Do you remember when the Republicans floated trial balloons out there to see if we'd shoot them down? They were masters at it. Now that is also a Democratic strategy. They push potentially controversial decisions out into open air to see if the media attacks stick. If they don't, the person or idea is viable.
We had the Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State trial balloon recently. Fortunately for her, most of the visible Hillary haters were worn out. Others just considered it simply too crass or gratuitous to have won and yet to be attacking her still. Mostly, her media enemies were on vacation. So that trial balloon stayed afloat.
I'm not against trial balloons now and then. But when they become a way of doing business, it's manipulative. In persuasion, one of my fields, we study inoculation - essentially introducing the likelihood of some event happening and then providing arguments for or against so people are ready to accept or reject it as preferred. We were inoculated against resisting Caroline Kennedy's desire for Hillary Clinton's senate seat by seeing her support "our guy". Now, as persuasion theory and research indicate, it is uncomfortable to be against her - inconsistent with our support of Barack Obama.
I'm on record as not having been impressed with the way Ted Kennedy threw his support to Barack Obama during the Democratic Party primaries. Kennedy never overtly addressed why he turned his back on the woman who had gotten closest to The White House.
Was Caroline thinking ahead? Was Ted doing the same? Were they positioning Caroline, by supporting Barack Obama, with the visibility she surely would not have gotten by supporting Hillary Clinton? She would have been a woman supporting a woman - a New Yorker supporting a New Yorker. That's not interesting. It doesn't get press attention.
Unlike many who are developing a disdain for Caroline Kennedy, I don't see why she shouldn't throw her hat in the ring. But let's be clear. Politicians know we don't detect most of the clever things they do. Let's at least question whether Caroline saw a chance that has since turned into a real opportunity.
Is that an awful thing? No, it's not. But President-elect Barack Obama got many like me on board by promising more honesty - more transparency. It would be useful to know when Caroline decided she would run and it would be helpful to then determine whether we believe her -- whether she is an exception to the rule on the Hill, as her philanthropy and understated nature suggest, or simply another inner circle victory.
Dr. Reardon also blogs at bardscove.
Halli Casser-Jayne http://www.thecjpoliticalreport.com
Young children who aspire to be president may find that their future chances blindsided by a wave of legacy candidates from political "brand name" families.
It's profoundly disturbing that a single telephone call can elevate a fledgling politician with the name "Kennedy" to the top of the field of Senatorial appointees.
The United States has finished eight terrible years under a legacy candidate who has nearly brought the country down to its knees, and we are already faced by the entrance of his brother, Jeb. The "LEGACY CANDIDATES" benefit from the raw political power that their families weild within their respective families.
Go Caroline!
Ted Kennedy supported Barack Obama because he warned Bill and Hillary to stop the racist attacks on Obama, and they didn't. I believe it was reported that he and Bill had a very heated exchange. Ted then went ahead and supported Obama. I recall that Caroline's support for Obama were independent of her uncle. But they joined forces once it was clear that Hillary would not stop the racist attacks.
If you think I am some young thing. Guess again. I am a 52 year old female attorney.
critiques of why you don't feel Caroline Kennedy would make a good senator, by all means
make your case, but it had better be factual and well reasoned.
Re the quiet on the Clinton SoS front, we're keeping our powder dry for the confirmation hearings.
Who could have anticipated, in February, that a president-elect Obama would have nominated Senator Clinton to be Secretary of State?
The more Machiavellian move for a US Senate aspirant in NY would have been to support Clinton... which is probably why some others that had hoped for that Senate seat - and factored that into their decision to endorse Clinton for president - aren't that happy now. But it is a huge stretch to paint a theory that the Kennedys sat around thinking "well, if we get Barack elected president, and then he appoints Clinton, that's a faster route to a senate vacancy than electing Clinton herself to the White House." It just doesn't add up.
Labels like this are relative to the circumstances and the person. One man's over-the-top tasteless mercenary is another man's lovable Donald Trump. If Caroline Kennedy, whose public persona is the picture of sincerity and rectitude, were as manipulative and unfeeling as you suggest, she'd be worse than "coldly calculating." She'd be a fraud. That's something I won't even consider based on what I consider spurious and groundless speculation on what she might have been thinking several months ago. Further suggesting that if Caroline were in fact this Machiavellian, she'd be "more prepared for the Senate," just confirms my suspicion that you're spinning your wheels in a cynical swamp.
"Categorizing me as a former Hillary supporter to be dismissed misses that I could have written ..."
Straw man arguments aren't improved by switching gender. I neither said nor implied this; the last line of my post went to the musing in the second para of your blog: "We had the Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State trial balloon recently. Fortunately for her, most of the visible Hillary haters were worn out. Others just considered it simply too crass or gratuitous to have won and yet to be attacking her still. Mostly, her media enemies were on vacation. So that trial balloon stayed afloat." I simply provided a very good reason for the lull in that conversation.
Women are not supposed to speak well of themselves, put themselves forward for consideration. God forbid they should be strategic (it's so unattractive) or calculating (nice girls don't).
Caroline Kennedy seems better suited for the position than anyone else whose name has been mentioned. She's a constitutional scholar, author, mother, citizen, taxpayer. What's the problem? She also could likely raise money (isn't that the only thing the Democrats really want -- more money). Most of the Democrats in the Senate supported the war in Iraq, and have taken money from Wall Street while doing nothing to help the people of this country. What a thoroughly disreputable crowd we have in the Senate. So to see Caroline held up to a microscope as if she's not good enough just makes me sick.
In order for your theory to have worked, Caroline would have to have supported Obama secretly hoping he'd lose, but at the same time do well enough to raise her profile, while also counting on there not being any backlash in New York over her backing a losing horse over the local hero. OR Caroline would have had to support Obama hoping he'd win and assuming he'd appoint Hillary to some cabinet spot. Both those scenarios seem far less plausible than the explanation she gave, which is that her kids were raving about Obama and so she went to check him out and found herself thinking he'd make a great president and so she threw her support behind him.
If you revisit Caroline's inspiring January 2008 statement announcing her endorsement of Barack Obama, I think you will see that -- unless Caroline is an awfully clever, conniving and manipulative liar, with zero respect for her father's legacy and memory -- she felt genuinely impressed and inspired by Obama's candidacy. And she was very specific on her reasons: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=2&oref=slogin
It's not only possible, but highly probable that Caroline -- like many Americans -- continues to feel inspired and hopeful for the possiblities inherent through an Obama presidency at this major point of change and crisis. She is certainly not alone in her desire to be part of the solution. What more honorable call could there be to serving one's country?
For the record, the clever, opportunistic, "less transparent" politicians were those who (believing that Obama was the better choice, but knowing jolly well it'd be political suicide to cross the Clintons by endorsing Obama) waited until after the primaries (IF even then) to support Barack Obama. The more principled ones (and Ted Kennedy belongs in this camp) were those who -- no matter what their personal loyalties or professional favors due -- endorsed the candidate of their choice.
:rolleyes: