Caroline Kennedy: "I Was Dismayed By My Voting Record"
It's been an interesting day for Caroline Kennedy, giving interviews to two separate media outlets in which she made some, well, interesting pronouncements.
In an interview with the Associated Press, Kennedy acknowledged the unusual nature of her current effort to be appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. "I came into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anybody else," said Caroline. "I am an unconventional choice."
On the other hand, she said that her public push to get the seat is not a political campaign -- after all, the decision all comes down to one man, Gov. David Paterson -- but is instead a matter of accountability to the public. "If I were to be selected," she said, "I understand that public servants have to be accessible."
Separately, in an interview with NY1, Kennedy rebutted the comparison that Dem Congressman Gary Ackerman made this past weekend, likening her to Jennifer Lopez.
"I admire the journey J. Lo has traveled," said Kennedy. "I've been to a school in the Bronx near the house she grew up in and so I actually have a lot of admiration for her and she looks pretty good but in terms of public policy and as we spend our adults lives and I don't think there is really much we have in common."
And here's what she had to say about the criticism regarding her record of missing elections in New York Democratic primaries: "I was dismayed by my voting record."
Clearly she wasn't dismayed enough by her own voting record to not want to be appointed to the position. (She's the only one who controlled that voting: why is she dismayed?)
December 26, 2008 5:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Or to vote.
December 26, 2008 6:26 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am lot less concerned about failing to vote in a primary than failing to vote in a general (of which I haven't heard an allegation she failed to do). Primaries are a choice between two people in the same party. If you support them both, and would be happy with either, why vote in a primary? I know several Democrats who didn't caucus back in February because they viewed the choice between Obama and Clinton as a win-win and didn't care which of them went on to whip McCain's ass. I have no problem with that. It was not the route I took as an ardent Obama supporter, but I have no problem with a fellow Democrat liking the whole field.
December 26, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed.
But what you're seeing is knitpicking of the irrelevant in effort to take her down so someone nasty -- and successfully so -- can be givien the seat.
December 29, 2008 3:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good times never seem so good.
December 26, 2008 6:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
I am impressed with her open candor. It is very refreshing. The woman is not being duplicitous at all
December 26, 2008 6:36 PM | Reply | Permalink
Her use of the word "dismayed" is devoid of any personal accountability. That's really troubling.
December 26, 2008 7:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who says there should be such "personal accountability"?
Doubtless she made that statement -- which isn't actually relevant -- for persons exactly like you: those who have other reservations, equally questionable, but who will jump on any bandwagon that might get you your preferred outcome.
December 29, 2008 3:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
If not her, then who is accountable for her voting record? You? Me? Who?
December 29, 2008 8:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
By saying she's "dismayed" she's distancing herself from her own actions, and not taking responsibility. She sounds like a teacher who is "dismayed" by a student's behavior... Very disconnecting and a psychologically weird statement.
I am dismayed by her voting record though. And she hasn't been candid. She's only talking to a couple of reporters now because of all the criticism.
As a New Yorker, I do not want her as my Senator. Case closed.
December 26, 2008 8:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
Maybe she has a split personality, one who is extremely conscientious and concerned about public affairs, and the other who, she is dismayed to find, didn't vote?
The one who is now interested in being Senator is holding the other accountable for her sloppy record. What's wrong with that?
December 27, 2008 4:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I can top your snark. Can you tell me which one would be voting if she gets to the Senate via appointment. If she runs in the next primary we at least know that she is willing to work for political power.
December 27, 2008 9:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Here is another NYer (upstate) who finds CK less than candid. I don't think she's the right choice. And as I've said before in other TPM threads on this topic, political family dynasties give me the anti-democratic willies.
December 26, 2008 9:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
I think the entire issue of CK's primary voting record is nothing more than a political ploy aimed at discrediting her potential for appointment to the Senate. The fact that she voted consistently in the GE is, in my view, what really matters.
I don't fully understand what CK intended to convey by the term "dismayed". She may yet elaborate for the sake of clarity. During the primaries She has publicly stated that she had been underwhelmed by candidates for political office until Barack Obama's campaign. Perhaps her Primary voting record was due to her lack of enthusiasm for the candidates, perhaps it was not.
Nevertheless, she remains qualified for the post and I would support her if she's appointed.
