Kennedy Opponents: Keep Railing Against Monarchies, Please!

Change: I find it frustrating that people get so upset about Caroline Kennedy and her not being qualified because "what has she done?" But then when Obama is naming people who either have D.C. experience or political service, they express outrage that "this is not change!"

Andrew Cuomo? Where was the outrage about Jesse Jackson, Jr? I wonder if half the blogosphere has gone mad.

Well done, Al! Being from downtown Wisconsin, I didn't know the background of Governor Paterson of New York State.  This must be very delicious to the Gov, at a certain level awareness.

And yes.  You did say, "Ha, ha".  Great blog.  Keep it up.

David Paterson is an admirable person, and I think that he has well honed progressive political instincts.

I simply don't see where the antagoinism toward this appointment is coming from--and haven't read any strong arguments against Kennedy's nomination.  Much of the comments I've read at Kos seem vindictive and silly.

I've come to the conclusion that the baseless sniping at CK is at bottom about yes - gender - again. And our antipathy towards those of the upper class -and much les about so called dynasty and nepotism.

What qualifies Al Franken to be senator but not CK?  I'll tell you - one worked for a livivng and the other didn't - and didn't have to

As long as CK remained the mute princess  - she was fine - but the minute she decides that she is at a point personally and professional to assume the challenges of a public life - she's overstepped her bounds. Why?  Because none of her accomplishment matter -even though there have been many who have accomplished less  before running for senator - take Edwards and Wellstone as examples.

Oh - but they were accomplished men who worked for a living who excelled in their fields first.  Well CK excelled in her field only her career path is decided informed by her gender and class.   CK lived the private life of a wife and mother and ....ran a library, actively supported the arts and education in NY and wrote books about the rights of American under the Constitution in addition to campaigning vigerously for BO.  But because she wasn't "employed" to do these things  - her accomplishment don't measure up - they don't qualify her  to even seek the senatorship.

I belive CK has thought a long time about running for  the senate. These opportunites don't come along that often.  I believe that she would run for the position if it was a special  election - this is not about her thinknig she can get it on the cheap. I also think that she will run for it in 2010 - even if she is not appointed - and I bet she let Paterson know that - and I bet he wants to avoid seeing a primary battle between her and his appointee - only to see his appointee lose.

As for all this dynasty nonesense - a far better discussion would be not whether it exists ( it always has) - whether is will exist (always will) but what do we expect of those  who are  apart of this elite with regard to character (at a minimum for starters) and does and can  CK meet those requirements.

the condescending and patronizing tone of Markos is downright shameful.

do yoiu have any insight to what exactly is his problem?

...of the opposition to her and its off-the-wall tone.

Some of it just follows the Kennedys wherever they go. It happened to Teddy in 62, to Joe Kennedy in 86 and now to Caroline: a frothing, irrational sense that it's somehow "unfair" that they're so good at the political game and win more often than lose.

Some of it clearly comes from sour grapes from Clinton supporters because of Caroline's work for Obama.

Some of it I fear comes because there's no way Caroline Kennedy is ever going to be dependent on them, their interest group, their fundraising prowess, their political machine, to get elected again and again. Her total independence from all that scares them.

And some of it, I suspect, comes from insiders thinking way ahead to the 2016 presidential contest, who have a favorite or a friend waiting to pounce on that. But if Caroline enters the Senate, they perceive her as a future threat to their horse.

But, whatever: I just laugh. She's going to get the post and they're going to end up praising her again and again.

It's queued up for crossposting there but because I posted a diary there earlier today I have to wait for the hour that the new day begins there. Any idea of what hour that is?

I could be wrong, but I believe that the site runs on Eastern time.

Oh, and I'd like to add, I think that the one that disappoints me the most on this is Markos. It's one thing to prefer that Caroline Kennedy not get the Senate seat (reasonable people can disagree) but he's gone way over the top on this. It's a shame because he's often a lot more reasonable than this.

