Digg is open

I have no dog in the N.Y. Senate fight, being as though I’ve got enough on my plate just being from Illinois at this point in time.

And I’d have no problem with Caroline getting the Senate nod. I think she’d probably make a good Senator. She’s sure a lot smarter than a lot of the morons over there.

I really think Caroline’s problem is that she’s been raised to stay out of the public eye, trained by her mother with reinforcement by the various Kennedy family scandals over the years. By inclination, and that training, she’s a very private person. Now she’s decided to dip her toe in the political water by competing for one of the highest profile legislative positions in the nation, and I simply don’t think she’s willing, ready, or even able to let it all hang out.

I have a hunch she decided to try this because she feels it is her duty, and she’s finding out it’s a lot different than being appointed to some charitable board or another. I wouldn’t be surprised to see her withdraw from consideration.

I think this is going to be very very close and I think the winner is going to win by only one vote.

If Caroline had political aspirations prior to the NY seat opening up, they have been severely undermined by her current bid. She could overcome that if she has the stomach to campaign hard in a future election cycle, although it sounds as if she has ruled out a 2010 primary challenge to whoever gets the Senate seat.

u think there will BE more than one vote?

Ahhh. Thanks for the morning snark!

For personal reasons, I would love to see Caroline get the seat. But I also understand the grumblings around the political table.

I have a good friend in Brooklyn who has been waging war against the Democratic machine there for years. They deserve to be sidestepped.

No that is why all of this debate is so absurd. If Caroline made a mistake it was letting anyone besides Patterson know she was interested. Why is there no frenzy here in CO over the replacement of Salazar.

Clinton wants everyone who votes against her to know that she will be back and taking names if they don’t vote for her.

Why no frenzy over the Salazars? Duh. Their mother wasn’t Jackie Kennedy!(They are also kinda goofy looking)

You’re right. The public pressure brought to bear on Paterson has served no purpose except to demonstrate that she is a political neophyte and consequently an unlikely choice for a senate appointment.

Well, hmmm, I think there may have been more at play in CK staying out of the public eye than ‘Kennedy family scandals.’ What could it be?

Thanks Teddy.

The time stamp on this post is yesterday afternoon. Teddy is probably still at church.:)

I am in agreement with RAMA. She’d probably be a superior Senator. No knocking her poise or intelligence. She’d be light years ahead of the Bob Corkers or Saxby Chamblisses. My problem is that I’m sick of Dynasties and the sense of Entitlement & Priviledge that goes along with them. Corruption, cronyism and nepotism seem to have been in the ascendancy over the past quarter century. Everything from juiced atheletes to phony economic statistics to the repeal of the Estate (”Death”) Tax. Off-shoring of both jobs and the taxable assets of the richest Americans. The Clintons and Bushes led this Country down the path of ruination. It will be difficult, but I hope Obama can move America back to a more merit-based system. I can always dream.

Yes, this will be closer than the Franken/Coleman Senate race in Minnesota!

I mentioned this earlier but the NYT had a non-interview with Caroline Kennedy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12…..=1&hp

Kennedy’s problem is that there is very little there there and the more media attention she gets the less there there is.

IMHO her biggest mistake was not developing a narrative of why she should be selected. If she had a communication plan to make her case it failed miserably. This plays into the criticism of being selected by her name only.

Her name give her access and we all know what a media hub NYC is. She blew it big time.

Now I’m here! Church was great! ;)

Yes, but Franken/Coleman could end up in a tie…

CK – Not so much.

;~P

It makes me wonder whether her “mentor” Bloomberg and the Lieberman consultants really have her best interests at heart.

The Clintons led this country down the path of ruination? Not really, all things consdered, they have both served us well.

Corruption,cronyism and nepotism seem to have been in the ascendancy over the past quarter century? Not really, probably less so than the prior 200 hundred years.

Everyone is getting into the holiday warmongering spirit. Turky has just launched more raids against the PKK in Iraq.

Ho, ho, ho….

-G

There should have be six mistakes listed. Caroline chose some pretty poor advisers from Lierbermans campaign and standard issue DINO types, not forward thinking, change types. You are the company you keep. I liked that Caroline kept a distance from politics, but who she has counseling her shows either deaf ear to current events or massive naivete.

