Proud Member of The Moms Clean Air Force
Print This Post
Dec
16
[NOTE: Let me be clear - I'm very aware of other qualified and more than qualified men and women vying for what will be an open seat in the senate when Hillary Clinton takes the Sec'y of State position. There are several that deserve the appointment, I'm certain. This post is about my frustration at just how hard people are working to discredit someone who clearly meets at least minimum qualifications for the U.S. senate - look what we've thrown out of that office, for starters. I trust NY Gov. Paterson to do his thing, but that doesn't mean that Kennedy shouldn't do this thing if she wants to. Everyone needs to start losing political challenges sometime. So just let her go.]
I’m completely serious. Come on.
First of all, she is the ultimate inside outsider. Second, she’s got brains. Third, she’s spent decades being involved in multiple causes that impact numerous demographics. And she’s lived in the state she wants to represent.
How many U.S. senators don’t have or haven’t had even one of those qualifications when they first ran for office?
Sheesh. Let her run. And if she wins, she wins. If she loses, she loses.
So.What.
OF COURSE SHE IS QUALIFIED. What exactly do you think the threshold IS for being qualified to merely run for a U.S. senate seat, given what people have voted for re: other political offices?
Anyone remember the 118 or so Californians who ran in that – was it, the recall effort?
Let her run. Let her have supporters – support her yourself.
I have no idea who I’d vote for as getting the appointment but for goodness sakes, just let her do her thing if she wants. Paterson will figure it out and if he makes the wrong choice, the voters will let him know.
Done. Just be done with it.
Goysh!
And I have to edit in – don’tcha think New Yorkers could do worse?? Do you know how many voters would be thrilled to have someone even as “minimally” qualified as Kennedy already in office representing them?
People are so weird sometimes.
By Jill Miller Zimon at 11:18 am December 16th, 2008 in Congress, Democrats, Gender, Government, Hillary Clinton, Politics, Women
Comments
24 Responses to “State your case: Why isn’t Caroline Kennedy qualified to run for or be a U.S. senator?”
Voted into Top 25 Political Mom Blogs
Now on sale-WLST essay included!
Posts About Pepper Pike City Council2010 WE Magazine 101 Women Bloggers to Watch
Category Specific RSS
Pepper Pike Cleveland+ Politics Women Ohio Elections Law Jewish
Conservatives, naturally, don’t want another Kennedy in the Senate.
Of course when the totally unqualified and inexperienced Terminator won a ginned-up special election in California….no problem.
If Caroline gets the nod….she’ll have to earn re-election in 2010.
And the problem is?
I don’t see a problem.
Liberal bloggers don’t care for the entitlement mentality of those who worship “dynasty.” But it’s the performance that counts, not the perception.
Finally, why would media “experts” talk about, like, you know, Senate Committee findings that the Bush administration is actually an international war crimes group…..when Caroline Kennedy’s appointment, or not, can be talked about?
Actually, Kennedy is qualified as the only qualification to be Senator is this: “No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.”
Now, whether or not she merits the appointment based on her experience and resume is totally different
Paterson can do whatever he wants, but I dont think the Congresspeople who have been waiting for a chance to run for Senate will be very happy. They kept their mouth shut in 2000 when some carpetbagger came in and became the nominee for the seat being vacated by Moynihan, but I dont think they will all do the same this time.
Reverend must be going around to a lot of blogs sprading his Arnold / CA 2003 talking points.
Arnold was elected by the people, so the comparison is moot.
Ben – even if Reverend is astroturfing, I think his points are arguable (that is, they are legit to put forth). The Arnold piece is a technicality in the sense that Kennedy would have the chance to be voted out too.
And, if you’re going to roll your eyes at the Arnold reference anyway, I’ll roll my eyes at the “some carbetbagger” – er, um – Hillary Clinton isn’t exactly your common everyday carpetbagger – like the local ones we see in Ohio anyway.
And she went around and got a lot of blessings first. Plus, she was eventually re-elected – it has a lot to do with how well you’ll work with the delegation and what you actually do for the state.
