I don’t care who he picks as long as the person votes with the dems every time.

The US Senate – not a great place for on the job training.

Do you really think United States Senator is a good choice for someone’s first “real” job?

No. This is another case of simple answers…

Being a no-show senator would apparently qualify her for a future presidential bid.

Digg.

“The governor should make a decision reasonably quickly because this is just getting out of control,” Bloomberg said.

ah yes. the peons are weighing in with opinions on who should represent them in the senate. that idea had best be nipped in the bud right away – or before you know it the peons might start questioning their betters about other matters of governance their rule.

Maybe she was on the road meeting/greeting/lobbying rather than at the office?

I truly cherish and respect this blog and especially LHP. However, unless founded on ‘facts on the ground’ rather than open ended sniping from unnamed sources and other biased views I consider this stuff from many posters and bloggers is a smear job, imvho.

Kos has a diary that sums up the general mood on this in the blogosphere as being pro-meritocracy and anti-family-dynasty. That is an argument worthy of debate and consideration.

She dove in to endorse Obama; which would not have left the NY seat open. She is influential in the choices for Profiles in Courage (which I think last went to OH/CA SoS for voter access policies, and prior to that the folks in military justice who tried to derail torture…so those are known ‘policy’ choices, fwiw.)

If you think she isn’t politically savvy and informed, you don’t know any Kennedys.

Barring any better choices, I’d like to see her get it. I am open to there being other better choices, but not sure that I’ve seen any recommended here or other places. Just ABC. Anybody But Caroline.

p.s. Millineryman – that’s a great photoshop pic.

Echo that on the Millineryman graphic – awesome.

I tell the Bloomberg help–is really not helping her.

I wonder if he told her this would be easy and now he has egg on his face?

repeat “breaking” news*:

Caroline Kennedy Asks to Be Time’s Person of the Year

*(satire) By Andy Borowitz

Caroline Kennedy would like to be considered Time magazine’s Person of the Year for 2009 and has let the magazine’s editor know of her interest in the honor, aides to Ms. Kennedy confirmed this week.

If you think she isn’t politically savvy and informed, you don’t know any Kennedys.

here’s the thing… i don’t think knowing the other kennedys has anything to do with whether she is politically savvy or informed. when we judge her on her family instead of on her own merits – isn’t that exactly the nut of the profamily-dynasty / anti-meritocracy problem?

I truly cherish and respect this blog and especially LHP. However, unless founded on ‘facts on the ground’ rather than open ended sniping from unnamed sources and other biased views I consider this stuff from many posters and bloggers is a smear job, imvho.

This wasn’t my orginal reporting. It was all from The New York Daily News, the NYTimes and Politico and I linked to each source. These are all reputable media outlets, I didn;t cite to Drudge or Raw Story.So how does amalgamating three major outlet stories into a single location, with attributions, constitute a smear job?

I think your complaint would be more accurately directed at those outlets.

Do you really think United States Senator is a good choice for someone’s first “real” job?

Fork no. Certainly not for someon’s first “real” political/elected office job. I’ve been and will continue to be Broken Record Girl on this point.
And the whole “I’ll only submit to vetting if I get the appointment” thing shouts of an entitled attitude that just does not bode well.

FunnyDiva

She is an empty suit living off the family name just like Dumbya. Get with the program people and realize that as a Kennedy she is entitled to a Senate seat. No questions concerning qualifications are necessary. Qualifications for a job are for the little people not the aristocracy.

She dove in to endorse Obama; which would not have left the NY seat open.

Not sure how “not leavingthe NY seat open” fits in.???

She is influential in the choices for Profiles in Courage (which I think last went to OH/CA SoS for voter access policies, and prior to that the folks in military justice who tried to derail torture…so those are known ‘policy’ choices, fwiw.)

She hasn’t cited that as a reason why she is qualified for office. She has cited her Board of Ed work.

maybe her campaign rollout would have gone better if she had asked you for advice.

I’m not snarkin’ here, your “profiles in Courage picks= tells us somethign about her policy positions” is a much better agrgument than she has been making for herself

i don’t know anything about ny politics, so i have no clue about why bloomberg saying that kind of thing. certainly my reaction to reading it is not positive, but i doubt i’m among the people he is trying to convince. glad to know you don’t think it’s helping with them either

Yes. Of course. In this case, your function is ‘editor’ and choosing those sources, and even ‘play’ here is of course your choice.

My point is the vitriol. She is decidedly not palin, but she is being treated as such. In that sense, she is being ‘palinized’.