Capeheart makes a few good points — #4, mostly, in re her press relations and the suboptimal manner in which she’s handled questions on the issues. I think she’s understandably felt herself in a difficult situation in not wanting to appear to be aggressively campaigning for what is an appointment position, not disrespecting the “process” as she puts it. Yet some modicum of campaigning is probably necessary to answer critics’ concerns about her lack of experience in the political arena, as she and her team seem to be just now realizing.

The matter of the non-votes (mostly in party primary races) should have been something she herself first disclosed, with acknowledgment of her shortcomings as a citizen — making it possibly a one-day story — rather than the media digging it up, where it was framed in much harsher terms and continues to be hung on her.

Re the contributions, not much of a story there. Re Bloomberg for a 3d term, she should simply say it’s too early for her to decide on that one, and that she’s a loyal Dem who, nevertheless, doesn’t automatically assume her party’s nominee, and someone yet to be decided at that, is always the best person for a given position. If there’s any further issue of her party loyalty, she can point to her consistent support (presumably) for all Dem nominees for president in all recent elections. (avoiding the question of whether she backed Carter, something even Dems would understand if it turned out to be no …)

Re the non-disclosure (until appointment, if any) of personal finances — she has my blessings there. On these sorts of privacy matters, I’m perfectly comfortable with disclosure consistent only with the letter of the law, which at this point is not required.

CK still would make for the best choice for Patterson, particularly given the fundraising ability needed so quickly for 2010 and 12, and because of the major alternatives, only one, Andrew Cuomo, would appear to be remotely close to her ability to fully fund two campaigns in such a short period of time.

You’re right, they haven’t done her any favors, which makes them either (a) incompetent or (b) actually serving somebody else.

Either that or they’re stuck in their old ways.

Jane defined why Caroline shouldn’t be selected before her mentors defined why she should. I think sometimes the highest level of prestige and power are blinders that can’t be penetrated. And the consultants feeding at the trough don’t want to rock the boat.

As we’ve seen of late, failure is rewarded by the those at the top. It’s an exclusive club and as long as you pay the dues of selling your soul to protect the club, there are no consequences.

The above is about media consultants, not Caroline herself. I believe she trusted the wrong people to advise her on her strategy.

Try as I might I can find no reason in your comment why Caroline Kennedy should be considered for a Senatorship. She stands for nothing. She does nothing. She discloses nothing. And her ability to raise money for a Senate run remains unproven. Random New Yorkers you met on the street would have more going for them than this.

The U.S. Senate is no place for first job ever training wheels. And no matter what.. a person who has an interest in the job needs to be willing and able state their positions on the issues of the day… much more so, their position on the constitution and rule of law.

In addition to the Blooming Lieber consultants, didn’t Schumer contribute a watchdog to her cause?

Uncle Ted has people who could have steered her right but CK was probably worried about a public perception that her family was pulling strings to get her the job. As it turned out, it couldn’t have been much worse than the current perception.

I think too many of you have gotten too deep in the weeds on this.
The things being discussed here are not what is going to decide this.
This probably will.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A3QMscDVjTE

It makes no difference to me whether Carolyn gets the job or not. Who represents NY is up to Paterson in the short term and up to NY voters in two years. HOWEVER, I don’t think her lack of experience makes her less qualified than most of the people currently in the Senate, most of whom do not serve the actual interests of their constituents. Their major qualifications are that they know how to kiss up, kick down, and fluff their corporate sponsors.

I have been on the fence about her appointment. Until I heard her speak on TV several times in the last few days. Every fourth phrase was “you know.” I had to turn the channel off. An odd speech habit in a 50-year-old running for US Senate.

Let us pray.

Re on the job training, it happens to a lot of incoming freshmen senators, particularly those coming with only state experience or those with no prior elective office. Her uncle Ted most certainly had to learn a lot on the job. Somehow though, Massachusetts and the US of A both survived during the period he needed to come up to speed (which, by some estimates, didn’t happen until at least two yrs in the senate).

