Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

NY-Sen: Did Caroline Campaign Too Much?


Caroline Kennedy listens to a reporter's question during a news conference at City Hall in Buffalo, N.Y.. Kennedy is campaigning for the open Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. (AP Photo/Don Heupel)

When the news broke that Caroline Kennedy, the heir to the single most potent political legacy in American politics, was interested in being appointed to the Senate to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton it was greeted with a mixture of fascination and interest by politicos and voters alike.

Polls reflected that sentiment with Kennedy rapidly emerging as the favored candidate for the appointment and voters expressing broadly favorable opinions about her.

And then something strange happened. Kennedy began to campaign for the appointment from New York Gov. David Paterson -- including a widely panned trip Upstate -- and the shine began to wear off of her.

"The problem she is facing is that the more public gets to know her, the less they want her to be a Senator," said Hank Sheinkopf, a longtime New York-based political consultant who is neutral in the appointment fight. Sheinkopf blamed the diminished enthusiasm for Kennedy on the two attempted roll-outs of her campaign -- describing them as "bombs".

Another Democratic strategist who has worked frequently in New York politics echoed that sentiment although in less blunt terms than the ever-colorful Sheinkopf.

"The best thing Caroline had going for her was the Kennedy mystique," said the source. "Her poorly executed, painfully amateurish roll-out made her look like a typical novice candidate. Before it, she was being compared to her father. After it, she was compared to Sarah Palin."

Polling suggests that the momentum Kennedy began the appointment race with has slacked off somewhat of late.

A new USA Today/Gallup poll showed that 45 percent of those tested would like to see Kennedy appointed to the Senate while 36 percent said they would want someone other than Kennedy to get the appointment. The poll also had some good news for Kennedy, however, as more than six in ten Democrats said they would like to see her appointed.

Another recent survey -- this one conducted by Public Policy Polling, a firm that uses an automated voice rather than a live person to conduct the interviews -- suggested that Kennedy would not be the strongest potential candidate in 2010. The poll showed state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo leading Rep. Peter King, the most likely Republican candidate, by a comfortable 48 percent to 29 percent margin while Kennedy took 46 percent to King's 44 percent -- a statistical dead heat.

Should Kennedy not get the appointment (and she still remains the favorite to be the pick), political strategists are almost certain to look back at her initial decision to campaign for a job that has an electorate of one as the main reason.

The theory as best as we can figure it behind Kennedy's high profile announcement of her interest and decision to campaign for the seat was aimed at turning Paterson's pick into a foregone conclusion. That is, as soon as Kennedy said she wanted it and showed some level of fire in the belly, Paterson would see that his choice was obvious.

Instead Paterson bristled at the idea of being told what to do and when to do it, making very clear that he was going to meet with a wide variety of people and would make a decision on his own timetable.

Kennedy allies insist that while her introduction to Empire State voters has not been without bumps, it is nothing new in the bruising world of New York politics and has done nothing to fundamentally change her strengths as a potential appointee. (Make sure to check out our case for Kennedy for a detailed examination of those strengths.)

And, they note, Kennedy continues to wrack up an impressive panoply of endorsements ranging from Vito Lopez, the Democratic boss of Brooklyn, to Upstate billionaire Tom Golisano to the undisputed queen of political opinion -- Maureen Dowd.

Ultimately, only one man's opinion matters when it comes to whether Kennedy will be the next Senator from New York. And, that man -- Paterson -- is notoriously unpredictable and no one really knows what he plans to do with the coveted appointment.

That said, the speculation over Kennedy -- and her decision to campaign for the appointment -- will remain media fodder until (and likely far after) Paterson makes his pick known publicly.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 7, 2009; 3:20 PM ET
Categories:  Eye on 2008  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Burris To Be Seated?
Next: 1,000 Words

Comments

Wow! What a bunch of nut-cases. No wonder we are disintegrating.

Posted by: vitaglubet | January 8, 2009 7:41 PM | Report abuse

Caroline Kennedy, is one of THE haughtiest, self-absorbed utterly out of it Kennedys to come along the pike in many years. She hasn't voted much in the last 20 yeears, nor does she keep up on current events-she doesn't read the newspaper. To call her in touch with ANYTHING, ABSOLUTELY ANYTHING, going on in New York State is utterly preposterous-she lives in a super-elitist enclave of Upper East Side, Hamptons and Mass. compound.

