Poll: Caroline Kennedy The Favorite For Hillary's Senate Seat, But Doubts Remain
Another poll out today shows that Caroline Kennedy remains the favorite for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat, but at the same time there is serious division about whether she should get it.
The new numbers from Quinnipiac: Among all registered voters in New York, 33% say Gov. David Paterson should name Kennedy to the seat, edging out state Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo at 29%. Among Democrats only, it's Kennedy 41% to Cuomo 27%. On top of that, New Yorkers expect that Kennedy will get the seat by a 48%-25%.
On the other hand, the poll isn't all good news for her: Only 40% of respondents said she is qualified to be a U.S. Senator, with 41% saying she is not. And Andrew Cuomo has a better favorable-unfavorable rating of 55%-11%, compared to Kennedy's 46%-17%.
The more Cuomo and others continue to feed negative oppo to the tabloids about Caroline, the more support she will get. Do we know how many times Cuomo voted, for example?
Instead of making the affirmative case for another candidate, people like Ackerman and Ferraro and Weiner are spending their time trying to discredit Kennedy. I believe the attacks will backfire, especially Ferraro's. That old bag is just downright toxic, not to mention strange.
December 23, 2008 11:39 AM | Reply | Permalink
It is impossible to figure out what Ferraro wants. The only theory which satisfies concerns her own unfulfilled entitlement and little else. I would reflect not having her powerless support is probably helpful to the Kennedy cause, just as her unwarranted couch-fainting helped Obama.
With the Clinton take-down, Dem entitlement seems to be relegated to the 20th century. PE Obama seems to have little time for such things.
December 23, 2008 12:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Why do they fear Kennedy so much?
December 23, 2008 11:49 AM | Reply | Permalink
They don't fear her; they resent her.
Cuomo is among several NY Dems who had his heart set on the Senate. Eight years ago, they made way for Hillary and the thought of having to stand aside again for political stardom drives them crazy.
Many of them are angry because Caroline back Obama in the primary over Hillary. Talk about needing to move on.
December 23, 2008 11:53 AM | Reply | Permalink
"Fear"? What makes you say "they" "fear" her?
I'm curious.
December 23, 2008 12:25 PM | Reply | Permalink
The Man's always trying to keep the Kennedy's down!
December 23, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
They don't fear her, they hate her guts. It's hard to understand why, though. After all, without Caroline Kennedy's help, Hillary never would have landed the Secretary of State gig.
December 23, 2008 12:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's the "they" you're referring to?
The voters? I don't get fear or hate from these numbers...
December 23, 2008 12:57 PM | Reply | Permalink
Sorry, I was responding to combined comments. I was referring to Hillary's more ardent supporters. Those who oppose Kennedy because they're angry that she supported the guy who won the election. Apparently, Caroline Kennedy is so massively powerful that without her help, Obama would have lost the election to Hillary. But she's not powerful enough to be New York's junior Senator.
December 23, 2008 1:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thanks for the clarification. I was wondering what I was missing in the post by Eric.
December 23, 2008 1:06 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was/am a Hillary supporter. I don't hate, resent or fear Caroline Kennedy. I think she's not qualified to be a Senator. I was giving her the benefit of the doubt until I saw the press conference she did a week or so ago. Her answers to the questions and her manner were weak at best. She has potential but she needs to start somewhere else. I don't think someone can just jump into the Senate, esp. from a big state like New York, with a complete lack of political experience.
December 23, 2008 6:23 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was actually thinking of more high profile Hillary supporters. You know, like that insufferably nasty old harridan, Geraldine Ferraro. Look, in 1962, Ted Kennedy was also dismissed as a name-only candidate. At the time, the only real support he got was from a couple of members of the Harvard University faculty. Most political insiders dismissed him as a political dilettante, unfairly running on his brother's name.
December 23, 2008 7:16 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ted Kennedy was a dilettante running on his brother's name. It took years for him to earn a position of respect in the Senate - he worked hard and proved his leadership skills.
I'm not saying Caroline can't get there. But I think there are other more qualified candidates for the job.
I haven't followed Ferraro's career in recent years so I'll give you a pass on the harridan remark. I did think she got an unfair rap for the remark she made about Obama.
December 23, 2008 9:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
Such a dilettante that after he won the Senate seat in a special election in 1962, he was reelected in 1964, 1970, 1976, 1982, 1988, 1994, 2000 and 2006. Apparently Bay Staters can't tell when they're being hoodwinked.
