“Any true Democrat loves Caroline Kennedy,” said Thomas R. Suozzi,” mmm, plese, Tommy — don’t say that.

No real opinion no CK – but I sure would like to see this guy

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.c…..249324.php

get the nod.

I dunno; it could be read as some classic concern trolling going on there. Pointing out that she isn’t surrounding herself with “true Democrats” isn’t necessarily a bad thing. Especially since she has not given whole hearted support to a potential Democrat running against her good bud Bloomberg until it was pointed out that Dem voters in the city and elsewhere might not appreciate her supporting a Republican. In some areas, supporting other than a Democrat is enough to get one kicked out of the party (DC excepted of course).

So I must not be a true Democrat because I don’t love Caroline…..

I don’t hate her either….. just don’t know her and not interested….. she has done nothing to generate my interest…….

Just like Democrats to tear down one of their best liberal legal minds. I favor Caroline not for her name, but for her legal work in the area of privacy, something we need in this Patriot Act world Bush and Cheney and a lot of Democrats already in the Senate created for us. Shame on you Firedoglake!

um, I’m a true Democrat from WAY BACK, and I do not love Carolyn Kennedy.
If anything, she’s leaving a very bad taste in my mouth and a huge sense of sadness and disappointment.
I don’t care for anyone expecting so much for nothing. Like a “coronation”.
My admiration for her has seriously slipped and keeps sliding.
sorry……………..

hey, Auntie Toby, thanks for all the goodie’s you’ve given us. I’ve loved reading your diaries and am waiting for more bread!

6 – out of curiosity, what legal work has CK done in the area of privacy? I understand Obama’s fine legal input on telecom amnesty, but I’m unfamiliar with CK’s workproduct.

So what did she do for privacy other than write a book? Was she out there trying to get the folks in the Senate (and the Obama camp) to block the FISA updates? If she is such a wonderful constitutionalist, why wasn’t she publicly letting Obama know how anti-privacy and the Constitution his support for the update was?

Where was she in the fight this past year?

FWIW – I will always have some warm fuzzies, remembering CK handing a Profiles in Courage award to Alberto Mora. fwiw

Ok but what has she DONE to fight for our privacy rights?

Has she lobbied congress to write laws to protect our private information?
Has she form a grassroot group, used her fabulous fund raising skills to put ads on TeeVee to recind the Patriot Act?
Has she written books, expose of the violations against our privacy rights?
WHAT has she done to show ME that she would fight on this issue?

I would rather have someone like Jon Tester who fought like hell for his senate seat and ONE of the issues he ran on was repealing the Patriot Act. Show me the beef!

me too. her minders must be from the intertainment industry. ya know, all publicity is good, type of thing.

gosh, ya must be one of them sheep i been hearin about.

I have no problem with a CK Senate candidacy… in 2010. Anyway, interseting AFP article:

http://www.google.com/hostedne…..RtsMerbbrQ

when the MSM is comparing you to Palin, and you’re a Dem, that’s probably not a good thing for your run.

Sorry, folks, but this morning I read that Jerry Nadler (currently serving as my congressman) might be interested, in which case Caroline Kennedy becomes just so much sawdust, in my view. There have been so many pressing and urgent progressive issues that I’ve written to both Schumer and Clinton about, but when I check Nadler’s website, he’s already there. Far as I’m concerned, none of the other candidates (announced or rumored) are fit to stand in Nadler’s shadow.

If Caroline Kennedy truly wants to represent the people of New York State, let her damn well RUN for the job the way Hillary did. Mrs. Clinton fanned her ass all over this state, becoming conversant with local issues and talking to voters at every income and demographic level. She proved she wanted the job, and in my opinion, she EARNED it.

i vote fer jerry. what is his district?

I don’t have a say (would gladly have Caroline or any of the others mentioned in exchange for John Cornyn or Kay Bailey Hutchison), but I do hate to see the nastiness and demonization among Democrats. I guess I could say that Gary Ackerman is a congressman with an opinion, like Jack Kingston or Eric Kantor are. I’m not comparing him either favorably or unfavorably with them, but just saying they have about equal name recognition.

I’m sure that if picked, she’d do a good job. The only issue is re-election. She needs to be able to beat a gooper come election time.

