Along Came Caroline. And Andrew. And Beau.

Speculation about Hillary Clinton's successor in the Senate will soon be moot, but the debate about America's political dynasties is hopefully just starting. This year's newly open Senate seats were particularly revealing, with the leading contenders in New York, Delaware, Colorado and Illinois all including the kin of prominent politicians.

This is nothing new: as recently as 2000, the presidential election offered the choice between the son of a former president and grandson of a Senator, George W. Bush, and the son of a Senator, Al Gore. And, of course, long before that, the Adams' had been the first father and son US presidents. But rather than disappearing as one would expect in a more mature, diverse democracy, the habit seems to be intensifying.

For all the commotion around Caroline Kennedy's credentials, she is hardly the first, the last, or the only, member of an American political dynasty to be hand picked for a plum job. Have we already forgotten that, had everything gone according to plan, Hillary Clinton would be sworn in as President in a couple of weeks? And that although she, who had never run for political office anywhere, had the decks cleared for her in New York state's 2000 primary? She did have to face a Republican in the general election (actually, two Republicans, as Rudy Giuliani dropped out), but in one of the most Democratic states in the country, that was unlikely to be an impossible hurdle.

By most standards, Clinton has been an able or even outstanding Senator, and hopefully will be a great Secretary of State, but her electoral credentials in 2000 were non-existent, and her political ones limited to her proximity to the outgoing President, and to the access that provided. In that respect Kennedy is not unlike Clinton, and is certainly no less qualified, if slightly less articulate.

There has been less focus on two other political scions positioning themselves for the Senate: Andrew Cuomo and Beau Biden, both Attorney Generals in their respective states of New York and Delaware. Both owe their careers to their fathers, Mario Cuomo, former governor, and Joe Biden, future vice president. Both are somehow given a pass because they have been elected (once each, in 2006), and because, in the case of Biden, his father arranged for his 70 year-old chief-of-staff, Ted Kaufman, to be a caretaker for a couple of years; few doubt the 2010 Democratic primary in Delaware will feature anyone other than Beau. You would think that even in a state as small as Delaware, there would be at least one other qualified person who is not the son of a Biden, or has not worked for a Biden. But perhaps not.

Before the Illinois Senate replacement "process" turned into such a mess, one of the front-runners for the nomination to Barack Obama's seat was Jesse Jackson Jr. Of all the names quoted heretofore he was perhaps the most qualified, having served in the House for 13 years. Nonetheless, he too owes his position to his father: it is unlikely that a 30-year-old unknown, no matter how talented, would have comfortably won the special congressional election free-for-all that launched his electoral career in 1995. In any event, it appears that at least in the Senate, dynastic rules don't apply to African-Americans: Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid does not want Jackson in the US Senate, under the reasoning that he is less likely to win statewide in 2010 than a white candidate (this in a state that has elected the only two black Democratic Senators since Reconstruction).

In Colorado, Gov. Bill Ritter surprised everyone by picking Michael Bennet to succeed Sen. Ken Salazar, appointed Secretary of the Interior. The presumed front runner there had been two-term Congressman John Salazar, Ken's older brother.

While filling seats vacated by Cabinet nominees and indicted politicians is a favorite of the dynastically inclined, regular elections are not immune to the phenomenon. This year's Senate races saw the victory of not one but two Udalls, Mark and Tom, respectively son and nephew of the late Arizona Democratic Congressman Mo Udall. A third cousin, incumbent Senator Gordon Smith, narrowly lost in Oregon.

Beyond this year's crop, the Senate is rife with legacies that span geography, gender and party. Some are truly sordid, such as GOP Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski's succession to her father's seat: he arranged for the timing of his resignation to allow him, newly elected governor, to name the new Senator, who happened to be his daughter. Others are more humdrum, such as Democratic Arkansas Sen. Mark Pryor, dumb as a doornail, who succeeded his father David, a formerly well-respected pillar of the Senate. Some have been in the Senate for so long, that it is easy to forget they got a jumpstart in life thanks, usually, to their fathers. Connecticut Senator Chris Dodd, for instance, is the son of, well, Connecticut Senator Thomas Dodd. Indiana Senator Evan Bayh is the son of Indiana Senator Birch Bayh. Etc, etc.