December 23, 2008 10:54 PM | Reply | Permalink
Caroline can probably win the election in 2 years too - that doesn't mean she's not a dilettante. Did you see her response last week when they asked her why she thought she'd be a good Senator? If she can't give a better answer to that question, she doesn't deserve the job. As far as I know, she hasn't done an interview since.
Look, I live in Rep. Steve King's district in Iowa. We elected a complete idiot. And he got re-elected in November. (Look him up. It's good for a laugh. He's made Olbermann's worst person in the world list a few times this year. http://www.kingwatch.org/King_Quotes.html)
GWB got elected twice. Voters are stupid sometimes.
In Teddy's case, he became a great Senator for whom I have enormous respect. But it took him awhile to get there.
With more experience, Caroline might become a great Senator. But our country is in a crisis right now and we need someone who can hit the ground running.
December 24, 2008 6:13 AM | Reply | Permalink
and i am an obama supporter, and have been since he announced. and i've yet to be convinced that caroline kennedy would be a better choice for this seat than, say, jerrold nadler or carolyn maloney. hillary doesn't really enter into it.
December 23, 2008 10:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
I totally agree, Benjoya. New York happens to be a state with several people who are enormously qualified for the job, who have far more political experience than Caroline. Nadler or Maloney would be an excellent choice.
December 24, 2008 6:19 AM | Reply | Permalink
She's almost dead even in the percentage that think she's qualified, and the past 2 weeks all we've heard is how unqualified she is...
Seems like she's survived the gauntlet.
December 23, 2008 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
It does, doesn't it? And as you say, there's been little outward support in the media and yet she's still holding on. In the meantime, as Cuomo goes negative, I wonder how his numbers are faring?
December 23, 2008 12:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
If I lived in NY, I would want Caroline Kennedy as my new senator---I am so sick of career politicians and phoney's like Peter King, Ackerman, Rangel, Schumer (especially)--I'd like to see new blood in both the House and Senate--I think Caroline will bring a different perspective to the office if she is selected.
Andrew Cuomo is not the person for the job at this time--with the collapse of Wall Street and the criminality of the trades and hedge funds, he is doing what is necessary to investigate and obtain criminal indictments against the clowns who perpetrated this mess.
December 23, 2008 12:19 PM | Reply | Permalink
Which probably accounts for his favorability ratings. People of New York perceive him as doing something on their behalf.
December 23, 2008 12:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
As a New Yorker, I'm surprisingly indifferent to the the Senate discussion. It's almost like they're talking about who's going to become the next Prime Minister of Malaysia. I don't have any say in either situation.
December 23, 2008 12:31 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm just in the neighboring state, so it's entirely irrelevant to me, but I'm pretty bored by this whole thing as well. The only thing that I find annoying is the assertion that Paterson HAS to appoint a woman to the position.
But this seems to have really touched a nerve with many people.
December 23, 2008 12:41 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ummm, hell no to Caroline Kennedy. I want Randi Weingarten - someone who has real credentials on school and education reform, lawyer, teacher, union leader, knows the ins and outs of policy. Caroline Kennedy is a fundraiser, unqualified, only considered because her last name is Kennedy. Cuomo at least has done stuff professionally - Caroline Kennedy has never made a political stand in her life other than vocally supporting Obama. That does not merit beign appointed to Senate.
I want a Senator based on merit and skill and policy, not political legacy and public relations skills.
December 23, 2008 12:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
On merit, I don't think anyone here is saying she's earned it. Some are saying she's unqualified, about the same number are some are she's not, a smaller percentage don't care. Same as the poll.
December 23, 2008 12:51 PM | Reply | Permalink
How could he even think fo appointing someone that 41% of people think is unqualified is my question? Those are Palin-esque numbers for a reason. And Palin at least won political office on her own, had political positions locally & state wide even though she was clearly not prepared for national office.
Perhaps the people promoting Caroline Kennedy could point out what in her background even merits consideration against Randi Weingarten (or dozens of politicians like her)? Or perhaps she'd like to let us know what her policies are, and political stances she's taken ever? The fact that she's even being considered is a joke given she won't even release any financial info, no policy statements unless she's appointed. The level of entitlement here is just beyond contempt.
