Jane, have you asked Caroline’s folks for an interview with her? It would be cool to hear her answers to your (our) questions.

This isn’t a public election, Jane. It will be in ‘10, but not now.

But of course you know this already. I can only surmise that your problem with CK stems from her snub of HRC.

Thanks Jane.

I’m just afraid this is a plan to help dilute liberal/progressive influence from a traditionally very blue state. I bet Harry has a staff all picked out for Caroline.

Is that sun rising or setting? In any event, it strikes me as very reminiscent of John Coltrane’s “Interstellar Space.”

She’ll be my Senator if selected and I don’t know her because people like me, the ones in steerage, don’t get to know people like Caroline Kennedy (or any of these other schmucks). She doesn’t need my support for Patterson to pick her but I’d really like to know what it is she considers important so that, maybe, I can gauge what she’ll do if she’s in the Senate.

The thing that bothers me right now is that all I hear are voices from one side of the argument or the other. I’m not hearing her at all.

Who knows anyone? Do we really know you, Jane? I’m not always sure I know myself. Caroline seems frail, you’ll pardon the expression, too feminine-I hope those are not fighting words-but maybe under that gentle exterior is a steel spine. She seems good as any and while she bucks the line because of her lineage, lineage has done that for people for some time. Who do you like in New York better than Caroline Kennedy? Personally I like her better than Hillary Clinton.

Maybe Patterson will pick someone else, that would be nice.

You’re right Tom. That logic convinced me. It’s not a “public election,” so I should STFU. Are you in sales? You have such a way with people.
/s

Are you the “Tom” who used to post here that Dick Cheney brought down the WTC?

Thanks to George Clymer for opening up the digg

All I really know about Caroline Kennedy is

a. she’s a Kennedy, with all the entitlement, money, political culture that brings
b. she’s quite intelligent
c. she’s an advocate for privacy (she’s her mother’s daughter in that respect for sure) and wrote a book about it a long while ago
d. she demonstrated her ability to protect confidential and private matters with her brilliant smackdown of the Blitzer when he poked around for delicious details of the VP vetting process. “NO! I will NOT tell you about the process, it’s a confidential process.”

She seems quite capable, but agree with Jane. I don’t know what her political agenda is. It seems like she might be more suited for a job that is appointed vs. elected.

I’m sick and tired of the dynastic view of American politics. So far as I can tell, Caroline has done next to nothing. (By contrast, her cousin Robert has been very involved and shows real talent and insight.)

A Senate seat is still the highest-level legislative position in the country. IMO it is NOT appropriate to use an appointment as political payola–whether it’s a “public” election is irrelevant. The seat should still serve the citizens of NY State.
I find it hard to believe that there are no other experienced politicians in the state who could do a good job. I find it hard to swallow the argument that CK should be appointed because the Kennedy name will make her effective. Haven’t we had enough of Bush family dynastic politics?

PS Jane
typo in your first ‘graph “support from Obama” should be “support for Obama”.

FunnyDiva

Bullseye.

I’d love it if she’d just try to prove us wrong.

A wealthy commercial real-estate developer’s wife told me you never know someone unless you sleep with them or do business with them.

She could try to prove you wrong by actually getting out among you and figuring out how to represent you instead of staying on the sidelines while others act like it’s appropriate to use a US Senate seat as some sort of Reward for the politically well-connected and/or likeable. IOW she could start actively seeking the support of ordinary New Yorkers.

FunnyD

I can only surmise that your problem with CK stems from her snub of HRC.

Couldn’t it as easily be disapproval of Caroline’s sense of dynastic entitlement?

Where did I say STFU? Just pointing out that this is a Senate appointment, just like any other where an elected Senator cannot fulfill the remainder of his term. People certainly have a right to voice their opinions regarding these appointments, but I would hope that such opinions have a basis in fact rather than some knee-jerk reaction to perceived deficiencies.

See Sara’s post in the previous thread.

Me @ 12:

PS Jane
typo in your first ‘graph “support from Obama” should be “support for Obama”.