Taken individually, these cases do not always appear as egregious as, say, the Murkowski saga, or as depressing as the Pryor succession. But it is in the aggregate that the dynastic nature of American politics is most striking. One in six Senators, for instance, is closely related by birth or marriage to Presidents, Congressmen, Governors or Cabinet members; this proportion has doubled in the past 20 years. The numbers are even starker among Democrats: fully 20% of the incoming Senate Democrats are connected in this way. For these families, politics is a business, and elected office is family property, usually under the guise of continuing a proud history of public service. We have come to accept this situation for a variety of reasons: we are starstruck, we fall for the family brand appeal without realizing it, we assume the relative is as strong as the original and that their connections will benefit their constituency, the force of an entire family political apparatus is too strong to withstand, we are too lazy to properly research other candidates. The phenomenon bears eerie resemblances to the brand extensions prized by marketers: the investment in using the same brand for a variety of products, usually with some qualifier (Crest Whitening with Cinnamon! Kahlua ice-cream!), is far lower than having to launch a whole new name and logo. With Kennedy, Clinton, Biden or Cuomo on the ballot, there is really little more to explain or sell. You would think this should work in reverse, for example that any Bush is now doomed to make a living in private enterprise. But no: Jeb Bush is an early favorite for the Florida Senate seat opening up in 2010.

Whatever the reason for which we keep electing sons and daughters of the politically famous, the result is the same: a growing number of elected officials owe their positions to family connections. The fact that this sounds self-evident, even naive, is a testament to how inured we have become to nepotism. This may be an extension of the broader American acceptance of extreme income inequality and weakening social mobility. We assume that the rich and famous, political or otherwise, have such a leg up that it is not even worth questioning the premise of their power to openly control the political process.

That Democrats are the guiltiest of this, at least in the Senate, is shameful. Of course, many of us happily cooperate: for instance, we like Joe Biden and we are hopeful that he will be a good vice president, but this does not mean we cannot criticize his bold-faced move to bequeath his Senate seat to his son. The older Biden is surely not the best-equipped person to decide whether his own progeny is able or not to succeed him. In the best case scenario, he only wants what's best for Beau, not an unnatural sentiment; in the worst case, though, he is arrogantly treating Delaware as his own political and personal fiefdom.

The alternative, of course, is not to turn to wealthy candidates, another growing trend. The net worth of a Senator now stands at $1.7 million, 2000% of the average net worth in the United States. There are 62 Senators with a net worth of $1 million or more, out of 100, versus 15 in 1988. Only 3% of Americans are worth more than $1 million. Half a dozen Senators are probably worth over $100 million, all of them Democrats. Caroline Kennedy, were she to be named to the New York seat, would join this latter group, which also includes her uncle Ted.

There is nothing inherently wrong, in what is after all a capitalist society, with being rich, famous, or well connected. However, when nearly half of all Senators are either political legacies, or worth over $10 million, or both, the time has come to put a little more thought into whom we elect and why. Either that, or the time has come to stop complaining that economic, social and foreign policies are completely aligned with the interest of the tiniest of minorities: those who are rich, famous or well connected.

There is, however, a glimmer of hope in these depressing statistics. In recent times of economic upheaval, the country has turned to chief executives who, besides not being Bushes, are political self-made animals, from modest, single-parent households whose net worth was more likely to be negative than positive. Yes, Bill Clinton has grown fabulously wealthy thanks to politics, and Obama will no doubt too, but at least we will be able to look back at both men's early time in office and say that, for a brief shining moment, they could relate.

Comments

[abatalks]

I have, you know, the perfect candidate to fill Hillary's senate seat. Silda Spitzer. She's uniquely qualified to walk around in Hillary's shoes. You know?

[Citizen54]

Clinton has been "an outstanding senator"????!?
Oh really?

Anyone who was suckered by Bush into voting for the invasion of Iraq is hardly "outstanding."
And as a NYer, I'd like to see a few examples (or even just one) of what she has done for her constituents. Her proposed flag-burning amendment, perhaps?

And Schumer, the senator from Wall Street, is no better.