Btw, there is no right or perfect experience for president either, as her father once noted rightly, and that’s obviously a more important job than being just one of 100 senators. All presidents have had to learn on the job and, again, except for the occasion moron president like the current one, mostly our country is able to survive through the learning curve process.

As for stating her positions, as I noted above, it’s one area where I feel she’s needed to show much more convincingly, given her lack of elective office experience, that she’s on top of the substance in the various areas of DP and FP, while at the same time she should admit upfront that there are some issues where she intends to study up more should she be appointed. Admitting that candidly would overcome with the public any temporary downside, whereas being exposed in an interview as unprepared on a given topic would be damaging.

I tend, though, to agree with some here that her advisory team seems to be giving her bum advice. And for this librul Dem, their political profile does make me nervous. Might be time to bring in die-hard librul and Teddy loyalist Bob Shrum — well why not, he’s got a winning record in advising senate hopefuls …

And since choosing people to advise her on this “campaign” is one of her few public electioneering acts, does it say something about her political skills that she chose so poorly for these times?

Regarding her ability to raise money quickly for a 2010 campaign, my response to an appeal would be “You’re Caroline Kennedy; fund your race yourself. Lots more deserving of my wee pittance in 2010.”

But perhaps there are others more willing than I to buy a piece of the Kennedy mystique with a contribution. How have the other young Kennedys done in their fundraising, does anyone know?

Ian’s up at the mothership

Here’s that interview.

I tried to read a transcript yesterday (can’t find the link now) and it is a REALLY unfortunate speech pattern that makes her responses almost unreadable. She needs to get media training right away.

Seems to me that Caroline made another critical mistake and one that she might not be able to undo – she obviously has irritated the heck out of Paterson.

Well your support seems to be “faith based” and, imo, that is why the country is in this predicament.

It sure looks like many other people are weighing in to Patterson. I don’t see why we shouldn’t demand to at least know what a potential senators actual positions are before we citizens hand over support.

We cede a lot of power when we do that.. and we send the wrong message to our party.

She tells the Daily News she won’t be beholden to anybody

Agreed, every Senator has to learn the Senate ropes initially.. The point I was making is this would be her first real job for the most part… that level of first time training needed is simply egregious.

Wily politician that he is, I have to wonder if he responded to her initial interest, “Well, Caroline, you’ll need to go out and earn it” knowing full well who she had on-board to help — and if he thought her public effort might tank. I think there are fewer and fewer New York Democrats every day who would be angry at Paterson for choosing someone else.

I suspect that CK is capable of showing up and voting dem- that’s about all she needs to do. She will vote about like other NY state dem senators I suspect

I actually can’t see that going over very well with Paterson, either — she will certainly be beholden to him and should probably act as if she will, at least in the short term. She has no independent electoral base, and he’s using a critical amount of political capital (measured by all the others he’ll piss off) to choose her.

Anyone with a reasonabe brain and a good staff can be a satisfactory senator- superhuman qualities don’t seem essential to the job.

What exactly does that mean, “show up and vote Dem?” Does that mean she would have voted against the FISA update abomination? Would she be supporting all the war funding? Will she vote FOR EFCA? Universal Singel payer Health Care? Net Neutrality?

All these issues are important and as far as I’m aware there is no consistent “Dem” position on them. In fact many Dems conveniently managed to either avoid the issues by not voting or voted against the progressive position.

CK would make a good senator because, you know..

NC: But do you think, in your own view, those things would make you a better pick for this job than other candidates?

CK: I think they would make me a really good pick for this job, and, um, it’s up to the governor to decide, you know, who would be the best. Really. And I think there are many ways to serve, and I’ve loved what I’ve done so far, and I plan to continue, I think, you know, serving and advocating for the issues that I think are important. So, if it’s this, that would be wonderful, because I really do think that the relationships that I have in Washington — you know, I worked hard on the Obama campaign, I have a good relationship with many of the people that are coming in to the administration, in the Senate, others, both sides of the aisle, you know, that’s the kind of work that I’ve done outside of politics. It hasn’t been sort of a partisan kind of career that I’ve had. So I think that at this point in time, that’s what people are looking for.

HOWEVER, I don’t think her lack of experience makes her less qualified than most of the people currently in the Senate, most of whom do not serve the actual interests of their constituents.

