« Election Central Morning Roundup | Home | Poll: Large Majority Supports Obama's Foreign Policy Views »

Hillary Spokesperson: She Won't Say Anything About Her Successor

Now that Caroline Kennedy has declared her interest in Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, what will Hillary herself do or say in order to influence New York Governor David Paterson's efforts to choose her successor?

Nothing, her spokesperson tells us.

The questions swirling in New York political circles, as First Read puts it this morning, are:

"Will we see Clinton speak soon? And just what will she say? While Clinton supporters still might be miffed at Kennedy for going against the state's favorite daughter, will the Clintons themselves like the fact that a Kennedy wants to follow a Clinton in the Senate? Answers to those questions would give us our best clues as to whether we're really going to see a Camelot return to DC.

According to Hillary spokesperson Phillippe Reines, however, we won't be hearing from her; and furthermore, any Clinton "supporters" who speak out don't speak for her. Reines emails over this:

This is entirely Governor Paterson's decision, Senator Clinton completely respects the privacy of his process so will not be commenting on it or any individual candidate, nor does any third party speak on her behalf.

Don't expect anyone to pay any attention to what Hillary's office says, obviously. It's hard to see how Hillary could make a serious effort to wire her successor behind the scenes, since it would inevitably leak out. And it's not even that clear how much influence she would be able to have over the process, should she even try to exercise any.

Late Update: The Huffington Post reports that Caroline Kennedy has reached out to Hillary for her support, and adds that one hurdle for Caroline is to win over Clinton backers disaffected by the Kennedys' support for Obama in the Dem primary.

A private signal from Hillary to these backers could have an impact, though it's unclear how -- or whether -- that would have any material influence over Paterson's decision.


81 Comments

| Leave a comment
user-pic

Morning.

Can anyone who thinks Caroline isn't experienced enough for this tell me what experience Hillary had legislating, before she went to the Senate?

And why is the media now trying to make a problem between Hillary and Caroline?

*sigh*

user-pic

no matter what her office says, the story will be "behind the scenes catfight"

user-pic

Of course. It's too juicy for them not to.

user-pic

What I want to know how can HRC not come out in support of Caroline, given the way Moynihan, touted her as 'first lady' and a carpetbagger, when he left the Senate.

HRC needs to step up to the plate and advocate wholeheartedly for Caroline. If she can accept the SOS from BHO then she can tell all her primary supporters to move on like she has.

Our nation has too many problems for HRC to allow something of this nature to fester, when all she has to do is come out in strong support of Caroline and the 'catfight' memes dry up immediately!

user-pic

Sorry, but Hillary could out and wholeheartedly endorse Caroline Kennedy and I would stand by my objections. Not because she is an Obama supporter, but because Caroline has done nothing to earn it other than be born a Kennedy.

And FYI - The only people complaining of carpetbagging in 2000 were the Republicans FYI. NY Dems knew they were about to lose the Senate Seat to Rudy Giuiliani and begged Hillary to run. We ELECTED Hillary. She made her case to the people of NY, not having Uncle Teddy twisting arms behind the scenes.

user-pic

"Caroline has done nothing to earn it other than be born a Kennedy."

Nonsense. For one thing, she helped Obama beat Hillary. That in itself is good enough for me.

From Wikipedia:

Kennedy is an attorney, editor, writer and member of the New York and Washington, D.C. bar associations. She is one of the founders of the Profiles in Courage Award, given annually since 1990 to a person who exemplifies the type of courage examined in her father's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name. The award is generally given to elected officials who, acting in accord with their conscience, risk their careers by pursuing a larger vision of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or powerful pressures from their constituents. In May 2002, she presented an unprecedented Profiles in Courage Award to representatives of the NYPD, the New York City Fire Department, and the military as representatives of all of the people who acted to save the lives of others during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.

For 22 months from 2002 through 2004, Kennedy worked as director of strategic partnerships for the the New York City Department of Education. The three-day-a week job paid her a salary of $1 and had the goal of raising private money for the New York City public schools. In her capacity, she helped raise more than $65 million for the city’s public schools, according to her biography at the Kennedy Library. She currently serves as the Vice Chair of The Fund for Public Schools, a public-private partnership founded in 2002 to attract private funding for public schools in New York City.

In addition, Kennedy is currently President of the Kennedy Library Foundation, a director of both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Honorary Chairman of the American Ballet Theatre. She is also an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics, a living memorial to her father.

