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

[DinkSinger]

The idea that holding elective office is a prerequisite to being selected for the Senate is particularly silly since the people of New York have not elected a new Senator to this particular seat who had that experience since Ken Keating in 1958. Bobby Kennedy had never run for elected office when he ran in 1964. Charlie Goodell had been elected to the U.S. House five times before being appointed to serve out the balance of Bobby Kennedy's term but he lost his first Senate race to third party candidate Jim Buckley in 1970. Buckley had run for New York's other Senate seat and finished third two years earlier. Pat Moynihan had lost a primary for New York City Council President before he ran the first time in 1976. And Hillary of course had never run for anything when she and Bill bought the Chappaqua house to establish residency.

By the way, like his brother Bobby, Ted Kennedy's first run for office was for the Senate. He could not be initially appointed to Jack's Senate seat in 1960 because he was too young, but he was first elected in the special election of 1962 at age 30.

[glorialovelace]

Nice that you're on a first name basis with all of these people, Dink. You must be a really connected insider.

[DinkSinger]

We New Yorkers are always on a first name basis with our politicians -- especially when they are patricians. (Except Nelson Rockefeller -- he didn't have a nickname so we just called him Rocky).

[Scarabus]

Reminds me of the Brit-Com series "Yes, Minister/Prime Minister." In other words, reminds me of a serious truth cloaked in comedy.

But Bobby (forgive the familiarity, sir) and his cousin Caroline (forgive the familiarity, ma'am) his cousin are seriously bright, educated, idealistic, socially committed, aware, caring, and understanding of "the system."

I'm a resident of Florida, and I would be ecstatically happy to trade either of these Kennedys for the greasy slimeball Mel Martinez...let alone the chubbiest and possibly the nastiest Bush of them all, Jeb. If Caroline Kennedy succeeds Hillary Clinton, then New Yorkers should count themselves very, very lucky.

[glorialovelace]

If you're a citizen of Florida, then it's really none of your business.

[amiblueyoubet]

If this poster is a citizen of the USA, it's every bit their business.

[toypiano]

New Yorkers have more at stake, that's true. But to the extent that CK might eventually serve on senate committees and make decisions that affect the whole country, I think it's fair to say that the rest of us also have something at stake.

[rucognizant]

WRONG!
How those entrenched RW Senators from some of the Western states vote DIRECTLY AFFECTS me in the Northeast! I call them a LOT!

[ruthinking]

Four of the Republican candidates for President raised their hand when asked if they believed in intelligent design (instead of evolution). Give me a candidate with brains.

[MaryT63]

Any objections to Caroline Kennedy's qualifications to be a senator only need to look at movie actor Arnold Sch. elected Gov. of California to get a grip on this discussion. The repubs are at it again. Beware.

[ManFromTheOC]

I understand your point of holding GOPers consistent in their expectations of job qualifications. However, be careful comparing Caroline to the Governator given that CA is in financial shambles.

[fem56]

It's Hillary Clinton that has the problem I understand. I hope this isn't revenge on her part because Carolyn and Ted didn't support her candidacy.

[annis]

Thank you so much for taking the time to write this. Frankly, I have become wearied of arguing about things like "qualifications" and "experience." So many people write things with the same tone as discussing service at a restaurant or the driving of a bus driver. Heaven help us!

[glorialovelace]

I hope you're not saying that "qualifications" and "experience" don't count. Are you?

[jbl inAZ]

She actually has a lot of "qualifications" and "experience". Yes, they count, as they should.

If you missed http://www.huffingtonpost.com/al-giordano/caroline-kennedy-no-drama_b_149277.html you should check it out.

[rucognizant]

We need a serious discussion on the definition of "experience". They tried to cram palin down our throats on the basis of HER "experience; which as time evolves is proving to be experienced in milking the system for all it's worth, cronyism, self aggranidizement.
We need to start putting "character" before experience, to stop this corrupt governing system!
Caroline Kennedy has character and integrity...............

[zitlight73]

Maybe less experience is a good thing if it means less corrupt strings attached. Kennedy still has her moral compass intact, she's intelligent and even though she could have just lived an idle life of privilege she chose another course so she has experience in the real world all of which makes her a better choice than at least half the people self-serving in congress now.

[articulator2008]

You give us lots of reasons why anyone should be considered for the 1 in 100...but fail to provide much detail about why you think that Caroline Kennedy should get the position.

The Harvard degree....the Columbia degree....the writing....how much of this would have occurred had Ms. Kennedy's name been "Canada" or something else? Not much.