And not that this should make a difference, but Randi Weingarten would also be the first openly gay US Senator which be a great move for Patterson who has been very supportive of gay marriage and friend to the LGBT community. She's more than qualified in her own right, but it's a nice bonus.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Weingarten
December 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
Political stances: Supports Gay Marriage, supports gun control, supports unions, to name a few.
Accomplishments: Lawyer (top schools in the country), author of several books, raised 60 some million for NYC public schools, strong political allies that could have her up and running from day one. Just to name a few that come to mind right off.
December 23, 2008 1:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Those are certainly accomplishments, but do you think someone named Caroline Brown with those same accomplishments would be a serious contender for this appointment?
I tend to think not, and therefore, the argument that this is being done because of the Kennedy connection seems not unreasonable.
But I've got no dog in this fight. Just my very own turd Senator.
December 23, 2008 1:10 PM | Reply | Permalink
I agree with you. And so sorry you are stuck with such an ass of a Senator.
December 23, 2008 1:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, you live in a state with the Senator you have, not the Senator you'd like to have...
Or something like that.
December 23, 2008 1:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
She is only claiming those political stances after deciding to run for office. Find me any sources that show what her political beliefs were prior to December 2008. She was a blank slate. So of course she's going to be a proponent of gay marriage, because *shocker* so if David Patterson! If Patterson was anti-gay marriage, she'd have been more circumspect about that question. It's easy to have the right answers when you don't have to take any political risk.
She's a lawyer who never practiced law. Her attorney registration was lapsed and just renewed once she decided to seek the seat. Unlike JFK Jr. who was an ADA. Here's a classmate of hers from the Columbia Law School class of 1988 that actually did something with her degree> http://www.reproductiverights.org/ab_nn.html
Jon Stewart is an author who is smart, intelligent, just as qualified as Al Franken, OH and he actually takes political positions. How's about him?
December 23, 2008 1:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
I find myself again agreeing with you.
Funny that for many here this Kennedy-name-business doesn't smell, as in reek of privilege!
She is probably a fabulous person. That is just not enough. Why is that so hard to understand?
And come on! Could it be true that Paterson's only two choices are a Kennedy and a Cuomo? Is there no room for other families in this Republic?
December 23, 2008 2:21 PM | Reply | Permalink
Glad to be in agreement. And for Hillary, the name Clinton was a blessing and a curse. She had high negatives even in NYS that she had to overcome. She had a long history of public positions, successes and failures she had to defend. She had to get elected to the seat by the voters. All Caroline Kennedy has is her name at this point. She has willfully avoided taking any public political stances until choosing Obama. There is nothing in her background that merits consideration for Senator if you remove the name Kennedy.
December 23, 2008 2:46 PM | Reply | Permalink
Jon Stewart is from New Jersey.
You really need to get over yourself. Whoever is appointed will face an election in two years. Whoever is appointed will be a Democrat with political positions not unlike many of your own. Whoever is appointed will be your Senator no matter how you feel about it.
The decision is Gov. Patterson's to make.
And leave Franken out of this. I'm in MN. We're hoping to be rid of Quimby soon, and while I'm not a Franken fan, I much prefer him to Slimy Norman. And I'm not crazy about you clouding your issue with ours.
December 23, 2008 3:30 PM | Reply | Permalink
Grouch, I should read more bios. You are in Minnesota too? No wonder you are so grouchy
December 24, 2008 6:27 AM | Reply | Permalink
Cuomo has baggage too. And you keep repeating this post, yet I don't see where Randi Weingarten is ever put forth as a strong contender.
Also, you again do not give credit to CK for her many accomplishments and instead choose to ignore them.
December 23, 2008 12:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Public relation skills are unfortunately probably the numero uno skill set for being a senator, especially during election year. But besides that, you've some valid points.
Of course we can talk all we want or root for whoever we want: this is an appointment, not an election.
December 23, 2008 1:00 PM | Reply | Permalink
I was hoping that Nita Lowey would get the seat -- after all, it was hers before she stepped aside for Clinton. Too bad she wants to stay on the Appropriations committee and the budgetary influence it affords.
NY is going to need someone who has sharp elbows and a good political gut to make sure that the state is well represented in the financial bloodbath/food fight that will be soon consuming political capital. I don't see Caroline Kennedy as the type.
December 23, 2008 1:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Caroline Kennedy is a fundraiser, unqualified, only considered because her last name is Kennedy."
Dijamo, that statement is completely over-the-top ridiculous and you know it.