[engineer68]

Hold on! I have lived in NY all my life, Steuben and Monroe Counties. Until Schumer and Clinton, we never saw a siting U.S. Senator except Sen. Keating who was defeated by Robert Kennedy. Moynihan never knew upstate existed and don't say Columbia County is Upstate. Schumer is here often and I fully intend to support him in the future. Mrs. Schlossberg is from the same mold as Sen. Moynihan and if she is appointed we will never see her. She has had 51 years to travel in NYS, and never took any interest in seeing upstate/western New York.

[WilliePilgrim]

If money and the connnections needed to raise it weren't the first criteria for election, then perhaps the problems of dynasty would go away, but then how would people with an interest in honest leadership and public service ever get the attention of the media whose primary concern is profitability? You may not have noticed, but despite the idea of FCC licensing fees being used to create a publically funded network exclusively reserved for broadcast information regarding political campaigning having been around for a long time, we never hear that idea brought up for consideration by the very media vampires who have been getting fat selling air time to candidates to do precisely that . That is more than just a little coincidental, wouldn't you say? So much for the conditions of being awarded a license to broadcast in the US.

[PalmG]

I think nepotism is not exclusive to politics and in reality most people get a door open because of a connection of some sort. I think what makes people uncomfortable about this in politics though is when the position is more than just an "open door" or a small step. JJjr started out as a Congressman, what can be considered "entry level," and he worked for the position. What Caroline Kennedy wants however is the corner office, the CEO job, for which she has shown absolutely no aptitude, interest, or willingness to work previously. That seems more egregious.

And though I'm an admirer of his story, I think Obama's life story is less "rags to riches" than is Clinton's. Obama was sent to the top private schools growing up and his dad (even though he was physically absent from his life) went to Harvard, which no doubt helped him in getting accepted there, just like Michelle's brother going to Princeton before her probably had a lot to do with her getting accepted there. If I'm not mistaken, Clinton had none of those legacies to build upon, only sheer will and personal ambition.

Okay, I need to take a break now. I think I just praised Bill Clinton over Barack Obama, lol. Clearly, pigs are flying. Wow.

[SparkyDash]

This should not be a Dem vs. Repub discussion. Good grief. It is not uncommon for the sons and daughters of college professors, physicians, elected officials, lawyers, barbers, military personnel (especially officers) to follow in their parents' footsteps. In fact it is downright common. Long lines of some of our popular military officers from single family branches reach well back in history. Some families are drawn to public service, such as elected office. Spouses are drawn to their wife's or husband's vocation. They live it, learn it, are drawn to it, love it. That is why your argument is flat, Mr. Jenkens...why would you deny anyone who wishes to perform a job and brings with them great passion to do it...especially serving the public ...their right because their parent or family member is of that vocation? This is still a very free country. I will fight till the end to assure anyone who deserves to make their choice, their chance. Yes, individuals have been appointed to Senate seats until the next election to (1) continue service (2) save time and great deal of money for a special election. This is not a perfect system, but it is, in my humble opinion, a good one. I wouldn't insult voters either...that is why we have campaigns and elections, and why we need to get our bums out and vote.

[meko]

I don't think the issue is that people are drawn to familiar vocations, but that they receive preference over more qualified people. Granted, Cuomo and Biden have demonstrated their vocation by serving in the past, but in the case of Caroline Kennedy, the reason for the appointment is that her father and uncle were JFK and RFK. Without those two relatives, no one would ever consider someone with her qualifications for a senate seat appointment.

[amicus1991]

I think a critical analysis of political nepotism is long overdue in this country and I applaud you for getting the ball rolling. My only fault with this article is your proclamation that "Hillary Clinton has been an able or even outstanding Senator." I'm not aware of any notable accomplishments by Mrs. Clinton in the Senate, nor did you name any. We do know, however, that she voted in favor of the Iraq War (in hindsight, wrong vote), against the surge (in hindsight, wrong vote), and publicly accused America's greatest military general in a generation of lying about the success of the surge (in hindsight, he was spot on). By any objective measure, this is not the record of any outstanding or even "able" Senator.

[Citizen54]

Ah, thank you. I said something similar elsewhere. It's funny how people in the press keep telling us what a great senator Clinton has been..... but never ever do they cite even one example. If anyone reading has an example, please post.