Greg – that’s exactly right – I agree. What Paterson’s criteria for “merit” will be – who knows. I can imagine some NY congressional members being none to happy, or other statewide officials, if he were to go with her – but my biggest beef is with the tone of the criticism over her even asking to be considered. That’s not the same as demanding that you in fact be appointed – and I can’t imagine Kennedy would do that. If anything, the burden is almost reverse – Paterson almost has to NOT appoint her. Lucky for him there are at least a few good choices.
The aspect I find most fascinating about this is that it reminds me precisely of what I wrote when Palin came into the election: that now, female candidates can enter at will with far less political experience than previously thought to be required for whichever political office they’re contemplating (and that could be a great thing, truly), but what will the incumbents and the people in line say when those candidates present themselves? I wrote about it here and wondered what Jon Husted or Kevin DeWine or Chris Redfern might say to such challenges.
FYI another good link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/16/nyregion/16qualifications.html?ref=politics
Get used to that kind of candidate and that kind of lobbying – it’s the wave of the future and very likely should be what we consider all along. When people run against so-called career politicians, what do they do? They smear the career and put forth all the ways in which they’ve used similar skills for better or different causes, even though it all still falls under the rubric of being “political.”
Frankly, I welcome a high-profile non-traditional candidate into a race at the level of U.S. senator.
Again – why not? The traditional candidates – maverick or no maverick – certainly aren’t doing us so many favors.
Disputing whether Caroline Kennedy is qualified is pointless. Does the fact of a name make her better for the office than others is a real question.
From a purely political perspective in 2010 it may. Money, name, not inconsiderable assets in a successful run. Does that mean you’ll get the best person? It actually doesn’t mean anything in that regard, which is worthy of a Hmmmm.
No she wasnt an everyday carpetbagger but the fact remains she was.
if she is appointed, fine. I dont really care.
first she – hillary
second she – kennedy
Ben – I do not know your preferred political party’s history with carpetbaggers at the congressional level, but something makes me suspect that this is a glass house situation. Alan Keyes running against Barack Obama when Ryan had to drop out because of some sleazy marital issues that came to the fore perhaps might be a place to start. And he didn’t win. When a carpetbagger wins, esp. something as big as a senate seat in a state as large as NY, that had a GOP governor and NYC had a GOP mayor, well – the people made their choice, no?
It demonstrates that what matters is the packaging not the actual content.
If you were a New Yorker would you want a celebrity or someone who would actually know how not only to do the job but cared about you first as opposed to hiring a media manager like Isay…
Which considering how some feel about Lieberman I’m surprised that has not been mentioned.
Good questions – but I won’t take the bait re: what would a New Yorker want!! For one thing, Upstate and the City are sooooo different, as is the Island and Westchester. I absolutely couldn’t guess. Connecticut and Lieberman is easier for me to guess – even if I’m wrong. But NY – nope – they are a diverse bunch.
I think in Ohio, this is very unlikely to fly – unless it would be like a Hackett – who just rode in on some serious waves – but look how that ended up? I never had the feeling for him so it was fine with me, but a lot of people wanted him – ditto Lamont, a real netroots darling but these candidates don’t have the core of service. Jim Webb is an interesting exception perhaps. I’m not familiar enough with all 100 US senate seats.
Anyway – we’ve got enough drama in Ohio and I was never big on pre-primary type endorsements. I think that if she wants to play this game, she can play. Paterson should, however, feel absolutely free not to select her. And with the heat on Illinois as it is, I would really HOPE that no one who supports any of the names being bandied about tries anything really dumb!
Shalom Jill,
Only the voters of New York have a dog in this hunt. The rest of us are sitting on the porch.
Having said that, would Caroline Kennedsky even be in the running?
I dislike nepotism and dynasties no matter what form they take.
Privilege ought not to have its privileges.
This may be a leap for some, but one of the elements of Judaism that first attracted me to it as a system of living was that the Torah repeatedly rejects the concept of aristocracy and favors meritocracy: Jacob over Esau, Levi over Reuben, etc.
Should Tim Russo give other city council members a run for their money solely because his last name is Russo?
B’shalom,
Jeff
And for the record, our current president. George W. Bush, held not one single elected or appointed political office before running for and becoming governor.
