Am I the only one who’s unhappy about the idea of Caroline Kennedy being appointed to fill Senator Hillary Clinton’s seat?
Certainly, I can agree that she is very bright, well-spoken, accomplished, attractive; she’s probably even capable of performing the job of senator. But most people in the country, perhaps even in New York State, couldn’t explain what is in her resume–other than her last name–that would make her a contender for this position.
If she were to run for the Senate and win, I’d be delighted! The country needs more women who have the intelligence and skills (and, yes, experience –I looked that up on Wikipedia) that Caroline Kennedy would bring to the job. And the process of running for election would give her an opportunity to demonstrate her credentials and her broad appeal within the electorate.
But her becoming a senator by appointment would prove the cynics right: All one needs to get ahead fast in the USA is the right name, the right parents, the right income. Want to make it big in politics? Be a Kennedy or a Bush or a Clinton.
As an instructor in an urban community college, I can’t wait to hear the reactions of my students when I ask them about this probable appointment. Most of them didn’t vote in the last presidential election, despite my entreaties, because they believe politics is an antidemocratic exercise that promotes and enriches the well-connected while pretending to represent the entire populace.
My guess is that these students will consider the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the Senate as just another example of the powerful taking care of their own.
Or maybe I’ve missed the point. Please–tell me why I’m wrong.
I suppose one advantage to a dynast is built-in connections. Being the niece of Ted Kennedy I imagine would help a lot in getting things for New York. I usually don’t see the Senate as an appropriate first elected office, however.
Pressed the wrong button. But if she’s being appointed as a placeholder until the election in 2010, I am kind of okay with that. Not thrilled, but okay. However, if she is appointed senator and uses that role to run for re-election, that would be a serious end-around the voters.
The voters would at least have a say and if she is elected that would legitimize her.
I don’t like making governors appoint replacement US Senators. I hope all the rest of the states follow what Massachusetts did when faced with the prospect of John Kerry vacating in the middle of his term in 2004, and what Alaska did in response to Murkowski appointing his daughter to the Senate: Change the law so that vacancies are filled by special election. Except, don’t wait for a blatant reason staring you in the face, like MA and AK did. Just do it now.
We’re smart enough to let the voters decide. Of course our legislators should be run out of state on a rail if they change the law for strictly partisan reasons.
I don’t care what the reasons or excuses are, the law is a good one and every state should do it. Appointment by governors is a leftover from the time when US Senators were elected by state legislators. No state does that anymore, they just mostly haven’t caught up on this bit.
Senator Caroline Kennedy. Her endorsement of Obama really helped him and showed that she has the ability to bring people together and speak intelligently on the important issues of the day – in a convincing fashion. Given that a Senator’s job is to a) improve the lives of the people of their state and b) to set and create good policy for the people of this country, doesn’t she have the unique skill set that could make her excel at the job? Previous experience in office is neither the only nor even always the best type of experience for future political office. Her experience with nonprofits and, indeed, family experience makes her well-suited for the job. At the end of the day the people of NY deserve the politician who will do the best for them and their country – and I wouldn’t be surprised if someone like Caroline Kennedy offers that state their best chance of getting that sort of effective leadership.
<
p>Would it be fair that she’d get the job over someone else, in large part because of her last name and personal story? No, not particularly. Though, it’s no less fair that she had to stay out of the limelight all these years to protect her daughter from public scrutiny to begin with. If she was daughter-less, she may very well have already been a US Senator by now. I don’t think she’s the only valid choice to replace Hillary, but I certainly think she’d make a good choice – and I don’t think she should be excluded from the position because of her last name, either.
Which is the problem with giving this power to governors. What if the famous person, or the well-connected person, really is a good choice? Should they get the job, unfairly jumping ahead because of their fame or connections? Or should the not get it, to avoid appearance of (and real) impropriety? Yucky system. And as we see today, big temptation for corruption too.
<
p>Elections don’t completely solve it. I still think Representative Tsongas basically traded her name in for a House seat, over far more qualified and well-informed candidates. But at least the legitimacy of an election is based on voters voting, which is real legitimacy. We can work to improve the process (better media, more citizen involvement, public financing) for better results, but we need to start with legitimacy.
but of all the presidents and senators in the last 50 years, how many were Kennedys or Bushs or Clintons?
<
p>Kennedys: JFK, RFK, EMK. There’s a few wives of governors or lt. governors, and a member of the House.
<
p>Bushs: GHWB, GHB. JEB served as governor.
<
p>Clintons: WJC, HRC.
<
p>
<
p>That’s it. We’ve had 100s of senators and 10 POTUS’ (plus BHO). As far as I can tell, 7 have been from the three “dynasties” plus a few tag alongs. Seems to me most people who have “made it big in politics” managed to overcome their lack of dynastic heritage.
Why do people pretend to live under a government of the people here in America? America is a country of the powerful, the rich. The senate is more of a patrician’s club than representative of the people. As such, it fits Caroline Kennedy perfectly.
just wondering.
We’ll see if he’s actually able to do any of the things we hope he’ll do.
Even patricians have to start somewhere. I understand some patrician families started as bootleggers. Is this not so?
At least that leaves room for the occasional individual to rise through the ranks by virtue of his or her merits. Like Russell Crowe in “Gladiator”, perhaps.
Not to mention that Ben Franklin recently asked me to consider whether even I might have what it takes to be a Freemason, in a radio advertisement. I decided that I probably don’t- but it was nice of him to ask, regardless.
As soon as anyone has any success, they’re tainted, apparently.
<
p>Caroline fits the profile, sure. But Obama? Clinton? Please.