As much as I respect Looseheadprop for her legal acumen and contributions to this site, this CK controversy is silly.

where do you see nasty or demon? i see reasonable arguements. she just made a mistake by a late entry. kinda like hillary. does not show good judgement, imo.

how please?

is that yer hope or do you have some specifics regarding her job fit?

LHP gives us the local flavor if you will of NY Democratic politicking. I value her insight on this issue a great deal.

Just sayin…

I see “compared unfavorably with J-Lo and Sarah Palen and a foto shop of her as royalty she never purported to be. I personally respect Nadler a great deal, and wouldn’t care to see other Democrats snark about him rather than give the legitimate arguments opposed. Again, I don’t have a say and that’s FWIW.

I don’t live in NY so it’s not my decision and if Caroline wants to put her name out there, so be it. But IMO
Bloomberg should really shut up. He irritates the heck out of me – seems to think he rules everything including the whole state. I get really tired of him.

Why is it silly? Haven’t we had enough situations on both sides of the aisle where electing or appointing someone because of their name turned out to be fairly disastrous?

I don’t think pointing out that she really hasn’t done much to deserve the appointment is particularly silly. She has not really shown herself as any great shakes as a campaigner. Her staff DID treat her like Sarah Palin. Her refusal to allow a background check on her finances is directly in conflict with what is expected of every other appointee by the Governor and every other person involved. Why should she have a lower standard to meet than is required of others?

understand. politics it not a blue blood sport. it’s kinda like rugby. you give an arguement that suggests she is too dainty or above such net snark or is it mearly disrespectful of her status? a campaign like that reminds me of the jr senator of mass.

Here is what strikes me as silly, the whole notion that Caroline’s bid for this Senate seat is somehow less than honorable because she hasn’t earned it. It is in my opinion a ridiculous idea.

agreed. bloomberg is a putz.

I don’t love Caroline Kennedy. I am indifferent.
I think any appointment should go to someone who has held an elected office before and done it with honor. (Okay honor may to much to ask, but relatively speaking.) There is too much ” the privy council has agreed on the anointed one based on pedigree” in all this, and I don’t like it. All I’ve seen of CK so far is her dodging reporters and sitting next to Al Sharpton, holding her fork the “right way, ” poised like the Queen of England.

of course it is honorable. just ill timed and ill planned and suspect in that regard. you will notice a backlash of those who are less than impressed by her name. i won’t deny that. the call is for substance. that’s all.

Mayor for Life Bloomberg.

Oh,okay. Thanks for clarifying politics for me. I’m not that familiar with rugby, but guess it’s about as rough as the football I played in high school while following the Kennedy-Nixon election. I’ll leave this to you NY constituents, cal, because I’m having trouble typing with my pinkie raised.

If I read correctly, CK is protecting privacy in the way she is refusing to make any finances and other things public that are required for candidates; she will show what she wants to show once she is officially appointed. I haven’t heard of her making any great leadership moves in any way for anything that she has been involved in. I don’t dislike her, but I do have ties to NYS that are more than sentimental and I don’t want her before she actually runs. It is too easy for incumbents to be reelected, so she may never have to learn anything about any part of NYS north White Plains or west of the Hudson River.

I heard Mayor Bloomberg has done horrible things to the board of Ed.

Stirling has a new post up: “Why is Obama Endorsing Creationism at His Inaugural?”

rugby is football without pads/helmet. for real men/women only. ya know, i like the memory of the name and don’t dislike her at all. she has been mishandled, imo. facts is facts. no one gets a free ride in politics. we on the same side. i think.

Here is what strikes me as silly, the whole notion that Caroline’s bid for this Senate seat is somehow less than honorable because she hasn’t earned it. It is in my opinion a ridiculous idea.

I think it is more that her campaign for the slot has been clumsy, arrogant, and out of touch. There were much better ways to go about this. She could have announced her interest and expressed a little humility with regard to herself and her qualifications. She could have made an effort to address New Yorkers directly instead of confining her efforts to phone calls to a few powerbrokers. She could have found a public forum where she could enunciate what her positions are on the great issues of the day. She could have engaged with reporters and the public generally to answer their questions. Let’s see, hmmm, she did none of these things. Just some phone calls, some endorsements from a few ambiguous figures like Bloomberg, a lot of ducking reporters, a few ridiculously written replies to a handful of written questions, and just oceans and oceans of entitlement.

Yes, to some degree her bid has been “clumsy, arrogant and out of touch.”
As such, she will be right at home in the Senate.