I should have asked “is there a typo” in your first ‘graph. I haven’t followed wether Obama is actively supporting CK in this, I’ve just heard it argued that since -she- supported him, she deserves to be a US Senator.
Someday it would be nice to have the “edit” function back.

XXOO
FunnyD

At a minimum we know she won’t even stand up to Teddy about Wind Power in Nantucket Sound. Hell, maybe Teddy is knuckling under to her?

As you said, we don’t know.

We need a tough, deep blue liberal/progressive Senator, like Russ Feingold, from the state of New York. It’s not like it’s South Dakota, where we know we’re not going to get a liberal/progressive.

She should be speaking out now about her thoughts on being a Senator. It’s wrong to do this with just PR work. The people of NY need to hear from her.

1,858 DAYZ AND THE KILLIN’ GOEZ ON AND ON AND…

Citizen Hamsher and the Firepup Freedom Fighters:

I am quite frequently in happy agreement with you but this time I’m in UNhappy agreement…it’s almost as though Caroline has been readin’ the beltway book on the art of political war and has been convinced that those dirty rotten hippies and radical-liberals are the enemy and running against them is the best way to manipulate public opinion without havin’ ta articulate her own positions and politics. I must say that if she had jest published a posiiton paper at the time she made her desire for the office public, I belive she woulda had 90% support right to the edges of wingnuttery.

My sorrowful opposition to her Senate ambitions is not jest that she won’t make an overture to the common folk and articulate some rough outlines of a democratic politics, it’s that she uses a known UNdemocratic shill to cover her political values and position her in opposition to the progressive movement.

I think however, that the folks in the beltway and the members of the political aristocracy that are turnin’ rightward jest at the moment that it is clear that the mass of people are goin the other direction tells us out here in the dirty streets that the cancerous power of the corporate oligarachy has metastasized and that what’s left of our democratic institutions may not have enough healthy tissue remaining to save the life of political democracy.

I think yer right Sister Hamsher, and I’m deeply sorry that you are.

KEEP THE FAITH AND PASS THE AMMUNITION, WE GOTTA FIGHT THIS THING TO THE END NO MATTER WHERE IT SHOWS UP!!

Jane, thanks.
Whether we know her or not, it’s hard to believe that despite her philanthropic activities she really has any true, full grasp of how people live and the shitty choices that many have to select among.

Give me a John Tester any day, despite his imperfections.

Maybe you need to familiarize yourself with the entire body of Jane’s writing on this. Plus her interview with David Schuster. This one post may sound knee-jerk, but it’s a lot less so than what I’ve seen from you so far this morning.

It’s still a US Senate seat. Appointed or not, Damn Straight people should be expressing opinions. And the opinions of that seat’s constituency should be not only heard, but listened to and acted upon.

This is where the rubber meets the road, Dems. Are we serious about “change” and this “new politics” or is it going to be the same old business as usual, with the only change being the name of the party in power?

FunnyD

Jane has stated a number of reasons for her disenchantment with the Caroline Kennedy dynastic appointment, not the least of which is strongly alluded to and linked in the title of this very post. So you what you have “surmised” seems to show a very, very short attention span on your part.

My point exactly. From the opposite corner of the country, btw. So on some level it’s not really “my” fight, but I feel very strongly on your behalf!

XXOO
FunnyDiva

Yes, everyone thought they knew her father too. I was never sure though how they fit into the picture they had of him the fact that came out later that he had a penchant for banging anything female in sight that couldn’t move quite as fast as he could. My view of such things in general tends more to the French but even so as they would say, “il exagère”. When I think of a President given to such high risk behaviors and something like the Cuban missile crisis, it casts that crisis in a whole new light. This is not to denigrate JFK but to underline Jane’s point that the public people we think we know we don’t. If you want a more recent example, take John Edwards.

I think this whole Caroline Kennedy affair brings up two important points. First is the process whereby someone who has never run for public office or who has never participated in or taken a stand on any public issue can, on the basis of their celebrity and name alone, enter national politics at the level of a Senator and do so without even bothering with an election. The second is the left’s need for heroes which seems so intense that almost anyone who looks like, incidentally acts like, or even is related to someone who might have been one becomes anointed with all the good qualities appropriate to a hero and endowed with all the right positions on the issues, even though there is no evidence for essentially any of this.

