Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

The Weakening Prospects of Caroline Kennedy

Please tell me you aren't really surprised by the growing backlash against Caroline Kennedy's quest to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as the junior senator from New York. More than a few prominent political folks, including Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), were put out by Kennedy's celebrity giving her a leg-up on others who would like to get the nod from New York Gov. David Paterson. And celebrity could have taken her far, were it not for five big political, style and substance mistakes committed by her otherwise able strategic team that have diminished the prospects of the highly regarded Camelot heiress.

Mistake No. 1: Not voting in many New York City and State elections over the last 20 years. It's hard to carry the mantle of America's political royal family, with its well-earned history of public service, when it's been revealed that you couldn't even muster the energy to vote for Democrats.

Mistake No. 2: Refusing to swear allegiance to the Democratic challenger to Mayor Bloomberg when he seeks a third term next year. New York Democrats are right to demand it.

Mistake No. 3: Not giving money to New York's Democratic Party candidates. According to the New York Daily News, in the last ten years, Kennedy has given $1,000 to local office seekers. She was more generous at the federal level. She even maxed out to Clinton, who gave the money back after Kennedy publicly endorsed Barack Obama.

These three errors might not be fatal, but they most certainly diminished Kennedy's standing and gave competitors and critics the opening they needed to throw cold-water on the political neophyte with a storied last name.

Now, let's add the style and substance mistakes.

Mistake No. 4: Avoiding the press. I could understand Kennedy not chit-chatting at length with the press corps in Syracuse on her first day as a Senate aspirant. But her strategic advisers were a little too cute in asking for written questions from media outlets and then selectively answering the inquiries with as much depth as an After Eight mint. (She emerged from weeks of silence only Friday night.)

Mistake No. 5: Refusing to make any potential financial, legal and ethical disclosures until after she's been appointed. Kennedy is not legally bound to do this. But this arrogance won't go over well with most New Yorkers. And considering that most of the other senatorial prospects are elected officials who must submit to all manner of public and financial disclosures, and who are held accountable for them, it's unfair.

As soon as Kennedy voiced interest in the seat, pundits confidently claimed that Paterson was boxed in and had no choice but to pick Caroline. But as many political and media observers are now discovering, this was a mistaken presumption.

Paterson isn't in thrall to the Kennedy clan because he comes from a political dynasty himself. His father, Basil Paterson, was a state senator, a New York City deputy mayor under Ed Koch and New York secretary of state. Along with David Dinkins (Mayor 1989 - 1993), Percy Sutton (Manhattan Borough President 1965-1977) and Rep. Charles B. Rangel (now chairman of the powerful tax-writing Ways and Means Committee), the elder Paterson formed a potent political force that schooled his son in the nuances, benefits and perils of power politics.

Political dynasties teach their members two important lessons: independence and the importance of loyalty. So don't be shocked if Paterson defies expectations and picks someone who is politically loyal to him -- not to a legendary uncle and not to a president who's candidacy gained momentum after a stunning endorsement -- and to the interests of New York State.

By Jonathan Capehart  | December 27, 2008; 12:00 AM ET
Categories:  Capehart  | Tags:  Jonathan Capehart  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: I Know Why Obama Picked Warren. But Why?!
Next: The Electorate: Moderate, and Slowly Moving Left

Comments

"So don't be shocked if Paterson defies expectations and picks someone who is politically loyal to him..."

Uh Oh, beginning to sound like Blagojevich-- does that loyalty have to mainfest as cash?

Posted by: dotellen | December 27, 2008 12:46 AM | Report abuse

The idea of John Kennedy's blood rising to high political office is abhorrent to bi-partisan fronts (supporters of "printing press" bailouts for Wall Street loan sharks to prop up the unconstitutional Fed) for fascist plutocracy profiting from the Bush/Nixon/CIA assassination in Dallas.

Their treasonous faction not only sent 58,000 of us to die fighting the anti-Roman Catholic Jeffersonian Whig revolution led by Ho Chi Minh it has since managed to commit 9/11 to send us to die shedding innocent blood for oil, heroin and the Saudis.