Ms. Kennedy's problem is that no one knows who she is. She has chosen to absent herself from her possible future constituency for most of her life. That's a fair thing to do in her life. Why not get away from all the prying eyes and enjoy your family and friends? Hasn't her family done enough already?

Being a private person for all your life doesn't qualify you for much in public life. We know absolutely NOTHING about her, only that she SEEMS decent and nice. But what does that mean? What does she stand for? What is she against? We are deaf and dumb as to who she is.

Mark Nicolas seems to think that because she has done well by her heritage and name she now should be promoted to one of the highest public service positions in the country. Sorry! We are New Yorkers and great skeptics. This just don't cut it down here on 16th Street, Mr. Nicolas. Politics should be anything and everything else but a guessing game....and when it has become that? We end up with something disastrous...like the W.

[peaceplez]

She'd hold the office for two years. She would be replacing a Senator that had fairly equivalent experience. And she is has "nice" as an added quality.

Are you seriously asking us to compare choosing the intelligent classy caring Caroline with W before we knew him?

[Transcendentobserver]

Articulator: You articulated well the high standards of epistemology by which New Yorkers select their representatives--Charles Rangel for one and, oh yeah, that recently deposed governor who so impressed his constituency with his knowledge of organized prostitution. NY certainly has a lot to be skeptical about, but given the collective insight which characterize your skeptical circle of friends you surely "knew" their souls.

[hutom]

Ok, got your point - you think she is smart enough to be a senator. My be she is. But that's not what it takes. In a democratic society, I would rather have Palin, even though I detest her but who got elected - as a nominated senator than the annointed one. If you fail to understand why, I suggest that you write your next article on how to get a House of Lords in the United States of America.

[JoeSausage]

It is hilarious, considering Al Franken the comedian running for Senate, Jesse Ventura the wrestler as Governer of Minnesota, Ronald Reagan the B-actor, both Governor and President. Looking at that list, it seems that America loves celebrities as politicians. At least Kennedy's pedigree is celebrity politician.

[toypiano]

And don't forget when worlds collided: Kennedy cousin Maria married Ahnold the Governator. The mind still reels from that one.

[davsing]

Great post, Mark -- separate from all the nonsense about Caroline's lack of qualifications, etc... just look at the options discussed thus far: Carolyn Maloney, Nydia Valasquez, Tom, Suozzi, Andrew Cuomo, among lesser known others -- Caroline K is a bright shining light next to the others -- and politically speaking -- Governor Paterson will likely have a tough election campaign in 2010 -- and why not have the best run with him. Moreover, by New York law, the senator designate needs to run in 2010 and 2012. Ms.Kennedy has brains, grace, and gravitas -- characteristics sorely lacking in the House and Senate and our government (save thankfully now -- the President-elect).

[Einstein44]

Ah ! the green monster has arrived by criticizing Caroline Kennedy qualifications.The naysayers are so bitter.They need to get a life ! She will make an excellent senator for N.Y.

[glorialovelace]

Nobody is envious of Caroline who knows anything about her life and her illness.

The issue is that because there are better people in the wings for that job, it should not be handed to somebody of indifferent qualifications purely on the basis of her family name.

I really don't think that Paterson will appoint her. Not after this Blagojevich business in Illinois.

[CharlesJ]

I think your dead on here. Look at what and who we have there now!
Half of these people are afraid to take a stand for the good of the country because they fear they may not be re-elected. I do not think that would be a problem with Kennedy.
They are afraid to stand up, be counted and lead for again fear not being re-elected and rebuked by their party and fellow congress persons.
I personally would love to see Caroline Kennedy in there as she does not appear to be afraid to speak out, stand up or take an honest position regardless of the potential fallout.
We need people that are willing to stand up and lead, and not pussyfoot around the issues for fear of their political careers.

[glorialovelace]

She's been afraid to speak out for her entire life. "Painfully shy" has been her most frequent descriptor. Really, that fact alone should be the deal breaker.

[rcwblessed]

There's a big difference between painfully shy and a DESIRE FOR PRIVACY. The label, "painfully shy" was attributed to Caroline by the media. Get your facts straight before calling for a deal breaker.

[HybridTea]

I think she will be honest, intelligent, diligent, mature, and articulate about everything she does. Is there any other qualification needed to represent the people? If there was a need for anything more, the founding fathers would have mandated this in the constitution.

She will be considerably more efficient than Sarah Palin or Elizabeth Dole - but we digress.

[lafrance]

thank you. I thought caroline kennedy would make a fine senator. She is a lawyer, a writer, comes from a political family and is very smart. She would make a much better senator then most that are really senators now.
I found it sad to heard people on the news today put this talented woman down when they have no clue. She's probably learned alot about being a senator from her uncle Teddy, anyway.