We on the left say we are the fact-based ones but again and again we show a belief uninformed by any evidence that would make the wingnuts proud.

What is the NY media saying about Caroline? New Yorkers in general? Have there been any official/unofficial polls taken?

Not to mention the same “knee-jerk” he’s decrying. I’d rather have knee-jerk from Jane any day than plain ol’ jerk from a commenter who disagrees without doing some homework.

FunnyD

What we know about CK:

1. She did not invent a stupid lie that she landed under sniper fire in Tuzla.
2. She has not used her husband to advance her career.
3. She did not vote for the war in Iraq.
4. She has not sat on the board of Walmart.
5. She is not a liar.
6. She has not advocated a gas tax holiday.
7. She has not screwed up viable healthcare.
8. She has not leveraged off Charles Rangel.
9. She did not endorse or support the Clintons in 2008.
10. She is a graduate of a brand name college and law school.
11. She appears to have an excellent demeanor.
12. She is not manic.
13. She supported BO for President.
14. She would be appointed first and then have to run for office.
15. She has been through a lot of adversity losing her father and uncle at a young age and then her brother.
16. She has stated she wants to be a US Senator from New York.
17. She is more qualified than HRC was when she ran for the Senate.

Seems only Fair.

One could make the same argument about Ted Kennedy, who was also born into a life of privilege, however, he has been a tireless advocate for the disenfranchised. The key difference is that he has repeatedly stood for election, which is the route Carolyn should take if she is sincere in her desire to hold an elected office.

Thank you, Hugh.
You’re dead-on as usual, especially in your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs.

And as far as “knowing” any politician or prospective Senator, I guess I tend toward the Biblical: By their Fruits shall ye know them. IOW, what have they _done_ that demonstrates a committment to representing the People who are their potential constituency?

FunnyD

In other words, you don’t believe she’s neurotic enough for the Senate? “g”

Citizen ekunin:

“Personally I like her better than Hilary Clinton.”

What the fuck does that have ta do with whether or not she would be a good replacement for an effective Senator with an established politics??!! I don’t much like Mrs. Clinton either, and I believe she is really an old 1950’s Republican advancing behind the Trojan Horse of “third way” politics but Mrs. Clinton put herself out there, worked to develope a political constituency and represented the State of New York better’n anyone who ran against her in the two campaigns she contested. And Caroline Kennedy…well not so much!!

Excellent point Jane. The U.S. corporate media is infatuated and addicted to the cult of celebrity and unfortunately so too is much of the public. It sometimes seems as if many Americans have an unconcious desire for a monarchy.

Whew. What a convincing list of qualifications to be handed a seat in the US Senate.
I’d sure like to see some facts to back up your #17. It’s easy to have accomplished #1-7 by simply not being active in elective governance in the US. So easy, in fact, that I’VE done it. Should I move to NY and ask for a Senate seat? Oh, wait, Watertiger and ECahn have that covered…

FunnyDiva

If her last three posts on this topic are anything to go by, her opposition to CK would appear to be entirely based in snark (”doing her nails”, etc.) or attempts to conflate CK with Lieberman or, in this case, OJ Simpson.

I’d point out (as others have) that Kennedy is at least as qualified as HRC was, or for that matter Paul Wellstone or (to a lesser extent) Ned Lamont. Being a political neophyte can be harmful, but can anyone seriously say that CK is a complete novice? For that matter, can anyone honestly say that the weight the Kennedy name carries in political circles is without merit or potential? To dismiss her simply because of her last name and her connections is to cut your nose off to spite your face, IMO.

…Mrs. Clinton put herself out there, worked to develope a political constituency and represented the State of New York better’n anyone who ran against her in the two campaigns she contested….

Bingo.
Payed her dues. Shook the hands. Milked the cows upstate. Did the rubber chicken circuit. And did it relentlessly.

