Is Caroline Kennedy our Sarah Palin?

I really hate her. I'll think of a reason later. -- Lee Ann Womack

Brent Bozell III, president of numerous organizations he founded himself, is a guy with -- what's the nicest way to say this? -- limited intellectual gifts. That doesn't slow him down, though, and you've got to admire him for that. He makes up for being sort of a slow coach by being irate all the time. He can perform basic conservative TV pundit functions because he knows he's mad about something. He's got a bee in his bonnet, providing the buzzing sound in his head, and having all that empty space to echo off of just makes it louder.

The force that drives the water through the rocks drives the blood to his face. And the blond beard sets it off so unpleasantly, too, like a certain amount of cat hair on a slice of ham.

He's not afraid to stand athwart history and yell "Huh?"

So there's probably not much thought behind his feelings about Caroline Kennedy, but he does get to say them on the TV, and here they are:

"Caroline Kennedy, God love her, has zero public experience, and I'm putting every single one of my liberal friends out there who spent the last four months trashing Sarah Palin, I'm putting them on notice that they better have something to say about this woman."

I like the cruel sarcasm of "my liberal friends." He doesn't have any friends, and he knows you know it.

But what about his challenge? How can we call Caroline qualified after everything we said about Sarah Palin's inability to put her glasses on the front part of her head instead of the back without the aid of a stylist?

Is Caroline Kennedy really better suited for high office than Sarah Palin?

Let's see.

One of them has a law degree from Columbia and has co-written two critically acclaimed books about the Bill of Rights, one specifically about the Fourth Amendment. The other has a journalism degree from college in general and had this conversation with Katie Couric:

Couric: Do you think there's an inherent right to privacy in the Constitution?

Palin: I do. Yeah, I do.

Couric: (That's) the cornerstone of Roe v. Wade.

Palin: I do. And I believe that individual states can best handle what the people within the different constituencies in the 50 states would like to see their will ushered in an issue like that.

I know that was months ago, but my head still hurts. Palin is fanatically anti-abortion, but she obviously knows less about the legal arguments for and against Roe than she knows about life on other planets. She doesn't know that the right to privacy implied -- but not stated -- by the Fourth Amendment is an argument for abortion rights. And beyond that, she doesn't comprehend that a Constitutional right applies to you whether your mayor thinks it does or not. To understand the Constitution less than that you'd have to be a monkey.

I'm gonna have to go with Caroline Kennedy.

--

The other difference -- and I'm trying to think of how to put this in words short enough for Brent Bozell to understand -- is that Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin are/were up for different jobs. Senator and Vice President are different jobs. Different. Senator. Vice President. Not same job. Not.

Sarah Palin wanted to be Vice President. If we followed the Constitution, and not just the parts people in different constituencies would like to see ushered in on an issue like that, her place in the line of presidential succession would look like this:

1- President of the United States
2- Miss Wasilla

Caroline Kennedy wants to be the junior Senator from New York State. If we were to chart her place in the line of Presidential succession it would look something like this...

1- President of the United States (dead or incapacitated)
2- Vice President of the United States (dead)
3- Speaker of the House of Representatives (dead)
4- President pro tempore of the Senate (dead, or however you want to describe Robert Byrd)
5- 15 cabinet members (dead or in jail)

Okay, now it gets tricky. Let's say something horrible happened in Washington. Everyone has the mumps, or Keanu Reeves crushes them with a spaceship or something. If the Speaker of the House dies, Congress elects a new one. If that person dies, or whatever, Congress votes again. And again. All they need is a quorum. So they can theoretically keep replacing the Speaker until there are only 217 congresspersons left. So let's put them here...

6- 216 Congresspersons

If we run out of congresspersons, we go to whoever the Senate elects as the new President pro tempore. By ancient tradition, the President pro tempore is always the most senior senator of the majority party. We don't know exactly who will make up the Democratic majority in the next Senate. (Al Franken will never concede in Minnesota, who knows what's going to happen in Illinois and Obama seems to want to put every other sitting Democrat in the cabinet.) But anyone who was there before Caroline would be senior to her. So all off them.

7- Every other Democrat in the Senate
8- Caroline Kennedy and other appointees (tied)

I think that puts Caroline less than 280 heartbeats away from the presidency.

