Here We Go Again

You may have heard this before: A highly intelligent lawyer with a strong political background, a commitment to public service and a track record to prove it, tosses her hat into the ring for political office. And instead of being treated with the respect she deserves -- and the esteem that she would bring to the office -- she is instead derided for a perceived lack of political experience.

Eight years ago the criticism today being aimed at Caroline Kennedy was leveled at Hillary Clinton. Her experience didn't count, she was being presumptuous, and she needed to wait her turn. Well, we all know how that story turned out: Hillary became a New York Senator to be reckoned with. It is, in fact, her inspiring legacy that makes the selection of her successor so critical.

I am repeatedly asked if her replacement need be a woman. Repeatedly, I have said no, it need not; her replacement must be someone who can fill the gap being left behind by Senator Clinton, someone who will be a staunch advocate for New York State and a national leader in many important arenas, including women's rights and reproductive health.

That having been said, I am dismayed at the uneven and entirely predictable treatment of Caroline and too many women who seek political office: their experience is discounted, their skills ignored, their connections derided and their motives questioned.

Yes, Caroline Kennedy had the fortune to be born to a family of privilege, but she has spent her entire life fighting for what she believes in as a champion of public education, a lawyer, and as an accomplished author on constitutional law, the bill of rights, and political courage.

In her role as CEO of the Office of Strategic Partnerships in the New York City Department of Education and Vice Chair of the Fund for Public Schools, she created a national model of public-private partnerships for our schools. She spearheaded the effort to create the leadership academy to improve the quality of principals in our schools. Also in this role, she helped renovate nearly 200 libraries, led the fight to put arts curriculum in the classrooms and has been a tireless fighter for the issue of literacy for New York children. She has been a supporter of reproductive rights and many other issues of importance to New Yorkers.

Reviewing some of the criticism of her, one might be forgiven for thinking that Caroline Kennedy has spent her life in exile, but the reality is that she has spent her life in the world of political issues, developing relationships, electing those who share her values, and learning how to get the work done.

Like Hillary Clinton, Caroline Kennedy's history clearly shows that she understands that government plays a critical role in improving people's lives, but needs help from concerned citizens. Her relationships can not only help bridge the private and public spheres but also equip her to work across party lines and build consensus.

Hillary has been a tremendous Senator and will be a great Secretary of State, but our state is losing a powerful advocate. Caroline is steadfast like Clinton, an intellect like Moynihan, and a fighter for those left behind like RFK.

This decision is Governor Paterson's and Governor Paterson's alone. And he has many qualified candidates to pick from. But make no mistake: Caroline Kennedy has the skills and background to live up to the standards of our state's great Senators.

Comments

[Docbcs]

I find the comparison with Hillary Clinton, and even with Sarah Palin, with whom I disagree on just about everything, really odious. Sen. Clinton and Gov. Palin RAN for office (yes, the operative word is RAN), and, in doing so, gave the people that they sought to represent an idea of their positions and platforms. We know nothing about Ms. Kennedy other than the fact that she is the daughter of a slain President, the scion of a powerful political family, a lawyer who has never practiced law, a voter who has forgone the right to vote in 38 contested elections, and a good fundraiser for worthy causes. Maybe she'd be a terrific Senator, but I have no basis on which to assume this. I know where Carolyn Maloney stands, and how she's voted. As a New Yorker, I'd rather be represented by her than by someone who has not only no known political experience, but who, on the basis of her voting record, public stands (or lack thereof), and political contributions has not even demonstrated a great degree of political interest up until her children prevailed upon her to go to bat for Pres.-elect Obama.
I'm also puzzled by the fracas about campaigning for the seat being done by Cuomo supporters, when Caroline Kennedy has had people at all levels of government campaigning for her.

[lizr]

Caroline would be wonderful and thanks for the article.

So obvious every day that women's experience is discounted and sexism is alive and well even on huffpo- check out the Rachel Maddow thread!