I'm guessing if you asked Robert Byrd where his car is parked it would take him half an hour to remember. Let's get real here: Caroline Kennedy is AT LEAST as qualified to be Senator as Hillary was.

user-pic

BunnyKat - she parcels out awards. She raises money. She sits on boards. She was a FUNDRAISER for the NYC School System. These are not policy positions. These are figurehead positions. If that was all Hillary did as First Lady or prior to running for Senate I would never have supported her.

When Hillary ran for Senate, she had already worked with the legislature on universal healthcare which was unsuccessful and SCHIP which was. She worked on Nixon's impeachment. She worked on Legal Services - before Bill was governor o her own merits. She worked as a lawyer both corporate and for women and children. Hell she worked as a lawyer period - Caroline Kennedy got a law degree and never practiced. She was a voice on domestic policy in the Clinton administration and in Arkansas. She spoke out on tough political issues, she took political hits and kept on going. She's a fighter. Caroline Kennedy cannot compare. She won't even fight for this appointment - she just wants it handed to her because her last name is Kennedy.

user-pic

In the summer of 1970, [Hillary] was awarded a grant to work at Marian Wright Edelman's Washington Research Project, where she was assigned to Senator Walter Mondale's Subcommittee on Migratory Labor. There she researched migrant workers' problems in housing, sanitation, health and education.[39] Edelman later became a significant mentor.[40]

Her first scholarly article, "Children Under the Law", was published in the Harvard Educational Review in late 1973.[47] Discussing the new children's rights movement, it stated that "child citizens" were "powerless individuals"[48] and argued that children should not be considered equally incompetent from birth to attaining legal age, but that rather courts should presume competence except when there is evidence otherwise, on a case-by-case basis.[49] The article became frequently cited in the field.[50]

During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts,[51] and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children.[52] During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.[53] Under the guidance of Chief Counsel John Doar and senior member Bernard Nussbaum,[37] Rodham helped research procedures of impeachment and the historical grounds and standards for impeachment.[54] The committee's work culminated in the resignation of President Richard Nixon in August 1974.[54]

There, in February 1977, Rodham joined the venerable Rose Law Firm, a bastion of Arkansan political and economic influence.[67] She specialized in patent infringement and intellectual property law,[35] while also working pro bono in child advocacy;[68] she rarely performed litigation work in court.[69]

Rodham maintained her interest in children's law and family policy, publishing the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977[70] and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.[71] The latter continued her argument that children's legal competence depended upon their age and other circumstances, and that serious medical rights cases, judicial intervention was sometimes warranted.[49] An American Bar Association chair later said, "Her articles were important, not because they were radically new but because they helped formulate something that had been inchoate."[49] Historian Garry Wills would later describe her as "one of the more important scholar-activists of the last two decades",[72] while conservatives said her theories would usurp traditional parental authority,[73] allow children to file frivolous lawsuits against their parents,[49] and argued that her work was legal "crit" theory run amok.[74]

Also in 1977, Rodham co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund.[35][75] And later that same year, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana[76]) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation,[77] and she served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981.[78] From mid-1978 to mid-1980[79] she served as the chair of that board, the first woman to do so.[80] During her time as chair, funding for the Corporation was expanded from $90 million to $300 million; subsequently she successfully fought President Ronald Reagan's attempts to reduce the funding and change the nature of the organization.[68]

Clinton appointed her chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee the same year,[81] where she successfully secured federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas's poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.[82]

As First Lady of Arkansas, Hillary Clinton was named chair of the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee in 1983, where she sought to reform the state's court-sanctioned public education system.[89][90] In one of the Clinton governorship's most important initiatives, she fought a prolonged but ultimately successful battle against the Arkansas Education Association, to establish mandatory teacher testing as well as state standards for curriculum and classroom size.[89][81] In 1985, she also introduced Arkansas's Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy.[91]

From 1982 to 1988, Clinton was on board of directors, sometimes as chair, of the New World Foundation,[97] which funded a variety of New Left interest groups.[98] From 1987 to 1991, she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession,[99] which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it.[99]

Clinton served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital Legal Services (1988–1992)[102] and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986–1992).[103][2] In addition to her positions with non-profit organizations, she also held positions on the corporate board of directors of TCBY (1985–1992),[104] Wal-Mart Stores (1986–1992)[105] and Lafarge (1990–1992).[106] TCBY and Wal-Mart were Arkansas-based companies that were also clients of Rose Law.[95][107] Clinton was the first female member on Wal-Mart's board, added following pressure on chairman Sam Walton to name a woman to the board.[107] Once there, she pushed successfully for Wal-Mart to adopt more environmentally friendly practices, was largely unsuccessful in a campaign for more women to be added to the company's management, and was silent about the company's famously anti-labor union practices.[107][108][105]