What citizen could be worse than the scum now filling seats in the Senate?

Long live JFK
Death for Treason
Caroline for President!

Posted by: iamerican | December 27, 2008 12:52 AM | Report abuse

The dying mainstream media does its best to keep the craven conventional political hacks like Cuomo, Maloney, and Israel feeding at the trough while DOING NOTHING TO QUESTION THEIR CREDENTIALS FOR THE SENATE or their complicity in placing the nation in its present quandary.

Posted by: speedylegs | December 27, 2008 1:08 AM | Report abuse

"So don't be shocked if Paterson defies expectations and picks someone who is politically loyal to him -- not to a legendary uncle and not to a president who's candidacy gained momentum after a stunning endorsement -- and to the interests of New York State."

Be awfully nice if the Governor of the State of New York picked a Senator on the basis of loyalty to the people of New York, rather than loyalty to himself.

Incidentally, I don't think Caroline Kennedy, nice as she is, is that person. "I think I'd like to be a Senator now," is not a qualification for the office she is seeking. Her refusal to talk to the press and her refusal to make her finances transparent indicate arrogance and ignorance of the political process. Princess Caroline believes she should be able to simply walk, unvetted, into the Senate.

Posted by: nicekid | December 27, 2008 5:15 AM | Report abuse

"Refusing to swear allegiance to the Democratic challenger to Mayor Bloomberg when he seeks a third term next year. New York Democrats are right to demand it."

I flatly disagree with the notion that a prospective Senator must kowtow the party line. A good citizen should not automatically support whoever the party throws up. They should make an informed decision after thinking about both candidates.

That kind of blind partisanship is what has kept the government deadlocked for so long. It's what Obama (and McCain) promised to address.

In short, her unpopularity with the New York Democratic machine is fine by me.

Posted by: Simon23p | December 27, 2008 5:18 AM | Report abuse

"Avoiding the press."

Sure.

Posted by: gary4books | December 27, 2008 5:36 AM | Report abuse

The pundits' assuming immediately that Governor Paterson is "boxed in" is inherently racist, since they obviously assume he is helpless against the Kennedy machine's media onslaught.

Many of the same crew thought they could take the Democratic nomination away from a sitting president, Jimmy Carter, in 1980. Instead, these rule-or-ruin types handed the presidency to Ronald Reagan.

Talk about arrogance and pressure politics.

They've underestimated David paterson.

Posted by: kdhcherry | December 27, 2008 6:19 AM | Report abuse

Caroline Kennedy has this Buffalonians support. She seems like a genuinely nice woman who has been through hell and back a few times mostly in involuntary service to the nation. Any reticence to vote, make Machiavellian political choices, or disclose personal information is understandable. She is someone who has tried to have a normal life to be a mother that she has shied away from politics is understandable, she didn't want her children to go through what she's gone through which is wise. That jealousy and ill will from traditional politicians is understandable, that she has made mistakes in a process with no traditions or rules is again quite understandable. What I don't understand is who would be a better choice for the job. Who has been discussed? Andrew Cuomo has a job that really needs the mans full attention whether he cares or not. Not a good choice just on that and would expose the office to competition from the Republicans just as much as Caroline while I think not as electable, the man is a mess, greedy and nasty, probably the source of most of the anti Caroline push. As far as the rest mostly I ask who are they? I've even less knowledge of them than I have of Caroline literally, and I am better informed than 90% of the voters. Yes she is a Kennedy with all that brings with it for good and bad. I think for New York State that the pluses far outweigh the negatives. Just having her surviving Uncle at her elbow puts her far ahead of anyone else. If Governor Paterson wants a new ally at this juncture he couldn't make a better choice.

Posted by: elgunjduts | December 27, 2008 6:33 AM | Report abuse

Late word from NY:

Rudy is begging Paterson to appoint Princess Caroline to the Senate. Rudy knows that, given a dose of his Realpolitik in 2010, she will be peeing all over that velvet throne.