Yes, Caroline Kennedy is at least as unqualified to be a Senator as many currently sitting Senators. Isn’t this setting the bar pretty low though? Is this how we get more and better Democrats?

As for stating her positions, as I noted above, it’s one area where I feel she’s needed to show much more convincingly, given her lack of elective office experience, that she’s on top of the substance in the various areas of DP and FP, while at the same time she should admit upfront that there are some issues where she intends to study up more should she be appointed. Admitting that candidly would overcome with the public any temporary downside, whereas being exposed in an interview as unprepared on a given topic would be damaging.

Isn’t this exactly what many were saying about Sarah Palin? Is this really the argument you want to be making?

Almost everyone has some quirk in their speaking styles which, if literally put on the printed page would make the speaker look pretty silly or inarticulate. Funny though how usually the speaker’s “uh’s” and “ah’s” and “you know’s” are almost always omitted when the MSM officially quotes the person. Except here with Caroline Kennedy of course.

How would most of Ted Kennedy’s unscripted remarks from 1962 to the present look on the printed page if the reporter and news outlet were to quote him with all his verbal tics and flaws?

And couldn’t the same be done to, oh, say Barack Obama, who’s inclined to the liberal use of “uhs” and “ahs” in his speech as he searches, often with long pauses, for the right thing to say.

I’m not familiar with TDN, but it sounds like they’re exercising some editorial bias against CK just in the snarky way they choose to quote her.

CK is just coming out for the first time as a pol, so it’s about par for the course for a political neophyte and previously very private person that she’d be less than perfect in the early going in her media appearances. Big deal. Her charm and positive attitude will be far more on display with NYers than some trivial verbal flaws which her detractors and haters insist on highlightin.

Again, it’s no more of a steep learning curve for her than for some others who’ve come before — again, think of the barely 30-yr old Teddy taking office as senator in 1962, or Al Franken who’s never held office before, and who’s previous jobs were an easy p/t gig in radio and as a comedian.

Though I’d disagree that she’s never had a real job before — ever raised kids before? And three of them? Granted, she has a very atypical resume for someone seeking this high position, but in most ways it’s just a different kind of nontraditional background as compared to, say, Hillary, who, you’ll recall, got plenty of grief in the anti-HRC liberal blogosphere for having mostly just “First Lady” and a few yrs in office on her resume.

I give CK credit for her educational achievements, her writing of books on important substantive topics, and for her work in the non-profit sector, especially in public education. That and the toughest job of them all, raising kids.

Oh, and her father was famously accused in 1960 of “never having a real job before.” Bobby had never practiced law prior to being named AG — and in both instances, their prior lack of experience turned out to be no impediment to getting the job done.

You continue to give no reasons why anyone should support Caroline Kennedy for dogcatcher let alone Senator.

Here it is. She has star power. A quality sorely missing among the Democratic Senators. I didn’t think this was a secret.

The elephant in the living room is Rupert Murdoch. Caroline Kennedy is a family friend – she got his twins into their very exclusive private school (she’s on the board) – and she serves on a board with his wife.

That’s not something Bloomberg can afford to discount right now, as he’s just gotten the City Council to put aside the term limits New Yorkers have repeatedly voted for so he can run again. That was not a popular move with a lot of New Yorkers.

The Post and the Wall Street Journal could be a big help to him with that.

Here it is. She has star power. A quality sorely missing among the Democratic Senators. I didn’t think this was a secret.

So why not Madonna? or Paris Hilton? Were they too busy?

See, problem is, this is my Senator we’re talking about, and I live in a state which has been systematically screwed by the feds for years, which sends out much more money than it takes back in, and which has just suffered huge drops in the industries that make up most of our tax base.

I’m afraid “no worse than the rest” doesn’t cut it when the rest are getting subsidized by our tax dollars (and our Republicans have worked hard to make sure that keeps happening).

I thought when it came to publishers of New York City newspapers, the elephant in Caroline Kennedy’s living room was Pinch Sulzberger. Or maybe not her living room….

Care to elucidate?

Gee, were there father and uncle assassinated Democratic icons?