[Doofus]

It's in the interests of the Demo party apparatus in NY to get another Demo
Senator installed in NY after HRC joins the Obama administration. That's the
ONLY reason to pick a 'name' candidate such as Caroline Kennedy for the
appointment (but it's a good one) with the expectation that after a couple of years
on the job, she'll have an easy time getting re-elected.

It is, in effect, coincidence that she's a 'legacy'. The real reason for her selection is
that it increases the likelihood of the seat staying in Demo hands after the special
election in 2010. Is this 'fair'? Not necessarily. It's expedient, practical politics. To
pick a *relatively* unknown but experienced politico, even a congressional Rep, who
is not well known state-wide, risks losing the Senate seat to a Repo challenger in 2010.

By the same logic, NY attorney general Andrew Cuomo would be an even better choice.

[engineer68]

Not everyone in upstate/western NY is thrilled with Mrs. Schlossberg, because in her entire life she never once traveled north of NYC. I would think she would at some point in her life , taken an interest in her home State. Many people think NYC is the entire State. There are 62 counties with-in the State. I doubt Mrs. S could find any County west of Albany on a map.

[lwaxanatroi]

I'm against term limits because they limit the rights, not of the politicians, but of the voters to choose the person they most want as their representative. Like it or not, people often choose what's familiar. I'm once again living in the Congressional district of Duncan Hunt;er, only this time it's Dunc Jr. who holds the seat (even though I"m convinced a third of the voters thought they were still voting for dear old pops). So, bottom line, isn't the real issue what kind of a job the representative is doing once he or she gets the position? On the plus side, we get Ted Kennedy and Evan Bayh. On the negative side
--name your favorites. Which type Caroline will turn out to be is still anyone's guess. There will come a time when she has to face the voters and make her case. The voters may no;t always make choices I like either, but our democracy demands that we respect their right to choose their representatives, and every political dynasty still has to overcome that basic hurdle. No one gets the job for life.

[lescargot]

lwaxanatroi (?)
I am with you on this. Term limits were another bad idea that assumes (1) people are stupid and easily baffled and (2) democracy doesn't work. Once someone is in office too long, there is a process that eliminates them - their constituents vote them out. But if they are doing well and serving their constituents well, why keep them out? The whole animus toward "Professional Politicians" is another neo-conservative swindle that liberals and progressives swallowed whole.

Also, not to nitpick but the Kennedy Family is a dynasty. So is the Bush family (as George Sr. starts the ball rolling for Jeb in 2012). Both of these families extend back into American politics for many generations. On the other hand, Bill and Hillary Clinton are a couple, from average backgrounds and 1 daughter unlikely to ascend to American politics. If by chance Chelsea does and her kids do as well, then we can start talking about the Clinton's dynasty. Otherwise, the use of the term in connection with them is metaphorical at best.

Besides, it's not about families it's about Brand Name Recognition. That's what people react to for better or for worse. But for better or for worse American Politics have become about Brand, because the engine that drives it is marketing.

Celebrate the fact that Obama is a step in a new direction, an otherwise "unmarketable" candidate profile with a truly "unmarketable" name and yet ...

[MBryant]

Why should New Yorkers elect Caroline Kennedy? What is the job of U.S. Senator?
- make laws - understand the legal implications of things - be able to communicate those things - have laws fit with other laws
- use your influence to help people in your state

Caroline Kennedy is a lawyer. She may not have been a practicing corporate lawyer or a defense or prosecuting attorney but she has the training and she has co-authored books that communicate basic tenets of constitutional law for others. You don't have to be a lawyer to be a senator, but it doesn't hurt and Caroline Kennedy's legal background is part of her qualifications.

Caroline Kennedy has spent her career working with charitable boards and causes to help New Yorkers and others. She has raised funds and worked on committees and convinced people to volunteer. And with her name she has instant influence and access to many people in Washington and Albany including the new President, the press, her fellows in congress, the Mayor, the governor.

Caroline Kennedy is a "legacy" and we don't want a patrician oligarchy. This is a valid concern. But Caroline Kennedy may be more qualified to be U.S. Senator than second term Senator in Washington, perhaps more qualified than the one she could be replacing.

