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

[Kevvboy]

Absolutely wrong. I'm a Dem, but America abolished the monarchy in 1776. You call her a "writer and editor" but what book has she actually written or edited? Name one. She's a perfectly well-meaning socialite with friends in high places whose father was President. Surely the Palin experience shows that Dems care more about qualifications than THIS.

[SEQUOIABISON]

Hey Kevvboy, you are obviously too lazy to do a google search, instead you make outlandish inaccurate statements about Caroline never authoring or publishing a book, please check out the website below to view 15 Books that Caroline Kennedy either authored or co-authored.

http://www.bestwebbuys.com/Caroline_Kennedy-mcid_2121068.html?isrc=b-authorsearch

By the way she is not royalty anymore than the Bushes are royalty and would make a Great Senator.

[wmfor]

Comparing Caroline Kennedy to Sarah Palin? They both are female. There the comparison ends.

You might as well say, "If Hillary is qualified as Secretary of State, why not Karen Hughs?"

[redneckliberalpostbush]

wmfor that is total sexism to compare them omg!! they have female hormones and that's it! It's like comparing Bush to Obama.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Compare away, I say.
One Pale(s)in by comparison.

[vigilantwarrior]

Caroline Kennedy knows what the neo-fascists did to her father, her uncle, and probably her brother (John Jr. was considering a Senate run when he had his accident). Ms. Kennedy has shown not only intelligence and compassion but tremendous courage to even consider this.

Honor and protect her family by exposing the truth about these events.

http://michaelfury.wordpress.com/2008/11/17/head-shot/

[redneckliberalpostbush]

I agree vigilant! That's what they are afraid of. I certainly agree on the courage part. I've seen the viseral, putrid hatred of Ted by those reichwingers. It's enough to make you want to vomit.

[glorialovelace]

John Jr. was never considering a Senate run. He was too busy frantically restaffing and trying to prevent his magazine, George, from going bankrupt.

[bill76]

I think Caroline would make a great Senator. I would love to see her gain the experience to make a run at the Presidency in 2016.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Now there's a thought.

[MarionWatts]

'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.'

Oddly enough, this remark made me think of the scene in 'Religulous' where the United States Senator from Arkansas is being interviewed about his faith, and he replies that a person doesn't need to pass an IQ test to serve in the United States Senate. Your quote is telling.

However, I've no qualms with Caroline Kennedy serving as a United States Senator. I think her general professional and public experience renders her eminently qualified, as compared to anyone else. People have entered the House of Representatives and the Senate from a myriad of professional backgrounds - even acting. And they've done well.

[sunnyjane]

Let us not forget that this is a woman who is from a HUGE political family. What do you think they talk about when they get together at the Family Reunion? POLITICS! Caroline Kennedy probably knows more about politics than George Bush. And as much about the Senate as her Uncle Ted. And, unlike Sarah Palin, I bet you Caroline Kennedy actually READS!

She's qualified.

[pupbayer]

Your remark brought to mind all of those who said HIllary's position of First Lady and close proximity to the President was worth nothing in experience. But that line of thinking is not applicable to Caroline Kennedy? Interesting.

As for Palin and Kennedy...Palin has held elected offices and is one of 50 governors in the country unlike Kennedy who is a sits on boards.

[timm553]

And if we could quantify how much each of them has actually given to the country, I wonder where your argument would land? Sounds like you don't realize that just holding office isn't what it's all about.

Try a little time outside the box.

[ReasonIsMyReligion]

Palin and offices PLURAL?

Bwaaa haaa haa.

[TommyMcCarthy]

Not to be underestimated is the fact that as Jr. Sen. from N.Y Ms. Kennedy's primary duty would be to her constituan­ts....i.e. New Yorkers.

New York residents might find it refreshing to have a native New Yorker in that position, especially one with nationwide, and international support (count me and millions like me in)...and MOST especially one with significant influence with the incoming administration!

If I was still a New Yorker I'd certainly be all for it.

Good grief, she's a progressive Democrat for God's sake!
That alone makes her MORE qualified than at least 43 current Senators by my lights
regards
tm

[glorialovelace]

New Yorkers don't find Ms. Kennedy's attempts to jump the line refreshing at all.

We find them hubristic and arrogant.

Since it is often a Senator's job to oppose an administration -- our checks and balances system, remember? -- it's not a good idea for any senator to be perceived as being in the President's pocket.

But New York has many far better candidates available for the job, whom Caroline Kennedy wants us to disregard -- because she is a Kennedy, and for no other reason.

[GrkAm]

Excellent point!

[Bruupo]

Um, if qualifications are required to serve in the senate, who the hell can explain how Inhofe got in there?

[ADinSC]

Or Coburn? Or DeMint? Or Chambliss? Lisa Murkowski, anyone?

[researcher]

if you are a repub you only need to learn two words.

cut taxes.

if you are an old retired prof like me just two words.

yes dear.

:-)

[Sportswoman]

Amen.

[toypiano]

For me it isn't a question of being qualified. CK is plenty qualified. Based on her work, her education and her life experience so far, she'd probably make a fantastic senator. The only caveat for me is that to some people her appointment would be perceived as favoritism because of her name. But if New Yorkers didn't like the appointment process for these situations, I'd think they would have changed it a long time ago. Appointments are temporary, so whoever gets it will have it for the exact same length of time as CK would, then get the same chance to run for election in 2010. No one has the chance to run for this seat this time, and CK does seem like a reasonable alternative and would likely do a good job.

[JScott]

Interesting tho, she hasn't said anything and from her past you'd think she'd be reluctant to take the position. And even more so why is their no bloviating about Fran Drescher who wants to do it, and she's
doesn't have a background of a Kennedy, but she's at least as smart.

[Oldtimer]

It's obvious she is not qualified. She does not have the experience of Ted Stevens......
or Sarah Palin for that matter.

[Egalitare]

LOL

[kuhler]

Hold on now, Egalitare . . . Oldtimer may have a point with the statement about the Alaska comparison. As far as I know, Caroline Kennedy hasn't ever embezzled funds from her constituents or presided over a state where animals outnumber people.

[dhs177]

Caroline Kennedy seems like a nice person and is probably smart. If you wants to be in politics let her run for office. However, appointing her would be appointing someone based almost solely on her name and nepotism is bad whether done by the Bushes, Kennedy's or anyone else.

[pupbayer]

I agree. I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy. I just think it better for her to earn the position in this case. She can wait to run in the next election if she wants the seat.

[glorialovelace]

Exactly. Why doesn't she challenge whomever Governor Paterson nominates in a primary if she is so sure she is the best person for the job?

[avocats]

We seem to be forgetting that this is an appointment to fill a term; nobody "earns" it through election this go 'round. Caroline Kennedy is extremely smart, well-educated, and informed. Her grace and bering are a bonus. The fact that she has not previously sought political power is a huge plus, in my book. She can certainly do the job as well as if not better than a substantial number of current and recently past Senators. She seems to be acting out of strong interest and commitment. Seriously, folks--what's the problem again?