She is inarticulate about her goals, herself, and most of all, why she is a capable, competent, and qualified candidate to be US Senator from New York.

The Gov. of New York would have to be nuts to bow to political pressure and pick her.

And Caroline's unkempt, wrinkled appearance doesn't help her much either.

She calls herself a "lawyer"-that's ridiculous-she has a law degree, in order to be a "lawyer" you actually have to work as a lawyer, doing legal work-that she has never done.

GO HOME, LITTLE MISS PRINCESS CAROLINE! THE JOB OF US SENATOR FROM NY IS NOT GOING TO BE SERVED UP TO YOU ON A SILVER PLATTER-NOT BY A LONG SHOT! FRANKLY, YOU MAKE ME ILL, JUST LOOKING AT YOU, AND YOUR NOBLESS OBLIGE SENSE OF ENTITLEMENT!

Posted by: arrabbiato | January 8, 2009 5:25 PM | Report abuse

I am a Democrat and I think Franken is, at best, a lousy comedian. He is a loose cannon and will be the last person the Dems should want in office.
ASs for Caroline & her looks she is who she is. Looks should not matter unless you are in Hollywood.
If they do then why do 3/4 of the people in office have ugly teeth? And why are their children's teeth ugly as well?
palin is a cipher.

Posted by: katerinaDeligiannis | January 8, 2009 5:23 PM | Report abuse

How refreshing that a woman has the self-confidence not to hide behind a ton of chemical and medical treatments to appear younger than her years. What are some of you saying, that you value shallowness and vanity over experience and wisdom? Haven't we had enough botoxed politicians, botoxed appropriations bills, botoxed wars and intelligence, botoxed financial instruments? Let's get real for a change. I admire Caroline still.

Posted by: optimyst | January 8, 2009 3:29 PM | Report abuse

Quite aside from the fact that I think she would be THE WORST PICK OF ALL TIME for Senator, particularly since she's had everything handed to her on a silver platter her entire life-GOOD GOD, CAROLINE! THAT PICTURE MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE WAY OVER 60 YEARS OLD! TAKE SOME OF THAT VAST WEALTH YOU HAVE AND HAVE AN IMMEDIATE FACELIFT, BOTOX TREATMENT-SOMETHING ANYTHING TO NOT MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE THE WRINKLED HAG YOU LOOK LIKE IN THIS PICTURE! YOUR MOTHER JACKIE MUST BE TURNING IN HER GRAVE-SHE NEVER LOOKED LIKE THAT! TALK ABOUT WRINKLE CITY-CAROLINE! YOU'RE NOT THAT OLD FOR GOD'S SAKE! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

Posted by: arrabbiato | January 8, 2009 1:41 PM | Report abuse

So Caroline Kennedy looks her age. Such a shame that's crime for some people (oh, and BTW, if you hit the "Caps Lock" button, you can fix that problem where your entire message comes out in big block letters...unless, of course, you meant to come across like a screaming idiot, or maybe because you ARE, in fact, a screaming idiot, a problem which cannot be so easily remedied.)

Kennedy's inarticulate public speaking IS a little more worrying. We've already had an incoherent boob in the White House for the past eight years, and he serves as proof positive that having difficulty in clearly expressing yourself is symptomatic of more than a simple inability to communicate.

The failure to vote thing may be the most damning count against her. Voting is the most basic form of civil duty we have as citizens of this country. If you can't get your sorry butt down to a polling place every two to four years, then why on Earth should anyone take you seriously as a potential public servant?

If you want the job, Caroline, then run for the job, just like everybody else in your family ran for theirs. And it wouldn't kill you to vote once in a while....

Posted by: WaitingForGodot | January 8, 2009 1:26 PM | Report abuse

New York, Massachusetts, and Minnesota have shown they value celebrity over substance, and even worse. The Kennedys of Massachusetts get involved in numerous scandals and are re-elected over and over. Barney Franks has an affair with his teenage male intern who is running a male prostitution business out of Frank's Congressional office and Frank is re-elected. Minnesota chooses a wrestler as governor and now a sleazy comedian as senator that has a history of writings about sex with young girls, drug-taking, and tax evasion.