In 1993, Bill Clinton appointed Hillary Clinton to head and be the chairwoman of the Task Force on National Health Care Reform, hoping to replicate the success she had in leading the effort for Arkansas education reform.[133] The recommendation of the task force became known as the Clinton health care plan, a comprehensive proposal that would require employers to provide health coverage to their employees through individual health maintenance organizations. The plan was quickly derided as "Hillarycare" by its opponents; some protesters against it became vitriolic, and during a July 1994 bus tour to rally support for the plan, she was forced to wear a bulletproof vest at times.[134][135] The plan did not receive enough support for a floor vote in either the House or the Senate, although both chambers were controlled by Democrats, and proposal was abandoned in September 1994.[134] Clinton later acknowledged in her book, Living History, that her political inexperience partly contributed to the defeat, but mentioned that many other factors were also responsible.

Along with Senators Ted Kennedy and Orrin Hatch, she was a force behind passage of the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage, and conducted outreach efforts on behalf of enrolling children in the program once it became law.[140] She promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.[141] She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.[46] The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.[46] Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice.[46] In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.[46][142] In 1999, she was instrumental in passage of the Foster Care Independence Act, which doubled federal monies for teenagers aging out of foster care.[142] As First Lady, Clinton hosted numerous White House conferences, including ones on Child Care (1997),[143] on Early Childhood Development and Learning (1997),[144] and on Children and Adolescents (2000).[145] She also hosted the first-ever White House Conference on Teenagers (2000)[146] and the first-ever White House Conference on Philanthropy (1999).[147]

In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself,[150] declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights"[150] and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks.[148] She was one of the most prominent international figures during the late 1990s to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban.[151][152] She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.[153]

Clinton initiated and was Founding Chair of the Save America's Treasures program, a national effort that matched federal funds to private donations for the purpose of preserving and restoring historic items and sites,[182] including the flag that inspired "The Star-Spangled Banner" and the First Ladies Historic Site in Canton, Ohio.[46] She was head of the White House Millennium Council,[183] and hosted Millennium Evenings,[184] a series of lectures that discussed futures studies, one of which became the first live simultaneous webcast from the White House.[46] Clinton also created the first Sculpture Garden there, which displayed large contemporary American works of art loaned from museums in the Jacqueline Kennedy Garden.[185]

user-pic

I imagine, Des, that one could lay out a similar resume for Caroline Kennedy - she's done no end of non-profit work.

I don't see any real legislating experience in all that, Des, so we're back where we started.

Freshman lawmakers go to school, just like new judges do. Judges go to judge school for 6 weeks. Freshman lawmakers are taught what to do, too.

Cause most freshmen senators and representatives have little or no experience in legislating when they come into office.

user-pic

Exactly what I was thinking.

(now I'm really running...)

user-pic

Caroline's non-profit work wasas a fundraiser, not as an advocate for policy. There's a huge difference. Caroline Kennedy uses family connections to raise MONEY primarilly for the arts, education, maintaining her father's political legacy. There's no comparison here. Sorry. Quick name any political stance supported by Carolien Kennedy in the last 20 years that she actively spoke out about (and not just that she hearts Obama).

Sorry just because Uncle Teddy had his Senate seat handed to him with a pretty bow does not mean that's how Caroline Kennedy should get it. If she wants it, she should earn it rather than just relying on her name. No one gave Hillary anything.

user-pic

The idea that people seem to be saying that Hillary circa 2000 & Caroline now would somehow have equivalent knowledge of legislative practices, other legislators interests, and knowledge of the history and routes available in those bodies is almost beyond my comprehension.

I don't care if HRC says or doesn't say anything about Caroline running, and I don't care greatly for either come to think of it, but the rationalizations and comparisons are enough to get you thrown out of the School for the Dim.

Think I'll go play in traffic.

user-pic

I really am shocked that progressives are actively working against Caroline Kennedy. Of all people.

I'm shocked, djamo. I think this is just downright strange.

user-pic

Tena - To play the shrinking violet not taking political positions for 50 years and then expect her coming out debutante ball to be a US Senate seat handed to her? That's just too much to handle. And the pressure on Gov. Paterson that it should be hers if she wants it is despicable.