Paterson’s office says any appointee will have to undergo the same background check procedure that his own cabinet picks are subjected to.

Three cheers for Gov Patterson.

Why should a Dem Gov care about the opinion of a Republican Mayor????

Frankly, Palin won a statewide election. Would give her more cred then, I guess.

What I meant by not leaving the NY seat open (ie…Obama over Clinton…who would have vacated the seat upon election, leaving an open seat SHE MAY HAVE WANTED..)

She went for Obama. Against her own Senator. And the ‘woman’ candidate. Says something to me.

That’s a pragmatic way to look at it. There aren’t any guarantees with any of them.

There’s an article in The Nation right now about Obama’s Education Secretary choices. The article was written before Obama picked that basketball player fellow. The author explained the benefits of a particular female candidate who has actual education bonafides. She, of course, as we know at this date, was not selected.

It appears that there are many Democrats who do not oppose Charter Schools, heavy emphasis on fill in the bubble testing and much of the NCLB Republican idealogy that has been wrecking public education. So Obama picked one of these guys, instead of a better alternative.

Kennedy needs a careful vetting. They all do. She’s got star power, but so does Lieberman.

Why should a Dem Gov care about the opinion of a Republican Mayor????

Because post-partisanship is good, and Paterson should make sure he’s everyone’s governor! [/s]

FunnyDiva

This isnt a Palin situation, no one is arguing she lacks intelligence, wit, or skill.

But the tone deaf nature of her announcement, and following pronouncements, makes me wonder if she could be effective in the Senate.

Hello, I’m here, I’ll take that Senate seat if you please — oh and no vetting until it’s a done deal? Um, no thank you.

This is hardly Anybody But Caroline — this is asking for a good process to be in place to evaluate people for a really critical position.

The Kennedy family is a valuable brand to the democratic party. Teddy currently keeps the brand alive, When he passes away, the brand is in jeopardy. Dems should figure out a way to save it.

I consider Rawstory to be more credible than the NYT or Politico, but that is just me.

This is all about entitlement. Everytime someone says it isn’t it just underlines further how much it is. Somebody with Kennedy’s background minus the name would have a rough time of it running for a local office.

Kennedy even under the best of interpretations has a flimsy background.

Her participation in public life is close to zero.

She hasn’t voted in many of the important elections.

Even in her role as a private citizen, she never took a position on any of the major issues that have confronted the country in the last 20 years.

What little experience she does have comes from her association with Kennedy institutions or those that thought they could profit from her name.

So far she not made a clear pronouncement on the issues. Instead she has a la Palin ducked reporters’ questions and had her staff respond in absurdly abbreviated form to a handful of written ones.

And now the latest story is that she won’t release any financial information.

Just think of how we would slice and dice somebody like this if they were Republican or if their last name was Bush.

Ah – not that Patterson’s around to actually hear Bloomberg carping. Patterson, last we saw, was in Iraq, bringing some holiday cheer to troops there with another NY pol or two.

And, frankly, I’m kinda surprised about the NYT actually reporting on Caroline’s candidacy whatever for the Senate (Well, no, they seem to be scrubbing real reporting), given these stories and these even juicier stories floating around out there.

Do we really need this? Patterson should pick someone who can be more than a spokesbot. Which kinda eliminates Caroline.

seems to me that the Kennedys themselves should be saving their own forking “brand” if its so important. Like by actually serving in the public sphere and running for office, etc. like the founders of the “brand” did.

The Kennedy Bush family is a valuable brand to the democratic republican party. […] Dems ‘Thugs should figure out a way to save it.

This isn’t laundry soap for chrissakes.

FunnyD

Let’s just give this to you from my New Yorker perspective.

The most recent time I saw Caroline Kennedy on TV she was speaking to a group of reporters up in Harlem and at her left hand was the Reverend Al Sharpton. Now I’ve got nothing against Al, I even voted for him in the New York primaries whenever he’s run because I think he would bring a refreshing change to New York politics.

That being said I wasn’t impressed that Caroline Kennedy was being shepherded through a presser by Rev. Al as if she was some Tawana Brawley media virgin who needed Rev. Al to move he raway from the mikes when he got the signal from someone else off camera that the event was over.

I don’t know if he was giving the uptown imprimatur to Kennedy so the old ladies with the JFK/Martin plates hanging in their living rooms would get the message that she’s the latest white savior come to deliver them from their captivity or what, but the imagery was enough to convince me that I ain’t voting for her in 2010.

Actually, the Times referred to her strategy upstate as being borrowed from the way the Repugs handled Palin.