Don't try to figure out the Kennedy and related circuses. Just watch and marvel at some voters total disregard for the importance of substance over celebrity. And leave those poor souls alone who still think Martin Sheen was actually president.

Posted by: CaptainQ | January 8, 2009 12:04 PM | Report abuse

Besides her assumption that her name would automatically open the door, I personally dont like how she speaks nor the content of the hot air that escapes.

Good Riddance.

Posted by: indep2 | January 8, 2009 12:03 PM | Report abuse

MoDowd's argument defeats itself (much like the rest of Caroline Kennedy's non-campaign campaign). It only rallies people who hate the Clintons as much as she does. And by personally vouching that "she knows" Caroline, one is left to wonder at why Caroline Kennedy whom I've always thought of as a fairly decent benevolent socialite would ever associate with someone so mean girl-ish as Maureen Dowd.

Add to that Caroline's snippy remarks about women's magazines to the NYT reporters for deigning to ask why she decided to run for office and the result is not a positive one. Never mind that Dowd hammered Palin's lack of experience (even though she was mayor and governor) and has not one positive substantive thing to say about any work Caroline has done that makes her fit to be Senator.

It's just an endorsement based on personality and being in the same circles of society. A personal endorsement from Maureen Dowd. I'm sure even Caroline Kennedy has enough PR savvy to say thanks but no thanks on that one. She's not helping!

I'm thinking Paterson who doesn't have ambitions of national politics will put New York above the out of state pressure and choose someone far more qualified for the role than Caroline Kennedy.

Posted by: dijamo | January 8, 2009 11:33 AM | Report abuse

I'm looking forward to the long hard Democratic Primary contest for President in 2012 between Barack Obama and Robert Wexler which I think will come down to the wire, and will be nasty because Obama will have been jammed up with Bush's policies and four bad years and will be facing a tougher opponent than Hillary Clinton in Wexler because he's real change not processed cheese food change and carries no Clinton baggage because they hate him, and moreover is an even tougher and better debater than she was. He is also 100% free of White Liberal Guilt.

That's the one I'm looking forward to.

Posted by: DexterClinkscale | January 8, 2009 11:07 AM | Report abuse

@ HOWLLESS: Vito Lopez is sort of an Ed Koch right winger who's had all kinds of weird identity issues (cugine or boriqueno, gay or straight, Democrat or Republican) since he got into municipal politics and is hardly a factor at his level. If anything, a good rule for a politician in NY is NEVER to do anything the Vito Lopez way.

If you told me Tom Duane were backing her, I'd be worried because I really, really dislike Public Citizen C K Schlossberg and she has no effect on my life given that I live 6000 miles to her South in a country with no agreements with the USA whatsoever.

Maureen Dowd influences the same people who'd like Kennedy anyway and is a giant turnoff to likely-voting men across the spectrum gay and straight in NY.

Golisano, Bloomberg, Parsons, Schumer are all basically Republicans. Schumer's Democratic party-man but his orietation is strong-right on issues of personal freedom and war.

So, all in all she's got a stack of endorsements from Paterson's enemies. I don't think she's seeing Capitol Hill except in the club room visiting Teddy.

Posted by: DexterClinkscale | January 8, 2009 10:55 AM | Report abuse

Kennedy continues to wrack up an impressive panoply of endorsements ranging from Vito Lopez... to the undisputed queen of political opinion -- Maureen Dowd.

The "undisputed queen of political opinion"? Nnnnnnno. I dispute it; ergo, it is NOT undisputed.

Maureen Dowd is a shallow, vindictive know-nothing; a flibberdijibbet who has single-handedly turns the Times opinon page, two days a week, into little more than a gossip rag.

Maureen Dowd is a hack who thinks she's Carrie from "Sex In", but she's really Susan from "Desperate".

When the Pultizer Prize committee dies and goes to hell, the branding irons their tormentors use to burn their flesh every minute unto eternity will sear into their skin an image of the prize they, in a moment of evil lunacy, awarded this undeserving harpy.

Her endorsement of Caroline makes me certain she is a uniquely terrible choice for the Seante.

Posted by: howlless | January 8, 2009 8:51 AM | Report abuse

This isn't a real campaign in the traditional sense, the drama lays with Governor David Patterson and what he feels is the best candidate to help New York right now and the next election in 2010.

