The Shameful Bloviation About Whether Caroline Kennedy Is "Qualified" To Be A Senator

I've been sadly amused today watching the cable news bloviators discuss whether Caroline Kennedy is "qualified" to replace Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) in the U.S. Senate and, frankly, the whole debate shows how disconnected and self-absorbed the pretentious inside-the-Beltway crowd is about who they wish to admit into their society.

So, allow me to be brutally honest about this Congressional qualifications stuff, for whatever my opinion is worth.

Without a doubt, we would all be much better served if all 535 Senators and Representatives were the smartest, most insightful, courageous, selfless people we could find. That would be ideal. But the truth is they aren't. Not even close. And having spent more than a decade around these people -- there's nothing so difficult about the job Representative or Senator that someone as impressive as Caroline Kennedy couldn't master in short order, if not on Day 1.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not saying anyone is suited to serve in Congress. The job is demanding, it takes a particular skill set to master things like debate, public speaking, digesting information and analyses, campaigning, and asking strangers for money. And the work they do is of critical importance. 

But I find it insulting and annoying that these political and media blowhards even think for a moment that the job is so complicated and technically difficult that a Caroline Kennedy might be out-of-her league if appointed. It's such utter nonsense that I find myself annoyed by it all.

The truth is, the real hard part of Congress is done by the staffers and career people. They do the tough work. They do the numbers crunching, the public policy analysis, the writing of crucial and complicated legislation, the constituent outreach and case work. That's the hard part. Serving as a member of Congress is not like being a governor of a state or, obviously, President of the United States. Those are hard jobs where the elected official is largely responsible for running an actual government on his/her own. (Side note: the effort by some to compare her to Gov. Sarah Palin (R-AK) is equally misplaced. Palin was running to be the possible next president [i.e., the hardest job of all], not one of 100 senators.).

I have had the honor of working with and getting to know some incredibly talented and brilliant people who serve in the House or Senate. My political career was built on the lessons learned from spending years with people like Sen. Tim Johnson (D-SD) and Rep. Ben Chandler (D-KY). But we should not confuse the fact that while there are many brilliant people in Congress, who bring a distinct skill set, the job itself doesn't require a Ph.D. to master. There are, unfortunately, more than a handful of especially unimpressive members of Congress who demonstrate daily that you can get by with limited skills, if not thrive.

After all, we are talking about a Congress that sent us into a war that cost us more than 4,000 American military lives and about a trillion dollars, even though no weapons of mass destruction existed. That same Congress can't balance a budget, stand-up to an abysmally unpopular president who happily skirted the boundaries of lawfulness for many years, and who seem wholly incapable of making tough and courageous decisions that the American public expects of them.

Nevertheless, despite the remarkable life that Caroline Kennedy has lived...despite her Harvard undergraduate degree and Columbia Law School degree...despite her being an attorney, an editor, and a published author...despite that our next president trusted her to co-lead his search for a vice president...despite coming from one of the greatest families ever to serve in the United States Congress... we have to sit and listen to members of this Beltway fraternity (and sorority) bluster that she might not be qualified to become 1 of 100 in the Senate. Seriously?

The pundits spew a great deal of nonsense on any given day. But this one might actually take the cake. And if I didn't know better, I might think there was a bit of misogyny wrapped-up in the analysis. Not only do I not recall the same criticism being leveled at the idea that her cousin -- Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. -- might seek the appointment, or someday run for the job -- but I sort of recall some of the same arguments made about Hillary Clinton's own run for this seat eight years ago.

Finally, I'm not saying that experience doesn't matter. Clearly, it does. We want the best experience we can get in a candidate for any public office, and Kennedy would have to defend hers in a 2010 special election. That is a legitimate question for her opponent to raise. But when it comes to filling a Senate vacancy in New York, I find this whole discussion more than nauseating, especially considering the sources.

Mark Nickolas is the Managing Editor of Political Base, and this story was from his original post, "Honestly, It's Not Rocket Science"

Follow Mark Nickolas on Twitter: www.twitter.com/mnickolas

Comments

[Malsie]

And another, Thank you!!!!

[drayak]

I'm from Pennsylvania, and our Senator Murtha, said on TV our Marines where killing innocent people and should be sent to jail as war criminals. Now that the trials are mostly over for those seven people, surprise, six are not guilty, and one is pending the outcome of his trials. If, Murtha is qualified to be a Senator, then Caroline K is too, along with millions of others. why, someone would want that job is beyond my ability to figure out. I would rather poke an eye out. If she wants it let her have it, maybe she can get the Senate to do some budget balancing, and sane law making.

[Merckx]

Murtha is a Congressman, not a Senator.
Murtha served honorably in the Marines for years.
He was probably disgusted how these Marines tarnished the brand. If anyone has right to speak out about Marines who kill innocent civilians, its Murtha.

[Catnik]

I'm from Pennsylvania. And Murtha isn't a senator, genius. As a Fayette county native, I admire Rep. Murtha's commitment to service. He may be guilty of some gaffes, but he also isn't afraid to say unpleasant truths.

[djcchicago]

I'm afraid the article misses the point. Why Caroline? To most of us, it appears to be because of her last name. Frankly that is getting a bit tiring. Ms. Kennedy has shown no inclination to run for office in the past. If she has changed her mind, she should run for something. There are plenty of people, male and female, who have been in the trenches working on public policy who can take this seat. Give us a few reasons as to why she is the best and maybe more people will listen. Until then, it looks like the same old same old. I'd hoped we were putting that behind us.

[MidwestBlue]

I agree. She hasn't shown any interest in campaigning and working to get elected, and now she makes a phone call, says she's interested, and she gets to be a Senator? Please.