"Caroline Kennedy has never made a political stand in her life other than vocally supporting Obama."
And so is that one. And you know it. Admit it: you just hate her because she supported Obama.
December 23, 2008 12:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
Thank you. My point exactly.
December 23, 2008 12:58 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, sorry Bun-Kitty. I don't hate her. I think she could win the seat easilly in two years if she takes public positions. She's fundraised for NYC schools, but never took a stand on our fight with the state for fair funding. She has no public stance on charter schools or school reform - all the tough stuff she has taken a pass on. No one deserves to be appointed based ont heir last name alone. She wrote a book abotu the Bill of Rights and privacy in the 1990s that would have never been published or gotten attention if her name was not Kennedy. You think in the last 8 years if these issues really mattered to her she could have taken a public stance on say FISA, or warrantless wiretapping, or any of the issues of the day if the issues mattered so much to her?
She's been a silent private citizen and she's entitled to that. She is not entitled to have her coming out party into the world of politics be a Senate seat.
December 23, 2008 1:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
"She is not entitled to have her coming out party into the world of politics be a Senate seat."
I don't think she feels she is entitled. She is just giving it her best shot, and I personally think she has to be pretty damn tough to deal with all the things life has thrown at her, and still want to enter the public arena politically. We shall see what your Governor does though.
December 23, 2008 1:14 PM | Reply | Permalink
Amelie, and you don't think that her believing she can all of a sudden "give it her best shot" is entitlement enough?
Since when an anonymous citizen with the same accomplishments of CK would dare to "give it her/his best shot"?
Of course we are discussing her possible appointment to the Senate because of her privilege and her entitlement. And those are the only reasons why she is being considered at all.
I have nothing against her. I have all against keeping the power into limited hands. That was one of the main reasons I couldn't consider Hillary.
Is really this country so people-poor that we must resort to the same privileged families?
December 23, 2008 2:28 PM | Reply | Permalink
She has not been a "silent" private citizen. She has been actively involved in numerous public projects as well as writing six books, or something like that. And the causes she has worked for have been an excellent indicator of the issues she'd push in the Senate.
And it probably doesn't matter anyway, because it's my guess Paterson will appoint her. And I'm sure she'll do an excellent and principled job.
December 23, 2008 1:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
i think dijamo can attest that i don't see supporting obama as a liability, but i think we could do better. in NYC, the upstate/downstate funding inequity is THE educational issue, and we've never heard where CK stands on that. putting that aside, it's a testament to the ahem vitality of the NY democratic party that the likely suspects are kennedy and cuomo, the same party that handed hillary the senate nomination.
randi weingarten would be a good senator. so would lowey, maloney, slaughter, nadler, hinchey, suozzi or weiner. or byron brown, the mayor of buffalo.
December 23, 2008 2:48 PM | Reply | Permalink
Agreed on the school funding inequity. There is no bigger issue in NYS education.
I'd love Maloney, Lowey (who I think withdrew from consideration),Nadler, Weiner, Serrano or Byron Brown(to rep for the Lower Canadians). We are full of strong, progressive Democrats in NY. I'm sure if she is not given the Senate seat, Obama can find her a role in the Administration that will develop her talents and give her some real political experience. Have a Democratic primary in 2010 if CKS wants to run and put her qualifications to the test of the voters. She'll have the name & money advantage and two years to build a public profile.
December 23, 2008 3:35 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm disappointed at how this is playing out. Haven't we all gotten an 8-eyar lesson on the importance of competence and sober-minded experience in government?
I'm sure Kennedy is a wonderful lady. Sounds like she'd done great things, but she shouldn't be ushered into a Senate seat due to charisma and a good last name.
Enough of this crap. There are experienced legislators who have been working their way up through the party for decades. Giving the seat to Kennedy is transparent nonsense.
December 23, 2008 1:12 PM | Reply | Permalink
"I'm disappointed at how this is playing out. Haven't we all gotten an 8-eyar lesson on the importance of competence and sober-minded experience in government?"
Apparently not, because we just elected a president whose experience is limited to a few years in the U.S. Senate, preceded by a few years in the Illinois Senate. If we had learned the lesson you suggest, we would have elected McCain. I think what we've learned is that political experience is far less important to most of us than life experience, intelligence and good judgment.
December 23, 2008 2:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
Exactly. He was elected. Endured a tough primary and a tough GE campaign. He wasn't given his place for his pretty name.