She can earn the seat easily in two years and in those two years become a political force, rather than expecting the Senate to be her trainign ground. Absolutely not. I am really disgusted by this. And I'm even more disgusted that people are trying to equate Hillary of 2000 with Caroline of 2008. Not in the same universe. Seriously.

user-pic

I just thought we all bought into "From The Bottom Up." Or did I miss something in my drunken stupor these past 6 weeks? And Change, Real Change, that I Can Believe In.

The country's top dogs walked it off a freaking cliff, through a series of actions - and inactions - for which I really can't think of an historic parallel. And where was Caroline? Protesting the war?Or deregulation? Or Constitutional shredding?

Ah well, "meritocracy" was just too hard to spell anyway. Let's ignore the fact that there's people on this site with better credentials than this candidate. Why bother getting an education? Why bother working on the ground, you know - the bottom - for years?

Noblesse Oblige meets Celebrity Television.

Beyond pathetic. But let's go the whole hog if we're gonna do this, and have a batch of Kennedys appointed. 4 or 5. And some Gores. Some young Clintons. A coupla Bidens.

And this is "Progressive?" Progressively more farcical, yes.

user-pic

Q, I absolutely don't get it. Everything's gone topsy-turvy. It befuddles me this belief that just being a good person, smart, being named Kenendy, and being an Obama supporter entitles one to be appointed Senator. I'm a NYer and I expect better than that from my representative. And in order to justify it, the same people who criticized Hillary's supposed lack of experience are creating qualifications for Caroline Kennedy that don't exist. And the very public pressure on Paterson is disgraceful. Not a peep of complaint from those who were complaining about those pushing Hillary for VP. It's Paterson's decision. Let him make it. Her name is quite pressure enough without additional arm twisting.

user-pic

I guess I'll just wander out of this debate. It's weirdly personalized somehow, so the "arguments" just don't make sense. See, I supported Obama. Bobby Kennedy is my hero. And I'm sure Caroline is a lovely, bright person, and I feel for her for her upbringing, and even respect much of what she's done. Plus, I can see that having the Kennedy name on the ticket doesn't hurt.

But does she have much relevant experience? No. Proven skills in a legislative setting? No. And most important, if we're gonna go that way, then what of all the other good-hearted, bright, hard-working people out there... who came from nothing... who suffered through family tragedy.... Why is it that their knowledge and experience and wisdom and ideas counts for precisely nothing? Why not appoint one of them, and let Caroline run later?

Ultimately, it doesn't kill me either way. But the personalized stuff, and the rationalizations are just a waste of time. It's as though we'd proposed mugging a really nice lady on the street.

Time to hit the road. See ya, Dij! Mush, huskies, mush.....!

user-pic

I think the term "shrinking violet" is a harsh term to use against someone whose father was assassinated, whose uncle was assassinated, and whose family was so targeted by the mob that her mother married a Greek millionaire just to move her children to a guarded island. Caroline Kennedy has paid a terrible price for her name. That doesn't mean she should get something she is not qualified for. But, I don't think there's any question she is as qualified as Hillary Clinton was in 1999. And if she's not up to it, you can vote her out in two years.

user-pic

A shrinking violet is a shy or retiring person. That's harsh? You must have amnesia from the primary.I'd say it's a fairly accurate description, and not what I want in my senator. Her brother was an ADA, founded a magazine. Did public stuff. Took public positions. I would not have the same degree of revulsion at JFK, Jr. seeking political office regardless of whether he supported Obama or Hillary. Just having tragic events in your family does not entitle you to a Senate seat.

user-pic

I think that's Robert Kennedy Jr., and you can add convicted heroin addict, which still doesn't disqualify him based on his rehabilitation and good works later. So I don't think it's Kennedy hatred, it's simply "who is she and why Senator?"

user-pic

Nope I really meant JFK Jr who I thought would eventually end up in public office. Sure he was no regular ADA, but he at least he had public positions and stances and failures (including the very public bar failures & the struggling new magazine). He dared to do something on his own apart from the Kennedy legacy. But RFK, Jr. too who's done great work on envrionmental policies - totally agreed.

user-pic

Tena, most of the people actively working against Caroline Kennedy are bitter ass Hillary folks who just can't let go.

user-pic

Word. It's the same angry dynamic all over again. Sigh. Will we see a return of the shrieking woman at the DNC? Probably.

user-pic

Makes sense to me. The primary all over again!

user-pic

Bullshit. I was never a Clinton supporter, bitter or otherwise, and I think coronating Caroline Kennedy as Senator smacks of nepotism, if not outright patronage. I like CKed just fine, but she's no more qualified to be Senator than Fran Drescher or JLo. If this shit goes down, I suggest we just rename the Senate: call it the House of Lords and be done with it.

user-pic

I'll forgive the misguided self righteousness for a moment, assuming that you disregarded that pesky "most" word I used when describing what I believe to be a large portion of Kennedy detractors. Besides, I didn't see the same sort of clumsy histrionics when Hillary ran for Senate - she had never been elected to public office up until that point.

user-pic
I'll forgive the misguided self righteousness for a moment...