And all she has is a lifetime of public service and a background in constitutional law.

Can we afford to take that risk?

Comments

[YellowPanties]

[quote]: And the blond beard sets it off so unpleasantly, too, like a certain amount of cat hair on a slice of ham.

You sir, are a word artist.

[cindymanns]

I am totally SHOCKED that Kathleen Parker is not a supporter of Sarah Palin, but does think Carolynne Kennedy is exquisite. Is anyone else shocked???

[MHT73]

You've skipped one of the most serious problems with Palin: she was and is completely corrupt. There is absolutely no reason to think that Caroline Kennedy would use taxpayer money improperly.

It's an interesting thing with the glass ceiling, however, that once one woman has broken it, and handled the job successfully, that job somehow becomes more available to other women. Hillary Clinton, for example, will soon become the third woman to serve as Secretary of State in just three administrations, and now, it seems, the seat of junior senator from New York is a "woman's" seat.

[meko]

It'd be nice to see a woman who isn't there because of a relative's name have a shot, though. Carolyn Maloney, Elizabeth Holtzman, Nydia Velazquez, and Kirsten Gillibrand have all achieved their positions through their own efforts, yet people cry sexism when it is suggested that Caroline Kennedy isn't as qualified as these other women.

There is no reason to believe they would misuse taxpayer money either, unless you believe that tripe about the wealthy being inherently more honest because they don't need the money (something I think Bush & Wall Street should have disproved by now).

Palin was a symbol of the idea that Republicans could embrace a female candidate (provided she was socially conservative enough). For many, Caroline Kennedy is a symbol of the hopes of their youth that were dimmed by the loss of her father and uncle. There are real people, qualified people, committed people who are passed over when symbols are put into place instead of achievers. There's the similarity and that's what bothers me.

[pooteh]

wreaks of hypocrisy. the fact is that many on the left that ragged on palin have no business defending kennedy who is skating by on her name. i don't care if she has a degree. palin was elected mayor then governor of a state. if you think thats nothing well theres no arguing with you. hilary atleast had the credibility of being elected and she was the WIFE of the president. the name came with far more experience than caroline did being rather distant from any real power.

[florestanchi]

Are we trying to play the "Palin is the one with executive experience" card once again? I'm not going to dissect the dubious merits of this claim. For one thing, it's all been done before, and well. Second, Senators ARE NOT EXECUTIVES. They're lawmakers.

Caroline Kennedy excelled at one of the finest law schools in this country. She has published influential books on pressing legal issues. It's fine that you don't care about her degree, but refusing to credit a lawmaker for having an exceptionally fine grasp of the law skates logic more than Caroline Kennedy could ever hope to skate by on her name.

[jaielaw]

Yes, the Palin-equa­ls-Kennedy argument is specious at best, but how do we know whether Kennedy "excelled" at Columbia Law? Have her grades been released? Was she on the law review? We do know that she passed the NY and DC bars, and I can confirm (just checked) that she's kept her NY license current.

As for her books on "pressing legal issues," you'd be hard-pressed to find a lawyer who would agree that they are "influential." They're perfectly fine for what they are--an introduction to the Bill of Rights and Privacy for non-lawyers--but they're not really considered legal scholarship. Not to mention that they were co-written and she isn't the lead, so her contribution is certainly debatable and might be limited to just her name--we'll probably never know. Perhaps she is as brilliant as you suggest, but she's done such a great job of hiding over the years that she'll need to do a few substantive press conferences or "Meet the Press" or something to convince us. But getting her to make any kind of public statement seems like pulling teeth. Her reticence was fine when she was avoiding public life, but it is now a huge liability considering the very public position she thinks she's qualified to fill.

[meko]

George W. Bush went to Yale and got an MBA from Harvard. Getting into those schools means a lot when you are poor or middle class, but it doesn't say anything about you one way or another if you are a child of privilege. Whenever someone wealthy went to Harvard, find out their GPA before being impressed - they invented the Gentleman's C.

Caroline Kennedy co-wrote her books. We don't know how much she wrote of them and they are more general interest books, not the sort that are in the forefront of legal writing. She has never practiced law and never filed a brief. After 25 years, law school doesn't mean as much if you haven't done any "lawyering".

