit domain, and I don’t particularly care if she’s missed a few obscure, uncompetitive primary campaigns. People are really grasping at straws here. Hell, Hillary Clinton wasn’t even from NY when she breezed into office.
<
p>Like Laurel, I wasn’t for or against Caroline for this position until very recently – until all this obsessive and ridiculous consternation. Now I’ve been quite severely pushed over the edge.
Ryan wrote:
These were neither uncompetitive or obscure. From the Globe:
Ryan wrote:
Care to list them? While you are at it, please separate out the ones in which she actually did something versus the ones where she merely lent her famous name to the cause.
<
p>I have done lots of lobbying in Washington on education issues, and given Caroline’s lack of real-world experience, I have a great fear of getting another senator in a position of power who lacks the real-world experience to understand the implications of their actions on a local level. I want someone who has actually worked out there in the real world, where public policy hits the streets, and understands the real-world impact of a federal decision.
<
p>I also want to look my nieces in the eye and say that they can become a US Senator if they work really hard and dedicate their lives to public policy. I hardly think they should be handicapped because their uncle is a silly blogger, not a sitting US Senator.
If Caroline wants to breeze into office in an election, that’s something I’d like to see.
except that’s not NY’s system.
<
p>the point?
Anyone can run in an election. Caroline chose not to on previous occasions. She chose not to participate in electoral politics until the very end of the Obama campaign. New York’s system is that the governor does an appointment. If we’re not going to take the choice of New York Democrats as expressed in polls — Andrew Cuomo, Caroline’s cousin — then we should take a placeholder. Or somebody who has done more to advance the cause of progressive causes and Democratic politics in New york. Serving as an upper-caste bureaucrat in the Empire State doesn’t count in my book. She’s among the best, but not THE best.
for legitimate reasons. her daughter being the biggest one.
<
p>As I’ve said elsewhere, sexism is driving a lot of this inane posting on Caroline. That a woman who’s raised a daughter and done much, just outside of the public eye, shouldn’t be allowed to be appointed is, to me, sexist.
<
p>I would love a place holder, too, Sab. It’s my top choice. But it ain’t happening. So, I’m going with Caroline given the realistic options out there.
<
p>I’m very sick of talking about this, though, so I’m going to choose to stop. I just hope Paterson makes his decision soon.
There may be a bit of that, but I know you’re not crazy enough to be accusing me of sexism. I simply don’t share your view that of all the candidates who’ve expressed interest, Caroline is the single best choice. Hell, she’s not even willing to support a Democratic nominee for NYC Mayor.
“My argument: Caroline Kennedy is a poor choice for US Senate. Her resumé is pitifully thin, she has no record of achievement in the public domain, and she doesn’t even bother to vote in lots of elections. “
<
p>I have no problem with anyone arguing that point, but that’s not what you did in the post above. You brought up Bloomberg and then went into an alternate potential candidate. Neither supports the argument that Kennedy is unqualified or that her “resumé is pitifully thin”. There are plenty of ways to argue that I’d guess, but this isn’t one of them.
Maybe not here, but I did in the previous chapters of this discourse.
<
p>Chapter 1: Please say NO to Caroline Kennedy
<
p>Chapter 2: Caroline W. Kennedy
The object of a senate seat is not to have someone who has a great story, but someone who can actually push forward legislation and have a strong office that can perform well for the state. There’s little you’ve illustrated from Jackson’s background that makes me think she could do both of those things – especially when CK has someone like Ted Kennedy to help her learn the ropes and make sure her office is top notch.
<
p>Plus, where does she stand on the issues? We know Caroline is great there and we know that not only will she be able to raise the kind of cash to protect her seat, but enough to get others elected as well. How’s Jackson’s fundraising experience? These are all important questions because, at the end of the day we need to be pragmatic. I don’t see why we’re making this harder than it has to be and I most certainly don’t see why so many people have worked so hard in vilifying Sweet Caroline.
<
p>That’s a pretty good argument against Kennedy, I’m afraid, since those are two things for which her life experience to this point prepares her not in the slightest.
<
p>I’m thinking pretty strongly these days that a bench-warmer is by far the best choice. Since state law will require an election in 2010 anyway, let them have a real election. Put someone interesting there for two years who isn’t interested in sticking around. I like the Harold Varmus idea; I’m sure there are plenty more.
<
p>By the way, Jackson’s fundraising is impressive. She’d have no problems there.
She’s a lawyer, she’s written books on the constitution. So she knows the law very well. Knowledge isn’t going to be a problem.
<
p>And she has the benefit of having the best uncle you possibly could to show her the ropes. In politics, that’s half the battle. Political families are a two edges sword – for sure, it isn’t fair that people get a boost in their ability to be appointed to office based on a name, but it also means there’s a preexisting set of contacts and close allies who have deep institutional knowledge.
<
p>All that suggests the fact that Caroline Kennedy is not going to be a bad Senator. Her life experience absolutely qualifies her for the office – and, indeed, suggests she’ll probably do well on the job. The people of NY would have two years to decide if she performs up to expectations. And they will hold her feet to the fire.
<
p>A bench warmer would be fine with me, but it’s unrealistic to expect that to happen, especially after all this time. Paterson is clearly going to want his pick; it’s one of the big perks of the office.
Aside from books that are “collections” of other people’s work, or being listed as second author, can you find one book in which Caroline Kennedy sat down at a word processor and actually wrote her own book?
<
p>Unless demonstrated otherwise, the claims of Caroline the author appear to be as inflated as the rest of her resumé.
but come on.
<
p>
<
p>She is technically a lawyer, in that she went to law school and has passed the bar, but AFAIK she has never practiced. The books on legal topics that she has co-written are not scholarly works, but rather pop-constitutional fare. I’ve read one of them; it’s an enjoyable subway read, but please do not confuse it with serious legal analysis.
<
p>
<
p>I’m a huge Ted Kennedy fan. But let’s be realistic here: he is not well, and he intends to spend whatever energy he has on enacting health care reform, as he should. He does not have time, and should not spend the time he has, holding a newbie Senator’s hand. This “dynasties are your friend” argument is very weak.
People asking questions is “out of control”? I thought that was the essence of democracy. It’s bad enough that some leader is going to emerge fro ma closed-door session to announce to the people who their new leader is.
So…I hadn’t heard this before.
<
p>Assuming true, it seems like huge conflict for NYT, no?
<
p>And NYT owns Globe….
<
p>And to my knowledge, Globe has run several news stories and at least one pro Caroline Kennedy op-ed without any disclosure.