Caroline Has What It Takes
Now that Caroline Kennedy has apparently told New York Governor David Paterson that she would like to be appointed to Hillary Clinton's senate seat, the Governor's short list should have only one name on it. Caroline Kennedy is, by far, the strongest possible choice Paterson could make.
For the Democratic Party, the most important qualification Paterson should consider is electability. Paterson's choice will have to run for the seat in the next election in order to earn the right to complete Clinton's term, then run again two years later to earn a new full six-year term. The worst thing the governor could do is appoint an obscure member of Congress who promptly loses the seat to the opposing party--exactly what happened the last time a New York governor appointed a senator. Andrew Cuomo is a good bet to win those two elections, but Caroline Kennedy is a better bet. And every other name that has been floated is a risky bet.
Cuomo would be shaking the same New York money tree that Paterson is counting on for his own campaign in 2010. Caroline could tap Kennedy fundraising sources and Obama money sources who are forever grateful for her endorsement and leave more of the New York money tree to Paterson and the rest of the New York Democrats who need it. Kennedy's fundraising power extends far beyond her own campaign. Upon taking the oath of office, she would instantly become the second most sought after headliner for Democratic candidates' fundraisers. If a senator couldn't get Barack Obama to come to his fundraiser, he would beg Caroline Kennedy to do it. This would give her more power in the Senate than any other freshman. Committee chairmen would give her goodies for New York not just because they like her--which they would--but because she could raise serious money for their reelection campaigns. She would be the only freshman who, through fundraising and campaigning for senate candidates, could help push the Democrats up to 60 votes in the senate.
No one has ever been elected to the senate already knowing what he had to know to be a good senator. Caroline knows much more about New York than Hillary Clinton did when she decided to run for senate. Caroline is more prepared to be a senator than Bill Bradley was when he won his seat in New Jersey. Bradley, whose only adult activity prior to running for senate was playing basketball, turned out be an exceptionally good senator. And Caroline is much older, wiser, and better prepared for the job than her Uncle Ted was when he joined the senate.
Having worked for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, I have seen what it takes to be a good senator, to effectively represent the state of New York and to win elections there. I have no doubt Caroline Kennedy has what it takes.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
It seems to me, still, that Caroline Kennedy 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 (excepting her 6-weeks on behalf of Obama). I think she'll continue to refuse to throw herself behind other democratic candidates in New York. And I expect her wealthy friends will follow.
The New York senate seat, may not be available to anyone but the wealthy. Maybe all the press releases and Kennedy sycophants are right and best the common people can hope for is that the best plutocrat wins.
Hillary sold the "Obama can't raise the money and can't win the general election line" and in NY it worked. So maybe the same line works for the NY senate seat. But I'm not giving them any of my time or money. I don't do volunteer work to further line the pockets of the wealthy and further aggrandize the famous. If the senate is going to be bought by someone, they can buy it themselves.
http://www
If she's so dedicated to democracy, meritocracy, and egalitarianism, why doesn't she INSIST on running for office to demonstrate her values. An appointment will always smack of cronyism.
Caroline Kennedy's sole qualification for the Senate is here family name...per
Are the same people saying that Palin was not qualified, saying that Caroline is qualified? Please help me out here. I would prefer Caroline over many of the other Kennedys. Also, at the Met, she did get a lot of international expericence - viewing European art and stuff.
What makes some people nervous about Caroline Kennedy is if she had the proper experience, she'd likely be the first female President after 8 Obama years. Getting her in as a New York Senator is the best way to make this sale. Like Obama, I'd bet she's smart enough to govern from sage advice instead of shoot from the hip.
It's going to be a grand ride. And during which, the Republican Party will be dead.
I don't like it. She is a fine woman, smart, cultured, poised. But there are plenty of excellent New York politicians to take the seat and will deal with the multiple elections. Should be a woman, I guess, and Patterson should find out who Hillary thinks is "acceptable" or desirable.
Further, HIllary had to work hard to win the support of upstate New Yorkers. Caroline Kennedy is a New Yorker's New Yorker, and may be resented in Buffalo, Rochester, Binghamton, and Watertown.
Hillary wasn't even a "New Yorker" when she ran, and she still got elected. Caroline is from New York and has the interests of her home state at heart.
If that's true, then Caroline can darn well get herself elected just the way Hillary did.
appointing another person from another powerful American political family has preciously little to do with the ideals of democracy. Here's a divergent view on this potential selection in particular:
http://the
And here are some concerning statistics about the reality of incumbent power and money:
http://the
Caroline Kennedy has a life dedicated to the process of democracy. The title is not her goal.
This reminds me of a David Suskind show regarding Woman in Business. He could not get over the absurdity of a woman using community activities as qualifications for business. We have gone through the same nonsense about Obama.
It would seem that excellence in many endeavors should be qualifiers.
Furthermore, Governor Paterson had a press conference on 4 Dec in which he was outraged that there were no women nominated for the position of Chief Justice. I think Paterson wants to appoint a woman for this position. He would be hard pressed in my book not to consider Caroline Kennedy as a great choice to represent New York.
Maybe he should consider retiring Chief Judge Judith Kaye for that Senate seat appointment. She has been one of New York's finest public servants. Pererhaps that's what Paterson was thinking about on December 4th.
Caroline is not just a Kennedy, she has had an impressive education and extensive work experience that seem to go unmentioned in the discussions about her viability as a Senator. She is an attorney and a writer and has lived in New York most of her life. She has worked to promote the arts and better public education in New York for years.