Posted by: jayjay9 | December 27, 2008 6:35 AM | Report abuse

It's incredible how the press has chosen to focus on the alleged downside of Caroline Kennedy's resume while completely ignoring the other Senate prospects David Patterson is considering. New York could do far worse than Caroline Kennedy. How about focusing in the the utterly corrupted congressman from Queens, Gregory Meeks? Here is a man who shamelessly leases a Lexus for $1000 a month at taxpayer expense, and has spent his entire congressional career accepting and spending millions in "donations" (and trips) from financial institutions for campaigns for which he had no opponents. Meanwhile, he votes against the interests of his own poor district in favor of banks and credit card companies. Please be fair and examine all the possibilities before attacking Ms. Kennedy. We could wind up with an unknown scalawag.

Posted by: nyc98765 | December 27, 2008 6:38 AM | Report abuse

While I respect the Kennedys, Caroline is not ENTITLED to this position by any means. However, her ex in- law Andrew Cuomo, certainly has worked hard for the State and he is the best choice for Senator. Caroline jumped on the Obama bandwagon because his speeches inspired her children. Did she ever even bother to look into Obamas many secrets- such as his record in Illinois or his school records - all now mysteriously sealed. His selective service registration is also said to be falsified and we wont even touch the birth certificate issue. Caroline's slap in the face to Hillary should not be rewarded with Hillarys Senate seat. Caroline has done nothing for politics in New York and she didnt even vote most of the time. She is not qualified for anything other than a position in the arts.

Posted by: JUNGLEJIM123 | December 27, 2008 6:49 AM | Report abuse

Ooops. I was a fan until I read about Caroline's voting record (or record of not voting). That damns her worse than any lack of legislative experience, since the kind of experience that will raise boatloads of cash for the party and win elections, she does have, and that's all that counts.

What I mean is, upon her translation to the Upper Body, she would become the Princess of the Senate, and nobody would notice if she didn't know or care how the fat guys in the five-thousand dollar suits make deals. But she did need (notice my use of the past tense here) some kind of experience with the Salt of the Earth down at the polls. Aren't there any pictures of her delivering brownies to the Inspector of Elections on voting day? Aren't there any pictures of her peeking out from the voting booth curtains after exercising the franchise? Ah well Caroline-- we hardly knew ye. Back to the grind of being fabulous, but to what end? From now on, the spotlight entrances will reveal only how tatty the decor has gotten, as the band plays on.

Posted by: PJTramdack | December 27, 2008 7:00 AM | Report abuse

"Be awfully nice if the Governor of the State of New York picked a Senator on the basis of loyalty to the people of New York, rather than loyalty to himself."

HURRAH. Whoever has worked for the greater good of NY and has a passion for serving the people of NY should have the opportunity. CK isn't ENTITLED to this position but neither should she be discounted. I think the points raised in this column don't put her in a good light, though. It sounds almost a whim. Clintons' seat will be vacated and perhaps a relative said, hey, what about you?

If CK doesn't get this gig and she's REALLY interested in SERVING, she'll do it in other ways and make her way to running for office.

She's never expressed or demonstrated interest prior to this opportunity opening - not publicaly and that's what counts. This was opportunism, as I see it. Right place, perhaps, but the wrong time.

Posted by: itsagreatday1 | December 27, 2008 8:56 AM | Report abuse

Mistake No. 4: Kennedy doesn't have the temperament for politics nor does she have the experience of campaigning. How will she deal with having to work for votes?

Mistake No. 5: Kennedy, a Downstater like Sen. Schumer, doesn't understand the issues facing Upstate NY.

Mistake No. 6: There are many candidates for Clinton's replacement who are capable, good politicians, and worked their way up the ladder (Rep. Maloney, Rep. Nadler, A.G.Cuomo). Her jump-to-the-head-of-the-line sense of entitlement doesn't sit well with many New Yorkers.

Mistake No. 7: Why waste the next two years trying to learn about the committee system and Senatorial procedure if you don't have a chance of getting elected in a REAL campaign in 2010?