Thank you, your Eminence, that's mighty...uh...ironic of you (hypocritical also came to mind).

...assuming that you disregarded that pesky "most" word I used when describing what I believe to be a large portion of Kennedy detractors.

Why disregard the biggest fallacy in your whole specious dismissal? Sweeping generalizations are so much fun!

Besides, I didn't see the same sort of clumsy histrionics when Hillary ran for Senate - she had never been elected to public office up until that point.

Perhaps I wasn't hysterical enough for you to notice, but I was thoroughly against Clinton's senate run at the time. I left my beloved NY shortly before she was elected, so I never got the chance to become hysterical again when she ran for reelection.

Now, instead of smearing your opponents with ad hominem drivel, perhaps you could come up with a sound, logical counter argument that would persuade your opponents to your point of view. Perhaps not?

user-pic

"Thank you, your Eminence, that's mighty...uh...ironic of you (hypocritical also came to mind)"

You are the one whining about sweeping generalizations and all you can grasp for is some hypocritical tie between a person's views and their screenname? Talk about weak sauce.(By the way, did you know that Tena is Arabic, an actual goose from Michigan posts here, and we are graced by the presence of Sarah Palin herself?)

"Why disregard the biggest fallacy in your whole specious dismissal? Sweeping generalizations are so much fun!"

Just imagine the enjoyable time you'd be having if I had actually said that all of Kennedy's detractors were bitter Clintonites - hence the "sweeping" part. Good times.

"I left my beloved NY shortly before she was elected, so I never got the chance to become hysterical again when she ran for reelection."

I'm glad that you saved up all that screeching hysteria until now, better late than never I say. Bravo. Actually, I was referring to the bitter Clintonites I have witnessed thus far, not you - I should have made the distinction. But you are a smoldering piece of shit, so I'm glad you were offended.

"Now, instead of smearing your opponents with ad hominem drivel, perhaps you could come up with a sound, logical counter argument that would persuade your opponents to your point of view. Perhaps not?"

This coming from a person who started off their rebuttal to my personal opinion with the word "Bullshit!". Thank you for that softball fucknuts. No disrespect, but being lectured on decorum from the likes of you is like taking dating advice from a rapist.

user-pic

That said, talk to me like that again and I will cut your fucking heart out..

user-pic

That's right, keep your fucking mouth shut..

user-pic

I imagine one might, but no one has, except for "she's a lawyer, raised money for New York education and wrote 2 books". Except for glorifying her father's name, give me a board activity that served a pressing public need, and that gave experience working with (read: jostling, fighting, wheedling, persuading) government (executive, legislative or judicial) in areas and ways that would be of use as a legislator.

Look back at my post and you'll see a number of items that bring real-world skills to the job of Senator, which after all is not just legislating, it is also evaluating, conducting inquiries and reviews of policy needs, and conducting oversight. Some of the offices and functions she helped create under the auspices of the Executive Branch can be created by legislative order (Office on Violence Against Women, for example). Work on numerous special interests' boards can map very closely to work on numerous Congressional committees on areas such as poverty, health care, legal aid, education, etc. If you go back through what I pasted, there is quite a bit of overlap in these interests, and of course having a track record of involvement in these issues makes one a better legislator through giving good feedback and evaluation to pending legislation. (Someone who isn't familiar with a particular field is going to have trouble reading through 300 pages of background info the night before an important vote, or as is typical, the 20 minutes before an important vote).

Aside from specific interaction and experience (and failure) with the legislative branch on Universal Health Care, she was also involved with SCHIP, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, Foster Care Independence Act, and Home Instruction Program (Arkansas).

user-pic

Since when, Des, are senators and representatives supposed to have CVs out the ass?

I do not understand any of this. I think it's wack.


user-pic

Tena Morning: "tell me what experience Hillary had legislating, before she went to the Senate?"

