Vet the Princess Before She's Crowned

Enough.

I don't have anything against Caroline Kennedy, though I sort of hate to see her get into electoral politics.

I was in second grade when her father was assassinated about two hours from my home in North Texas, and I always thought of her as keeper of something more pristine and noble than the shenanigans common to life in the nation's capital.

But Ms. Kennedy is a citizen of this country, and if she wants to run for the U.S. Senate, she should. I encourage it with one caveat. She's the closest thing Americans have to a princess, but she needs to remember the most sacred title she holds is "citizen."

That said, it's time for reporters to get past Celebrity Junior Senator 2.0 and to start vetting Ms. Kennedy's ideas and positions.

I don't care who her mother was or who her father was or who her uncle was or is, and I don't care about the tired, threadbare storyline of whether her candidacy would signal the continuation of some type of political dynasty (as if this family depends on her candidacy this year for that).

I don't care whether she can raise money outside New York, so she won't take away from Gov. David Paterson's ability to raise money in-state for his re-election. I don't care if a Kennedy on the ticket or a Cuomo on the ticket makes it easier for Paterson to be re-elected in his own right.

I don't care if her endorsement turned the tide for Barack Obama's presidential campaign, or if her work for the Obama campaign awakened some inner calling in her -- and I don't care if Hillary Clinton cares about any of this at all.

I do care about her vision for my adopted state and this country, and what her specific priorities will be as a U.S. Senator from New York.

I also care about the criteria Paterson is using to name the person who will represent me in Washington, and I care about having a public discussion about it -- and whether journalists put Kennedy and Paterson on the record on all this -- before the decision is made.

(Attention New York reporters: I know it isn't "sexy" as they say on the campaign trail. I know it doesn't get your story read on Hardball or Morning Joe or passed around by Ms. Kennedy's staff or mailed out with her fundraising letters. But it matters. It matters a lot to a lot of us.)

So, if you can't figure out what to ask Ms. Kennedy or at least her flack, here are some questions. (I hope anyone reading this would feel free to add their own in the comments section below.):

• Where does she stand on using our tax money for auto industry bailouts?

• What to her are the non-negotiable elements of the looming economic stimulus package?

• Is her vision of national heathcare closer to the proposals offered this year by Obama, Clinton or Edwards?

• How much more supplemental funding for the Iraq war would she authorize?

• Does she support repeal the Defense of Marriage Act?

It is time for the vaunted, so-called in-your-face New York press corps to get the stars out of its eyes and get some answers before Paterson makes his decision, so we all can let him know what we think about it.

So far, all we have -- one more time -- is the same old predictable "Insider Baseball."

Last night, I clicked on Larry King Live just long enough to see political heavyweight Sarah Jessica Parker, identified as a personal friend of Ms. Kennedy (whatever that means) assuring us that she is qualified for the job.

Today, Adam Nagourney and Nicholas Confessore let New York Times readers know that life could be different for Ms. Kennedy, because the NYC tabloid press, which has left her alone most of her life here, is itching to talk to her.

Over at the New York Daily News Glenn Blain went to Syracuse to cover a meeting she had with an upstate mayor. Blain reported that she didn't answer reporter's questions, but that her decision to wear "a dark overcoat and matching pantsuit ...added a dash of glamour to an otherwise dreary day." He also nailed the mayor to the record saying, "She seemed pleasant ...certainly well-read."

The New York Post continued its dubious coverage of anything significant by dispensing with the pesky act of reporting altogether and getting to the bottom line: an unequivocal editorial endorsement before any semblance of public discussion has taken place.

Out of town at the Washington Post, Ann Kornblut let us know that Kennedy had a catharsis of sorts during the Obama campaign and learned she liked public life more than she thought.

All of this in the wake of David Halbfinger of the Times, who on Monday offered a clip-job/reaction profile based largely on snippets of her past public involvement taken from a resume or news stories anyone can find on the Internet or Lexis-Nexis.

As an old newspaper reporter, I hate to say it, but where are Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric when you need them?

Comments

[sayitloud]

Let's remember that as a U.S. Senator, CK would have dual accountability on both federal and state levels. The concerns mentioned in the article only speak to federal issues. How well is she familiar with the needs of her state? We know she's worked on behalf of concerns important to NYC, but how does she imagine herself being effective representing the state as a whole? Does she even know much about New York State outside of Manhattan?

[skaterdon66]

thought her last name was Schlossberg ??

[MagisterLudi]

Give me it...

[meko]

It must be nice to be born with the kind of connections that allow you to just phone in an order for a senate seat.

If Caroline Kennedy had any respect for democracy she would run for office instead of pushing for an appointment. This will never appear to be anything but cronyism.

[propitiousmoment]

Don't the polls of New Yorkers show that she would be the popular pick? shouldn't that weigh in this decision? Definitely there should be an effort to get all the candidates' views on important issues, but her family connections and personal history are slightly more of an asset than a liability, depending on whether or not you like the Kennedys. She is an qualified as any brand-new politician, as far as the Constitution is concerned. Even her stance on issues can be somewhat predicted by who she is. I think she deserves the spot, or at least some very serious consideration for it.

[nancytheragingliberal]

HRC worked her A** off to "prove" herself, and is well regarded by repubs and dem's alike. I don't have a problem with Caroline, however, she needs to work and work hard for that spot. I think she is a fine person, however, I question her strength, in dealing with rough and tumble issues that arise. I hope I am incorrect on that point. She can't wake up one day and say, "Gee, I think I will be the Senator from NY." She needs to follow the process and I am sure there are many more qualified persons, for that job.