December 26, 2008 9:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Good to see someone has a bit of common sense about them. All this nay-saying is for no good reason. Sounds like some people are just looking for excuses to justify their prejudices.
December 27, 2008 9:09 AM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. Whenever there's an opportunity to pot-shot a Kennedy, those who are about that crawl out from under their rocks and sling whatever is handy. Doesn't have t be relevant, or even true: only need be of the color and consistency of mud, and disguisable as a concern for the superior in morality.
December 29, 2008 4:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
If she was so underwhelmed by candidates for political office, why didn't she run for office herself?
Oh yeah, I remember now. She expected to have it handed to her on a silver platter.
I have no problem with her going out and running for a Senate seat or any other office she wants. I don't think she deserves to be given the seat when she's never taken a political risk herself. Even endorsing Obama - that was no risk. He was already winning. If she had endorsed him a year ago, when everybody thought he was a longshot, that would've been impressive.
Give the seat to someone who's earned it, like Nadler or Maloney. If Caroline wants it so bad, she can run for it like everyone else. Or she could start smaller by running for the House or city council or mayor of Wasilla.
December 26, 2008 9:33 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasilla! Not Wasilla Debbie! ;-)
December 26, 2008 9:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wasssup???
December 27, 2008 1:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Um, this is an appointment. Nobody will be running for it any more or less than CK.
December 26, 2008 11:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
In 2010, anyone who wants the seat will have to run for it. She'll have the opportunity then. She hasn't earned this appointment while Nadler, Maloney and others have.
December 27, 2008 3:52 AM | Reply | Permalink
Someone, or the ACLU, should bring a federal suit against these governor-appoints-replacement-senator laws. They disnfrachise voters and are unconstitutional. All state laws providing for these appointments should be outlawed. Hold a special election instead.
December 26, 2008 11:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
good luck with that. You'll have to prove that the Constitution is Unconstitutional.
17th Amendment
"The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.
When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided, That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.
This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.
December 27, 2008 12:29 AM | Reply | Permalink
So who is the realistic other choice? Andrew Cuomo. Damaged son of a brilliant father. Give me a break -- she will work for NY; he for himself.
December 26, 2008 11:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
So who is the realistic other choice? Andrew Cuomo.
man, you just eat whatever you're fed, don't you? let me guess, not a new yorker?
December 26, 2008 11:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Patterson doesn't "have" to appoint a woman, but the pressure is definitely there.
Wonder what HRC thinks.
I like Nadler but question whether he could win upstate.
I also like idea of a "placeholder:" A retired pol or other worthy who informally agrees to represent NY's interests until a 2010 election. Of course, that loses NY two years of seniority, but would have the advantage of not giving an appointee favored incumbent status.
December 27, 2008 4:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
i mean, really, you think paterson appointing maloney or suozzi or nadler or brown (the mayor of buffalo) is outside the realm of possiblility?
that being said, this is the moribund NY democratic party, the one that handed hillary her senate nomination, so maybe you're right, paterson will only entertain the most unimaginative options.
December 26, 2008 11:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just trying to remember if "maloney or suozzi or nadler or brown (the mayor of buffalo)"are the highest ranking elected Democrats in the State who want to be governor -- and could be neutered by the Senate appointment. Ahh . . . maybe you're right, I'm eatin' what they feed me.
December 27, 2008 12:18 AM | Reply | Permalink
you're privy to information i've never heard. nadler running for governor? color me surprised.
December 27, 2008 10:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
oh, wait, now i've decoded your syntax, i think. so it's cuomo (high-ranking -dem) who wants to be governor, so paterson will appoint him to get him out of the way. wait, i'm still lost. could you dumb it down a little?
December 27, 2008 10:32 AM | Reply | Permalink
but i think you're assuming that cuomo is a credible candidate for governor, which is a bit, well, generous.
December 27, 2008 10:35 AM | Reply | Permalink
Nevertheless, Patterson *might* see him as a threat.
December 27, 2008 1:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
i guess. my impression among fellow gothamites always seems to be that younger cuomo's a nothingburger, he had his shot, got defeated in the primary, is slightly less annoying than mark green. i don't think an incumbent paterson is that worried. maybe andrew c has a secret store of charisma and political brilliance that he hasn't tapped into yet, one we've yet to see the faintest glimmer of.
