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

[klondiker]

The other point that I wanted to make was: yes, she is talented and qualfied, but is this really the best use of her talents?

Nothing in her background or experience tells me that she would make a good legislator. A lot of the work that she has done is:

- ceremonial (representing her family at important events), or
- honorific (bestowing honours like the profile in courage awards), or
- charitable (sitting on the boards of nonprofits).

I am not belittling this kind of work - of course, these are extremely important things. But, these are not the kinds of things that prepare you for the Senate and for the rough and tumble of a political career.

I feel that given her experience, her talents could best be used in an Ambassadorship (in a country that is a stable ally), where the main job would be to represent the United States. I recommend a country like the UK or France, where her mother was extremely popular.

[klondiker]

I don't doubt that she's qualified. The question is: should she be chosen, out of all the other qualified people, just because she comes from a prominent political family. I highly doubt that anyone would even be considering her right now, if her last name weren't Kennedy. Today, there was a headline on HuffPost that said that her uncle, Edward Kennedy, was trying to pull some strings for her. That is what bothers most people - the fact that the wealthy, the well-connected, and prviledged can cut to the front of the line, when there are other candidates who have cut their teeth on New York politics for years, and probably understand the state better than she does.

[Egalitare]

There's the matter of the electoral gauntlet that must be run by whoever is appointed: standing for 2 consecutive Senate elections in 2010 and 2010. Which of those other candidates can raise the coin for such an effort?

Admittedly, that's an argument for campaign reform, but it is the landscape that Paterson is faced with NOW and for the foreseeable future.

[Rule Of Law]

for gods sake let her run for and win her own seat

[CheneysACoward]

Filling a vacant seat is an appointment made by The Governor of the State...th­at is the rule of law....

[Rule Of Law]

Then appoint someone who has proven that they can run a campaign and win somewhere else. Who has shown they have the toughness it takes, has been vetted in the process, and has actual governmental management skills.

It isn't a gift given on name recognition.

[phipho]

Caroline Kennedy's primary qualification for the this job is that she endorsed Obama for president. That's all a majority of the posters on this blog care about. As for the "remarkable life" Caroline has lived it is in large part due to her last name. As Jim Hightower once said of GWB, "she was born on third base and thinks she hit a triple". There isn't a more self absorbed dynasty in existence than the Kennedys.

[citizensrus]

you can't be serious? What Jim was saying is GWB doesn't have a clue. Neither do you.

[lostnacfgop]

Had you used "Bushes" instead of "Kennedys" you would have been right on. The Kennedys have in great leaps and bounds worked for the greater good, achieved public office or operated charitable organizations, and then worked hard once their to make things better for ordinary people. I care about the fact that Caroline Kennedy is smart, well connected, has a track record of doing things and supporting causes that are consistent with progressive values, is charismatic, has that name appeal thing, and will represent the State of New York and the people of this Country with grace and dignity. That makes her qualified. Your attempt to compare her with George W. Bush is laughably hollow.

[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 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.

[polaris12]

With the roster of dunderheads we have in the US Senate, it's surprising that Caroline Kennedy would even want to be associated with them.

[FearlessFreep]

The very idea of questioning a Kennedy's entitlement to a Senate seat! What'll they question next, Obama's cabinet selections?

[fem56]

Great points hear. I have heard that Patterson has discouraged her nomination because Hillary Clinton has spoken out against it. I gather she thinks she isn't obnoxious enough for it. As you say Caroline is a Harvard trained lawyer. I am sure she is plenty use to making her case and Obama certainly trusted her. She is certainly a very bright, appealing woman who has the amiration and respect of many.

[glorialovelace]

She's not a Harvard-trained lawyer. Her law degree is from Columbia Law School. And she's not really a lawyer either. She has never practiced law.

[exmate]

Caroline passed the NY Bar Exam on her first try. She has written books on Constitutional Law. Columbiia is an elite law shool too.