Yes, we need Bill Clintons and Barack Obamas and maybe even Sarah Palins who climb up to the seat of power. But it doesn't hurt to have a few who are comfortable

[TIMLHOWE]

shes not a lawyer5 - she went to law school,

she not only has never practiced - she has let her law license expire.

shes park Avenue half billionaire royal charity board member,

And lil else...

[amicus1991]

Take it from this 20 year practicing lawyer - one who graduates from law school but who never actually practice law is not a "lawyer" in any sense of the word. I suspect that you wouldn't want a first year attorney, fresh out of law school, representing you in a case where your life or your livelihood depended on it. Why on earth, then, do you think Ms. Kennedy's so-called legal background somehow makes her qualified for the Senate? If her last name wasn't Kennedy, her qualifications for this esteemed position would be considered laughable.

[ARonHenry]

Robert Kennedy never practiced law either. He did go to law school. When JFK appointed him Attoney General he quipped that he saw nothing wrong with giving Bobby a little legal experience before he went out to practice law. There was something of an uproar over RFK's appointment. Many at the time thought his qualifications laughable. But history shows us he turned out to be an outstanding AG and was one of JFK's best appointments and most important advisors. It's probably not an overstatement to say that everyone breathing today owes their very life to this laughably qualified man. His judgement and support of his brother's resistence to the generals and hawks in the administration helped prevent a nuclear war in October of 1962. His strong backing of civil rights helped clear the path that led to Barack Obama's election as President of the United States.

[Citizen54]

What Ms Kennedy did NOT practice is going to the voting booth. She chose not to vote in many key elections. You want that person in the Senate? As a NYer, I want a rep who knows how to vote.

[ClarkJensen]

Yes, the United States - and the Democratic Party - is complacently sliding into "name brand" politics; the voters seemed to have softened into lazy thinking, following the political hacks that organize around these legacy family candidates.
The glimmer of hope is that the younger voters might - might - be more savvy than an older generation which may be more inclined to political "Camelot".
After eight years with George Bush you'd think that any thinking voter would be repulsed by the idea of more political dynasties. The Bush Dynasty has left us with a President who has completely run out of steam and hangs out at his Texas Ranch while the country goes up in smoke. Caroline Kennedy seems lethargic even before serving time in public office, and apparently could barely crank up the energy to make it to the polls to vote.
Yet many Democrats - yes, shamefully - more than Republicans seem to be sold by the political marketing that hums around these family candidates.

[payos]

Maybe it's only because politics, like any other business, tends to run in families... doctor's children become doctors, architects architects, maybe it's genes... who knows...
as long as they're qualified, I wouldn't sweat it...

[antaeus]

How many legacy professionals have you known personally? A great number of them go into Daddy's business for the sole reason that it is his business, and they appear to consider their familiarity with the landscape sufficient compensation for their own lack of special gifts.

In my own hometown the son of the local M.D. spent years as a mortician before finally getting a Caribbean medical degree. As competent as his father? Sure, don't sweat it . . .

[gisellestwocents]

Exactly!! Special knowledge passes down and around within families if the younger generation is in tune with the elders...and THAT'S A GOOD THING to the extent that wisdom is passed on and hopefully developed even further.

Granted, that can be frustrating for the newly initiated and present barriers to entry for the uninitiated. That's life... As a society, we need that "insider" wisdom just as well as those "new ideas."

Those feeling left out complain, but we actually have a very open society, comparatively. There are many, many avenues for inclusion, education and personal/professional development. Socioeconomic progress is an evolutionary process. And we all need to learn to appreciate what others have to offer in that journey.

Caroline Kennedy is an asset to the state of New York and the Democratic party. She wants to go all in and I think that's fabulous.

[anandakos]

Giselle,

Compared to whom? Zimbabwe? We USED to have a "very open society, comparatively", back in the days when Harvard cared more about opportunity for gifted young people than how large it could grow its endowment. However, in the past thirty years we have dropped behind nearly all of the Euro countries and the relatively developed Asian ones (Japan, Taiwan, Australia, New Zealand, and Singapore) in inter-generational social mobility factors. We have made great strides letting middle-class black people into the halls of power, and that's estimable and certainly a thing to be proud of. But class barriers have gotten much higher at the same time racial barriers have fallen.