Posted by: shapiromarilyn | December 27, 2008 9:51 AM | Report abuse

I sincerely hope that Governor Paterson appoints someone else to Hillary's New York Senate seat. If Caroline truly wants it, let her win it fair and square the next time around. I saw her underwhelming "interview" last night, however; and she, you know, sounded more like, you know, a professional athlete than an heir to a political throne. I think it's time for this sense of entitlement to come to an end.

Posted by: AZANNE | December 27, 2008 10:31 AM | Report abuse

So,it looks like someone needs to go tell
Socialist Rich Little Caroline Kennedy and
Barack Hussein Obama that Camelot Is Over.

Did anyone else notice the way Caroline Kennedy keeps hanging on to Barack Obama
anytime she is on stage or anywhere with
Obama? Oh Well it wouldn't surprise me if
Barack Obama and Caroline Kennedy are having an illict sexual affair together.
Why don't Caroline Kennedy go back into
her fancy penthouse and just disappear as
it is quite clear she is not wanted to be
A US Senator by now.

Posted by: redheadclaudine | December 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Caroline Schlossenberg got a Papal divorce and changed her last name to Kennedy? By any name Caroline remains a bigoted airhead with a big mouth.

Posted by: tucanofulano | December 27, 2008 11:39 AM | Report abuse

Mistake #1. Obaby & Teddy thinking that the Senate seat was theirs to award. New Yorkers aren't as easily fooled as these two think. Bye Bye Princess Caroline.

Posted by: edanddot | December 27, 2008 11:57 AM | Report abuse


Capehart's #2 is innacurate.

First, Akerman wants to run himself.
And the two other biggest mouths, named
Weiner and some other very Jewish name, want it too...

And altogheter, New Yorkers think they'll need real help, ala AIPAC's Schumer to help get the boys of Wall Street off the
indictment list.

They want a Jewish senator...and even if Caroline branded a Israeli star on her forehead, as Hilllary has done, she'd not suit them..

As for being a good senator for the rest of new york and the nation, who cares, right?

Posted by: whistling | December 27, 2008 12:15 PM | Report abuse

Cuomo is clearly the choice. He has the intellect and the experience. He has earned it.

Kennedy needs to go back to peddling books and attending art openings. These are serious times for serious people, and that leaves her out.

What on earth has happened to the voting acumen of the average American? They are willing to settle for political neophytes and questionable celebrities such as Caroline Kennedy, Al Franken, Steve Largent, even a washed up wrestler and an ex-sportscaster for Governors.

Will someone please publish a training manual for these morons, such as "Voting for Dummies."

Now, having completely emptying my spleen in this post, what does it say about me that I catagorically disavow any chance for Caroline, but would be intrigued over the appointment of her brother John Jr. should he still be alive?

Posted by: kimba1 | December 27, 2008 3:17 PM | Report abuse

Whoa. The comments here, the knee-jerk Republicans who are still wandering around in a haze thinking they matter at the moment. Then there are the one who think that Caroline Kennedy feels entitled to the seat.

The fact of the matter is that whomever Gov Paterson selects would be"anointed" by the appointment. If he does appoint her and if Ms. Kennedy is so politically weak, then come 2010, she will be updating her resume. Those who wish to unseat her will all have a level playing field.

Posted by: HeddWyn | December 27, 2008 6:48 PM | Report abuse

When Congress failed us in bailouts and impresses us with low ratings, we naturally want to look for new ideas and new people for the Congress. Caroline Kennedy has the famous family name, but she is a fresh new person to politics with full qualification backed up by her education and public service to NYC. I fully support her interest in the Senate. Simply put, she can do a much better job than the House representatives from NY today. We already know the current representatives are not successful. Why would NY promote them to the Senate?

Posted by: dummy4peace | December 27, 2008 10:32 PM | Report abuse

The princess is a lightweight. Mr. Capehart has nailed the little heiress to the tee. Well done, sir.