Since this isn't a real campaign, the current poll joins the clutter of guessing games for who can best fill the vacant seat of Senator Hillary Clinton. If your a political junkie then you would miss the drama of a real campaign where a Kennedy with her own quick response team can answer back. The polls would change again this time in her favor.

Right now we have Cuomo breaking through the clutter for the wrong reasons - Cuomo Aide Is Said to Try to Slow Kennedy Bid - New York Times. Drudge had Kennedy on his front page for a month. Peter king against Kennedy stories also breaking through the noise. Traditional Establishment Politics excels in a non campaign campaign.

Its been awhile since I said this "Kennedy for the Senate"

Posted by: nynetsurfer | January 8, 2009 8:38 AM | Report abuse

Dear Caroline does not look much like her mother.

Posted by: usarownow | January 8, 2009 8:28 AM | Report abuse

Why take a poll? We've already learned from Illinois that the politicos could care less what the people think. Caroline can play the gender card and she'll be in like Flynn (after all, liberal woman can play the gender card, unlike conservatives). If it's to the party's benefit to choose her, who cares what's best for the people?

Posted by: brainfart007 | January 8, 2009 5:44 AM | Report abuse

David Paterson is not an unpredictable person at all, he merely doesn't behave like Barack Obama in any way shape or form. He's a pro. His father was a pro. He's marinated in NYC and NYS politics his whole life and pretty much knows and likes everybody. And vice versa.

Barack Obama is apparantly the yardstick by which all African American politicians are now judged and that's a sad thing indeed. Obama hasn't anywhere near the experience or judgment that Paterson has, but is much better at bending and twisting his words to be media friendly. Paterson doesn't. His friendships with the local media and members of the two houses in Albany are more important to him.

I'm not sure what his relationship with Andrew Cuomo is like but they know each other very well. Paterson knows what he'd be getting with Cuomo and as they'd both have to defend together in 2010, if that fit is right, it's right.

For Caroline Kennedy to be chosen, she would literally have to arrange it so the Patersons would BE KENNEDYS AND ALL THAT MEANS, WEALTH INCLUDED, from now until the sun goes super-nova. At this point, only a bad choice could hurt Paterson because he could handle Giuliani or Parsons himself without any trouble. Caroline Kennedy IS trouble. Andrew Cuomo COULD BE trouble.

What someone wrote about Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama looking to snuff out the Clinton family power is correct. They realized they couldn't do it, so they settled for marginalizing Howard and Jim Dean instead. (That's going to cost Obama, badly, but that's another story).

Caroline Kennedy tried to go around Paterson, pick up a lot of endorsements from Paterson enemies and one important friend (Sheldon Silver) and ram herself down Paterson's throat. He let the MSM know Kennedy was a non-starter with his first words about her.

How can David Paterson defend his office along side a woman with no poltical views? Who doesn't read the newspapers? Who was part and parcel of Joel Klein's dismantling of the NYC Public School system so as to creat room for developers tax holidays? Who when asked why she wanted to be a senator answered "9/11" and "I looked into Barack's soul"?

Please.

Posted by: DexterClinkscale | January 8, 2009 3:46 AM | Report abuse

Caroline Kennedy for New York Senate
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ltbpoYT8LVY&feature=PlayList&p=5BA572ECF3B7F609&playnext=1&index=42

On Line Concert for Kennedy

Rolling Stone Fans for Kennedy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_mwsDFm7bQ

Dean Martin and John Wayne fan for Kennedy
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xEXO5UuHgBQ

Posted by: cooday | January 8, 2009 2:54 AM | Report abuse


Caroline's sidekick, Kerry, has harmed her also. There's nothing less appealing to average voters than to see a person using the political process to harm an ex-spouse. It reveals her immaturity but it also reveals an immaturity streak in the entire family. Sure, the women don't cheat like the Kennedy men, but that doesn't mean they're immune to misconduct.


Posted by: blasmaic | January 7, 2009 10:57 PM | Report abuse

She is a fraud
She had already given the max money to HRC when uncle Ted told her to help him wrest power away from the Clintons by backing the other guy
It is just political dealing.
She is the least qualified candidate to be my senator and I will protest and potentially vote for a 3rd (more progressive) party for governor and senator if she is selected.