[MJane]

You may be from Chicago, but you are right. Why should we New Yorkers be stuck with this shrinking wallflower when there are plenty of excellent candidates? Just because her family and non-New Yorkers think it would be cute? This neighbor seems to be smart and a good wife and mother, and good at behind the scenes activity. But could she win an election in 2010? And again in 2012? Could she argue in the Senate on behalf of NYS? Very doubtful that she has the stamina. Jackie must be rolling over in her grave.

[bellrich]

Maybe she can pick up her Uncle Ted's fight for a better health care system, but it will be up to Gov. Patterson not ours to select a replacement for Hillary.

[Fez]

It could probably be proven with facts and figures that there is no native American criminal class, with the exception of Congress-- Mark Twain

[Pleneras]

Thank you! Maybe Jane Hamsher should take lessons from you in observation before providing nonsense revelation. There sure is a lot of thriving by mediocre congress and senate members. What is experience if you have done nothing with it? What is experience if all you've done was vote on resolutions and never made a difference? Experience is not equated with effectiveness, good judgment, and political productivity bringing success to a state. Do I want someone experienced? Not if they sat there for 1 or more terms and everything is still the same or have gotten worse. Caroline is well prepared to learn just as all those who came before her. Thank you once again!

[glorialovelace]

New York's Senate seat is not a job to be handed to some apprentice -- especially when there are other candidates whose experience and commitment make them far superior to Caroline Kennedy.

[melponeme k]

Bow and Scrape to your "betters" Nickolas.

But you will not include this New Yorker in the deal.

Kennedy is one of the many little faux "royals" who think their family name is all that is needed to get into government to lord it over the little people. Because they care.

I would much rather have a college educated citizen running for the office. Someone who has experienced this current Depression first hand.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

It is disgusting, and sexist.
Where were these blowhards to decry Senators who don't believe in science, but DO believe in torture?
Fercrissakes.

[glorialovelace]

The true "blowhards" are the people who think they can dictate who gets to represent the people of states that they don't live in.

If there are Senators who don't believe in science, you should blame the people who live in the states that elected them, and especially those people who didn't speak up when they had a chance to do so.

[blueskybigstar]

There are three things a political leader should have in order of importance: honesty (almost none of them have that); knowledge of people, history, and the world in order to keep in touch; intelligence. Caroline has everything in spades. Her demeanor will be a breath of fresh air and I do predict that she will be a part of amazing legislation and she will be transformed into an effective and unusual fighter.

[Old time Dem]

Yes! Yes! Yes!

[Indie2008]

You are so right! True, that in the early days of our Nation, our representatives were usually the educated (men) - but were planters, merchants, and the like.The idea that to be in Congress, you have to be a life-long politician, is not in keeping with the job's original intent.
It may be helpful to remember that Caroline Kennedy's public office holding experience is equal to that of Sen. Clinton when she was elected.

[CSE]

You didn't really provide mush substance to indicate why someone such as Carolyn Maloney should be passed over. It has not really been that Caroline Kennedy wasn't qualified - just maybe not the most qualified. If you want to use some comparison that not everyone in Congress are bright as a justification or qualification - then you do little service to Ms. Kennedy by that comparison. The feeling that Ms. Kennedy gets to jump immediately into a US Senate seat at this opportune time without running when other NYers have demonstrated political leadership skills is valid.

And, by your method of analysis, not all Kennedys "were the smartest, most insightful, courageous, selfless people...n­ot even close". So if you wish to use family association as basis for qualification - you should at least describe the family correctly. That is to say, if you try to demonstrate that many in Congress have demonstrated poor judgement and use that as a justification for Ms. Kennedy - then when you state "despite coming from one of the greatest families ever to serve in the United States Congress" you must also admit many members of that family have demonstrated poor judgment as well.

Is Ms. Kennedy qualified - seems so. Are others more qualified based upon experience and proven leadership skills - definitely. I now cede to the honorable citizens of the great State of New York.

[Halminbar]

People who have been successful in journalism, education, industry, science, and the arts often have children who follow in their footsteps. Why should public service be exempted from such a common aspect of human nature?

[rejoiceinit]

In my eyes, her endorsement of Obama early just shows that she has guts, smarts, and great judgement.

This was her first big foray into a big political arena and obviously with her family name and background, she could have played it safe if she didn't have a back bone and grit. If Obama had lost badly, or even lost at all--think of how she could have been branded.

Not only did she show good judgement there, but also in helping Obama make one of the most critical decisions in his career--choosing his VP. I don't know how to quantify her ability to make these types of calls into the decisions she would be making as a Senator; but I have to think that for Obama to have entrusted her with this task over other eminently qualified candidates--she must have shown some unique abilities that may not be known to the general public. I just bet she isn't the wall flower that everybody claims she is!

I for one am glad that the Kennedy's choose to serve the public; --the contributions they have made to this country are enormous. I think overlooking CK because of her name would be a great detriment to our party

[GonzoFactor]

I'm a whole lot less worried about giving someone new like Kennedy a chance than I am about returning obvious failures to the Senate, like Saxby Chambliss. Kennedy has long shown that she has a good head on her shoulders. She's bright, compassionate, practical, and well connected.

Then there's Suxby.

[redneckliberalpostbush]

They have brought the bar so low! At least she is no felon and can vote for herself!! She has not been caught in a public bathroom. The insiders don't like her because she knows them and she is sober, honest, intelligent and has integrity!

[glorialovelace]

The insiders don't like her because she hasn't paid her dues and because there are far better alternatives. I suspect the insiders also resent Ted Kennedy's attempts to interfere in a New York State matter.