Hi, Norske!
Wanna throw some flames at the Greater Seattle area? It’s forkin’ freezing here! We got wet snow Saturday night, and it hasn’t been above 30 degrees Farenheit since. Would be nice to not have cold hands once again!

Hope you’re well. I don’t always agree with you, but I do appreciate and admire your ability to focus on core issues in any discussion. (IOW, love your BS detector, man!)

XXOO
FunnyD

It has been in the single digits or teens here in central Illinois for the past few days and now it is snowing like mad. Trade ya.

Thanks for the link. Sent him my thoughts.

For the future, NY gov name has one T. Don’t know why, but there it is.

I wonder though if excluding her because of who she is (or isn’t) is any fairer than appointing her because of who she is or in spite of what she isn’t?

Citizen ratfood:

“One could make the same arguement about Ted Kennedy, who was also born into a life of priviledge and has been a tireless advocate for the disenfranchized.”

I don’t know how old you are but I remember when he ran for the Senate the first time and from the moment after his brother’s death, Ted ALLWAYS stood full force for the “liberal” mass of folks against the corrupt institutional fascism that ended up killing BOTH his brothers. The point is, Ted stood publically for a set of political values that were even better identified than those of his two brothers and he did this from the very beginning. And Caroline?…well not so much.

I read through the comments but excuse me if I missed the connection between Caroline and Hillary.
Caroline will be appointed to fill the seat but will have to win the election when the time comes.
If she is successful and I bet she will be, she will win and Hillary wont be able to slide back into the Senate. And what if she far outshines Hillary.
Look at her qualifications she has a large amount of experience just not in Government.
I love Caroline and Im impressed by her.

It’s cold in NorCal, too. Seems earlier than usual this year for some reason.

So what are Caroline Kennedy’s views on the auto rescue plan, the $700 billion bailout, the financial meltdown, and distressed homeowners. How does she want CDOs and CDSs unwound? What policies does she support re Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Israel, Palestine? How does she feel about free trade? What kind of healthcare plan does she support? How would she fund it? How would she address the issue of terrorism? If she is big on privacy, does she disagree with Obama’s support of the FISA Amendments Act?

Jane –

Correct me if I’m wrong, but I don’t recall you having the same kind of reaction to HRC breaking bread with Richard Mellon Scaife.

mmmmmmmmm, no thanks. Sorry you’ve got it worse, but you _are_ in Central Illinois. Part of what’s making this so hard to take is that it happens so very rarely here. Which also means very few folk know how to drive in this, and too many are working very hard to win Darwin awards.
The only thing that’s helping is that it’s been clear and dry as a bone, so all the snow/ice is slowly evaporating. But you can sure tell which parts of the roads are always in the shade!

Brrrrrrr!
FunnyD

I agree that these are questions which need to be asked, but they’re not being asked, at least not by Jane. Jane seems content to sit back and throw bombs, which is essentially my disagreement here.

Thanks, I had not seen Sara’s post.

This is the first time, I recall disagreeing with Sara. Wellstone is a great example of someone who went in without experience and did very well. I sure hope CK can be like Paul and not like Herb Kohl, who also went in without experience.

Sara points to CK’s abilities as a fund raiser. Where was she when Ned Lamont needed money? What about all the other liberal candidates? What about Regina Thomas in Georgia? She could have really used CK’s help. Why can’t CK raise money for other Dem candidates?

She’s young, only 51? Why not run for the House first and get her feet wet?

Tom, I want to be wrong about Caroline, but where the hell was she the last ten years when the right was bludgeoning liberals/progressives?

Backing wind turbines in Nantucket Sound would be nice, is that too much to ask?

Here’s CK:

“I have never had a president who inspired me the way people tell me that my father inspired them. But for the first time, I believe I have found the man who could be that president — not just for me, but for a new generation of Americans.” This was the first time she had endorsed a presidential candidate other than when she endorsed her uncle, Ted Kennedy, in 1980.

Clubbing me over the head with the memory of her Dad, doesn’t work for me.

In retrospect, it looks like Caroline bet on Obama to win and traded her endorsement for Obama putting HRC in the Cabinet. That opens it up for CK.