Until the Times scrubbed the story from its site. See mine at 27 on this thread and particularly this article.

Why? There are no Roosevelt’s in office right now, nor Johnsons, or other well known Democratic names. NY has many strong Dems who would make a good Senator.

Andrew Cuomo has a well known name and has won a statewide election into the bargain.

If CK is just foisted upon the party people might kick. There is a limit to what a well known name can do for you. Just ask Louis XVI.

Just think of how we would slice and dice somebody like this if they were Republican or if their last name was Bush.

I consider this ‘fair and balanced’. How about you?

Re Bloomberg, a consultant close to him Josh Isay is advising Kennedy. Here are others:

http://www.democraticundergrou…..15;7991673

She is also being pushed by one of Bloomberg’s deputy mayors: Kevin Sheekey.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12…..rg.html?em

Hugh and rwcole are both right.

Well, its up to Patterson, how much he thinks the fucking seat is worth and how much Kennedy is willing to pay for it. /s

She would make a fine Senator.We would be better served getting Schumer out of there.

just want to say how much i agree with your comment – about both the laundry soap analogy and the necessity of the kind of thought experiment you suggest (substituting R for D, bush for kennedy, etc).

Kennedy might be inclined to be “mentored” by Schumer.

I have no idea what you are trying to say in that comment. Care to elucidate?

There are inherent contradictions and double standards in the Kennedy announcement. We are supposed to consider her on her merits but if her name wasn’t Kennedy no one would be considering her. Even so she has done nothing to inform the public about who she is, what she has done, and what she stands for. Empty suit pretty much covers it.

The question isn’t whether Ms. Kennedy is qualified. The question is whether she’s the best candidate who can be found who wants the job.

There’s a better candidate who wants the job: Rep. Jerrold Nadler. He’s a strong progressive who’s pushing for an independent counsel to go after Cheney and Rumsfeld. That’s the kind of person I’d like to see in the Senate.

Caroline Kennedy, I’m sure, would fit in well with the go-along-to-get-along rich people’s club that is the current Senate. We need someone who’ll shake it up.

I’m not surprised Bloomberg is supporting her. He’s a nasty little authoritarian who’s decided to take the mayor’s chair for himself, for reasons that are unclear to just about everyone. It’s not like he’s doing anything with it.
Bloomberg’s support for CK is typical. He’s hyper-rich and believes the rich should run the country. She’s hyper-rich and apparently believes the same (or she wouldn’t be trying to sashay into a senatorial position with no apparent qualifications). The plutocrats look after their own. We need to get these people away from the levers of power in the U.S., or we’ll continue down the drain.

Kennedy might be inclined to be “mentored” by Schumer.

Kennedy is about as much of a secret progressive as Obama is. The fact is that people like Bloomberg wouldn’t be supporting her if they thought she was one.

Jerry Nadler would be a much better choice. So would Louise Slaughter. So would any one of dozens of other people who have more to recommend them than just their name.

I wonder if Bloomberg is actually damning with faint praise?
“Being a senator, you don’t have to know about every issue coming in,” he said. “That’s what your staffs are for.”

Also, by insisting the process “speed up” in essentially cuts off Caroline’s ability to submit the necessary vetting materials, I’d think, opening the door to those that already have the documentation in…because they hold, or have held, State or Federal posts.

That said, I hardly regard statements about Caroline Kennedy’s presence at her $1/year position reliable. Such people are not hired to be desk administrators that go home at 5PM. Their jobs are, in fact, to be rainmakers…to actually have breakfast and lunch meetings with other members of the NY social set, to attend evening charitable “balls” and concerts, and to drop the critical request for money at the right time. She’s not going to be efficiently fundraising by calling for a meeting with major donors at her cubical desk. But if she’s not accessible to staff during “Office Hours”, it could be a problem.

However, I’m in favor of Paterson making a custodial appointment. Someone that won’t be running for the job in 2010. Then let the others fight it out in the public arena. That likely will mean that no one will have an advantage from service in the office.

Ironically it will also likely mean that a non-progressive will be elected based on their name.

Thank you, Selise.
FunnyD

That ‘empty suit’ take is exactly what Teddy’s first R opponent said about him in ‘62: “If his name were just Edward Moore he wouldn’t be here.

Heck, the ‘experience’ question was the whole idea behind Clinton’s “3am phone call” ad.

I’m just saying not to DQ her based on aversion to ‘name’ politics (Bush poisoned the well; and now we have to REALLY QUESTION AUTHORITY” or something like that.