If the ability to make laws was a prime qualification, we'd be talking about Congresswoman Maloney, or Velazquez, or Gillbrand. We're not. We're talking about a celebrity. We're talking about a name. We're talking about a relatively inexperienced and unqualified woman - relative to the other options. That's who Caroline Kennedy is.

[MaximMaximus]

I's about time that some people get over their "Resume Complex" -it's highly overrated. The CEOs of the companies who are not begging the government for taxpayer dollars have very impressive resumees as well but obviously that didn't help them to get anything right! The same analogy can be used for Vice President Cheney or any of the Neocons! What we need is untained, intelligent, and upright people who can think out of the box. I've got the impression that Ms. Kennedy has those merits.

[meko]

If there were no other candidates for the position, then her resume wouldn't matter. I want the senator from New York to be the best candidate for the job. When people such as Congresswoman Gillibrand, Congresswoman Velazquez, Congresswoman Maloney, and Mayor Brown have demonstrated their commitment to New Yorkers by submitting to the scrutiny of elections, reaching out and listening to voters while campaigning, and actually passing legislation, I'm not impressed by someone who means well, has done only six weeks of campaigning for a non-family member and can't even be bothered to do her duty as a citizen and vote in elections.

[jaielaw]

I have no idea if she is "untainted." She is refusing to make standard information public unless she is selected. She also undermines her claim to being "upright" by using backdoor channels to manipulate the process and box in Paterson. Does it not bother you at all that Ted Kennedy is working channels to pressure Paterson into selecting Kennedy? Ask yourself whether her maneuvering for this seat doesn't undermine the credibility of her endorsement of Obama?

As far as I'm concerned, the only way that she can maintain her image (deserved or not) for being an honorable woman is to pull herself out of the running. If she's so deserving, she'll still be able to raise bucketloads of cash to run for 2010. And, unlike the other Dems, who will probably lose their careers if they try to run against her as an incumbent in 2010, she'd be able to recover. That will also give her time to put together a platform, work on her abysmal public speaking and tour the state to show New Yorkers that she isn't just the dilettante socialite that she appears to be.

[MaximMaximus]

I don't think she's tainted. Her name recognition could be put to good use for the Dems. Hence, I see her as a viable appointee to Ms. Clinton's seat.

[lstm1]

I'm not sure if Kennedy is in any way "tainted" by corruption or not. I don't think there is any evidence of this one way or another. I would like to see her more forthcoming about her tax records, although this isn't required at this time.

What we do know about Kennedy is that she rarely votes, even in competitive elections (hardly a wringing endorsement for someone who wants to be Senator to vote on the key issues of the day), and she seems to be only barely understandable when she speaks in public.

"You know, I think, really, um, this is sort of a unique moment, both in our, you know, in our country's history and in, you know, my own life, and, um, you know, we are facing, you know, unbelievable challenges." - Caroline Kennedy

If she was a real scholar at Harvard, I think that would be relevant and she should readily release her grades anyways. The fact of the matter is, she is going down and she needs help.

[MaximMaximus]

What you're saying is a product of your imagination. Lobbying is not necessarily pressuring.

[meko]

She is only in consideration because of her last name, money and family connections. No one with her resume (non-practicing attorney, co-author of a few books, charity board member, part-time volunteer on behalf of NY public schools) would be considered otherwise.

But perhaps all those people talking about the cost of reelection have a point. Perhaps only the very wealthy and people with relatives in government can win the senate seat in New York. Caroline Kennedy never raised money for anyone who wasn't a family member, and I doubt her friends would either.

The New York senate seat, may not be available to anyone but the wealthy. The best the common people can hope for is a relatively sympathetic plutocrat.

But I'm not giving them any of my time or money. If the senate is going to be bought by someone, they can buy it themselves.

[QuestionEveryone]

I agree...and have you noticed that they have now given her a briefcase to carry around? It must be a prop to make her serious..but certainly too large just to carry her resume..that. would fit on a post-it.Too funny

[PravdaGirl]

Ms. Kennedy has done fund-raising for Obama, for various other candidates and hasn't just written a
'couple 'a books.' These books were very accessible case histories on The Bill of Rights. I find her enormously intelligent and compassionate as well as hard working. I think she'd be an excellent choice because of these qualifications and yes, because of her connections. New York City is long on giving to the state and federal government but doesn't receive in equal amounts in return. Perhaps someone of her stature could help change that and with Obama at the top, it is likely that he would be very favorable to her suggestions and efforts. I trust her and I think the comparison to Palin is plainly insulting.

