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

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…

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.

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.

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

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.

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?

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.

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