Now – if what those opposed to Kennedy on the basis of her never having held political office are saying is, “Look where that got us!?” – I can see your point.
But otherwise – the voters of Texas decided for themselves that whatever background Bush had was adequate for them.
Paterson and New Yorkers can certainly choose for themselves.
Obviously, I’m a champion of the non-traditional and have no doubt she’s got more than enough skills. As has already been noted, the issue has more to do with who else wants the post, the notion of whether anyone “deserves” the post, and what’s best for the entire state of New York.
But all this whining about her having no experience relevant to senator? Please. The Republican party bet that Sarah Palin had enough to be president and now even John McCain won’t give away his support for 2012 to her in light of other candidate possibilities.
Just let them out there, we offer our opinions and the people who get to decide, decide.
I know how much I hated when the whole Bush dog thing from Ohio outsiders was being pressed here about Zach Space and I forget who the other one was. We’ll decide, thank you.
And so will New Yorkers.
[...] State your case: Why isn’t Caroline Kennedy qualified to run for or be a U.S. senator? Posted in [...]
Shalom Jill,
President George Bush and Governor Sarah Palin are great examples.
If we, as non-conservatives are to rightly express outrage at their elevation to power, then we need to hold our own to the same standard.
B’shalom,
Jeff
I understand that point, Jeff and it’s valid for people to make, but here’s where I see the flaw in it:
It’s Kennedy’s resource and our votes. This argument about name recognition has been around since the start of our country. Does it have the chance to play the system? In the Russo scenario, sure. Absolutely. But Caroline Kennedy is not going to get that kind of bump – she’s quite obviously known, not some anonymous person trying to benefit from something to which they have no connection.
Still the question is, should she benefit from the name at all?
How do you think George W. Bush went from having never held a single political office to being Governor of the enormous state of Texas? Seems like he had a little name recognition going for him.
So – I think as sentient beings in a democracy, we have to figure this out for ourselves. What other choices do we have? If Bush or Kennedy are restrained or modest, or whatever you want to call it, enough to say, “oh I can’t run! people will think it’s just because of my name!” then fine. But honestly, I don’t think I want people, in general, to NOT run because of their name – that seems weird too.
But Jeff, very uncharacteristically of you, I think, you write in the passive there – if we show outrage to “their elevation” – who elevated them? Another segment of the “we.” That’s part of a democracy, no? There are those of us who are going to discount the name for a certain percentage of why someone should or shouldn’t get elected or deserves to or has the skills to get elected.
I am 100% CONFIDENT that you and I and many other voters know that a name has nothing to do with skills. But that fact doesn’t strip someone of ALL skill, now does it?
As for the politics of it, if she’s competent at that game and apparently she is, then it’s a no brainer. Name, money, and decent looks and speaking ability – that’s gold in 2010. My bet is the field will winnow itself out, just on that basis (and maybe a few phone calls).
Whether there’s somebody out there better without that stuff…that’s like cars, somebody always has a faster one but you run what you’ve got.
Here it is, I’m smarter than my US Rep, I’m closer to the values and policy wise to the needs of my fellows, and flat out have better ideas. I also don’t have the money or name or even the right party (D) so I didn’t get elected and I won’t get elected, somebody not as good as me but with the other right stuff would still be better than he is and actually win which I won’t. Net loss if I win the Primary. Maybe it stinks, but it is real and that’s what has to be dealt with. I don’t like dynasties, so what, I like a (R) in that seat in 2010 a lot less.
Shalom Jill,
Then let her run in 2010.
Or better yet, let her pledge not to run in 2010 if appointed.
Whoever gets the appointment gets an instant edge over any opponents.
I get the conservative hatred for all things Kennedy.
There’s a reason she’s not seeking the appointment as Caroline Schlossberg.
Should the rich and powerful intentionally handicap themselves? It might make for a more interesting world.
B’shalom,
Jeff
Chuck I think you explain reality – and that can only be changed if voters get with it and choose to reject that candidate. But you know here in Ohio, our Democratic senators just appointed a senator who has really never won a campaign but has been self-funded and has notoreity following her – HOWEVER, she also has brains even if not always well-applied.