Posted by: jyowsa | December 28, 2008 1:35 AM | Report abuse

IMHO:
Basically the Kennedy Candidacy could not trust even the "in-the-tank-for-Obama-MSM". What if they asked her (up close and personal) whether and how she voted in the past? Can she articulate and comment on the "Bush Doctrine"? What precisely is she currently reading? Or some other question she was not scripted for?

Posted by: ryan13 | December 28, 2008 1:39 AM | Report abuse

One of Paterson's real problems, and considerations, must be about demography. New Yourk has 19 million people, NYC 8.5, and Jews are 1.6 million of that. Paterson succeeded a connected NYC Jew by accident. The other "power posts" - Mayor of NYC, Speaker, the other Senate seat are held by longtime born and bred NYC Jewish political players - Bloomberg, Schumer, and Sheldon Silver.

The "frontrunners" with the NY Times and Wall Street Bagmen backing them, are all NYC residents...with a few "candidates of diversity"...meaning Jewish women (Nita Lowey), Hispanic women (Velaquez?) from NYC.
The only non-Jewish or non-NYC candidates in the mix are new Congresswoman Gillibrand and the black mayor of Buffalo, who lack the Bagmen. And the NYC media cheering them.

Given that, and the many problems of Upstate that only Hillary took a passing interest in before her Presidential campaign kicked up - should Paterson, a Manhattanite himself, really consider Princess Caroline, Gerald Nadler, Weiner, and Israel - all who think New York begins and ends on Manhattan? Caroline, who thinks the Finger Lakes are somewheres up in Vermont?
Andrew Cuomo, who lives in Manhattan but fights the good fight to remind all that Queens should have a say in running the State along with Brookynites and Manhattanites?
The Republicans have few good prospects now in NY, but the door could open for them if the rest of the state (Upstate, Long Island past Brooklyn) comes to believe being Democrat only serves the entitlement of NYC Jews and other ethnics, or never-elected NYC celebrities that want a nice prestigious spot handed to them.


Posted by: ChrisFord1 | December 28, 2008 9:59 AM | Report abuse

I find it appalling that the simple fact of birth would influence people regarding the role Caroline Kennedy is playing in this race for the senate. Why the necessity anyway to have a Kennedy in the senate? She is in actuality a Schlossberger but I guess she is right in thinking she can't run very far with it. Not very complimentary to her husband and family though. In a recent enormously lack lustre interview she displayed nothing of the charisma, if you will, from her famous father. Indeed, she appeared weary and half hearted, a tired and frumpish middle aged PTA mom instead of the vibrant, alert and polished image we are accustomed to from our many experienced, hard working and deserving politicians. Her allusions to her "family" were tiresome and reeked of entitlement. Much criticism of Sarah Palin has been tossed around but in fairness clearly she has shown political ability and experience in her role as Governor,this cannot be disputed. One cannot skulk and hide away and then suddenly emerge into the political daylight and expect to crowned queen in a day. Caroline Kennedy at this moment is by no stretch of the imagination equal to Hilary Clinton. Clearly there are those who are eligible for this important position which should be awarded on merit and not for dynastic purposes, so where are their voices?

Posted by: elizabeth6 | December 28, 2008 5:12 PM | Report abuse

If we are going to hold Caroline Kennedy to such high standards and demand certain answers and behaviors, then we should demand the same of all those who oppose her and want the senate seat. I don't hear or see that happening.
The hypocrisy continues!!