Tena Afternoon: "stop telling me about experience, legislators aren't supposed to be experienced"

Tena Evening: ?

user-pic

Heck, just look at the Repubs voting in actors and sports stars for the House and Senate! Jim Bunning, Fred Granby, Fred Thompson, and the deceased Sonny Bono are a few names that come to mind.

user-pic

Oh go on Hil! You know you want to! Dish on the bitch!

We won't tell... we promise!

:-)

user-pic

Dukes and Countesses and Kings, Oh my.

I have the feeling I am reading an installment of Dune.

user-pic

I don't approve of political dynasties in the White House. It doesn't bother me in Congress. I like the idea of Caroline in the Senate.

user-pic

I'm basically with you, but Kevin Drum put his finger on what's been bugging me about this appointment: it's already much easier for the wealthy and well-connected to win elections, but appointing the W&W-C makes it just a little too easy. I'd like to see them appoint a placeholder Senator and see Caroline run (and win) in 2010.

user-pic

You've got a decent point, but honestly, I wonder if that's really the basis of the complaint from Drum and others.

It's a complaint I've never heard before. All of a sudden progressives are worried about the rich and famous in Congress?

user-pic

Don't remember that argument when Shrub got selected! And Caroline Kennedy is at least as smart as Libby Dole (the Clarence Thomas of the Senate), who has yet to ask 1 question in committee!

user-pic

Even more - no one complained when the former First Lady ran.

The Clintons are rich and famous, too, ya know.

user-pic

As I recall there WERE some complaints about Hillary seeking the Senate seat. But that was more about carpet-bagging as I recall.

In my view it's ok to appoint Caroline. Why not? Anyone would be "appointed" - and anyone who's appointed has to run in both 2010 and 2012. How many people are going to have the deep pockets or connections to do that? She clearly has a history of caring about social causes. She's not a narcissistic person and so is not out for fame or influence here. She can do much good. And it's important to think strategically - to make sure the Dems keep a seat.

Maybe she hasn't been in politics till now. But Hillary hadn't run for anything before the Senate either. Nevertheless, Caroline - having no political past - also has no political skeletons. The lady is squeaky clean! That counts for a lot in my book!

user-pic

Exactly, Thera - your whole comment. She'll have to run if she's appointed.

I don't know - I usually don't come down in favor of handing out good shit to rich people but for some reason, I like this idea. I like her. I'm not a huge Kennedy fan in general, but I like this just the same.

user-pic

She really has nothing to gain here. And she'll "lose" a lot. Just as in some ways Hillary is losing to leave her senate seat for SoS. Caroline Kennedy has a lot to give.

That's what impresses me. (gotta run...)

user-pic

I think she'll be a great Senator (seems to be smart, well-thought-out positions, etc., etc.) I'd just rather see her win it on her own merits, of which she has plenty. Must be my contrarian side coming out this morning! :-)

user-pic

No one complained when Hillary ran - in fact they begged her to run to prevent Senator Giuiliani - This is opposed to Caroline Kennedy who is twisting arms to get appointed despite having avoided taking political stances her entire life. No one asked her to run - she nominated herself. She's no Hillary Clinton. Caroline's not even a Sarah Palin at this point.

Hillary was involved in policy - separate and apart from Bill - in a very public way. Had she not married Bill, she'd be successful in her own right. Caroline raised money for NY public schools, other poltiicians and arts. Sorry, that does not qualify have the position of Senator handed to you. She has the name advantage. If she wants it, then run for it in 2010 and in the meantime get some freaking policy positions.

user-pic

It's always nice to hear from my fans!

user-pic

Whatevs. At least Palin had the moxie to get herself elected on her own merits rather than expecting it by the merits of her last name. And Palin was an abysmal failure as a nominee because she was unprepared. Caroline Kennedy has never ever been tested politically. She's never every fought politically for anything. That's not what I want in my Senator.

user-pic

I think you are revising history just a wee bit. I recall plenty of complaining, especially about the fact that most of the money she raised to run came from outside the state, Hollywood to be exact. I still find it funny and ironic that Clinton supporters are opposed to Caroline because of her family name. Honestly, would Hillary have stood a chance running in New York if she had been married to Mr. Smith?

user-pic

The complaints about carpetbagging were from the GOP. Not from Democrats. I am a New Yorker and Hillary was the underdog to Giuiliani and the only candidate that even came close to him. That said, Hillary had high negatives particularly upstate and overcame them. She fought for her Senate seat it wasn't given to her by virtue of an appointment that was forced on the governor through political pressure.