December 27, 2008 2:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
Re: why didn't CK run for office before now? I believe that she was raising her children in privacy and security and I can only commend her for doing so. It is a gift that she, above anyone, would know the value of, and a real and remarkable challenge for a Kennedy, esp. JFK's only child.
Re: "I don't think she deserves to be *given* the seat" Did Hillary Clinton deserve to be *given* the Democratic nomination for Senate? She was given it, and in NY that is the same as being given the seat. (I'm not saying she wasn't a good Senator .... but she was given the seat.)
Re: Not voting in the NY Dem primaries - see comment above. I'm a political junkie and nevertheless often do not vote in the primaries here.
Re: other options. AMEN to the comment about Andrew Cuomo!! He is truly a flawed son of a brilliant father and an unethical, power-hungry and very much what's-in-it-for-me public official. The details of some of his AG "successes" are nothing short of hideous, and possibly illegal. I hate to think what he would do with the power of a Senate seat. --- There are other options, one frequently noted is my own Representative, someone who is run-of-the-mill at best: not bad, not good, no 'heft' and no clout.
As a New Yorker, I would like a Senator who has integrity and will not be caught up in the 'pay for play' or abuse of trust that is all too prevalent, who is intelligent and hard-working and will be able to attract able staff, who will have impact/clout for the proposals they put forth and those they support, and who will be able to retain the seat through two very closely-spaced elections. Having the ability to pick up the phone and speak with the President isn't bad, either. Admittedly those are coldly practical considerations for the most part, but who is a candidate that can provide those things as well as or better than Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg?
She is easily as good a bet as Hillary Clinton was when she went to the Senate, or Ted Kennedy when he went there -- and if she doesn't do a good job, then the people of New York will get to say whether she continues in two short years. If she *does* do a good job, we'll have one heck of a powerful Senator .... without having to wait decades for them to become senior enough. In the *absence* of a clearly superior candidate, I'm not at all offended at her being considered for the position, if she's willing to serve.
December 27, 2008 1:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think that your argument of "if she doesn't do a good job, then the people of New York will get to say" is the sticking point here. Surely there are many New Yorkers who would do sufficient or better if they got a foot in the door via an appointment. What makes Kennedy the choice above others when she's demonstrated no prior interest until now to get involved politically? How many Jane Does from Rochester or Utica are equally qualified who aren't getting air time because their last name is Doe and not Kennedy?
I'll admit that I don't live in NY (although a frequent visitor), so it isn't near and dear to me. But I do find it peculiar that she suggested that 9/11 is one of two events that prompted her to make this move. Really? Seven years later, something clicked?
December 27, 2008 1:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
I think you have to factor in the age of her children. In 2001 her children were 8, 11, and 13 years old. (I had to look it up because she's done such a good job keeping them out of the spotlight that all I knew what that there were "several" and the names Tatania and Rose were in there somewhere.) They are now 15 (16 in Jan.), 18 and 20 years old.
That is a WORLD of difference if - as I suspect is the case with Jackie Kennedy's daughter - you made the decision to raise your children in privacy and to be there for them without having to have them compete with the entire world for attention, this is the *earliest* that she could be taking a step into the public. ---
Now, I'm a mother and worked while my children were growing up and that's fine .... but if I'd had the money she does I might well have made a different decision AND if my children were JFK's only grandchildren, I'd HAVE to make that decision to be a very private person if I wanted to give them anything like a "normal" upbringing. I suspect she knows the perils of growing up with the papparazzi following your every move and can only admire her decision if she chose not to let that define her children's lives.
Does someone forfeit the right to be a public figure ever for making that sort of decision? I certainly hope not. Frankly, I don't buy the "shyness" entirely. If she were truly shy, she wouldn't be doing this now. In fact, when recently asked if she would be being considered for this if her name weren't Kennedy, she replied that if her name weren't Kennedy she might well have been taking these steps years ago. I believe her.
I'll grant you there are wonderfully capapble women -- people -- in Rochester and Utica, etc. Heck, I think I'd be a damn fine Senator! However, I can't pick up the phone and have Barack Obama's serious attention within five minutes and I can't raise the millions that are going to be needed for two statewide campaigns in the next 4 years, or command the hearing she can get in an instant from many powerful people. (And given my finances, I might be a bit more tempted if faced with a chance to bend the rules 'just a little' in someone's favor ..........)