I think you are comparing apples to oranges.
December 23, 2008 2:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
No, it's not apples and oranges. Read the statement I was replying to. Caroline Kennedy is coming under the same sort of criticism Obama did. Personally, I think the whole issue of "experience" is a red herring. Here in Minnesota, we're all crossing our fingers, hoping that Al Franken, a guy with no experience whatsoever, beats Norm Coleman. Coleman, as you may know, was the Mayor of St. Paul before becoming a U.S. Senator. Franken was a comedian. And still, we're hoping Franken wins. Imagine.
December 23, 2008 2:55 PM | Reply | Permalink
You are purposely ignoring the family-name-privilege-dynasty issue.
Apples to oranges. Obama did not get in because his family name. Neither did Franken.
This goes beyond experience. But you are entitled to ignore it.
And I agree to disagree.
December 23, 2008 2:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
"You are purposely ignoring the family-name-privilege-dynasty issue."
Yup. Because I don't care. Personally, I think the whole dynasty issue is paranoia. So what if her father was president? So was Hillary's husband. Did that prevent Hillary from doing a good job as Senator? Should her last name disqualify Chelsea Clinton from running for office someday if she chooses to do so? Why should someone's last name be either a help or a hindrance? I don't buy the notion Caroline Kennedy is getting an unfair break because of her name. Not any more than I buy the notion that she should be disqualified because of it.
December 23, 2008 3:07 PM | Reply | Permalink
Co-sign!
December 23, 2008 3:09 PM | Reply | Permalink
Wow, Kennedy almost raises the hackles as much as the name Warren. Time will be the judge.
December 23, 2008 1:17 PM | Reply | Permalink
The next New York senator will rank 99 or 100 out of 100. Get a no-name like Weingarden and she'll be at the back of the pack in terms of visibility and clout and will struggle to raise money and defeat the Republican in 2010.
Caroline Kennedy will also be 99 or 100 but any issue she advocates for will get a lot of attention simply because she's Caroline Kennedy.
She will also be a close, personal friend of the president. The president. You know, that guy who NY'ers will want to tend to their issues promptly. That fella who will help the senators deliver for the Great State of New York.
She will also be a raise a boatload of money and will probably win re-election easily in 2010 and 2012.
Ahhh, but don't let little practical things like that matter. Elected office experience is so critical. That's why 4 of the last 5 NY senators in that seat haven't had any. Not a drop.
December 23, 2008 1:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
So what your saying is Obama will not promote issues or legislation based on their own merit, but rather on who he is personally friends with. Caroline Kennedy will get speacial attention? Seriously? This is the change we were waiting for? Please. Sounds like the politics of old to me.
Someone like Randi Weingarten has spent her entire life navigating politics, negotiating, being a tough union leader protecting the rights of teachers, better school environments and better services for students. I think she'll do just fine and shouldn't be punished because she doesn't have an Uncle Teddy to pull strings for her or a separate line to call Obama.
December 23, 2008 2:08 PM | Reply | Permalink
So you'd advise Paterson to choose Weingarten over Kennedy then? Call him up. Let him know. Convincing the folks on this board won't count for much, I'm afraid.
December 23, 2008 2:22 PM | Reply | Permalink
E-mailed, faxed, called, posted as well - and I'm not alone. Thinking of taking a train up to Albany for a personal appeal, but that's a bit over the top. I hate Lower Canada this time of year. Apparently 41% of NYers agree with me that she. is. not. qualified. That should weigh more on Governor Patterson's decision-making than political pressure from Ted Kennedy or Harry Reid.
December 23, 2008 2:37 PM | Reply | Permalink
"Lower Canada"???
Spoken by someone who probably considers Scarsdale "Upstate"... : )
Me? Former Rochestarian? Anything south of Binghamton is suspiciously close to "The City"...
(I went to school at SUNY Binghamton...my first day there, my new roommate said she was from "The City"....I innocently asked "Which one?" and, well, you can imagine the reaction...)
December 23, 2008 2:56 PM | Reply | Permalink
Ha!
December 23, 2008 3:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
Anything north of New Roc City (New Rochelle) is Mountie-land to me :o) One of my sisters went to college in Buffalo, one in Utica and I have a cousin right now up in Owsego. So I have love for Lower Canada, but only late April - August.