Yes, to some degree her bid has been “clumsy, arrogant and out of touch.”
As such, she will be right at home in the Senate.

And we the people will not be served.

I’m a big Nadler fan too

I think she will withdraw as the pressure heats up. She never expected anyone to “dis” her and I don’t think she wants to get into a seat where she doesn’t have all the dems support.

She may have had a chance, but SHE mishandled this.

Bloomberg is an idiot, but he’s no Ghouliani. So there are some things to be thankful for. But he should go away too.

Jerry is my first pick, but he disappointed me when he failed to support W’s impeachment.

There used to be an English show on PBS called “To the Manor Born”.

Coming soon to US tv is a similar show called “To the Senate Born”.

How is it silly to weigh in on who my next senator might be? A sentor from the state that drives this country’s financial engine?

This is a really important appointment. So, unless you think Kennedy does not have a chnace in hell, and this is just some sort of publicity stunt for her–which is inconsistent with how she has lived her life up until now–how is this silly?

Seriusly, you don’t see me covering Fran Drescher, do you? Now THAT is silly

Not necessarily; but, given the past 200 plus years, probably so.

I didn’t compare her to Palin and J-Lo, Congressman Gary Ackerman compared her to them. Which I say in the post.

This isn’t my opinion of her,it’s his. Which I properly attributed.

My first post on this started out with how I am a fan of her as an individual.

My objection is to the process. She has not paid her dues. She has not earned this.

As a resident of New York City, I feel nothing when it comes to Caroline. I find her boring and uninteresting, and the whole thing feels manufactured. Her statements read like the most cliched, boring press releases ever. Besides, as Gov. Patterson pointed out, Hillary hasn’t resigned yet.

Weighing in is not silly. I make no claim that it is.
As I mentioned above, that isn’t where I see the silliness in this matter.
The concept of ‘earned’ or ‘qualified’ when talking about NY pols or pols from just about anywhere is amusing to me.

the whole notion that Caroline’s bid for this Senate seat is somehow less than honorable because she hasn’t earned it.

“less than honorable” is not a phrase I would have chosen, nor did I. It is however, less than democratic. If her name was not Kennedy, would you support someone with her resume, for this office, at this time?

It’s about being opposd to inherited seats. ANd yes I know that parents in politics help their kids out with their campaigns all the time. And if she want s to run,a d her articualte and telegenic and well connected family helps her campaign and she wins, I’m 100% in faovr of that.

But strong arming the governor? I was critical of Andy Cuomo at the front end of this process, for campaigning too agressively–and took not one pot shot for it.

I am being consistent.

Gary Ackerman is a “Long Island” congressman. As a resident of his Queens district, I find that quite interesting. Then again, I forgot. The jackasses living in Manhattan don’t consider any other borough a part of their city.

Earned in the sense of either having run for the office and actually won an election, or earned in the sense of many years of public service.

For example when Robert Bork was proposed for the SCOTUS, one of the arguemtns in his favor –and I found it to be a compleling argument–was that almost his entire career was spent in gov’t service or academia –exccept for e very brief period when his wife had cancer and he went into private practice so he could pay her bills, when he could have made a ton more $ in private preactice.

The notion being he had EARNED it. he had the chops. –both in terms of expertise and in terms of having given back to society and therby demosntrating his committment to the public welfare.

Of course he was also the assasign of Nixon’s Saturday Night Massacre, which no one could overlook.

But there is more than one way to earn it. I mean it any any sense where you have demonstrated that you have the chops.

Election=the voters deciding you have the chops.

Deep resume is another way.

I live on Long Isalnd and before the last redistricitng, Gary Ackerman, was MY Congressman. So, it is natrual that I think of him as an LI Congressman.

His distirct used to run all the way to Humtington in Suffolk Co.

He still covers all the was to Part Washington IIRC

I have mixed feelings about CK. You bring up a major point in her favor and one I strongly agree with. I myself wouldn’t mind if CK got the seat, but agree with the thrust of this post that her team is being a bit pushy and putting Paterson in a tight spot. Paterson is the one I feel for right now.

Yeah I really hate this kind of “phraseology”.

“Any ‘true’ [fill in the blank] agrees with me”

Yes, I would prefer that she be elected to the Senate seat. But, there won’t be an election for this seat until 2010. So, there isn’t anyone who can be elected to this seat.