Facts is facts and it cuts both ways: because she's a Kennedy she couldn't enter public life and have her children remain as private as, oh, Debbie Stabenow's or those of other politicians, But because she's a Kennedy she can enter the public arena in mid-life ahead of where the rest of us would be. If you could, if you had perhaps held back from things you wanted very much to do because of a higher, more personal committment, wouldn't you? And is making such a committment to ones children a bad thing? I tells me that she may be someone serious and dedicated in what she decides to do.
And - to get back to my original request -- name me someone who is likely to do better than her for New York and for the country? I'm not saying they don't exist, but if they do they should have a name, right? (The name "Andrew Cuomo" does NOT suffice - as a New Yorker, I can assure you of that much!)
December 27, 2008 5:18 PM | Reply | Permalink
Plus (presumably), no gotcha-sprinkled record for opponents to run against.
Dunno about the impact/clout thing, but there's reason for optimism.
Doesn't mean she's the choice above all others, but that's a strong list of attributes to compete with. And Gov. Patterson will certainly weigh the popularity he'd reap from appointing her.
December 27, 2008 2:38 AM | Reply | Permalink
The "gotcha" is "elitist," "out of touch," "aristocratic," etc. There's plenty they can use to run against her. Who knows what else they can dig up? Maybe her husband is a cross dresser who cheats on her or has shady business deals with Venezuela. Maybe she was brainwashed by commies while she was sailing around the Mediterranean on Aristotle Onassis' yacht. You know there's gotta be something. Nobody lives a pristine life. She hasn't been vetted.
December 27, 2008 4:00 AM | Reply | Permalink
OK. But those are points of perception. Compared to the above list of points of substance, well, I think I've had enough of Karl Rove and the GOP talking-point bullshit.
Yep. It's a worry. Betcha there's some semi-panicked, last-minute vetting going on right now, though.
December 27, 2008 1:53 PM | Reply | Permalink
Uh, she's Caroline Kennedy -- her father was JFK -- her mother was Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis.
There is very little that she could have done - at ANY point in her life - that wouldn't make it on the front page of the National Enquirer if it were truly juicy! Hey, we can list the flaws and bad acts of most of the Kennedy cousins, and Caroline and John had a level of scrutiny - always - much higher than that on the others. Not to say there shouldn't be normal vetting, but I really think the chances of a shocking surprised are well below normal.
December 27, 2008 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
Imagine that. A Hillary supporter saying we should not choose a candidates because the right-wing might dig up something on them or say nasty things about them, true or not.
I bet you were saying, "we can't nominate Hillary because the republicans might bring up White Water or Lewinsky or Travel Gate."
As if that culture war crap hasn't played out and never played at all in NY. If it did, Hillary never would have won her senate seat.
December 27, 2008 3:40 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not a New Yorker. But reading through the replies - I liked your reasoning.
I think the Republicans are fearful of another strong female (like Hillary and Michelle Obama) being inserted into the struggle to preserve the middle class and working people of this country.
Remember - Sarah Palin 2009 calender is #1 seller on Amazon.
December 27, 2008 8:11 AM | Reply | Permalink
Is it one of those nudie calanders?
December 27, 2008 11:03 AM | Reply | Permalink
Naked political ambition on every page.
December 29, 2008 4:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Strong female"? What, by contrast, is a "weak female" -- aside from a sexist bigotry?
December 29, 2008 4:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
Would someone please tell Gary "I hate American manufacturers" Ackerman to SHUT UP?
December 27, 2008 7:07 AM | Reply | Permalink
You just did. Feel better?
December 27, 2008 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Yes. Yes I do.
December 28, 2008 6:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Amazing to read all this voter hatred against women candidates and appointees. Sounds as if being a woman running for political office is a violation of principles.
You get the what you deserve.
December 27, 2008 9:22 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds as if being a woman running for political office is a violation of principles.
mindless
December 27, 2008 11:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
you're right. i had no use for hillary, and i think we could do better than CK, maybe with carolyn maloney or nita lowey (or councilwoman tish james). i'm a raging misogynist!
December 27, 2008 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
Obsession. CK Obsession.
December 27, 2008 1:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
When asked what prepared her for the office, she mentioned that she wrote 7 books.
I would like to know how is preparing her for these interviews, Sarah Palin?
December 29, 2008 3:43 AM | Reply | Permalink