Tom, I promise I’ll support the Democratic nominee for NY Senate in 2010. From what I know so far, however, I think we can do a lot better than CK as a U.S. Senator.

Mrs. Clinton put herself out there, worked to develope a political constituency

but still, if her name wasn’t clinton i seriously doubt she would be senator and soon to be sos.

Conundrum, maybe.
But would you vote for someone who did not solicit your vote? Would you just see the name and say “I liked her dad” and let it go?

Caroline will get this because of her name and in spite of the fact that the people she will represent have not had their say, and for that matter never once had their say about her. The citizens of New York have to take her agenda and her aspirations on faith.

or attempts to conflate CK with Lieberman

Jane isn’t “conflating” Caroline Kennedy with Lieberman. Jane is simply stating the fact that Caroline Kennedy has hired someone to do her bidding. That ’someone’ has a profoundly disgusting track record. To overlook that fact or to not take it into consideration in regards to Caroline Kennedy’s sales pitch for her appointment to the Senate seat would be negligent.

She is tied for first with Andrew Cuomo NYSAG, each at 25%. With her name recognition and the pity factor, she’d be a shoe-in to win any election she condescended to run in.

To add to your list:
What, specifically, has she done to make government work better for average New Yorker’s? Not necessarily as a pol or in elected office, but even as an advocate or community organizer.

And, Hillary would have been elected even if she hadn’t done any work.

And what if she far outshines Hillary.
Look at her qualifications she has a large amount of experience just not in Government.

This is the kind of wishful thinking I was talking about. We would all love to have politicians who are much better both in their courage, ethics and efficacy than this lot but there is simply no evidence at all to believe this is the case. And as I said, although Caroline Kennedy has stayed out of, not just government, but public life, there is this tendency on the basis of no evidence whatsoever to rewrite her lack of qualifications and experience into the background we wish she had.

But she DID do the work. And by all accounts, she did it with vigor and relentlessness.

I don’t think we have a disagreement here other than CK’s fitness for office. My main concern here is that in her apparent zeal to dismiss CK out of hand, Jane has made a few comparisons/observations that seem unfair or hypocritical.

I agree that these are questions which need to be asked, but they’re not being asked, at least not by Jane. Jane seems content to sit back and throw bombs, which is essentially my disagreement here.

It is not for Jane to ask them. It really is for Caroline Kennedy to be answering them.

I’m not denying that Hillary worked to get the election. Not sure what she’s done for NYS since.

Blue Texan has a shiny new post up: For GOP To Start Winning Again, Bush Recommends Tax Cuts

Citizen Tom65:

Hello Brother Tom65…you have perfected Article 1 of the Wingnut Code of Political Argument and that is: “Make the opponent prove a negative.” In this case, Caroline has NOT articulated a politics, has NOT attempted to advance one to her potential constituents or the general public and has NOT ever competed in the political arena behind any candidate until this last summer. And THAT’s why Sister Hamsher is left to oppose those things that we DO know about her qualifications for high office.

It’s tough bein’ a progressive but when ya start from bein’ intellectually honest you find it’s a lot easier ta choose the right battles and not get tangled up with the wrong opponents.

As for asking Qs, wouldn’t it be nice if Katie Couric or Charlie Gibson interviewed Caroline? *g*

And you are in a better position than I to judge that.
But you had your say. The entire state had their say. Twice.

Against what competition? The R party in NYS is about as moribund as it is elsewhere. Another chance to vote against someone instead of for someone. Hillary winning the election does not say very much about her, same as for Caroline.

Thanks Hugh…your comments on the underlying dynamics are pretty insightful. I’ve been wondering why I just can’t resolve the issue in my own mind. It’s probably because CK doesn’t have much of a public resume published for the masses to see. I know she has a resume, but being the private person she is, we don’t know much.

Seems to be a contradiction to have a private person for privacy run for public office. I can’t get my head around it.

Which is why I keep asking: why should CK become a Senator with even less “paying of dues” as far as getting support from the people she wants to represent. Clinton still had to win an actual election to get her chance in the Senate.