Now, what CK brings to the table, in a way Nadler and pols like him could never do, is star quality. Something you may have noticed is terribly lacking among the Democrats currently occupying seats in the Senate. This is particularly so with Hillary moving on.

Bret Farve brings ‘Star Quality’ to the Jets. How are they doing with their ‘Star’?

Why isn’t the New York legislature taking the heat off their accidental governor by passing a law to hold a special election? It seems to me this is the best time to remove the “appointment” part of Senate replacement, especially when there will need to be an election in 11/10 to fill the balance of the seat, and then another election in 11/12 for a full term.

Why not call a special election right now (or when Hillary resigns from the seat) for spring 2009 to fill the remainder of her term? Surely New York Democrats aren’t worried about keeping the seat in party hands. Let all the candidates duke it out in a real election.

She’s qualified to be a senator, but she’s not the MOST qualified, the best pick for the post.

She’s being considered above others because of WHO she is and she is WHO she is because of her birth and bucks and family.

Bobby Jr is more qualified, but he’s not even whoring for it.

“For example when Robert Bork was proposed for the SCOTUS, one of the arguemtns in his favor –and I found it to be a compleling argument–was that almost his entire career was spent in gov’t service or academia –exccept for e very brief period when his wife had cancer and he went into private practice so he could pay her bills, when he could have made a ton more $ in private preactice.

The notion being he had EARNED it. he had the chops. –both in terms of expertise and in terms of having given back to society and therby demosntrating his committment to the public welfare.”

The most corrupt scumbag ever proposed for SCOTUS until W had the power. Never met a decision he couldn’t take for his friends and masters. Justice never entered his heart or mind.

Considerably better than last year!

You are correct.

However, don’t NYer’s expect higher standards for the Jets as well as their senators wrt past and current achievements?

It was the “star quality” argument that Congressman Ackerman was rebutting with his J-Lo comment

Well, I hope we lowly voters get to scrutinize all these potential candidates (and perhaps weigh in on them in some meaningful fashion, though I can’t imagine what it might be) before Gov. Patterson appoints one of them. I might not have a quarrel with Ms. Kennedy’s qualifications if I knew what they were; I completely agree with Hugh@38 that Ms. K went about all this in exactly the wrong way, and I put it down to a kind of inexperience I’d expect from someone making their maiden run for a county board of supervisors or state assembly seat, not a run for the US Senate. She might turn out to be average, or better, if appointed–but I’d prefer for my state and my interests not to be used as a “learning experience” no matter by whom. Nadler and Cuomo, at any rate, are known quantities, and have at least been bench-tested in the legislative arena.

Oh, and californiarealitycheck: Nadler’s is the 8th district.

There already IS a law for a special election. The new Senator will have to run in 2009 and again in 2010. This is just an appointment until the special election

As youcan see from the remainder of my comment, I am no supporter of Bork’s. But he did have academic chops, and he did have a demonstrated history of forgoing the big bucks of private practice in favor of public service and academia.

My point being that you can prove your “chops” by either depth of resume or by getting elected.

She has done neither, AND she wont tell the voters what her positions are.

Yes, I know, but in my opinion it wasn’t a persuasive rebuttal. In fact, the excessive hyperbole involved in the comparison acted to destroy the point.
All that being said, looseheadprop, I really enjoy the legal analysis you do here. It is first rate.

She’s qualified to be a senator, but she’s not the MOST qualified, the best pick for the post.

A similar observation about affirmative action: The candidate in the Promoted Group meets the minimal requirements for the position, but others contenders are BETTER qualified, but, in effect, excluded because they are NOT in the Promoted Group.

Affirmative action: in minoritiy admissions, allegedly a remedy for past discrimination against a class of people; in legacy admissions, allegedly a catalyst for intergenerational ties between ivied academe and families with the means, if no longer quite the brains, to matriculate.

Appointing CK is seen as promoting her over more qualified contenders, as a political “legacy admission.” Unfortunately for her, the most recently prominent serial legacy admitee [Andover, Yale, Harvard Business School, the “awl bidnesss” et al.] has taken the shine off this peculiar institution.

Where was she when there was a real heated battle going on over privacy and retroactive amnesty for the telecoms?

Hear a peep out of Ms. Schlossberg during that time period? I sure as hell didn’t.