[exmate]

Lets see. ...Carolin­e is :BA Harvard, JD Columbia Law impecable adulthood . Compare that with a privileged son with a former President who was a drifter with a drinking problem until he was 40 and failed businessman propped up by Neoconservatives as their standard bearer for the Presidency. I will take my chances with Caroline as Senator anyday.

[makesmecrazy]

You have said just about all that needs to be said about competence.

Welcome to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy!

[glorialovelace]

George .W. bush is not a candidate for that Senate seat, so your remark is completely beside the point.

The people who actually are contenders -- who would be bypassed by CK's incredible hubris -- include other Ivy-league graduates with far more professional and legisative experience than CK has.

Too many of these pro-Caroline comments are coming from people who are completely ignorant about New York State politics. They seem to believe that because they have not heard of these members of New York State's talented and diverse congressional contingent -- who are the other contenders for Clinton's Senate seat -- that these other, more deserving people therefore do not exist. They appear to think that the choice is Caroline -- or nobody.

[3fingerbrown]

As a New Yorker, I have to agree: There's no shortage of people in the state who'd make good senators. It's all a matter of politics.

Patterson needs the wholehearted support of Obama if he's going to scare off other Democratic contenders for the gubernatorial nomination, so Kennedy, Obama's new best friend, becomes the front-runner. (If Hillary were president, we'd be talking about Clinton supporters like Cuomo or Bob Kerrey.)

But Patterson has to weigh Obama's goodwill against his need for support from upstaters, who have put forth some good candidates and who are very sensistive about the perceived primacy of downstate in NY politics.

Then, there's Charlie Schumer to account for. He can make the governor's life miserable if he doesn't get his way.

I don't envy Patterson having to make this call, trying to balance the wishes of Obama, Schumer, upstate voters, and downstate voters.

[exmate]

I was born in NYC, grew up on LI, practiced medicine in Upstate NY for 20 years. My father was a Repubican Committeeman for many years so I know something about NY politics.
Caroline could be accused of having her family name as her only qualifcation for high office. GW Bush can more justifiably be accused of that. As noted above, his life to the age of 40 was anything but impeccable and he held diplomas that suggested that he was far more accomplished than he actually was. I submit that Caroline Kennedy is infinitey more qualified to be Senator than GW Bush was to be President. My dispute is with anyone who voted for GW Bush but thinks that Caroline Kennedy is not qualified to be Senator.

[DinkSinger]

Don't forget he is: BA Yale, MBA Harvard.

[exmate]

Don't forget he is: BA Yale, MBA Harvard.?
A. GW Bush got into and through Yale on a legacy . He is obviously not well educated.
He got into and through Harvard B School because of pull and went on to be a serial failure in business. Our first MBA President? lol

GW Bush has never been evaluated objectively in something like a Bar Exam, CPA exam , medical licensure, board certification. ... Everything has been handed to him. He could not even get in Law School much less pass the bar.

[bayside]

I purpose instead of hiring because of experience, lets vet whoever wants to be a part of our govt. Bet then we would get honesty and moral people , which is what we want, in our govt. That would disqualify a lot of our congressmen and if you get a felony you cannot be in govt. Caroline would be a good candidate.­.

[GonzoFactor]

Caroline Kennedy has been involved in politics all her adult life. She just hasn't run for office. She's bright, well-informed, and principled. Those three things put her ahead of much of the senate.

[glorialovelace]

Maybe you're just another Kennedy shill. There are lots of them, and some of them are even paid. You talk about "spewing" and "bloviating" when you disagree with it. But the fact remains that Caroline Kennedy would be walking over the faces of a lot of people more committed, talented and experienced than she is. That is really the point. She is not the best person. There are better people for the job, and we know who they are.