Posted by: easysoul | December 29, 2008 11:05 AM | Report abuse

I first want to thank the author for writing such an informative article.
One of the really galling aspects of American political dynastics is that inevitably the Prince or Princess-to-be comes out of an immensely wealthy family. OK, the pundit said that money is the mother's milk of American politics. But couldn't we have a dynasty of middle class or poor but HONEST and hard-working folk as leaders, at least sometimes? Has democracy been eclipsed by class-based monarchy in this country?
Ms. Kennedy seems to be a particularly egregious example of what's wrong with hereditary democracy: no voting record, in or out of office, no party work, no experience, and no tact, but a Westchester County attitude: "I am so deserving." Did she ever ring a doorbell and talk to anybody about what is wrong with this country? Does she have the least bit of perspective from a viewpoint other than Kennedy Avenue? Has she ever organized or canvassed a precinct, or even know how the glue on an envelope tastes? Was she in the Navy? Has she ever told a voter why taxes have to be raised? How can anyone talk about family sacrifices when they own an eight figure bank account? She should talk about family sacrifices when she loses her father and he was the only family member who would be paying next month's rent. Our government is full of leaders like her, and look where it got us.
"Dear Mr. President....", it works for Democratic females too.

Posted by: bong_jamesbong2001 | December 29, 2008 11:34 AM | Report abuse

Uh, "...refusing to swear allegiance to the Democratic... ". Oh stop it! That works just fine in Connecticut.

Posted by: bong_jamesbong2001 | December 29, 2008 11:42 AM | Report abuse

"I'm really coming into this as somebody who isn't, you know, part of the system, who obviously, you know, stands for the values of, you know, the Democratic Party. I know how important it is to, you know, to be my own person. And, you know, and that would be obviously true with my relationship with the mayor."--Caroline Kennedy

Posted by: lure1 | December 29, 2008 4:08 PM | Report abuse

So,Princess Caroline Kennedy and old drunk
Teddy Kennedy.along with Barack Hussein Obama seem Hellbent on recreating Camelot
with a black JFK Obama if you believe all
the phony spin about Barack Obama being the
new JFK now then and if you believe the spin that Obama "inspired" and "motivated"
Caroline Kennedy to want Hillary Clinton's
vacant US Senate seat. I don't buy it.

However,was I the only one,that noticed the
way both Caroline Kennedy & Barack Obama
kept virtually pawing all over each other,
every time they were on the same stage
together with each other? So, I think that
Caroline Kennedy wants that empty Senate seat so she can pursue Obama herself by her
being much closer to him in Washington DC
then she would be in New York City. So does
the philandering of the Kennedy Clan also
apply to their females or what here?

So go ahead all you Obama or Kennedy Lovers
and call me racist and names since I ask a
very valid question about what's really
going on here all you want then now.

Posted by: sherrykay08 | December 29, 2008 4:22 PM | Report abuse

So, do we need a US Senator in Charge of Washington Society Life or what? As that is
about all I can see Caroline Kennedy is
qualified to do and frankly that isnot much
of a Resuem just like had people been paying close attention then they would have
realized Barack Hussein Obama doesn't even
have that much of one either.

Posted by: Kim12785 | December 30, 2008 12:56 AM | Report abuse

"Why don't Caroline Kennedy go back into
her fancy penthouse and just disappear"

Posted by: redheadclaudine | December 27, 2008
-------
Nice grammar, you must be one of those southern white republicans I've been reading about, oh I forgot to mention, a racist also.

Posted by: JRM2 | December 30, 2008 3:33 PM | Report abuse

So,look here there come all the Obanabot Cult Members to re-inforce the Kennedy Fan Club,by calling everyone racists,that don't
think Princess Caroline Kennedy deserves to
be annointed US Senator from New York and
that is so funny as I didn't see any mention of race in the post from redhead claudine that triggered this creep JRM2 looney toons "racist" crap against her.
I cannot help but wonder if JRM2 works for
the Kennedys or is it Obama here?

Posted by: sandy5274 | December 30, 2008 6:26 PM | Report abuse

"Mistake No. 2: Refusing to swear allegiance to the Democratic challenger to Mayor Bloomberg when he seeks a third term next year. New York Democrats are right to demand it."

Well, Jonathan, you're wrong on at least one point here. During her weekend interview with reporters from the NYT, Kennedy stated -- and reiterated twice for the reporters, who apparently didn't believe her the first two times -- "I'll vote for the Democrat."