So you are saying that some forms of entitlement and celebrity are better than others? I have seen no evidence of that. At least Paris Hilton had an energy policy as I recall.

Oh, and her father was famously accused in 1960 of “never having a real job before.”

I believe that at the time most people agreed that being a navy officer during WW2 was a “real job”

I don’t think Bloomberg has to worry about the Times’ support :D

Yes!
Frankly to compare CK to Paris Hilton is silly. The hyperbole you are engaging in is diminishing the legitimacy of your argument.

And, by 1960, JFK had been a Congressman and a Senator … having campaigned for both offices …

IIRC, elected 3 times to the House (what was the 8th CD of MA when I lived there) and twice to the Senate.

Actually the knock on JFK was that his daddy bought his political career.
It was true. But, ……
Hell, until the 17th Amendment was passed in the early 20th century, US Senators were not elected.

I’d reckon a lot of people will be put off by the tatoos she has running up her right arm in that photo, too.

You do realize that picture has been photo-shopped and she does not have a tattoo like that in real life?

Although I believe she does have a small tattoo of a butterfly on that arm,

Yeah, I know. Along with not writing his own book, and not really having earned his medals (funny how these themes keep recurring, innit?). And RFK was counsel to a number of Senate Committees from 1950 on, which means he did actually work as a very high-profile lawyer for ten years before his brother was elected. Of course, his dad probably didn’t hurt him there either.

All I’m saying that if you want to compare her to the previous generation in terms of how much help their family gave them politically, it’s completely fair. It’s a bit ahistorical to compare their experience.

How about Elizabeth Holtzman ?

Bless her heart, admirable woman, fine public servant, not maybe the most deft campaigner outside NYC.

And since choosing people to advise her on this “campaign” is one of her few public electioneering acts, does it say something about her political skills that she chose so poorly for these times?

Indeed it does. At the end of the day, she’s responsible for her choices. I think with the right advisors she could’ve told a great story. It wouldn’t sell with activists, however for the general public it might have had a chance.

ratfood- Yes I do believe Uncle Teddy could’ve done that. If I recall correctly, didn’t Uncle Teddy lend his coummincation people to Kerry in ‘04? If what I recall is correct, then maybe it was 6 in one, and half dozen in the other.

Generally speaking, you are probably correct as to CK not being particularly deft in campaigning outside of NYC, except for one big exception: the future occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. I don’t think Paterson will cross him on this.

Except that the future occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, DC does not have to run on a ticket in ‘10 with whomever is appointed to that Senate seat. Governor Paterson does.

And with all the mess going on in the world, I’d hope for ALL of our sakes that the future occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Ave, is spending his political capital trying to fix problems that affect us all and not interfering in a situation where his interference would be guaranteed to p*ss off people whose votes he will be needing as he moves forward.

Actually, I was responding to a question about Elizabeth Holtzman.

As for the occupant of Pennsylvania Avenue, if that’s what this is all about wouldn’t it save some time to say so? At least then we New Yorkers can be clear that our interests are not of any importance in this conversation, and it would save us some trouble trying to say what we think those are.

I imagine PEBO is staying far away from any discussions of Senate appointments in New York and Colorado.

Why doesn’t the New York legislature use this unique opportunity to change the law and require a special election to fill the balance of any Senator’s term? It seems a useless expense to have an election in 2010 for the balance, and then again in 2012 for a full term. Why not have a special election now for the balance? Seems very logical, especially since the Democrats are unlikely to lose it and given the odd circumstances of Paterson’s ascension to the Gov’s chair.

Yep, and logically one would have thought that fact, and his prior cong’l experience, would have been enough to even preclude the charge. Yet it was made, and simply because (with the one exception of the honest coal miner fellow in WV, who told him he wasn’t missing much anyway) it mischievously raised class-conflict issues and his rich daddy and so forth.

And since choosing people to advise her on this “campaign” is one of her few public electioneering acts, does it say something about her political skills that she chose so poorly for these times?

All it says, possibly, after only a few weeks, in the judgment of some, is that she might have made other, better choices for political consultants. Big whoop.