Yeah, and when George Herbert Hoover Walker Ebenezer Bush IV comes along some day, with a (hard-earned, no doubt) Yale credential, then I'm sure he'll be much more than just another Bush. Please.
Why can't we rid ourselves of this sick urge to have a royal family? Enough with these dynasties. The argument that somehow they keep producing just the candidate we need at any given moment is absurd. She might be great, but enough already.
I remember Caroline from our days at Harvard. She was very understated, shy of the spotlight, but you always had the feeling she was doing good things.
The reason she would be the absolute best choice to fill Hilary's seat is that she would do it because it would be an honor for her to serve, and because she knows that she is in a singular position to do good things for the people of New York and this nation.
Anybody who believes that she want's to do it for herself or because that is what Kennedy's do, have know idea who Caroline Kennedy is.
Caroline Kennedy was coauthor of a couple of books about the Bill of Rights and the right to privacy, which puts her far ahead of anybody in the Bush family in fitness for governing. Most of the other books by her that were listed in Amazon were either children's books or books about the Kennedy family. She would be a celebrity appointment, but I'd put her well ahead of Arnold Schwarzenegger.
Can someone explain this?
"Paterson's choice will have to run for the seat in the next election in order to earn the right to complete Clinton's term, then run again two years later to earn a new full six-year term."
I keep seeing this two elections story without explanation. Why doesn't the appointed person fill out Clinton's full term? Why does that person have to run twice?
US constitution, 17th amendment. The senator must be popularly elected, exceptions are possible only until the next election - which is in 2 years.
So this is more about electability and fundraising opportunities than the ability to represent constituents and make laws? That's nonsense. Many of the same Democrats who said Sarah Palin doesn't have enough experience to be Vice President are now saying someone with absolutely no political experience should be chosen - not elected - to be a senator. It's absurd.
It's striking to see how many people seem unable to see the principles at work; they are too enraptured by the Kennedy mystique. Forget the "electability" argument. Remember when Clinton was more electable than that unknown from Illinois?
The longing for a royal family, like syphilis, is always out there in the US, threatening to erupt whenever people lose their better judgment. We can discourage it, but it seems we can never fully eradicate it.
There is a big difference between being 1 of 100 Senators and being 1 of 1 President.
Palin was unfit to become VP to the oldest man ever elected President.
Caroline Kennedy will have plenty of guidance to learn the job of senator. We have survived lots of bad senators, but look what one bad president did to our nation the past 8 years!
If a 100 year old Strom Thurmond can last in the Senate, I'm sure Kennedy would do just fine.
The fact is that Palin had more politcal experience than Obama. She was running for #2, he ran for #1 and he won. I'm not saying she was fit or unfit. If you want to look at the criterion of experience, though, you can't have it both ways.
Was she "unfit" for another reason besides experience? If so, what was it? You guys hold your own to one standard and everybody else to another. Can you at least imagine the justification Republicans might feel in reminding Democrats and Kennedy supporters that you used the experience issue against Palin just weeks ago, and now you're ignoring it entirely with Kennedy?
Typical liberal hypocrisy. And please don't jump to the "right wing, Fox news" slanderous accusations that seems all-too-common here, because I'm a right-leaning independent. I'm toeing my own line.
Harvard/Columbia Law, lifetime world political exposure, lifetime of public service would seem to trump community college BA in Boadcast Journalism on the fifth community college try, bizarre religion/witch doctors, ineffective govenor of a state with a lower population than a large city. Screechin Sarah isn't even qualified to be the govenor of her state, much less 1 of 100 Senators. Caroline Kennedy would be more qualified to be vice president, she could at least name the newspapers she reads and can buy her own clothes.
"I don't get it. She seems like a smart lady but has ZERO experience". You are talking about Hillary Rodham Clinton, right? (when she ran for the seat, that is).
What's your point? It was a bad precedent, so by all means let's follow it?
I don't get it. She seems like a smart lady but has ZERO experience.
The whole Camelot/Kennedy thing screams elitist. Most of the members of Congress and the Senate don't seem to have a clue how the other half lives. They are true elitists that don't know what is like to manage a budget and pay for your own health care. Most come off like spoiled children.
Is that what you want? Or do you want someone who has worked their way up though the ranks and can still relate to the every day life of the "average joe".
Born with a silver spoon and a job of national importance served to you on a silver platter.
Naw, I don't get it.
Actually she has lots of experience, just none you (or lots of folk) haver ever noticed.
She has written or edited six books, of which four are political. She started her career as an intern in the senate for Ted Kennedy. She is a lawyer with a Columbia degree. She is a founder and director of the Profiles in Courage foundation. She is the Chief Executive of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education and also involved in other organizations involved in supporting public education. She worked for the Obama campaign and ran the V.P. search committee.
This may not be the working her way up through the ranks like you want, but it definitely is not *zero* experience.
Obama entrusted her with heading his VP vetting committee. That sounds like a bigger job than being Jr. Senator from NY.
It appears as if my governor is between a rock and a hard place. The Clinton forces don't want Caroline in the job. Paterson might be better off naming a place holder appointee, like Delaware did.
http://www
I don't think it's just the Clinton forces who don't want Caroline. It's also upstaters, who feel they have been under-represented, as well as many people who resent the Kennedy "buy-your-way-in" mentality. The people -- mostly from out of state -- who are talking about a possible "President Caroline Kennedy" are simply scary.
I am unequivocally opposed to the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the US Senate and I agree with most of your post. But my point is that camp Clinton's vocal opposition to Caroline Kennedy complicates Paterson's decision. Or maybe it makes it easier for him. There are far more Clinton loyalists than Kennedy loyalists in NY.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