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” JFK

Maybe for a lot of the Kennedy-bashers out there, the target audience was not Patterson but instead other liberal bloggers. A lot of those opposed to Kennedy do not seem to be particularly interested in actually influencing the outcome of the decision, rather they seem more interested in getting punches in.

Some of the stuff I've read just uses the possibility of CK's ascendency to have a discussion about entitlement, celebrity, and democracy. Others, however, just seem like they're being reactionary. It's not as if they're ragging on CK for policy. If they had an argument on that front, I'd listen.

Are always a target for the green eyed monster.

The Sour Grapes crowd try to make it about something else, but it always comes down to jealousy.

Thing is Caroline has worked hard in her life, she just hasn't felt the need to promote herself before this.

The people of NY will be lucky to have her as their Senator. She comes with perks. Uncle Ted's crew and a direct line to the Pres.

Who else can offer all that to New Yorkers?

I support Caroline Kennedy for the open NY Senate seat, because I think she would be a terrific advocate for the most progressive aspects of Obama's agenda, and she has fundraising and structural advantages that will help her win the seat when she has to campaign for it in the next election cycle. 

I think this whole flap is happening for one reason-- the media revealed that Caroline Kennedy picked up the phone to advise Governor Patterson that she is "interested" in the open Senate seat.  Markos and others who are bent out of shape are reacting to the fact that her family name puts her in a position to make a phone call of that nature, a privilege and an opportunity not available to the rest of us peasants.  And on that point, I'm in agreement with Kos.  The notion that people from a politically prominent family can get their call through to a Governor and submit their names for consideration to important positions goes against my progressive, small 'd' instincts.  But I'm willing to set that aside because this country is in the ditch and we need to get the show on the road with the right leadership.

You're definitely right that the tone of the anti-CBK coalition has been entirely counter-productive. But really, I think the thing that has me so frustrated about this is that it seemed to be fixed from the get-go.

She picked up the phone and called Gov. Paterson. And then the NYTimes.com ran a banner headline proclaiming it (and conspicuously dropped a video love-letter below the fold). And then Sen. Reid made a call. And now aides to Mayor Bloomberg are pushing union officials. And so the game is played.

The rules, the rules, the rules. I understand the rules, and ultimately my quarrel is with them and not Ms. Kennedy or Gov. Paterson, but this whole thing has been managed in a way so as to leave the distinct taste of entitlement in my mouth.

But whatever. This is small potatoes. I am concerned, however, that when the big potatoes come, the netroots will be so easy to play.

-Sandy in Chicago (home of the Daleys, the Madigans, the Jacksons, the Joneses, the Strogerses.........)

...bake me a fake as fast as you can.

One potential problem with dynasties is a lack of really understanding what your average middle class person is going through, since they live in bubble world.  Unfortunately, Gov Paterson is demonstrating this right now:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jonathan-tasini/governor-paterson-have-yo_...

They've grown up in, and will spend their entire lives in the cocktail weenie circuit, backslapping and gladhanding all the way.  This was one of the main reasons I got behind Obama early (although Rick Warren!?!?  Exsqueeze me, but WTF!?!?!).

While I realize the context we're living in, and that it's not necessarily a bad thing to have someone like Caroline Kennedy as Senator, overall we should be doing whatever we can to recruit new names to run for office, rather than rely on the names of the past.  Having said that, go Caroline!

thank you. You're on the money.

I agree with what NYT columnist Nicholas Kristof wrote:

"Caroline Kennedy strikes me as a very impressive woman with all the right priorities, such as education. But I also find it unseemly and undemocratic that she seems to have vaulted to the top of the Senate list by virtue of who her dad was...  Leaping to anoint Caroline Kennedy also seems to me disrespectful of so many other women in New York politics who have worked for many years in Congress and accumulated tremendous experience and credentials..."  http://kristof.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/17/for-senate-caroline-or-carol...