[meko]

Ahh. But isn't Rachel Maddow sexist for suggesting that most of the other candidates for the NY Senate spot are more qualified than Caroline Kennedy?

[meko]

Perhaps Caroline Kennedy could do an OK job as senator for New York.

But this isn't a yes/no decision, it's multiple choice. And the other choices look pretty good when you compare them to Kennedy. There are 7 people the governor asked to fill out his 28-page questionnaire (Kennedy, Cuomo, Maloney, Israel, Gillibrand, Nadler and Suozzi). With 3 of the 7 candidates female, I think it's a bit early to charge sexism.

As mentioned by other posters, she wasn't a practicing attorney, she co-wrote her books, none of her positions were full time. Furthermore, she didn't vote in half of the past 38 contested elections and in the 10 years before Obama gave less than $1000 of her fortune toward Democratic candidates. So, even for someone who opted out, she's not particularly engaged.

Compare that to Carolyn Maloney - also a mother. But beyond that a legislator on behalf of women's rights (civil rights in general) and an advocate of the middle class. The book she sole-authored examines the state of feminism today. And she was endorsed by NOW and The Feminist Majority. How on earth is it sexist to prefer her to Caroline Kennedy based on those qualifications?

[theonlyvic]

I'm sure Caroline is a lovely person and all of that, but I question the assertion that she has spent "her whole life" fighting for any of the things mentioned. Her public education work, undertaken at the suggestion of a long-time friend, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein, added up to a few hours of fund raising each month. She never practiced law. She was only the co-author on her fairly simplistic books. She missed nearly half of the elections held in her district over the past twenty years. There is absolutely no parallel with Hillary Clinton, who was named one of America's most effective lawyers prior to her husband's presidency, had a huge impact on policy both in Arkansas and on the federal level, and, most importantly, clearly and forcefully presented her ideas to New York voters as a candidate. If the concern is getting a woman into the seat, Representatives Carolyn Maloney and Kirsten Gillibrand make a lot more sense.

[Cord]

You call Caroline a lawyer but she has never practiced law, nor written briefs and her constitutional law book doesn't include any significant legal scholarship besides references to some cases. Is an accomplished lawyer just one who sells books because of their last name or because of the quality of the book?(Check out the NY Times Review of her book)
You say that the same charges were was leveled against Hillary but Hillary has worked at least one full time job in her life. She has done the 80 hour work week that many lawyers experience. In addition, unlike Caroline, she has made public policy statements and been a public advocate even before Bill.
You mention Caroline's spearheading of the effort to create the leadership academy but according to the article in the Village Voice, Kennedy hardly did anything especially while she worked 1 hour a week the first year and 2 hours a week the second year. The people below her like Michelle Cahill were working full time. At most Kennedy seemed to have lent her name without putting in the time like other people have.
How is she a champion of public education without once putting her child in at least the best of NY City public schools? I don't know. Out of all the Kennedys she doesn't seem to have accomplished as much as people like Kerry or RFK jr who've at least worked one full time job and made at least one policy statement.

[calluna]

It just gets back to the fundamental difference between Clinton and Kennedy is that Clinton ran for her office. She proved to her would-be constituency that she was the best person to represent them in the Senate. Even though she really only has a constituency of one in terms of being appointed, the more she tries to "sell" herself to her to the constituency she's trying to adopt, the less impressive she appears. She'd be a lot better off if she spent the next two years working with speech coaches to improve her presentation, work on building up some grassroots support with the people of NY, and running for the seat in 2010.

[Citizen54]

I'm sure she's a wonderful person, but I wonder if she has the skills you say she has.

Ms Kennedy did not vote in several key elections--she apparently deliberately chose to not vote--and I believe that's one skill a senator must have. That's one big thing senators do. They vote. As a NYer, I do not want a senator who does not vote or can't take the trouble to vote or doesn't think it matters if you vote. Her sporadic voting record makes me question her dedication to the people and to the notion of representative democracy.