And, what "special knowledge" is passed "down and around" in political families? How to lie to the electorate convincingly? How to shake-down -- er "raise campaign contributions from" -- daddy's contributors? How to avoid indictable quid pro quo language when negotiating a quid pro quo?

These are critical skills for the modern politician, and running for Student Council doesn't provide the opportunity to hone them.

[drayak]

I worked at a factory, making windows, doors, etc. Granddaddy started it, son came along and learned the job, from the office view. His dad would not step down until he was 90years old and in bad health, didn't think junior would do the right thing(s). Now son has three children working in the business. Oldest keeps moving from plant to plant. His idea is he is king of the hill and all women worship the dirt he walks on. Dad moves him after the law suits start to pour in on harassement. Daughter, worked one day in each area of the main plant and was then deemed qualified to be Vice Pres of Advertising and Pland Operations. Third child, a son, worked one week in each area of the main plant and was promoted to an office, too. Point is this with the possible exception of the last child there was not a special gene running with this family.

Best way to avoid this problem of family dyaesties, would be to hold a "Special Election" whenever a seat opens. Have canidates verified as qualified, and run a one month stump before the election. Even better, rethink "Public Service" cut the pay and perks by two thirds and watch the rats (currently serving) jump ship. There would still be a crowd wanting to run and serve.

[lisa12345]

The dynasties of America are a threat to true democracy. Americans continue to be "starstruck" and view political families as they do movie stars. We continue to accept the notion that the people born into the top tier of this society somehow deserve it. It appears we even admire them for it. Instead, we point the finger at each other for societal problems. How many times have we heard lower-middle
income people complain about "blacks on welfare" whom they believe take their tax money--yet they rarely consider the fact that in this society, our money tends to flow upward? The groups in the lower classes are played against one another by the politicans (wedge issues), and are too busy being angry with each other to see what is going on. During the auto industry bailout controversy, many middle-class Americans complained about the union workers being bailed out, and expressed anger that the union workers made "too much money". As if they were jealous of others on their own level doing better than them. Where was the outrage toward the people at the top and their insanely high salaries? We have to start teaching people to see how the system works. Ruling elites who are tied in with the corporate class want to keep their dynastic power. They will vote against change if it threatens their pocketbooks. We cannot continue to have these dynasties in charge.

[SparkyDash]

You"ve successfully affronted Delawareans by assuming Delaware voters are lacking the brights to vote for the candidate of their choice in 2010. Whether Delawareans feel fortunate to have Senator Joe Biden looking after their state and its best interests (repeatedly voting him their Senator) and wish that to continue with Attorney General Beau Biden, or choose to have another take the Senate seat in 2010, the key is that there will indeed be an election. As Joe Biden won his Senate seat handily¦once again¦he has my blessing to offer his opinion to Gov. Minner with regards to his immediate replacement. This process is preferred by states throughout history as it saves tremendous time and money on special elections. Joe Biden"s judgment is respected, and yes I unequivocally believe he wants what is best for Delaware. Beau Biden is an exceptional leader, he can unapologetically stand on his own merits with dignity, having: worked at the U.S. Department of Justice as Counsel in the Office of Policy Development and later as a Federal Prosecutor in the U.S. Attorney's Office; worked as a respected partner in a Wilmington law firm; and served as Delaware Attorney General since January "07. AG Beau Biden is currently deployed in Iraq as a Captain in the Delaware National Guard and determined to fulfill his military duty. Delaware is proud of Beau Biden. Come 2010, Delawareans will elect the best person as Senator¦the choice is up to and will be determined by informed voters.

[LizM]

Sparky, will our work NEVER be done!?

[SparkyDash]

I would only hope so Liz, but, alas...btw, your clarity and insight is always well communicated and spot on.