Posted by: nycLeon | January 7, 2009 10:31 PM | Report abuse


FELLOW FIXISTAS: HELP FIGHT (APPARENT) CENSORSHIP OF POLITICAL BLOGS IN AMERICA...

PLEASE POST THE LINK BELOW TO POLITICO.COM WITH THIS NOTE:

"I am making this post to fight apparent interference with, and censorship of, political blog sites by third parties with an ideological agenda."


Explanation: I can no longer post to Politico.com.

On Friday, I received dozens of emails stating that dozens of my posts were removed for "inappropriate content."

Even the Google links to the posts were scrubbed from the net.

Nothing was inappropriate, and I still don't think it was Politico that initiated (and even executed) the "take down."

I called Politico's number to find out why. The people on the other end (whoever they were) said it was probably just a technical gitch, and that they would look into it.

Two days later, they're still looking into it...

Yesterday, I was finally able to log onto the site -- but my posts still are not going up. Each time I try, I get an index page of posts.

Could a third-party entity be inserting "spoofed pages" into my data stream, preventing me from posting?

I called John Harris, the editor, but could not get through.

Was I really talking to Politico people? Was Politico pressured to take down my posts?

I'd like John Harris to know what's going on... just it case I have encountered what the spooks refer to as "kabuki theater" and his people are in the dark.

My decades of investigative reporting tell me that some very powerful entity does not want my article to be seen by the power elite who get much of their daily political news from the Politico web site.

Here is a link to that story. Readers can decide for themselves whether that is a plausible premise, given the times in which we are living:

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/domestic-torture-radiation-weaponry-americas-horrific-shame

ps -- It's not just Politico. Sometimes my posts here at the "Fix" are greeted with a full-screen message that the post has been "received and is being held for the blog owner."

I believe several stories posted to my blog site about the "spoofed pages"/warrantless surveillance (and TAMPERING) issue are the reason my posts to The Fix are again going through and have not been taken down...

...also, perhaps, a fear of pushing around The Washington Post.

If anyone else is having similar problems, please post to my blog site:

http://my.NowPublic.com/scrivener

And Chris, thank you. Those trolls who were calling you Chrissy or whatever seem to have gone away; I hope some of my efforts have helped in that regard.

Someday, one of these paid disinfo trolls will grow a set and spill the beans about prior restraint and censorship of political blogs in America.

I have a feeling some will begin to come forward after Jan. 20th.

Believe me, this is the least of it.

Read my article if you want to know what I am talking about.

Thanks, all.

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 7, 2009 10:22 PM | Report abuse


No amount of money can compensate for a candidate without skills. The worst thing that could happen to her and the Kennedy name would be for her to be appointed.

Posted by: blasmaic | January 7, 2009 10:07 PM | Report abuse

46 for Kennedy 35 for anyone else in New York State, after all the bad news spelled out in this fascinating article, shows the continuing potency of the Kennedy name.

As the inimitable Ann Richards of happy memory might have said, I don't have a dog in this hunt.

I expect Chris will take a few on the proboscis for writing as clearly as he has. It's a hazardous occupation!

Posted by: officermancuso | January 7, 2009 9:23 PM | Report abuse

The issue is not that Caroline Kennedy has campaigned for the post-- it is that she did so clumsily. All of this shows how poorly qualified Kennedy is relative to numerous others.

Very sad that New Yorkers with substantive political careers, including Kristen Gillibrand, Carolyn Maloney, Andrew Cuomo and others are potentially being passed over for an untested novice. The U.S. Senate should be, as I have pointed out before, a career capstone, not an opportunity for on-the-job training.

If Ms. Kennedy is truly serious about rendering public service to New Yorkers, she should campaign for the New York State Senate in 2010. Should she be elected after campaigning, I will be the first to applaud Ms. Kennedy's election. For Ms. Kennedy to expect the seat to be handed to her as an appointment, however, is overreaching in the extreme.

Posted by: ANetliner | January 7, 2009 9:21 PM | Report abuse

We have no strong feelings on this one.

On the one hand, Mrs. Schlossberg is an O-Nation icon. Her endorsement of O gave a major boost to O in the primary fight against Mrs. Wm. Clinton. That carries a lot of weight; in fact it outweighs almost any negative IMO.