This is starting to sound a bit like an argument over wether the Kennedy name or the Clinton name is better or more popular or more Senate-worthy. It’s really infuriating that the debate is not about how this appointee will best serve the people of New York State in the US Senate–or that name-recognition and popularity and warm-fuzzy personal feelings are discussed –to the exclusion of any actual policy positions or track record– as though they are important considerations.

Just a riff on your comment, Selise, btw, not an answer to you personally or your views. In fact, I’m not sure I disagree with your premise that HRC’s name gave her a huge boost.

FunnyD

Thanks. I’m not a NY resident so I’ve stayed out of this because it’s an appointment rather than an election. I figure it’s up to New Yorkers to influence the governor one way or the other. The same with all of the future appointments due to Senators joining the Obama administration.

Intellectual honesty starts with consistency. As I pointed out, if Jane wants to play connect-the-dots, she should start with HRC’s sitting down with Scaife.

First is the process whereby someone who has never run for public office or who has never participated in or taken a stand on any public issue can, on the basis of their celebrity and name alone, enter national politics at the level of a Senator and do so without even bothering with an election.

By contrast, Arnold and Jesse had to win elections.

That was kind of my point. In regard to Ted, just because someone is wealthy doesn’t mean they can’t be an advocate for the less fortunate. Regarding Carolyn, if she desires an elected office, she should attain it by winning an election.

The one thing I would say is that it would be nice for Jane to participate in these threads so that she could address the points she has raised and which commenters have questions about.

Sadly there is a problem with Cuomo and the Kennedys, a very messy divorce.
What experience did Hillary have when she chose NY?

From what I know so far, however, I think we can do a lot better than CK as a U.S. Senator.

I think so, too, Boo, and I hope those better candidates are getting at least some exposure in this process.

I guess if that’s all it takes, I’m qualified. Oh wait! I didn’t lose my father and uncle at a young age, and I neveer had a brother. Guess I’m disqualifed.

Citizen selise:

But Citizen Selise, Mrs. Clinton put herself out there on the campaign trail and developed support in the reddest parts of New York and, while I don’t agreewith much of her politics, she was forced to make the effort and became a VERY successful Senator as a result. The voters and the people in general new much more about Mrs. Clinton’s views and positions than they know about Caroline…THAT’s the point, CK’s name is all she’s got right now. I’m disappointed that you would not recognize this. It’s OK to support Caroline but don’t make false comaprisons to advance her qulifications.

I’d forgotten about that divorce. Thanks for reminding me.

Hillary (disclosure: I am not a fan) had a long life in public view, had given countless speeches, traveled far & wide as a U.S. representative (though unofficial, it does not change the fact that she represented the country everywhere she went) and played a leadership role in medical reform. I’m sure I left some stuff out, but compare that record with Caroline’s.

Which has precisely what to do with an appointment to a Senate seat in New York State?

Many seem to think that her support for Obama is all we need to know about her politics.

But Obama also supported the Lieberman Campaign, did he not? Are there not fairly clear ties between Lieberman and Obama? Do you think Obama may have had something to do with Lieberman remaining in the Caucus with full honors, as it were?

Isn’t Obama even more tainted by the dreaded connections to Lieberman, using your logic?

Citizen ratfood:

No one here is arguing that she is disqualified because of her name or social position…and to try and compare her with Ted is a disservice to both.

Nothing. It has everything to do with the fact that Jane is damning CK for her connections with Isay.

i was just trying to examine why i hate our process – where the choices the voters are given are so constrained by prior vetting of an extremely insular and incestuous group of elites. how we can not be outraged by this these days is beyond my comprehension. it would be one thing if our media/political/business elites had a history of good governance – but they don’t. they have shown themselves to be both completely out of touch and completely unable to address the very serious issues we face.

IIRC as long as s/he met the age and residency requirements Gov Paterson may appoint whoever picks up his garbage to the seat if he wants to.

i don’t support CK. my issue is with the process much more than any particular individual (see my 83).

I believe we are in agreement.

Actually the way I read it, Jane is damning CK because as a political neophyte and someone who could never tread where actual politicians need to go, she is left to rely on slugs and wretches to do her bidding.

