The Senate appointment is over. It went to the daughter of a powerful NY lobbyist, a longtime friend of another powerful NY lobbyist Al D’Amato. That’s not to say that her father (who by the way has done a lot of good over the years) was the only reason. Sen. Gillibrand also has a long professional relationship with Al D’Amato. She was even an intern in his office back when she was a Republican. Both Sen. Gillibrand’s father and D’Amato are big supporters of Gov. Patterson.

“Mr. D’Amato surprised many TV viewers, especially liberal Democrats, when he appeared alongside Mr. Paterson two weeks ago as the governor announced his selection for United States senator, Kirsten E. Gillibrand. The 71-year-old Mr. D’Amato, for whom Ms. Gillibrand had interned, beamed like the father of the bride, positioning himself on the dais more prominently than sitting members of Congress, legislative leaders, and even the senator who had ousted him, Charles E. Schumer.”

For what it’s worth, on Friday Rev. Federico Lombardithe (an official Vatican spokesman) said there was no truth to reports that the Vatican had rejected her as a candidate.
Link

If the Vatican has already rejected three nominees because they don’t like the ambassador’s sex, pedigree or credentials, it raises the question of who is ambassador for whom. The Vatican would be playing hardball, while losing popularity and support. It’s not a high-confidence move, but a desperate one. The Vatican is seeing how hard it can push the new kid.

Someone like Ms. Kennedy would be a compromise. On the one hand, the Vatican would prefer a more conservative man, who agrees with its views on the subordinate role of women and on abortion. On the other hand, someone like Ms. Kennedy gives Obama the representation he wants – someone who is pro-choice and a moderate advocate for women’s rights, but someone who comes from the Catholic aristocracy in America.

Mr. Obama should keep nominating people who represent the face of the America he sees, not the one the Vatican wants to see.

Gee, last I saw, the Kennedys have been ambassadors, senators, presidents, congressmen, founded numerous social programs and organizations, including Head Start, VISTA, Job Corps, Community Action, Upward Bound, Foster Grandparents, Special Olympics, the National Center on Poverty Law, Legal Services, Indian and Migrant Opportunities and Neighborhood Health Services, and directed the Peace Corps. Others’ professional lives have spanned law and politics and dedication to educational and charitable work as well as co-authored books on civil liberties and Constitutional law.

Oh yeah, and two of them have been assassinated for their public service.

… and a third was killed in action defending our freedom (for real) during WWII.

The Washington Times reported yesterday that the Holy See has rejected at least three candidates put forth by President Barack Obama to be U.S. ambassador. The prospects were apparently blackballed because they hold pro-choice views on abortion. . . The Times, citing an Italian journalist, reported, “Papal advisers told Mr. Obama’s aides privately that the candidates failed to meet the Vatican’s most basic qualification on the abortion issue.”

Under these circumstances I don’t think Caroline Kennedy or anyone else should be appointed to this post; it should be left vacant. No foreign entity should be permitted to have a veto over the selection of diplomats based on their personal views on contentious domestic policy issues. In fact this would be a good time to end the practice of formal relations with the Vatican, as other commenters have suggested above.

1) He enjoys being a lobbyist waaay too much
2) He got a divorce from his first wife but I don’t think he ever got the annulment he wanted from the Church.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02……html?_r=1