On the other hand, there's --

Well, here once again is Mrs. Schlossberg starring in the 2008 YouTube video presentation of "The More You Know."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zAgI4AS1NVg

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 7, 2009 8:54 PM | Report abuse

There is no great love in the NY state Democratic party for Caroline. Golisano is a rich upstate guy who self funds and loses. He is supporting Caroline. Bloomberg is the superrich NYC mayor who is running a third time as an independent and he and his political guys are behind Caroline. She hasn't voted in half of the last elections and her contributions are paltry for state wide Democrats. She has a lot of competition among qualified party stalwarts who are not that impressed by her. She has actually diminished herself in the past few weeks. And nobody takes Maureen Dowd seriously.

Posted by: rdklingus | January 7, 2009 8:23 PM | Report abuse

P.S. AND CAROLINE, THAT BUMP ON YOUR NOSE-WHY, CAROLINE? WHY IS IT THERE? WHY HAVEN'T YOU HAD IT FIXED, SO YOU DON'T LOOK LIKE SOME WITCH? WHY DO YOU LOOK SO AWFUL?

Posted by: arrabbiato | January 7, 2009 8:02 PM | Report abuse

Hey McLeanGirl-you say you want your politicians to have wrinkles? Well, GOOD LUCK IN FINDING THEM-EXCEPT THAT IS ON THE 90 PLUSERS LIKE SEN. BYRD, AND I DON'T THINK EVEN HE HAS AS MANY AS CAROLINE "WRINKLE AND CROW'S FEET CITY" KENNEDY HAS!

You must really hate Nancy Pelosi then, huh? She regularly gets her face ironed out-b/c NO ONE WANTS TO LOOK AT A HAG FACE FULL OF WRINKLES-THERE'S NO EXCUSE FOR THAT-CAROLINE HASN'T BEEN USING SUNSCREEN AND FACE CREAM-GOD SHE NEEDS A MAKEOVER-AND A PUBLICIST AND A SPEECHWRITER AND EVERYTHING ELSE.

BUT REMEMBER, SHE'S BARELY VOTED IN THE LAST 20 YEARS-ANYONE WHO THINKS THIS WOMAN, WHO'S NEVER WORKED A DAY IN HER LIFE-AND HAS NEVER PRACTICED LAW-SHE HAS A LAW DEGREE-NOT THE SAME THING-AND HER FRIEND WROTE THAT BOOK ON CON LAW, NOT HER

QUITE FRANKLY, MS. WRINKLE, LIMOUSINE LIBERAL CAROLINE MAKES ME WANT TO PUKE-GO BACK TO YOUR UPPER EAST SIDE ENCLAVE-YOU'RE NOT ENTITLED TO A GD THING! LEAST OF ALL TO BE SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF NEW YORK-HOW ABSURD, HOW UTTERLY ABSURD!

Posted by: arrabbiato | January 7, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 7, 2009 7:42 PM | Report abuse

Leave the woman alone!!

She can't be worst than ALL of the crooks we already elect and re-elected.

Let her prove her qualities. If she doesn't deliver, then re-elect her again. What the hell. That's all we do.

---------------------------------------

I like that!
If she makes wrong policies like those experienced ones our taxes will bail things out.

Posted by: mshalt | January 7, 2009 7:39 PM | Report abuse

Cillizza implies that Kennedy made a strategic error by "campaigning" because it revealed that she is unprepared to compete in a tough political arena. In fact, it wasn't Kennedy's idea to campaign. She tried to resist interviews, but was forced into them by the press. And lucky for the Democrats that the press DID force her into interviews because w/o them we would not know what a political klutz she is. Although it may be Paterson's decision, surely he will not appoint someone who is unlikely to be able to retain the seat in 2010 and again in 2012. Another Democrat is unlikely to be willing to run against her in the primary. Heck, they don't even seem to be willing to comment negatively on her inept entry into national politics. So, she will face a Republican and her ability to beat her competitor will be handicap by her very weak record of disastrous interviews, of a not voting in most elections, of not contributing ANYHTING to the Democratic Party, etc.

Posted by: YellaDog | January 7, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

The seismic activity reported this morning near Arlington by the USGS was Jack rolling over in his grave. And over, and over, and over...she is obviously Jackie's child and not his. The difference is that Jackie knew better than to assume a public life or to use the entitlement card to claim public office.