So it’s a real mix.
The biggest pressure is on Paterson. That Kennedy threw herself into the mix is just another complication for him. So what? So it makes his job harder? We’re concerned that he can’t figure out how it is that Caroline Kennedy comes to even put her name there? We’re concerned about who Paterson will respond to pressure? We think that the other candidates will let the Kennedy name run roughshod over them and the voters and New Yorkers won’t be well served?
No – what the concern is is that people who’ve worked and waited and waited and worked will be passed over.
Hmm – reminds me of how I bet a few GOP VP hopefuls might have felt. And I’ve no doubt it happens all the time all along the political spectrum.
This is why it is so crucial to not only build up the pipeline of worthy candidates from whom appointments can be selected, but that we as voters make our preferences known for how we like such situations to be run. If we don’t like the discretion allowed in appointments, then we need to change that system. If we realize that appointments are necessary, then we have to live with that compromise.
This is not rocket science.
Jeff – we know political opponents to be ruthless – remember Jennifer Martinez Atberger who was thrown off the ballot by a powerful name-gifted male opponent with no experience in juvenile court because he said her maiden name gave her an edge with Cuyahoga County Hispanic voters? Kennedy would NEVER be allowed to run as Schlossberg – and it STILL wouldn’t matter. What percentage of the NY population do you believe wouldn’t know that it is Caroline Kennedy? Come on.
Yes, the appointment gives an edge – but who is to say she wouldn’t hate being in the Congress?
I do not expect her to get that appointment – I really don’t. And whether or not she should, I haven’t looked enough at the list of people who say they want it.
Evidently Caroline thinks she’s a good pick. She, herself, has been active in public issues, has she been waiting?
There seems to be an element of “just desserts” in some of this. There’s no such thing. Just desserts would have me in the US House instead of a rich kid radio heir prick. That isn’t how it works, people not only have to like you, they also have to believe you’ll win. Waiting and working and doing all the “right” Party stuff won’t get you much more than thanks. The people who will get you what you need to get into office have to believe you’ll win it and in the case of an appointment with the incumbency at risk it gets to be a bigger part of the calculation.
The measurement that will probably get made is who will be best positioned for 2010. Given the considerations what else, given competence, should matter to Democrats? What ever my feelings regarding dynasties or celebrity I find a 2010 (R) Sen from NY less appealing. If she were a Republican in disguise I’d have a problem, she demonstrably is not.
Talk of meritocracy is silly, politics has its own metrics and meeting or exceeding them is merit. You get graded, certainly intellect and even honesty may not get rewarded, but you are graded. There is a wish that, what, the general voter is going to become a political wonk? Patterson probably is a wonk and 2010 figures largely.
As an Oregonian I don’t have a dog in that fight. In fact, I am real darn sure that Sen Ron Wyden (D-OR) is far better than any Senator NY has put in for a long time, both as a legislator and as a politician and on matters of Constitutional import. He keeps that office by huge margins because he’s very good, he wins in (R) areas better than Smith (R) ever did. He’s a wonk, but he also knows how the merit system works and manages to fit it, he works all the things that Caroline is trying to work. Wyden leveraged every step he made on the way up to stay in various positions and to advance into the Senate.
I previewed this and it’s a mess, but I’ll leave it alone…
They say if Clinton did it then why not, Utica found name recognition appealing. I have yet to hear anyone say that Kennedy lacks personal substance.
People are questioning what experience does she have…I have to laugh she is a Kennedy if she did not form a political perspective then she would have had to have ran away from home or something,it’s just a name? What planet are we from, It requires knowledge of the issues and a feel for your constituents.
“She is up against a long list of other highly qualified individuals”, so I have read and have yet to see anyone roll up their sleeves or pound some pavement to detail them.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1So24TiNbQ8&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&resnum=1&q=caroline%20schlossberg&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab&feature=player_embedded
The audacity of inspiration….
Dignity courage and the power of love.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ASDD92i0l0&eurl=http://video.google.com/videosearch?hl=en&resnum=1&q=caroline%20schlossberg&um=1&ie=UTF-8&sa=N&tab&feature=player_embedded