Hillary, with 7 yrs of political/elective office experience more (at the very least) compared to CK seems to have chosen poorly for her campaign team in her pres’l run. Mark Penn. Patty Solis Doyle. Yet few would conclude from that unfortunate selection of top aides that she was so lacking in political skills as to preclude her from being an effective president.

Yet few would conclude from that unfortunate selection of top aides that she was so lacking in political skills as to preclude her from being an effective president.

Actually, many folks looked at HRC’s selection of staffers and did indeed conclude that it was a sign that she might not be an effective POTUS.

Or did you miss the part where HRC lost the nomination?

Actually, I thought the campaign Hillary Clinton ran pretty much disqualified her for the Presidency. Taken together with the health care failure in her husband’s first term, her management skills seem to be sorely lacking when it comes to transparency, accountability, delegation, and mediation. I don’t think there’s anything wrong with working outward from the available evidence in Caroline Kennedy’s case, either. She has chosen to align her “campaign” with some people in the Democratic party I’d rather not see attain more power than the huge amount they already have. That counts against her, in my view.

I do understand what you’re saying. All I’m saying is that in this case, it happens to be true. She’s clearly an intelligent and thoughtful woman, and I have no reason to believe that her heart isn’t in the right place. All I’m saying is that I believe that as her putative employer, I think I have a right to hear more from her about what exactly she would stand for if being my Senator became her first full-time job.

Well, does Patterson really need a phone call from Obama to understand how the pres-elect feels about CK getting the seat?

As for the special election, how long do you think is appropriate for the campaign period to occur before the final election is held? And, therefore, how long should NYers be expected to go underrepresented in the senate? Especially with some very important New Dealish legislation about to be sent up to the Hill by Obama? And wouldn’t the party nominee situation be handled not by the voters but by party bigwigs?

New York, Arizona, and Illinois have been rather under-represented in the US Senate for some time, given the rigors of the presidential primaries and general election. I think Schumer’s doing a fine job holding down the fort. Clinton’s staff should stay in place for constituent service until the replacement arrives, and for some time after for a smooth transition, anyway.

Special elections usually are a free-for-all, with the top two vote-getters hashing it out in a runoff if no one gets 50%. Presuming a February first Clinton resignation, the first vote could be six weeks later (March 15th) with a runoff, if needed, four weeks after than. The new Senator would be sworn in on tax day.

Just my opinion, fwiw.

And wouldn’t the party nominee situation be handled not by the voters but by party bigwigs?

Um. Wow.

Her first fulltime job? Gosh, I thought she was the mother of two.

As for her position on the isses, I think it is clear that over the next two years she will vote in line with Obama’s agenda.

Actually, I thought the campaign Hillary Clinton ran pretty much disqualified her for the Presidency.

That’s a pretty harsh judgment based on (largely) a couple of consultant hires who’d worked well for her in previous stints and who’d been loyal. And I have no doubt there are some in the lib blogosphere who are inclined to similar ultra-tough attitudes about HRC. But I think most would simply conclude that it was a less than perfect team the way it turned out and, possibly, that in a couple of those cases she certainly wasn’t being unreasonable in elevating them to the high positions they held in her campaign.

And that nothing too sweeping could be concluded about her governing skills beyond that. After all, Jimmy Carter ran a fairly solid campaign in 76, with some smart advisors on board, yet he turned out to be a disaster as president. Turned right around once he settled into the Oval, and started micromanaging everything, including the times for the WH tennis court.

Not too much should be read into perceived campaign errors as to how that person will behave once in office …

Three, actually, and she’s reportedly quite good at it.

So in summation, this is not about Ms. Kennedy or New York’s needs, it’s about your view of what Obama wants. Thanks. That’ll save me some typing.

Given Obama’s (lack of) actions on the FISA abomination and other bills where he basically ducked, why should NY’ers accept someone that votes only in line with Obama?

Obama’s positions are not necessarily those of most NY’ers nor are they necessarily in line with progressive government. So why should “voting in line with Obama’s agenda” be a selling point?

The consensus appears to be that we have no rights in this situation.