Posted by: hisroc | January 7, 2009 6:12 PM | Report abuse

NY-Sen: Did Caroline Campaign Too Much?

You know, yes, you know. She, you know, opened her, you know, mouth, you know?

Posted by: waterfrontproperty | January 7, 2009 6:09 PM | Report abuse

"Democrats believe he has all the qualifications necessary for a Democrat Senator."

It drives you Republicans off your rocker, that's enough for me.

Always amusing when the party of Ronald Reagan, Fred Thompson, Sonny Bono, and Arnold Schwarzenegger mock "celebrity candidates."

Posted by: kreuz_missile | January 7, 2009 6:06 PM | Report abuse

Ms. Kennedy should not have been compared to the overqualified Sarah Palin, but to the Comedian from Minnesota.

Democrats believe he has all the qualifications necessary for a Democrat Senator.

Posted by: llrllr | January 7, 2009 5:57 PM | Report abuse

Sometimes you're too busy ducking sniper fire to get that Botox shot:

http://current.com/items/88795331/is_senator_hilary_clinton_too_wrinkly_to_be_our_next_president.htm

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 7, 2009 5:45 PM | Report abuse


wait a minute ....
Caroline Kennedy campaigned????

((hearty smiles))) Where? and When?
Damn, I missed it.

Posted by: TheBabeNemo | January 7, 2009 5:44 PM | Report abuse

She's a novice. HRC was a crummy campaigner early on, she got a LOT better.

CK strikes me as an introvert and introverts are NOT natural pols. Being a good pol is as much a matter of natural talent and ability as being able to play major league sports.

That aside, she was panned for trying to have the job handed to her, and when she exhibited some effort to get the job, she got panned for THAT. Obviously, Kennedy hate is still going strong in some quarters.

Posted by: gbooksdc | January 7, 2009 5:40 PM | Report abuse

Clearly she did. I think Cuomo is a better pick now.

Posted by: havok26 | January 7, 2009 5:29 PM | Report abuse

I want my politicians to have wrinkles. It means they've lived. This woman gave her youth and privacy for this country's obsession with guns and celebrities.

HOWEVER, she needs to remove the phrase "you know" from her speech altogether. Just do a Ctrl + F, then type in YOU KNOW, and choose Find and Delete.

I heard her on the radio this morning and I you know had no idea you know what she was you know saying to the you know interviewer.

She should call strangers on the phone and try to explain her policies, practicing NOT to say You Know. She should set up a videocamera at the end of her dining room table and speak into it 8 hours a day, then play it back to her kids who are, you know, the severest critics.

Posted by: mcleangirl | January 7, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

Yup, yup, you betcha! I can see Syracuse from my New York apartment or, wait a minute, is it my spread on the Vineyard? Well, at lease it's under 8 homes unlike McCain.

Governor Patterson, you're known for using your head and keeping your own counsel. Now's the time to pick a distinguished woman with long government service and the possibility of long Senate service as well. Kirsten Gillibrand of Hudson, NY. She's actually been to NYC as well, so all the bases are covered.

Posted by: NotBubba | January 7, 2009 5:22 PM | Report abuse

"So all these democrats were opposed to Palin due to lack of experience but 60% approve of Kennedy? Wow they must be passing out free lobotomies for democrats these days."

Sarah Palin is more than qualified too be a Senator from Alaska. Caroline Kennedy is not qualified to be Viece President. I know this is shocking, but there are different qualities required of people at different jobs...

Posted by: kreuz_missile | January 7, 2009 5:06 PM | Report abuse

Good lord. As someone who became a US citizen in 1984 and has never missed voting in a single New York State primary or general election since, one would think Ms. Kennedy, with her family history, would have made the effort to vote, like the rest of us peons.

She is the last person I would want as Senator.

Posted by: VictoriaBalfour | January 7, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

So all these democrats were opposed to Palin due to lack of experience but 60% approve of Kennedy? Wow they must be passing out free lobotomies for democrats these days.

Posted by: Cryos | January 7, 2009 4:44 PM | Report abuse

Leave the woman alone!!

She can't be worst than ALL of the crooks we already elect and re-elected.

Let her prove her qualities. If she doesn't deliver, then re-elect her again. What the hell. That's all we do.