Posted by: kjohnson3 | December 31, 2008 12:45 AM | Report abuse

In the editorial, mistake #3 was failing to give contributions to democrats. Please tell me how this is so very different from Blago in Illinois. This is buying or bribing a senate seat. It happens every day and it is wrong. An honest man can not even get a federal loan if he has not contributed to the democrats from his area. We need to get this money speak out of our government. One who says she deserves to be a senator certainly does not deserve it. Look at her uhcle!! A farce!

Posted by: annnort | December 31, 2008 5:25 AM | Report abuse

You forgot the major mistake Kennedy made...She opened her mouth and sounded like an air-headed fool.Typical Kennedy,to much inbreeding.

Posted by: fcs25 | December 31, 2008 8:25 AM | Report abuse

We have this inconvenient document known as the United States Constitution. Here are the qualifications set forth by the US Constitution for a seat in the US Senate:

US Constitution
Section 3 Clause 3:

"No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen."

There is no mention of: cultural status, monetary worth, race, creed, color, IQ or religious beliefs. My suspicion is that the qualifications are such that ANY citizen (9 yrs) who is 30 years old and an inhabitant of the state in question can run or be nominated for the seat. Ms Kennedy is therefore, qualified for the seat, her prominent name notwithstanding. Even if she had stayed home baking cookies, she's qualified. However, she hasn't done that.

She's written two well received books about the The Bill of Rights, "In Our Defense" and "Right to Privacy (4th Amendment to the US Constitution)."

She has spent years in public service dealing with education and health care; She served on the board of the "NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund."

Considering all that Bush had done to earn the opportunity to be president; and all that Sarah Palin had accomplished to become the 2008 VP nominee, Caroline Kennedy is not only qualified for the Senate, she is worthy of the seat her uncle won.

Posted by: majikmoon | December 31, 2008 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Caroline Kennedy is as qualified as any other, more so than most.

She has a life time of very quiet, useful public service. She has not courted the limelight and has managed to be a very successful person for a life time of public service without a hint of scandal or opportunism.

Patterson does not have anyone else as qualified, as able to stand on her own two feet, raise the funds for her election in two years, and as schooled in the art of public representation. Caroline will take the citizens of New York as seriously as she has taken the children of New York City in her work for them.

Few Senators or representatives could match her skillful management of public work with a very private life.

Posted by: dutchess2 | January 1, 2009 6:47 AM | Report abuse

First, I don't think that one could call Gov. Patterson as coming from a dynasty. He is preceded only by his father, and not grandfathers and others from his family.

Also, the word should be whose not who's.

Posted by: GerriM | January 1, 2009 7:14 AM | Report abuse

It seems there is a problem about if Caroline Kennedy is apt or not to work as senator.
This is very curious,...many members from her own Democratic Party do not find her quite experienced or seasoned for the task.

However, they endorse, support, promote, almost worship, and elect Obama, who is a big ZERO in experience and views , totally not able to take the helm of the country. Yet, there he is!

These democrats deserve their own sitcom on TV, they are so funny ( and PHONY as well) that their power to make America laugh is at the higest magnitud.

Obama!,...for-cry-out-loud,...NO EXPERIENCE, TWISTED NOTIONS ABOUT HOW TO KEEP OUR COUNTRY SAFE ( if ever intended to keep it safe,...acually, a TROJAN HORSE FACTOR for the destruction of the country - a full-metal jacket socialist). A guy with a background of interesting past ( I do not have to tell you nothing about it , right? for sufice is to say that is HE IS product of the CHICAGO CORRUPTED POLITICAL MACHINE WITH ALL THE WORKS!) So take it from there.

And so , here is the thing :- after vote for Obama and with 'special factors' like : FRAUD,EXTORTION,DECEPTIONS, ILLEGAL FUNDING TO BUY ELECTIONS,...etc, and others goodies,...these COCOZOIDS DEMOCRATS ELECT HIM FOR PRESIDENCY !,...this people have the nerve to say that Ms Kennedy is not apt to be a senator?

Well, after all this, I think that anyone, ABSOLUTELY ANYONE can be president in our country.