[1murillo]

It's correct that Senator Rodham Clinton campaigned and won office twice. Her 'hand up' was to begin as First Lady. Of course she prepared with her many other years of experience as well.

There will never be a "pure" person that runs for office. We all have connections and luck to combine with our aspirations, abilities as well as with society's relative openness.

Other than the silly, "birthright" argument, there isn't a strong, credible position to favor another over Kennedy Schlossberg.

[nana4g]

This is a case where her special name and position serves as a liability.

She is well educated, intelligent, informed, and knowledgeable on the issues. Her ideology, we can assume, is liberal to moderate, pro-choice, similar to Obama and Clinton, and along the lines of all Kennedys. While raising her family, she did contribute to public service as a private citizen.

When her brother John was old enough to shave, the exhortation of the country was that he should enter political life, up to the day he died, even though he had not yet involved himself in public service.

What is the real problem with his sister considering political life? Many women in Congress have entered politics after their primary responsibilites had been fulfilled. This does not mean that they are incapable of effective representation or that they have no opinions on current affairs.

Comparison of Ms Kennedy to Sarah Palin this morning on MSM is a lame attempt to demean another woman seeking office. Ms. Palin cannot be held as the standard from which to compare female candidates for high office. She was a fluke. There is not another woman in public office that I am aware of who fits the limited role model and capabilities of Sarah Palin.

The only "issue" surrounding Caroline Kennedy is the appointment of her vs the election of her. Expensive as it may be, an election should be held whenever a seat in Congress opens prematurely.

[1murillo]

An election - over an appointment - should not be held in every instance. For those thinking that a special election is called for over a gubernatorial appointment in this case, remember that there will be a special election, in two Novembers. Then, there will be the 6-year election for the seat in 2012.

Having a special election ASAP - say March 2009? - reduces the time for this seat (considering primary and special in 2010) by perhaps one year?

By making such an inflexible rule we would only be creating higher election costs, precluding many elected officials from running for higher office - then what would the 'experience' question be? - only for the warm feeling of being more of a democracy.

If we really want democracy to be stronger in the US, strengthen registration laws. It's mandatory to register for the Selective Service (at 18?), voting registration should be the same thing.

[chaz]

Joe you might be right but you know what they say "don't look a gift horse in the mouth".

[schoolmaster]

It would be right for the outgoing senator to recommend his or her substitue and the governor implicitly follow that recommendion. It is in keeping with the principle that the contituents should be represented by the same kind of senator that they originally voted for replacement. The field of course will be open when the next election is conducted.

[customgreen]

Here are her qualifications to be the next Senator of the State of New York. She is over 32 years old. She has lived in the country continuesly for at least 9 years up to now. She lives in New York. Thats it! Nothing else is required to become a United States Senator. Anyone else popping up with the so called qualifications list are just fooling themselves. There are NO OTHER QUALIFICATIONS to be a U.S. Senator. NONE!

[jcutbirth]

This post doesn't mention "qualifica­tions." Read only the part in the black, sir. It mentions her positions on issues. There is a huge difference. And we deserve to have a discussion on her positions on issues. What is not clear about that?

[melponeme k]

"and I always thought of her as keeper of something more pristine and noble than the shenanigans common to life in the nation's capital."

And what Sir may I ask is that?

Papa Kennedy's drooling over Marilyn Monroe as she sang "Happy Birthday" to him?

And Princess doesn't need to be vetted, she takes what is hers by right. And obviously she thinks the NY senate seat is owed to her. Why else would she be hiring fixers and having her "special" actor friends and her uncle's friends be crowing for her.

I still say, let her go to Colorado or even Chicago. There are seats there she can try to steal.

[MagisterLudi]

Ms, Kennedy offer this list of her qualifications for US Senate:
“I’ve written books on the Constitution and the importance of individual participation. And I’ve raised my family."

Ok, and....

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/nyregion/18upstate.html?_r=1&hp

[loper2008]

well, Palin thought she could be VP because of her kids. the media went along with it. so now democrats can use it, too.

[jcutbirth]

This post doesn't mention "qualifica­tions." Read only the part in the black, sir. It mentions her positions on issues. There is a huge difference. And we deserve to have a discussion on her positions on issues. What is not clear about that?

[avidfan222]

major thumbs down. she's a joke.

[MagisterLudi]

"I don't care who her mother was or who her father was or who her uncle was or is..."

"She's the closest thing Americans have to a princess..­. "

I am still trying to get my mind around the cognitive dissonance contained in these two statements.
But I do support the main theme of the blog that some hard questions have to be asked AND must be answered. Now. But this is not nearly enough. I am sure she can knock together some talking points based on recycled Obama's speeches. Her PR campaign is in full swing now testing things out.
My take:Special elections.

[Overd0g]

Got to love the Dems, the supposed lovers of democracy, bowing down to a "princess" who has absolutely nothing going for her. Why not just let the public guess the number of beans in a jar and let the winner be senator?

[genoasail]

I haven't heard anything to suggest that Governor Paterson will not "vet" the "princess". Has anyone else heard that? In point of fact, I heard Governor Paterson state that "if she wants the job, she will have to come and make her case for it just like anyone else."

As for her being appointed versus her running, whoever gets the job will have to be APPOINTED first and then run for it, if they wish to keep it. And they will have to run MORE often and with greater expense than anyone else before, since they will have to run in what is arguably the most expensive media market, and will have to run in 2010, and again in 2012.

Appointment in 2008, then running in 2010 and again in 2012. Explain to me again how this is such a lovely deal?