Posted by: sapitos44 | January 7, 2009 4:36 PM | Report abuse

Before the Democrats compare CKS to GOVERNOR Palin, let CKS win election to a public office, any public office.

CKS has proved to be an inarticulate, bumbling,uninformed, non-voter, non-contributor that will not even publicly support the Democratic Mayoral candidate in NYC this November.

Other Democrats are much more deserving of the position. Maybe Gov. Paterson can appoint his former boss, Eliot Spitzer. then Client-9 can be close to the Washington hotels that he used to meet up with the hookers.

Posted by: Digital_Voter | January 7, 2009 4:32 PM | Report abuse

Btw - keep the wrinkles. Nothing wrong with wrinkles!

Posted by: asoders22 | January 7, 2009 4:29 PM | Report abuse

I'm sure she is bright, about a light year brighter than Sarah Palin, and a good worker, but she can't talk, she can't captivate an audience. If you can't do anything else, you have to be able to do that.

Posted by: asoders22 | January 7, 2009 4:27 PM | Report abuse

Did zouk get banned, only to immediately reregister as 'loonyleft'?

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2009 4:21 PM | Report abuse

On the one hand, given the pathetically low standards for a member of Congress, one can say that any moron is "qualified" - including a, you know, princess and a, you know, marxist drug addict.

On the other hand, if one hopes for a reasonable level of competence in a representative, the princess, like the marxist is, you know, outrageously unqualified for any public office.

Here's my suggestion to the princess to ensure a life-long career in politics.

Get drunk, run your car off a bridge, only worry about saving yourself and fail to save your companion from drowning because you are so totally drunk. Then have your powerful family cover up the drunkenness and get law enforcement and the judiciary to not charge you with manslaughter, as you deserve.

It worked for Uncle Ted!

PS: Be sure to get appointed/elected in a state like Massachusetts that is morally degenerate and has no ethical values. That way the voters won't care who you killed and will support you just for your last name. New York certainly meets these requirements. But if it doesn't work out there, you can always try California - where you might even get members of the OJ jury to serve on your campaign committee. You know.

Posted by: LoonyLeft | January 7, 2009 4:13 PM | Report abuse

Dear arrabbiato:

Thank you for the best laugh I have had this year!

Posted by: rdesaidc1 | January 7, 2009 3:58 PM | Report abuse

hey, obama is just trying to pay off caroline for her endorsement.

Posted by: newagent99 | January 7, 2009 3:57 PM | Report abuse

You know, i think,you know, that she would nto be the ideal, you know, candidate. She has name recognition and her father's name, but other than that, you know, there isn't much. these seats should be for experienced individuals, not, you know, a celebrity who all of sudden out of no where decides she wants to be senator. that and the statement that she won't try to run in 2010 if she is not selected now. Come on now, is that, you know, if i can't have it now, then you know, forget it. If she wants the seat, let her run for it in 2010.

Posted by: mj9501 | January 7, 2009 3:56 PM | Report abuse

Her problem is likely one of timing, more than anything. Had there been less time between the announcement of Sen Clinton's appointment & the vacancy actually becoming available, Ms Kennedy-Schlossburg would likely have won the appointment before opposition could build.

Posted by: bsimon1 | January 7, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse

Quite aside from the fact that I think she would be THE WORST PICK OF ALL TIME for Senator, particularly since she's had everything handed to her on a silver platter her entire life-GOOD GOD, CAROLINE! THAT PICTURE MAKES YOU LOOK LIKE YOU'RE WAY OVER 60 YEARS OLD! TAKE SOME OF THAT VAST WEALTH YOU HAVE AND HAVE AN IMMEDIATE FACELIFT, BOTOX TREATMENT-SOMETHING ANYTHING TO NOT MAKE YOU LOOK LIKE THE WRINKLED HAG YOU LOOK LIKE IN THIS PICTURE! YOUR MOTHER JACKIE MUST BE TURNING IN HER GRAVE-SHE NEVER LOOKED LIKE THAT! TALK ABOUT WRINKLE CITY-CAROLINE! YOU'RE NOT THAT OLD FOR GOD'S SAKE! THE HORROR! THE HORROR!

Posted by: arrabbiato | January 7, 2009 3:36 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company