You seem to have much more info, so I’ll let it drop with that.

I don’t know if she is qualified or not, but giving her the job based on name recognition only will destroy our complaints when Jeb Bush runs for President. The principle of the matter is that if Caroline gives a darn about anybody other than herself, then she will acknowledge that now is not the time for dynastical repeats.

She is quite willing to trample on our complaints about the Governor of Alaska. Screw her.

From RollCall:

Empire State voters are ambivalent toward the possibility of a Sen. Caroline Kennedy according to poll results released Tuesday morning.

A Quinnipiac University poll showed respondents were split, 40 percent to 41 percent, on whether Kennedy is qualified to fill the shoes of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who will step down imminently to become secretary of State in President-elect Barack Obama’s administration.

There has been a long time schizophrenia about the Kennedys. The key was JFK who managed the PR coup of becoming the embodiment of youth and idealism. But his public persona covered over a private life that was so sleazy, tawdry, and obsessive that it makes John McCain look like a choirboy. He was a Cold War hawk and anti-civil libertarian. He helped us get into Vietnam and his support for the civil rights movement was mostly talk. It was Johnson who made the Voting Rights Act happen. Assassination just consolidated the positive while glossing over the negatives.

But however you feel about all this what is important to realize is that the Kennedys are a myth we created. And if we want to understand them we need to deconstruct that myth and look at what the underlying realities were and are. They have always been as much about manipulation as idealism, as much or more for themselves than for us.

That may all very well be true.

I prefer to leave the question open. I was in the streets of Spfld MA in Nov. 62 the night Teddy won. Although only 6 yrs old, I remember that quite clearly.

It felt good.

The world was a very different place in 1962. John McCain and Hillary Clinton both ran on their experience although that experience was comprised of mostly being wrong. I would prefer somebody with experience who actually got things right. I think that if Obama had had more experience we might have had a better idea of how conservative and Establishment he truly was and not supported him.

Yes. The world was indeed a very different place.

I guess it still pisses me off that six seconds in Dallas changed ‘what might have been’ forever so that ‘we’ll never know’.

However, it is not lost on me that the same venue where Caroline and Teddy endorsed Obama (whatever may come of that) is where JFK laid out a peace initiative in June ‘63.

August ‘63 MKL dreamed in front of the Lincoln Memorial.

Five years later and 3 assassinations brought us this world.

What’s all this anti-Caroline Kennedy activity at all the Not-Republican blogs? What a LOT of energy you are all devoting to it, with no sign of slowing down or ever losing interest! It has not run its course. It has not proven to be a fleeting filler issue. It’s REAL. It’s of PARAMOUNT importance, apparently. So, time for those of us who are barely “Democrats” anyway, who are waking up from happy American sleepy land to the nightmare that all political parties lead in ONE DIRECTION ONLY, and who just haven’t been able to lighten up and get past our petty dissatisfaction over Obama the Great (for whom we fought like lions right up until election day) keeping Robert Gates as defense secretary, ensuring that all wars will not only continue, but escalate, forever, and that Iraq is and shall remain the corporate property of the ghost company known on paper as “the United States of America”…to, I dunno, clear the gadgets off my Google page, and start over.

In other words….SHIT! Shut up!

I can’t tell you what to talk about at your blog, and I don’t want to just go read a different article if this one disinterests me!

BOOOOO on you all for blinking at a time like this. And for giving us steady scoops of never-ending pablum.

In other words….SHIT! Shut up!

I can’t tell you what to talk about at your blog, and I don’t want to just go read a different article if this one disinterests me!

You might be interested in our war coverage, by Siun and Spencer and others — we are following events in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the Middle East including reporting from folks who live there.

We’ve followed every major appointment to the Obama administration, disagreed with a few of them and explained why.

We’re all over the auto restructuring — surely that qualifies as substantive reporting.

So no, I won’t advocate you read somewhere else. I advocate that you read here — all of what we are reporting, not just this one topic that you apparently find irritating.

Yes. Of course. In this case, your function is ‘editor’ and choosing those sources, and even ‘play’ here is of course your choice.

I wrote a process story, “these sources” are major media outlets with international respect. I wrote a piece pointing out that all these major media outlets were reporting that her “campaign” is not going so well.

And the Plain comment wasnt anonymous, it was sourced to a sitting Congressman!

This is about as mainstream as it gets. And other than the photoshop–which is not flattering, what vitriol have I, me, LHP, expressed?