Well, if this is going to continue stretching?,...then anyone born on Planet Earth can become president of any country.
So, Arnold Schwarzenegger could very well be president of USA and then!,.....TA-DAAAA! 'THE TERMINATOR' might end the CORRUPTION that bring to us things like CHICAGO-CORRUPTED POLITICAL ATMOSPHERE from where Obama comes from!

I bet this does not fit well to the Obama supporters,...buth then,...there is that.

Sincerely,
Daniel Cabrera
Merrillville, Indiana

Posted by: morcab | January 1, 2009 3:10 PM | Report abuse

~

She came out for Obama after her kids encouraged her to do so.

Her reasons for wanting to be Senator seem just as half-baked.

Most importantly, she is utterly incapable of pubic speaking.

The press interviews were disgraceful and showed her in a very poor light.

I'm guessing that these interviews have put an end to any hope that she once had.

~

Posted by: DickeyFuller | January 1, 2009 5:27 PM | Report abuse

You cannot make a change while doing the same old things you despise.

Not to mention when attention was brought to the people, she did not have much to say to quell the arguments against her. That was the AX itself.

Posted by: vicbennettnet | January 2, 2009 5:26 AM | Report abuse

After all this time, I doubt Caroline Kennedy will be appointed. Gov. Paterson really has no strong reasons to support her; given the mistakes listed by Jonathan above, he has several good reasons NOT to appoint her.

Ms. Kennedy appears to be a person who's suddenly interested in a political career because it's new and different. Not because she's devoted her life to public service or has any special abilities or qualifications (apart from her famous last name and a hefty Rolodex). That suggests to me that she would be a mediocre Senator... and why should NY settle for mediocrity, even in a celebrity wrapper?

Posted by: dbitt | January 2, 2009 9:47 AM | Report abuse

It is always amazing the way politics works……. A name, exerting of influence, some money gets "donated" or "contributed", a sweetheart deal is made and suddenly you are a senator. Hell, you might eventually even be elected on your own. One might even buy the presidency if they play their money………., er, cards, right. You do not necessarily even have to be the Obamessiah*!

(Borrowed from another contributor*)

Posted by: GordonShumway | January 2, 2009 11:09 AM | Report abuse

The name of the political game is money. Democrat bigshots believe Caroline Schlossberg can raise tons of it for them. It's a terrible reason, but money talks and Governor Patterson will probably listen.

Posted by: rmpatera | January 2, 2009 11:48 PM | Report abuse

We Democrats, you know, could use, you know, a Sarah Palin of our own.

Posted by: Sooner1 | January 3, 2009 10:14 AM | Report abuse

Thank you for such a well researched and thought out article. The links were well placed and quite useful. Our political parties seem, to me, more and more reminiscent of French Royalty just prior to the revolution of 1789. There are few political positions remaining that are filled by true representatives of this country. They represent only themselves and the other politicians, or Royalty, who placed them there.

Posted by: beowulf39565 | January 3, 2009 12:50 PM | Report abuse

Kennedy for NY Senate, A "temp" to hold the seat for Bidens son, and Blogo names a Senator for Illinois instead of have a special election.

Now that is corruption and cronyism that we can believe in.

Posted by: econfox | January 3, 2009 3:30 PM | Report abuse

"

Caroline Schlossenberg got a Papal divorce and changed her last name to Kennedy? By any name Caroline remains a bigoted airhead with a big mouth.

Posted by: tucanofulano"

Well, she never took her husband´s name as far as I know, and of all the things you could say about her, a bigoted airhead with a big mouth must be the least accurate. She has an education, she has written books, and it seems she have been shy most of her life. Losing her little brother Patrick, then her father the way she did, then her uncle, later her other brother - and constantly living in the spotlight can't have been easy. No wonder she has shunned politics for years.

Still, it sounds as if maybe it's a bit early to become a senator. She must have heard a lot about senate work from her uncle, but she hasn't been involved herself, learning procedures and making decisions. At least for now, she doesn't come across as a force to be counted with.

Posted by: asoders22 | January 3, 2009 4:30 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company