They owe only to their higher masters and their friends and relatives. Be it a Bush, Clinton, Kennedy, and the host of others; enjoy a place to go to wield power, get treated as minor royalty and know they will have little to worry about from the American voter. Americans are awed by their politicians. Little wonder that the people are treated with such contempt. I see no senators or congressmen having their houses foreclosed. Americans just don’t get it. A land of sheep being led by wolves.
<
p>I had to laugh today when I heard on the radio that Senator Dodd of Connecticut called the CEO of General Motors an incompetent. This is the same Senator that took so much from the very people he was to oversee? Perhaps the senator is not incompetent. Perhaps he is just another thief. It does not seem odd that a crazy old coot senator from Alaska goes to jail while another in similar conditions enjoys the time to his next re-election. Who is watching? He plays us for fools while he sucks the blood from our children.
<
p>Americans are so proud of their party affiliations. The fact is that their parties eat us up and spit us out.
… is not that these people are bad to elect to office,… it shows that ‘the people’ are vulnerable to the power of branding even in their civic life.
<
p>I’m the last person to dissuade anyone from using reason rather than hype for supporting their decisions, but I also don’t consider this the end of the world either.
<
p>Either way, this isn’t news. If branding didn’t work so well, the private sector wouldn’t invest so much in it.
We USED to have Roosevelts. Saltonstalls. Typically, after 100 years or so, it’s over.
<
p>Kathleen Kennedy was not elected. Patches is an unmitigated disaster. The clan is on the wane.
i have to take a pass on your question, since i don’t know anything about kennedy or her possible rivals for the appointment. but for those who don’t like kennedy for whatever reason, who would be some good alternatives and why? and does anyone think that clinton’s opinion will have any weight with governor paterson’s choice, and should she have a voice in who replaces her?
If she is indeed “very bright, well-spoken, accomplished, attractive” and so forth, why should her last name disqualify her?
<
p>Anyway, here’s a couple of key reasons why she might be a good pick: first, she’ll only be there for two years anyway. If she runs again and people think she’s done a good job, they might vote her back in office. Nothing undemocratic about that.
<
p>In the meantime, this appointment would give New York somebody new who nevertheless might have more pull in the Senate because of her family connections. Since New York just lost someone (Hillary) who can strongly represent New York’s interests in the Senate, why not replace her with somebody who probably has more of a chance of making a mark in the next two years than Mr. John Nobody? In that way, it might actually be better for the people of New York (at least until the time that they can ratify or reject the choice in the next election).
… At first blush, I too thought the same things you are thinking. I guess it’s instinctive. Then I read this piece by Al Giordano and it makes a lot of sense to me.
<
p>You ought to read the piece in its entirety, but here’s the breakdown:
<
p>– Caroline Kennedy is the original ‘no drama’ politician, having done a lot of behind-the-scenes stuff without obsessively seeking credit.
<
p>– Ted Kennedy, after 46 years, has his hand in every last pie in Washington and most of the rest of the pies in the country. He’s going to die soon.
<
p>– Caroline Kennedy has steered the family for a while and will be head of the Kennedy family after Ted goes… she will have the keys to the Kennedy machine that Ted has built
<
p>Now, Ted Kennedy has nothing left to prove to me. Your mileage may vary, but I trust the man implicitly. If he’s built a network it’s a progressive network. Period. So I’d be willing to shelve my own doubts about dynastic imperium and support anyone he’s willing to hand over the keys to…
<
p>But that’s just me. I do a lot of things on faith.
<
p>If the choice comes down to Andrew Cuomo and Caroline Kennedy… Well, I love Mario, fer sure, but he’s never sealed the deal the way Ted has. I have to go with Caroline.
I have to say this whole Caroline Kennedy and Andrew Cuomo thing offends me tremendously. If you work hard, get elected to local office, move up and work harder, you should have a shot at the senate seat.
<
p>When I look at Barack Obama, I see a man who started with no political advantages and worked hard to reach his goals. No family connections. No yellow brick road. After eight years of George W. Bush, who wouldn’t have been elected county commissioner if not for his father’s name, I want someone who worked on his or her merits to get to the senate.
<
p>The surest way to block minorites, the children of working-class families, and any sense of diversity from the senate is to award seats to the children of the politically connected.
<
p>Find me a good town supervisor, city council member, or school board member and give that person the seat.
<
p>Perhaps his family is the exception that proves the rule, but the Kennedys, and not just Ted, have been on the battlelines fighting for diversity, working-class families, universal health care, minimum wage… you name it…
<
p>Please understand that, when I say this, I do feel the strain against every egalitarian impulse that I have… But I don’t wish to lose the good in a, perhaps righteous, desire to punish those clans who are decidedly anti-egalitarian.
<
p>As for Andrew Cuomo… I don’t know a whole lot about him, but have never, in my memory, found myself on the opposite side of an issue from Mario Cuomo. One would hope that the father had passed something strong and righteous down to the son.
So, we are going to give Caroline a senate seat because the family has been socially conscious? It’s still patrician privilege.
<
p>There are far too many folks in Congress who have never balanced a municipal budget, who have never had to cut a nickle out of a school budget. We don’t need another.
… if not for progressives…?
<
p>
<
p>Yes. We have a better chance of getting a socially conscious (dare I say egalitarian?) Senator if we choose one from amongst a family that has social consciousness in their DNA. What is progressivism for, if we don’t root for progressives?
<
p>
<
p>Refusing to seat Caroline Kennedy won’t change that. Any given person, who has David Patersons trust, isn’t going to, per se, be able to balance a municipal budget.
<
p>Many people who are, right now, trying to balance municipal budgets, are not qualified to do it. Nobody, I’ve ever voted for, has ever made the case to me that they’ve balanced municipal budgets or will, or will not, cut nickels outta school budgets.