Senate is not a the usual entry level job. She’s never had a regular full time job. She does occasional, brief writing, on her schedule at law firm for their pro-bono cases. I suspect, but admit I don’t know, that it is another $1 a year arrangement.

To my knowledge, she has never had a real job, you know, where you have to show up every day on time and work 7 or more hours each and every weekday?

I used to work in a law firm that was in the same building as the publishing house her mother worked for.

You could set your watch to the minute by what time Mrs. O walked into the elevator each morning. Her mother was always on time for work and came to work every day, like a regular person. According to the Politco’s sources, Caroline has not shown the same diligence.

That’s the NYTimes reporting. If you don’t like their use of unamed sources, take it up with the public editor.

in all honesty, I believe her when she says that campaigning for Obama, sparked something in her.

I don’t think she endorsed Obama over Clinton because she was abstaining from trying to get Clinton to vacate the seat. I don’t thinkaCaroline had any thoughts about Clinton’s seat at all until Obama named Clinton for S of S and the specuation started and somebody–my bet’s on Chancellor Klein–put a flea in her ear about it.

If Bloomie told her she would be a shoo-in, you could see why he would be winging about this spinning out of control….

That said, I hardly regard statements about Caroline Kennedy’s presence at her $1/year position reliable. Such people are not hired to be desk administrators that go home at 5PM. Their jobs are, in fact, to be rainmakers…to actually have breakfast and lunch meetings with other members of the NY social set, to attend evening charitable “balls” and concerts, and to drop the critical request for money at the right time. She’s not going to be efficiently fundraising by calling for a meeting with major donors at her cubical desk.

I don’t know, when Besty Barlow Rogers started the Central Park Conservancy, and raised money to preserve the Olmstead and Moses architectural gems in the park, her job description was pretty much what you laid out.

We naver had people asking “where’s Betsy?”, to the contrary, that woman worked harder than many of the regular parks employees and brass. Where’ s Besty?, she’ at your planning meeting, she’s sent two memos and a handritten note today, she’ leading a tour of planned worksites for donors, she’s got a donor cocktail party planned for the zoo tonight.

Where’s Besty? she’s working cirlces around everybody else. She was a dollar a year, socialite, and she had a great work ethic

Do United States Senators even do work for a living? Their job is to be well-liked enough to get elected and participate in voting. Their staffs do the work.

I personally don’t see the harm in Paterson appointing Kennedy to the seat. What does she not have which you’d ask of a caretaker of the seat? Let’s say he chose somebody completely un-famous to be the caretaker of the seat until 2010. Does anyone really think that such a caretaker wouldn’t eventually try to run in 2010? And whoever gets appointed has to face voters anyway. I don’t get a lot of the beef people have over this.

Carly,

This is an appointment THAT HAS NOT BEEN MADE YET. What we say may still have an effect on the outcome.

The Gates thing, appears to be done deal, so I would beat a dead horse…..why?

I have still, might continue, to agrue over the Holder nomination, because there appears to be some organized opposition to his nomination, so that MIGHT not be a done deal.

There is little point in ranting and raving about things I cannot change when there are so many things to write about, where there is at least a possibility of influencing the dialogue.

I’m not saying I never self indulge in ranting about lost casues, …lord knows, but I TRY to focus on things where decisions hae not yet been reached.

That, and straight analysis.

I live in NYS. I don’t know if you do. To an out of stater, this may seem like fluff, to me, choosing a Senator from the state that most directly impacts the financial markets at a time when we are heading into a Depression, seems pretty important.

The person Paterson appoints will have a leg up (incumbency) for re-election. No one is talking about appointing a caretaker in NY (they were talking about appointing a caretaker for Rahm’s Cong seat in Ill.)

So, the person appointed should 1) have the background to jump right into the financial meltdown mess, since NYS is where Wall Street is, 2) should be the person we (or Paterson) would like to see re-elected, 3) should have the fundraising and campaigning experience and skills to get re-elected.

I would be especially happy if that person were a progressive, though progressives don’t tend to do well upstate.

As a New Yorker, I am only interested in escaping from the hack group, Schumer, Mark Green, Rangel, Sharpton, etc., and ensuring that what Obama wants, Obama gets when it comes to healthcare. If CK only lasts two years, she can be a big help to Obama, much more than the Clintons would have been and she is not connected to the Clintons, Rubin, Greenspan Wall Street “democrats” and de-regulation of Wall Street or lack thereof.

Let her take Nadler’s seat and let Nadler become senator. He’s the right person for the job!

Problem is, I think she lives in Maloney’s District, not Nadler’s