Citizen Tom65:

Jesus, Brother Tom, what the fuck?? First of all Mrs. Clinton sat with Scaiffe AFTER she had run two successful senate campaigns and was in a fight for the Democratic Presidential nomination…those supporting Caroline are arguing that her qualifications and politics are at least as good as those of Mrs. Clinton when she first ran for office and of course that’s NOT true…let’s get back to the intellectual honesty thing there Tom.

Intellectual honesty starts with consistency.

agree.

so here’s what i’m trying to do: ask myself what i would think if the only thing i changed was CK’s name (not her personal history). would my thinking be any different if her name was bush or cheney?

imo, that’s a thought experiment worth doing.

Citizen newtonusr:

BINGO…game set and match Citizen newtonusr…but I do wish Citizen Hamsher would join in the comments to clarify and defens her posts sometimes.

Some of the comments here…Wow!

I know very little about Caroline Kennedy as a person….but then again, I know little about most of the politicians in New York, the Charitable Foundation work they have done, or whether they raised money for grants for the NYC school system.

But I have read her books on the Constitution with Ellen Alderman and found that they were well informed and take a decidedly progressive position. Both have tried to inform the public, particularly High School students about their Constitutional Rights, that the Constitution is not simply a “piece of paper”, and is relevant to their own, modern, lives.

When people sya that she wrote a book on “Privacy” it should be known that this isn’t simply a book about the Great Garbo-esque “leave me alone” Privacy Rights of celebrities. It is actually a book about everything from data mining, hospital and personal record security, identity theft, government espionage, as well as private corporate invasions (including media) of peoples private information and lives. It also speaks of the Right of Privacy as it relates to our Fifth Amendment rights of testimonial silence, and the right to decide ones own health related issues (contraception and abortion).

I suspect that Caroline Kennedy would be someone on the Feingold end of the spectrum on these issues. But she’s be a very “junior” Senator. The lowest of the low in terms of Seniority. But she’d have a pit higher profile that a Senator Molasawicz from Ithaca.

And if she doesn’t work out well…then like Senator Molasawicz…she could be booted in 2010. Whomever is appointed is going to be a “caretaker” and subject to a subsequent election. There is, of course, fear that once someone like Carolyn Kennedy is “in” that she would be an awesome fundraiser, and tough to dislodge. Plus then she’s have a bit of experience and seniority. That might make removing her in a primary campaign tougher. But if she were truly abysmal…then that wouldn’t happen, would it. Bloomberg could easily take her out.

If she is too representative of a dynasty that people want to see put away then fine…I guess we’ll hear applause when her Uncle passes on. But if she is appointed I’ll be happy. Because a lot of the New York Congressmen that want the job I suspect are far more tied into that States regionalism issues and petty politics and “deal making”. And, no longer being a NY resident, I’m more interested in what a NY Senator can bring to the National table.

So, you’re not really arguing that because HRC had it relatively easy that CK should have it even _easier_ and be handed a seat in the US Senate?

What am I missing here? Clinton got a boost from her name from her Hubby and from being First Lady. IIRC she’s also spent far more time in the public eye, politically speaking, than CK has, in a way that has nothing to do with their relative ages. Kennedy’s being taken so seriously mainly because of her father and uncles (ie, her name). But because HRC “hasn’t done much for NYS” since being elected to the Senate, it’s reasonable to appoint CK for 2 years because “she might be better”?

I’m clearly just not getting it. Maybe I’m just too young and West Coast and my parents too Republican to understand this Kennedy mystique thing.

FunnyD

glad to know I’m not the only one who’s just not getting it.

FunnyD

Citizen Hugh:

I agree with you!

Blue Texan hits you-know-who upstairs!
For GOP To Start Winning Again, Bush Recommends Tax Cuts

Selise, fwiw, I share your concern. It is in State Govt. as well. Look at the incestuous web around the Blago case, for example. But I don’t see how sliming Kennedy with Lieberman (what Harmon is doing here) makes us any progress towards the good points you are making.