[meko]

Those books weren't written on her own. Whenever there's a co-author, there's no way to determine who did what. We have no idea how much they were ghost written. Kennedy hasn't spoken for herself in an interview and hasn't taken many questions. So we don't know how well she can articulate those thoughts.

She only campaigned for Obama for six weeks. Beyond that, no support for non-Kennedy democrats.

Compare this to Congresswoman Maloney who wrote her book all by herself. Who lived up to the scrutiny of elections. Who actually passed progressive legislation: http://maloney.house.gov/index.php?option=com_issues&Itemid=35

[cgoodie]

Why should an appointed candidate have to be more qualified than an elected one?? Check the credentials and experience on all those recently elected...not too many any more qualified than Caroline Kennedy. If it weren't for her name, all of this broo ha ha would not exist...

I believe her name is a great asset. It opens doors for her to bring about changes that many would not be privy to.

[meko]

I believe that the other names being mentioned all belong to people who have more impressive achievements. Congresswoman Gillibrand, Congresswoman Velazquez, Congresswoman Maloney, Mayor Brown, and even Attorney General Cuomo have all worked as public servants.

I don't think we should look for the lowest common denominator when seeking a senator. We should look for the most qualified and accomplished person available.

[jaielaw]

It's one thing for the electorate to choose someone inexperienced, then that is the People's choice. So, we end up with Bozo the Clown, with an associate's degree from Rodeo Clown College, or Jesse Ventura, professional wrestler, in high office. Those are the breaks. It might be a ridiculous outcome, but as long as the process was fair and democratic, we have to live with the choice and the consequences.

But when an undemocratic process is used to fill the seat of an elected representative, it is the responsibility of the person making the selection to choose the most qualified to serve the needs of the People and to avoid the appearance of impropriety in making that selection. In my opinion, that means selecting someone who looks well qualified and has already been vetted in some way by the public (as have the other names being discussed). It also means avoiding the appearance of doing poltiical favors (Ted Kennedy and Bloomberg have been openly lobbying to get Kennedy this seat).

[Stephen C. Rose - Huffpost Blogger]

Chris C. Makes Caroline K. Case http://stephencrose.wordpress.com/2008/12/22/chris-c-makes-caroline-k-case/

[UKOH]

I have no problem accepting Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton. However I do not get to vote on the issue. Apart from the fact that being British and the broken green card process leaves me at least six years away from becoming a citizen and having a vote in the USA I do not live in New York.

Er ...... guess what. The voters who DO live in New York don't get to vote on it either! That, to me is the fundamental problem. Hillary Clinton got elected. Caroline would be appointed. I just think it is wrong to appoint her. By all means let her try for election in 2010.

Not that everything is perfect in my native UK but I do think we have got it more right on a couple of political processes. One is determining election results. It is all in the hands of the canvassing committe until the official result is known. The other is handling unexpected vacancies. If a member of parliament dies, resigns or is otherwise ousted we hold a by-election to elect their successor. No questions asked, no differences in the different parts of the country or different countries that constitute the UK.

I just think the entire process of appointment to a political position stinks. There should be a special election mandated by federal law. The costs would be well worth it for a cleaner democracy.

[YellowPanties]

Maybe you should stick to UK politics. The Governor gets to appoint a successor to a Senate seat. That's the way it works. Your special election idea is ridiculous because then no one would ever accept a White House appointment out of fear that leaving would leave the door open to having their seat flip to the other party.

[mitsie]

I think Carolyn would make a good Senator, and she would have two years before the next election. She is very smart and well educated, and I think she would pick up on the job fast. Certainly the next Democrat and Republican will be able to run in 2010, so what's the big deal? It does not mean the Democrats will lose that seat in two years.

[glorialovelace]

The "big deal" -- as you put it -- is that New York has far better candidates for that seat. If Paterson appoints somebody who is a political klutz to that seat, the Democrats will not only lose it, but Paterson himself might very well be sent packing.

[Outlier]

Guess she could be.