Book Salon up at the Mothership

Special elections usually are a free-for-all, with the top two vote-getters hashing it out in a runoff if no one gets 50%

Well, you’ve probably got it right about the free-for-all. And if it would be anything like the f-f-a we had out here in CA in 2003 for governor, a real freak circus, I’d prefer the current method of the gov appointing, thank you.

I think I have a right to hear more from her about what exactly she would stand for if being my Senator became her first full-time job.

As I said above, this CK backer would prefer she give an interview going a little more in depth on some of the issues. But that would primarily be to assuage some of the doubts expressed by some who legitimately want to know about her stances and whether she’s up to speed on some of them.

For others, however, the detractors who’re just looking to prevent her being appointed, I think they are well aware that Kennedys tend to be liberal in the governing and that, given her endorsement of Obama, it’s not going to be a great surprise when some of her other positions on the issues are eventually brought forth.

I admit to not being a NY’er, but I wasn’t a Connetticutt Yankee either and that did not stop me from voicing my opinion and spending my money on their 2006 Senate race.

You folks might be right and someone like Nadler or Hamlet on the Hudson’s son, who have toiled for years in the pristine vineyards of NY politics, might just be the answer. I simply have a different opinion.

My husband is fantasizing that Paterson will appoint Spitzer.

I don’t think you’re being entirely fair to the people who oppose this. We’re talking about handing half of our Senate representation to someone whose positions we don’t know, and who, despite being raised in a family with a tradition of political involvement, sat out many of the very serious political questions of the past eight years and who frequently fails to vote.

Occam’s razor suggests that you don’t have to be a kneejerk hater to find that really troubling.

No one — no one — is more qualified to deal the people’s hand when it comes to the Masters of the Universe and their wreckage of the world economy.

Well, he does have DC experience.

I am not currently a NY resident either (though I have been a few times over the years) but will admit that Cuomo has never been all that impressive either.

Nadler, however, is quite impressive. I also like(d) Liz Holtzman, having voted for her in the primary in I believe it was ‘92 (against Abrams and Ferraro) to run against the Fonz.

And Spitzer would cause a few heads to explode if nothing else.

CK might in fact make a wonderful Senator. But the way she has gone about it reeks more of the rights of nobility not that she actually is willing to fight the fights that need to be fought these days.

Exactly. We are thinking of writing to Paterson.

Whenever I’m told she’s a constitutional scholar whose books on the Fourth Amendment and privacy are taught in American law schools, I have to wonder why she missed the rather extraordinary opportunities presented by the Bush/Cheney Administration to weigh in, publicly, on the miscarriages of justice on these specific issues the last eight years.

And, with regard to the assurances others have given that Caroline will vote in line with the “Obama agenda” how do they explain her support for marriage equality, something he’s made very clear he does not support? Are there other areas of difference Obama supporters who also support Caroline need to know about?

Or not?

I would love that. I don’t know that his family would.

While that’s probably true, rwcole, that’s not a reason for her to be selected. There are probably several thousand wealthy and not-quite-as-well-connected people in Manhattan who are just as qualified as she is for that seat and they aren’t under discussion because they aren’t named Kennedy.

brodie, all of that is true of lots of New Yorkers. Why is she so special, other than her last name?

Hugh, it’s an open secret that CK and Pinch have been having an affair.

I love Holtzman, and I voted for her for a number of jobs. I never thought it was fair that she took the hit for Abrams’ loss to D’Amato.

Unfortunately, she has been calling for impeachment for years – even wrote a book about it – which means that Schumer would move heaven and earth to keep her out (and, let’s just say, there are other quarters where it might be an issue).

Hugh, it’s an open secret that CK and Pinch have been having an affair.

Not really my business although it would probably weaken her point of being strong on families. Again I have no way of knowing if this is true. I’m just aghast that anyone would find an emptyheaded idiot like Pinch attractive.

As for Obama interfering in the New York selection, I have heard that there was this little contretemps in Illinois (I forget the details) that might make that less likely.

sat out many of the very serious political questions of the past eight years and who frequently fails to vote.

Iirc, she spoke up publicly, at the convention, for both Gore and Kerry. Then of course her famous endorsement of Obama this time. These very public pronouncements of support should not go unmentioned, if her detractors want to gain cred.