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/jun/11/news/mn-39983

I advocated for Hillary and NY Democrats were thrilled to have her running. The revised history is Obama supporters taking up the right-wing talking points in the primary. The primary is over now. Now the issue is should someone with no record of ever having been part of a political fight in her life should walk away wholly untested with a Senate seat by virtue of her last name. How interesting those who said Hillary was unqualified, only where she was because she was Mrs. Bill, are now touting Caroline Kennedy. Principled stance, or just celebrity fawning?

user-pic

At least Caroline has lived in New York most of her life and has a long track record working on issues of importance to New Yorkers. I just don't understand the over-the-top animosity. It has to be linked to Kennedy's support of Obama.

user-pic

It's not animosity. It's just not buying into privilege. It's kind of an American thing, we supposedly got rid of our royalty and hard class divides. If Forbes' kid or Bloomberg's kid or Rockefeller's kid or Alec Baldwin's kid comes up, it'll be the same thing - show us your experience and/or moxie.

user-pic

Nice myth, just not true. Have you ever looked at who sits in the Senate? Sometime name recognition and some family money are exactly what the constituency needs.It can actually work to their advantage. Maybe you don't quite understand how the Senate works. This is 1 of 100, not a presidency. We can argue over whether Hillary in 1999 was as qualified as Caroline in 2009, and we probably won't agree. But, I don't like carpet baggers. I don't care what their name is--I prefer representative government aligned with local norms and customs. And that's not a Republican talking point-many Democrats felt the same unease with Hillary's walk into New York. If there had been a reputable Republican on the ticket, she might not have won. And, if she had run from Arkansas it wouldn't have bothered me in the least.

user-pic

RFK was a carpetbagger too, but he's a Kennedy so that's cool I guess. With all due respect your opinion of carpetbagging in NYS doesn't matter. The Republicans made that carpetbagging argument in the campaign repeatedly. Said she would go back on her word and run for the presidency in 2004 - seh didn't. NYers rejected it and elected Hillary. So your opinion of Hillary as a carpetbagger means very little, and your opinion of who should be my senator means less.

Just residing in a state does not make you representative. Caroline Kennedy has not made her case to the voters. She should if she really wants the seat and earn it rather than expecting it to be given to her. That's not an unreasonable expectation, and I think she'd have a good shot in winning in 2010 if she did. Will she do it the right and difficult way, or use her name and status to demand it be handed to her? If she requests and gets the appointment, I respect her much less so than if she fights for it.

user-pic

If Chelsea was old enough to take Hillary's seat and there was pressure to give it to her, I'm sure you'd have no objections. I would. I'm not changing my principles based on the name of the person involved. You are.

Kennedy's support of Obama is the only political stance she's taken. Appoint another Obama supporter that has actual policy positions and I'd have no issue with that. If he wants her on his team, find a spot in his administration. The NY Senate seat should not be a prize for supporting Obama and being named Kennedy.

user-pic

You're making some big assed sweeping generalizations about the anti-Caroline crowd. Not all of us were anti-Clinton. Some of us were for Obama and would also like to see the end of the giving away of seats of power. Clinton has nothing to do with my thoughts on this subject.

user-pic

Sorry I don't like Liddy Dole, but she was qualified in her own right and had a political career before marrying Dole.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elizabeth_Dole

No comparison to Caroline Kennedy.

user-pic

Anyone note the freudian slip in the headline over at Huffpost,,,,, to the effect that the governor of New York has, "grown increasingly fond of her" in reference to Caroline.

Given the revelations of his personal life that sounds a tad creepy to say the least.

user-pic

That word doesn't bother me. For goodness sakes some person who had "strayed" might develop a fondness for me. But that doesn't mean I would stray! Indeed, I've worked with men who had had affairs... but that did not affect me in the least!

Innuendo is going way too far these days...

user-pic

I'll say.

It's way out of control.

user-pic

Why won't she say anything?

What does she have to hide?

Is Bill up to something?

INQUIRING MINDS NEED TO KNOW!!!

user-pic

I'm thinking of all the things that start with pee...politics, personality, pique, privilege, power, position, policy, perspective and so many more.

user-pic

Are there serious arguments against Caroline coming from anyone who didn't support Hillary against Barack? I'm curious, because this seems a bit over the top. Why wouldn't Caroline do a good job? By all accounts she smart, hard-working and dedicated to service. And as far as policy positions, is it that hard to pin down the Kennedys on policy? Come on.

user-pic

Are there serious defenses of Caroline Kenendy that don't emerge just because she supported Obama? If she was a Hillary supporter would she be a contender? All I've heard is fundraising, Profiles in Courage, and delinquency on her renewing her law registration with NYS. I don't even know if she's ever practiced law ever. If anyone can demonstrate exactly how she's qualified, lay out her policy stances, show how she's fought for anything the way I expect my Senator to fight for NYS, I'm all ears.

user-pic

Fair enough. I'm no big fan of the Caroline idea, just trying to flesh out what the real opposition is.