Here's the thing.... If nobody at all, including Ms. Kennedy, were jockeying for the appointment, and if Gov. Patterson were left to his own devices to select a new senator, there are easily (in a state as large and heterogeneous as New York) upwards of 250 names that would emerge as more likely candidates than Caroline Kennedy. There are some 30-odd members of Congress alone, then there is the NY state legislature, the many capable and ambitious mayors, NYC officials at many levels, business and nonprofit leaders, academicians.... The list is one of the most extensive in the United States, no doubt, and the name Caroline Kennedy would not be an obvious inclusion were there not a machine around her.

I know she's bright, I know she's educated, I don't begrudge or belittle anything she's done - but REALLY now.

[vnomad]

This oligarchy, nepotism and hereditary screed of bullocks everyone loves to popularly analogize is weak sauce. Simply visceral reactions to the notion of skirted meritocracy.

1. Regardless of whomever our self-righteous, egalitarian, armchair-pundit selves feel deserves the position, it is at the Governors sole discretion to ultimately appoint. Whomever Patterson appoints, will nevertheless be an APPOINTMEN­T...Kenned­y surname or not!!

2. Two years later, that appointment will have to fend off the seat from a, likely, well-financed Republican challenger. Again, Kennedy or not, the electorate get the final say!! There goes that lame, mile-short -of facts analogy to the House of Lords.

3.
Hillary Clinton, the soon to be predecessor, was similarly charged with having, not a snout of political experience. I won't rifle to strain this out as an exemplar but it does help that as a junior senatorial seat and 99th in seniority, being a Kennedy with a good array of connections and near unrivaled, money raising potential, her influence might just possibly garner more weight than an, ill-defined, "more deserving" appointee, in retaining the seat.

Just an idea to put two cents of thought behind, before issuing a rash disqualification on the grounds that she comes from political nobility, ergo, there are no other valid considerations of her credentials symbolic or otherwise.

[neckozihp]

I'd rather have someone in higher office that is less educated; has common sense, integrity,
not afraid of hard work, relates well to people (not just the elite), is intuitive, learns from their mistakes,
has many different life and work experiences and isn't afraid to stand up for what is right.

The ones who did well in school and had the best education, in my opinion don't neccessarily make
the best leaders.

Palin may not speak well, but she does communicate effectively. Obama speaks well, except for his 'uhms' and 'aahs', (which drive me crazy). Much of what he communicates has little substance. Plus he has hidden and sealed too many of his records. I simply don't trust the man.

[Ibrahimsyed]

Palin would bring about the ruin of this country. She's the patron saint of all people who resent education, knowledge, and intellectualism. She has a hokey charm that attracts dimwits, people who care nothing about her actual record or policies.

Education may or may not make a great leader, but IGNORANCE certainly disqualifies one from being one. Palin is nothing if not ignorant.

But, as I said, there's absolutely no reason why comparisons should be drawn between Caroline and Palin. The question to ask is whether Caroline Kennedy is the most qualified person in New York, and she is not.

[mitsie]

Thank you good post, and don't forget book burning, having the witches prayed out of her, having her pastor make anti semetic remarks, saying " The Lord will punish America", having her husband belong to a group who hates America, etc

[glorialovelace]

The comparisons with Palin came about because Kennedy, like Palin, seems to be out of her depth as a politician and as a candidate for high office.

[skidee27]

Ignorance is personified by people like YOU who are wanna-be intellectuals and talk a great deal about things they don't know anything about. Case in point: Sarah Palin. Because she did not get into Columbia b/c of her race says NOTHING about her level of intelligence. The fact that she can relate to the majority of Americans is HARDLY a negative. Just b/c she can relate to them does not mean that she equals the lowest common denominator. Your elitist arrogance is nauseating. Sarah Palin's folksy style does no more to disqualify her for high public office than Caroline Kennedy's "high birth" and privileged status qualifies her for office. Be a REAL American and look at the accomplishments of each. Running the largest state in the Union is a lot more of an accomplishment that someone with the Kennedy name getting a book published. Big WHOOP. That doesn't mean it wasn't an OK book. I haven't read it and neither have YOU. READ IT if you want to comment on it's worth. If you think buying the garbage that the mass media feed you makes you knowledgeable and better qualified to choose for the rest of us, you are sadly mistaken.