I also don’t think many of the skeptics give her credit for her 1998 public statements against the Repub Impeachment Insanity. And she stepped up and spoke out at a time when some lefties didn’t feel it necessary to stand against the attempted Rethug Coup — perhaps they were just carried away with their CDS.

As for the voting, mostly that was in the primary contests. Again, I’d be a lot more bothered had she, say, sat out some recent pres’l races, or consistently failed to show up to vote in the midterms, but that hasn’t been the case.

Re Jerry Nadler, I like his voting record, but doubt if he would play statewide as well as CK (or even one of the women House reps from NY). A rather blah, even somewhat negative, personality, to go with a less than ideal physical appearance. I applaud him for trying to tackle his weight problems with the surgery, but it still looks like he’s unhealthily overweight. Kudos though for standing against the AUMF …

PUNCH Sulzberger

Punch is the father. Pinch is the son who currently runs things at the NY Times and who is rumored to have had an affair with Caroline Kennedy.

Hmm …

Kucinich is too short …

Nadler is too fat …

So?

The ‘more and better’ democrats sought be so many, MUST, obviously, then be recruited from amongst the ranks of the beautiful people … all other considerations, such as courage, capacity or intelligence must be kept in their rightful place, which is to say rather far down the ‘list’ … after pulchritude, ‘heritage’, ‘connection’ and ‘charisma’.

It is merest coincidence that the well-endowed, monetarily, comprise the largest contingent of the ‘beautiful’, owing it might be postualted to the self-evident fact of the far more pleasant lives available to those who are above such mundane concerns as money.

Therefore it is the sacred duty of the most-wealthy to put themselves forward as the undisputed best amongst us, a democratic form of nobless oblige, if you will.

Such ‘legacy’ candidates must never be subjected to undue scrutiny as it definitely makes the rest of us look mean and suspicious.

After a time we will have a stable of such heirloom candidates and their offspring.

What a wonderful idea.

Wonder why no one has thought of it before?

(The preceding snark was for entertainment porpoises only)

You know, I’m really not trying to score points on you. I understand what you’re saying, and I understand that you’re sincere about it.

I just want to make the case that there are people who are equally as sincere who have genuinely compelling reasons to take the other side. It’s not personal, except insofar as I take who represents me politically personally.

and, WADR, my thirteen year old child has been in the voting booth more often than Ms. Kennedy has these past years. That’s not good.

Primaries are where a lot gets decided in New York politics. Sitting them out doesn’t paint a picture of political engagement.

And I would appreciate — really — a link or two about Caroline’s 1998 courage against the impeachment. I don’t recall her activism on that front, and would like to know more about it.

http://www.observer.com/2008/p…..ifications

What you wrote:

I also don’t think many of the skeptics give her credit for her 1998 public statements against the Repub Impeachment Insanity. And she stepped up and spoke out at a time when some lefties didn’t feel it necessary to stand against the attempted Rethug Coup — perhaps they were just carried away with their CDS.

What you linked:

Caroline Kennedy made her political debut in Manhattan almost exactly 10 years ago, when she showed up as the surprise speaker at a “teach-in” against the impeachment of Bill Clinton at New York University Law School. Her speech on that occasion was not memorable, nor did she display great passion as she read it, but none of that mattered. Her presence electrified what would otherwise have been a mundane gathering of liberal intellectuals, professors and politicians.

A dispassionate, unmemorable, read speech? That’s the “public statements against” the Clinton impeachment?

Yes, Teddy, what I wrote — “public statement against” the impeachment — is entirely consistent with Conason’s description. He merely noted her words and her delivery were not memorable, a way to note that CK is not and never has been a great speechmaker, but otoh she showed up, stood up, and energized (Conason even says “electrified”) the gathering.

That should count for something among reasonable people on either side of the CK for Senate issue. But for some dyed-in-the-wool CK detractors, nothing she does is apparently quite good enough.

Nadler? He has shown no indication that he’d appeal to upstate and rarely even draws a general election opponent.

My point was perhaps unclear. You referred to “statements” plural; Conason’s article mentions one speech. Were there others? I don’t recall Caroline’s anti-impeachment crusade in 1998.