As far her positions, maybe I'm naive, but I'd assume she and Uncle Ted agree on, well, pretty much everything.

user-pic

That's an assumption though, and one that makes me even more hesitant to support her. Uncle Teddy only gets to hold one Senate seat at a time. I don't want a bobbing head doll for either Uncle Teddy or Obama's agenda as my Senator. I want a Senator with the demonstrated capacity for independent thought and political convcitions.

If Obama and Uncle Teddy want her in the Senate so badly, carpetbag her over to Illinois. I hear the bidding's still open on that one. The junior senator seat from NY should not be up for the bidding for money or political favors (or fear of legislative retribution).

user-pic

Presumably Uncle Ted isn't just about positions (those are easy to have), but ability to move legislation, express ideas, motivate your peers, form important alliances and reach compromise, and other important qualities.

And if it's just about positions, why not bring back Billy Glad to occupy the position, or teach Ivana Trump the right lines and send her to Washington. Or Caligula's horse - paw the ground if aye, snort if neigh.

user-pic

There are far more qualified people who are already serving the people in an elected post: Cuomo comes to mind, and so do a great many NY house reps like Nita Lowey. How is Caroline more qualified than any of these folks?

user-pic

As a NYer, I'm very much opposed to Kennedy being appointed. There are plenty of people who have been working very hard in public service for years who should have the opportunity to move up the ladder, so to speak. Constantly bringing in celebrity candidates must be very discouraging for people who have earned their stripes, people who the Dem Party and the state need.

user-pic

"Constantly bringing in celebrities" was pretty effective in the case of Hillary, you would have to admit.

user-pic

Nope, I wouldn't.

user-pic

Ok, who do you propose?

user-pic

And . . . And . . . And . . . Caroline Kennedy is a Democrat! How could they cinsider replacing Hillary Clinton with someone from the DEMOCRATIC PARTY?!?!?!?!?

user-pic

AND Caroline Kennedy is from a PRIOR Democratic dynasty . . . A pre-Clintiod one . . . That's soooo pre 90's . . . 1990's.

There are 12 (T-w-e-l-v-e) folk with their hats in this particular rink. Every name mentioned so far has been a good one. I, for one, find comfort in having a Kennedy or two in the America House of the Lords . . . Oooops . . . Senate.

The real issue here is Obama NEEDS to stop raiding the Senate for talent.

user-pic

It is an interesting point that the Clintons brought in a generation of new talent. By the time we get to 2016, we'll have an octogenarian class. Hey, why not Robert Byrd? ;-)

user-pic

Whatever Caroline Says we'll make sure Caroline Gets.

user-pic

Caroline Kennedy is a class act. The Kennedy legacy should work in her favor, not against her. My sibling has worked with her on non-profit stuff and had nothing but good things to say about her. NY, like Chicago, has some nasty, inbred political machinery. She would be a breath of fresh air. Not having been a careerist political animal should be seen as a plus. For all you that said that Obama's good judgment was paramount to his inexperience I would say it is ironic and cynical that you would now say Caroline is unfit. Or is there some other agenda?

user-pic

I would rather to have an intelligent senator with no experience like Caroline Kennedy, She has at least a brain, integrity, decency and class. Not to mention that she has written bools on the Constitution and graduated in law.

That must be hard for some to accept an intelligent senator as opposed to see the current idiots running the senate.

Also, most know that if Caroline gets the senate seat, it means that Clinton will not be able to get it back after she is done with SOS.

user-pic

So you prefer someone with no political experience to someone who's busted her butt for her (your) party in the political sphere for almost 40 years now? Very strange loyalties.

user-pic

Very strange comment. Who busted her butt for her party for almost 40 years now? I know some people like nancy pelosi, or barbara boxer, or diane feinstein, or I am sure there are a slew of others that I can't think of off the top of my head, but none of them are in line for the NY Senate seat vacated by clinton. You can't possibly be referring to her are you?

user-pic

Ultimately the gov decides. I'm gonna wait and see.

Leave a comment

Advertise Liberally
Share
Close Social Web Email

"To" Email Address

Your Name

Your Email Address