[ObjectiveRealist]

You're wrong. Intelligence is better than stupidity and knowledge is better than ignorance. Noises about "elitism" are GOP ploys to conflate their corruption with their opponents' achievement. "Regular folks" don't like being played for fools.

[
The ones who did well in school and had the best education, in my opinion don't neccessarily make
the best leaders.
]

[Badfickle]

I'm no fan of Palin by any means. ughh. shudder. But I have to say if Caroline's last name wasn't Kennedy she wouldn't even be on the radar. She'd be just another NYer who inherited a bunch of money. Hoo hum. Her supporters point to her Law degree. Commendable but there are 10's of thousands of lawyers in NY. She wrote two books. Would anyone have published them if she didn't have the name. doubtful. She worked on some charities were she used her name to raise a bunch of money. ok.

Why can't we look past the political oligarcy ruling this country fromboth sides and find someone with new ideas.

[hutom]

You are spot on. The right wing nutjobs are right at least on one topic - about the snooty left liberal intelligentia. Caroline Kennedy has a great resume - but so does thousands of others. Nothing, repeat nothing, other than her last name is the reason for her nomination. Politics is bad, electoral politics may be worse, but nothing is more worse than the casual dismissal of it expressed in this column. At least this one does not bring H.C into the mix. For some others on this website that seems to be THE justification for Caroline Kennedy being picked as senator.

And look at the herd mentality. One other columnist was even more casual about it - he thinks Caroline Kennedy will be great because Obama thinks so!

[glorialovelace]

If Obama thinks she's so great, why doesn't he give her a job in his subcabinet?

She could be Undersecretary of Ballet or something.

[Badfickle]

What is Obama supposed to say? She and Teddy used their family pull to help get him elected.

[cgoodie]

Her last name is an outstanding asset. She will have doors opened to her that would never be to a lesser known person. She has worldwide contacts through her Mother and stepfather...this would make her job much easier than say someone with the last name Blagojevich for example. ;o)

[QuestionEveryone]

Please..what is her working resume? Can you tell me? She's 51 so what has she done since her college days..my resume is stronger than hers..except..I'm not a Kennedy..

[LisaCTVT]

You present an interesting and valid set of arguements, but let's not forget that this is the US where the electorate has the attention span of a gnat during a commercial break in the broadcasting of American Idol, a fake survival show or some other "reality program. In short, the electorate has the attention span of a gnat in the Superbowl or in the Coleseum of ancient Rome. THEY WILL NOT DIFFERENTIATE BETWEEN THE OFFICE OF THE VICE PRESIDENT AND THAT OF A JUNIOR SENATOR FROM NEW YORK STATE. To them, Caroline represents the "Liberal Sarah Palin."

How do know? Simple. I teach their kids.

[Ibrahimsyed]

Ignore the Palin comparison. That's a straw-man argument that evades the only relevant question that is to be asked: IS CAROLINE KENNEDY THE MOST QUALIFIED WOMAN FOR THE JOB?

The answer to that question is so obvious, that her supporters will not answer it. Instead, they'll hang on the Palin comparison. The answer is no.

It would be inspiring for Patterson to turn her down, and give a speech alongside it. The Democratic Party is saturated with cronyism and corruption. Patterson can tell Harry Reid and other Kennedy backers that over here, we reward those with demonstrated skill and achievement. The senate seat is not a gift to be handed over to someone whose only notable achievement is having had a Kennedy for a father.

[cgoodie]

Why should an appointed candidate have to be more qualified than an elected one?? Check the credentials and experience on all those recently elected...not too many any more qualified than Caroline Kennedy. If it weren't for her name, all of this broo ha ha would not exist...

I believe her name is a great asset. It opens doors for her to bring about changes that many would not be privy to.

[omaro]

Palin is so inarticulate on her own, let's give her "assured" rather than "ushered" as the transcription says, and it does make a teeny weeny bit more sense.

[cgoodie]

I think she meant to say "ushered"...it was one of her favorite words during impromptu utterances.

[lstm1]

"Well, you know, that's something, obviously, that, you know, in principle and in the campaign, you know, I think that, um, the tax cuts, you know, were expiring and needed to be repealed." - Caroline Kennedy

Say no more..