[lisa12345]

I just wrote a post agreeing that we need to be concerned about the aristocratic nature of our government. I saw your post and just want to state that although many of us on the left are opposed to this, some of us do see that these issues cannot change overnight. I have been unhappy with Democrats over the years, but I do believe there is reason to hope that the Democrats may start to change things now. Right now, some of us think it is more important to get laws in place to change society for the better--in other words, we just want Democrats in there to get these changes made! As long as they work with the PE we will be happy. Some are pushing harder, they want major change and they want it fast. This is why some on the left are so upset about Kennedy and even Burris (he is not from a dynasty but they think this smacks of corruption). Personally--I am not as upset. I am more interested in whether they will go along with Obama's progressive policies. On a final note, I do like Biden, but in eight years or so I would love to see the dynasties lose power and more outsiders brought in. Like Bill Clinton and Barack Obama, for instance. Ruling families tend to resist policies that will upset the status quo too much, and that is a concern for many of us.

[LizM]

You have implied that Biden is part of a dynasty in the making and that he is a Washington insider - neither of which is true, by any stretch of the imagination...just wanted to make that perfectly clear. But, I'm glad you like him!

[TIMLHOWE]

Beau has already run and won state wide office and will have to do it again to be the Senator.

Very, very different than what the Royalists are asking for Princess C.

[camb94]

This is lame. Who cares? How many college professors are the sons and daughters of college professors? How many plumbers had fathers that were plumbers? How many actors/actresses had parents that are actors? The list goes on and on. There are many reasons for this besides the basic idea of nepotism. Obviously, people tend to identify with what they know. More politicians kids try to become politicians. The name helps, sure, but there is no guarantee. There is a combination of factors, from genetics, to experience, to exposure that sets people on their paths in life. The idea that there are dynasties is ridiculous. They still have to be elected. The fact that there are whole families involved in politics makes sense in the same way that there are families that are connected to science. Moreover, as long as there are still opportunties for outsiders, ( and I think that Obama beating the "Clinton Dynasty" has proved that there are), then having political families is just an inevitable fact of life.

[SparkyDash]

Hooray for voters with regards to Mr. Obama. We got up off our arses and got them in gear.

[rzan1]

It is not that unusual for offspring to go into the family business. They have lived with it all their lives, and they have an interest in it. I think this talk of dynasties is just silly. Caroline has always been interested in public service and very likely in politics as her father was President and two of her uncles were/are senators. I personally despise politics and would never care to become a senator. I do not envy them or their positions. I only hope that they do their jobs well. The same may be said of teachers, doctors, nurses, housekeepers, electricians, etc. etc.etc. I am glad that someone as bright and involved as Caroline Kennedy wants to enter the field in which her father before her served.

[Paul Jenkins - Huffpost Blogger]

The point is it is NOT a business, and it certainly is NOT a business that belongs to a family, or even several families. The comparison to a small business, such as an electrician's, is invalid: the man or woman owns his business and can of course hire anyone he wants, within non-discrimination guidelines. Politicians do not own their seats and they are not theirs to do what they want with once they retire.

[TIMLHOWE]

its about Celebrity.

THIS was problem number one with the entire Obamamania during the primaries.

These people are consumers more than citizens!

[ARonHenry]

Ms Kennedy, as far as I know, has never claimed ownership of the New York Senate seat. She is asking to be considered for the opportunity to SERVE. I believe she is qualified, as are a number of other people seeking consideration. If appointed I believe she would be an asset to the state, the country, the world. Then she will have to face the judgement of the voters of New York, who will have the opportunity to either accept or reject her. This whole idea of "dynasty" in the USA is a red herring. You have to take these people as indiviuals, one at a time.

[Promise]

I agree with this point. It is quite usual for children to follow in the footsteps of their parents in the family business. In show business, there are many--Kate Hudson, Mia Farrow, Liza Minelli, the Bridges boys, Gwyneth Paltrow, Natalie Cole, Josh Brolin, Jacob Dylan...just to name a few. Who complains about that? In politics, there are the wonderful Udall cousins, sons of Stewart and Mo. The Roosevelts, the Adams, not to mention the many Kennedys. Why, now, that Caroline is being considered is all the fuss about dynasties? When a child grows up in an environment of a certain type, they live and breathe it, meet other people in the ifield and have a lot of information about it as well as encouragement and connections. It's a great asset, if you ask me.

I have to wonder what it is that really rankles people about the possibility of a Senator Caroline Kennedy...is it jealousy? Is it sexism? Everyone says she has the brains, the education and the morivation of public service (it isn't the money) and the poise, grace and integrity. Look at her genes. That should be an indication of what the woman can do when she sets her mind to it.