I suspect that Caroline Kennedy would be someone on the Feingold end of the spectrum on these issues

This is still a US senate seat, for about 2 years. It matters. Regardless of the “junior” position, it matters. The people of NYS deserve to know their Senator’s positions before they’re appointed. Just because “door #1″ is labeled “Kennedy” doesn’t make it the best option.

FunnyD

I’d also point out that the comparison to Clinton is facetious for all but a handful of NY politicos. Almost none of them have had to campaign statewide for their political position. At least those that have won. Andy Cuomo may be the other…and he also sort of represents a dynastic tradition. Of course there IS an experience “retired” Senator that actually did win his office several times…maybe they could haul him out of the Republican mortuary!

I don’t think the timeline matters here. Clinton went to Scaife – who is at least ten times as scummy as Iyers ever could be – to boost her presidential campaign, just as CK is using Iyers to increase her visibility for this appointment. The difference here is that Jane excoriates Kennedy for using scummy political operatives while giving HRC an apparent pass for having done the same. I’d argue that HRC’s warming up to Scaife was a whole lot more sleazy, considering that Scaife practically led the effor to impeach her husband.

I sorta figured that, Selise. Looks like we both hate the process for the same reason. And we both hate it whether it’s Rs or Dems running it…

FunnyD

amen.

Isn’t Obama even more tainted by the dreaded connections to Lieberman, using your logic?

Strictly speaking, Yes. And this was openly thoroughly and heatedly discussed here during the primary season and beyond, iirc.

FunnyD

Again I ask: Which has precisely what to do with an appointment to a Senate seat in New York State?

Hamsher makes the point clear as day – where, in any piece she has written on this subject, is it stated that Caroline is anything but a fine person, captured in a devilish and corrupt process by folks who seek their own political ends by installing her?

Links please.

Hi, Norske.

As far as I can tell, most of the criticism I’m hearing here is that people think I oppose Caroline Kennedy’s appointment because I supported Hillary Clinton (I didn’t). It’s a straw man argument that doesn’t seem worth jumping in to. Hillary herself seems to be okay with Kennedy’s appointment according to Ben Smith, after Caroline called her. (Again, currying support from elites, not the public.) And I frankly don’t care whether Hillary Clinton supports her or not.

Jeralyn (who supported Clinton) favors her appointment, while Markos (who supported Obama) does not. People trying to jam the primary lens onto this conversation seem to be working out their own personal issues rather than having an actual conversation.

Have you read her books? I think you would see that she doesn’t take a Federalist Society position on these issues. She accepts that the Constitution (particularly the Bill of Rights) has to be interpreted according to modern circumstances, but that it is designed to protect our FUNDAMENTAL individual rights. Her book on privacy specifically addresses these issues as that “right” is hardly explicit in the Constitution, at least in terms of the myriad issues that impact us today.

And I’ve yet to see anyone point out someone who has run Statewide that has expressed an explicit set of positions that they would take to the Senate. I guess this is because no one really thought either Senate seat would be available for decades.

Wouldn’t make it right or smart. I’m so sick of this blind adherence to executive prerogatives I could just spit (up), whether it comes from the Right or the Left. I’m hoping Paterson is a better representative of his State’s citizens than that. Because that’s what it boils down to for me. His job as governor is to represent the citizens’ interests. Winning an election (in this case for Lt Gov, iirc) shouldn’t be some sort of blank check when it comes to political appointees.

FunnyD

Does this remind anyone of ”The Candidate”?

Marcy has a piece up over @ emptywheel
Rahm’s 21 Conversations with Blagojevich and Friends?

That’s what I like about you Selise (among many things), your conviction that wrong is wrong is wrong regardless of where anyone is on the political spectrum. I disagree with you sometimes, but always honor and admire your integrity.

FunnyD

wow, thanks. but yikes! now i’m gonna have to work at living up to that. *g*

gotta say that for me disagreement is part of the challenge and fun here (so long as it doesn’t devolve into personal insults, etc).

late to the thread –

just seeing that graphic up there made me spew – can never see it without hearing the words “ribbed for her pleasure”