And is there is only one "The City." :)
December 23, 2008 3:15 PM | Reply | Permalink
So I learned... :)
My roommate committed her own geography faux pas by asking me if my family kept cows in the backyard, so I felt we were even on the ignorance front.
December 23, 2008 3:34 PM | Reply | Permalink
And whoever wants the job needs to generate their own media attention/audience if they want to court Peterson and the public. Does Randi Weingarten even want the job? Is she actively campaigning to be selected like Kennedy and Cuomo?
December 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
Please read related article titled " It's not experience in NY that matters, its ethics!" posted at http://www.cliffyworld.com
December 23, 2008 1:43 PM | Reply | Permalink
The author makes an excellent point: If Chuck Schumer and Charlie Rangel are good enough for New Yorkers to keep in office for decades, certainly Caroline Kennedy is qualified.
December 23, 2008 2:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schumer sucks.
December 23, 2008 2:39 PM | Reply | Permalink
agreed.
December 23, 2008 2:50 PM | Reply | Permalink
Schumer's one of those guys whose votes sometimes convince me that he's GOT to be on the take. I mean, his votes and his positions make no sense whatsoever unless someone's paying him off. Then they make a LOT of sense.
December 23, 2008 3:01 PM | Reply | Permalink
Same suspicion here.
December 23, 2008 3:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over the top comments from many- esp. dijmao. Your vehement and frequent dissent is purely because Caroline Kennedy supported Obama.
I must add her public endorsement also triggerred Ted Kennedy endorsement.
I would like to see someone from the grassroots. But if she is appointed, it's fine. Caroline Kennedy will be fine.
It's not like we are choosing between a Republican versus a Democrat. Also she will face the electorate in two years and again in four years.
She will do fine. People with a loss less intellect stay in the senate for decades.
It seems, mostly, Hillary anger resenting her.
December 23, 2008 3:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
Over the top? But I didn't say Caroline Kennedy should die or she's a B*&!(* or accuse her of murdering people or attack her personally. I just questioned her qualifications. That's what people do when you seek public office. If there's anything I've said that is untrue let me know. It's accurate. Her record on policy is non-existent. NYS deserves better.
December 23, 2008 4:04 PM | Reply | Permalink
But you keep forgetting to mention your no.1 reason: She endorsed Obama.
She's lot more than a fundraiser. But fundraisers are important as well, just ask Bill and his foundation. Ask Hillaryclinton.com with no able fundraiser to avoid debt.
I agree you make some good points, but much of it is hyper-ventillation. She will face the electorate in two years, if she is appointed. No big deal.
And about Hillary attacks (and Obama attacks, I may add) get over it. The election is over. Primaries are over. Obama is the President-elect. Hillary is the SoS-elect. A lot of people have said a lot of things in the heat of the campaign, including Hillary herself.
She and Obama seem to have no problems, neither should us.
December 23, 2008 4:13 PM | Reply | Permalink
(?)
December 23, 2008 4:24 PM | Reply | Permalink
Who's still carrying the primary battle into the discussion of Caroline Kennedy? It's not me. The Obama folks who were criticizing Hillary's experience, lack of transparency, calling her Mrs. Bill, bemoaning political dynasties are the ones being hypocritical here. Can they explain why Caroline Kennedy is considered in the first place other than that she supported Obama and her name is Kennedy?
You can think whatever you want, but the fact is I'd be against Caroline Kennedy as my Senator if she didn't back Obama or if she had backed Hillary. I supported Hillary because her policy positions were a lot clearer to me than Obama's were. You seriously think that I would back someone who has no political record at all? Not my style.
December 23, 2008 7:42 PM | Reply | Permalink
kash79's comments have gone down hill since the election. I think it's possible he is becoming less understanding as time goes on.
December 24, 2008 1:59 PM | Reply | Permalink
What are senators other than either local politician or esteemed citizens? Seems to me that if HRC was a fine senator for New York, why can't they give CK a chance? I mean, at least she's lived in the state for most of her life.
December 24, 2008 12:12 AM | Reply | Permalink
I, probably one of many, am tired of people gaining advancement purely on their name and family history .... Capability, honesty and integrity should somehow be part of the required measurement to succeed. We have witnessed many failures of naming unqualified persons to jobs of responsibility i.e. Does Brown and Katrina ring a bell? ..... In the task of rebuilding this new Congress let's used our heads and do what is best for the nation, not best for our friends.
December 24, 2008 9:45 AM | Reply | Permalink