[AsISaid]

Hmmm....Yo­ur contention that other qualified people would be passed over if Caroline got the appointment is valid - it happens every day in every walk of life. She has an admirable record of service - without needing or seeking political recognition - in her assistance to public schools, namely New York City Schools. I would venture that her activities haven't been an effort to contrive a resume to run for office. Rather, she has performed the kind of selfless civil service that we would HOPE our political leaders would take on. Criticisms of her lack of a "killer instinct" in campaigning may be valid - if you want those types of candidates and campaigns to continue. If Obama taught us anything, it's that you don't have to go completely bare knuckles to win an election. You can do it with intelligence, class, and confidence in who you are. Perhaps we need more people like Caroline Kennedy to seek office, and fewer pure political animals.

[ADinSC]

Yep! That OP sounds mighty familiar. Just substitute "Obama" for "Caroline Kennedy", and you'll have the same argument Clinton supporters used against Obama in the Democratic primaries. Hmmmm...

[rucognizant]

There are better people for the job, and we know who they are.
WE DO? Share with us who.......­..........­..........­....

[glorialovelace]

YOU don't know who these people are because you don't live in New York State.

Once again, among the better people for the job are: Nita Lowey, Kirsten Gillibrand, Carolyn Maloney, Nydia Velasquez -- and at least half a dozen others.

This is a New York State matter, to be settled by our Governor and later, by New York State voters. You really don't have anything to say about it.

The most people like you can do is muddy the waters.

[Quaoar]

"despite coming from one of the greatest families ever to serve in the United States Congress"

I agree that she's as well qualified as a lot of other people who have served in Congress, but being a member of the Kennedy Family should not be considered a qualification for the position. Let her make it on her own merits.

[bayside]

No one and I mean no one could do more damage than The experienced cheney, rumsfield, gonzales team..We cant afford any more experienced in our govt. Its time for real change..

[toypiano]

You make a good point, bayside.

[clicktex]

Huzzah! Long live the Kennedy dynasty!

[LiamR]

Caroline Kennedy is infinitely more qualified for the Senate than Al Franken.

[timinhi]

How exaclty, do you figure? Do you even know anything about Franken's background, education, accomplishments, etc.? I doubt it. Caroline Kennedy IS qualified. She's a lot more qualified than several sitting Senators were when they entered, and probably a lot smarter than many of them are even now, after they've gained "senatorial" experience. Franken's an extremely intelligent guy who has been actively and heavily involved in national politics for most of his adult life. One of the differences between Al and Caroline is that at this point, if he gains entry to the Senate, it will be because he has gone through the rigors of a campaign, and will have been elected by the people, who will have decided whether he has earned the position. It is being suggested that Caroline be handed the position, and I suspect it is because of her last name and not because of what she has accomplished (although she has a lengthy list of accomplishments). She will not have rightly earned the position.

[citizensrus]

Whoever is appointed to the seat will not have "rightly earned the position" as you say. That's what appointments are, a fill in for a vacancy. Usually, in the House this vacancy goes to a family member, or so it seems. I guess Bill Clinton could fill the vacancy for his wife. That is traditional. But he may not want it.

[glorialovelace]

Caroline Kennedy may indeed be more qualified than some sitting Senators, but that is really not the issue.

The issue is that New York State boasts many candidates who are far more qualifed to be Senators than Caroline Kennedy, and they should not be overlooked because Caroline thinks she'd maybe like to be a Senator (last I heard, she still wasn't even sure she wanted the job).

[Muirwoods]

Al Franken gradated from Harvard with honors. I think he's smart enough to be a Senator. And he has a sense of humor to boot!!!

[glorialovelace]

Too much blind Harvard-worship in this country, in my opinion.

Harvard is a place that until a handful of years ago, discriminated against Jews, Blacks and Asians.

Women weren't admitted to Harvard until comparatively recently. Caroline Kennedy actually attended Radcliffe -- although she has swapped her Radcliffe degree for a Harvard one. In fact, Radcliffe even had a different faculty from Harvard.