As one letter to the editor put it, "It is amusing that Andrew M. Cuomo, who owes his whole career to his dad, may not get the Senate seat of Hillary Rodham Clinton (who owes her whole career to her husband) because David A. Paterson (who owes his whole career to his dad) may give it to Caroline Kennedy (who owes her whole career to her dad)."

Most people who like Caroline Kennedy like her for these reasons: 1. Pragmatics over principles: she has star power and money- use if for NY  2. She's the last character on stage in the Shakesperean Kennedy tragedy. We want the continuity and poetic justice  3. She's smart, knowlegeable, of good character and will help Obama. Good social practice trumps class background.

We'd be better off if more of our representatives came from among us, if they rose on their own merits, had lived on a budget, if they know in their bones that we're all in the same boat.

the Cuomo dynasty. He has always played nice and said kind things publically,  but Gov Cuomo once tried very hard to throw him under the bus for something that Cuomo himself could have easily have been blamed for.

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0CE3DD1F30F934A15751C1A...

Dinkins worked for and RFK's last campoaign and was with him when he was assassinated. JFK Jr campained for Dinkins and had several joint appearnaces with him as well.

Dinkins was Patterson's mentor.  You don't suppose he's voiced an opinion now do you?

This post shows exactly how and why Al & The Field see things much more clearly than any of the chattering class. And the "ha-ha" at the end is making me publicly pledge here and now that I will send my $10 widow's mite via PayPal to Authentic Journalism before Xmas.

Gracias, Hermano Al por toda la alegria y sabiduria, Que Dios te bendiga siempre, aun si no creas en El. :)

Abrazos de Navidad para todos los Fieldhands! Hasta prontito!

Si somos americanos, seremos buenos vecinos;
compartiremos el trigo,seremos buenos hermanos -- canción de Rolando Alarcón

Here.

I bet more than one person has picked up the phone in the last two weeks (or had someone pick up the phone for them) to tell Paterson that they are interested in the seat. Should only elected officials be able to pick-up the phone.

If you were planning on runnig for the seat in 2010 regardless of whether you were picked because you thought you would be the strongest candidate to wage a statewide campaign against whoever the republicans put up (because you can get enough money to do and are high enough profile to generate enough attention to take the wind out of someone like Bloomberg or Guiliani) - wouldn't it be appropirate to at least tell Paterson that you are interested in the seat?

Or should she have just announced now that she is starting a "listening tour" for a run in 2010. That makes no political sense at all.

Picking up the phone was the only appropriate thing to do. People are upset because she has the policital muscle to be taken seriously as a candidate because she a very accomplished competent woman who is part of the poitical elite this country - and therefore must be taken seriously. She has had that muscle for years, but she wasn't ready to exercise that muscle publically until now because she had a young family. Now if she was an unaaccomplished incompetent man who was part of the poitical elite  - she could run for govenor in Texas with no questions asked.

Are we requiring other people to follow this rule?

As Al notes, there is an "electorate" of one in this - Paterson - and she contacted that electorate directly to announce her candidacy. How is that wrong?

Paterson has been toiling in New York's political trenches since the mid-eighties. He was an assistant D.A., worked for David Dinkins when the guy was Manhattan borough president, and -- God help him -- spent more than twenty years in the hell of Albany before he became Spitzer's running mate.  When Spitzer resigned there wasn't anyone here who doubted that Paterson could do the job -- he'd been in that arena for more than two decades.  

I wonder if you'd feel differently about Kennedy if you lived here and had just had term limits upended in spite of the fact that the majority of the public was against it.  Ha ha?  Yeah, it's all hilarious.

Satirist Tom Lehrer joked in 1967 that Massachusetts was the only state with three senators, after NY elected RFK.  But if Caroline Kennedy is even half as good as her late, lamented uncle, we New Yorkers will have a better state and country.

I posed this question in the comments section of kos. I'm one who likes the idea of having a set of Senators (and representatives) with very different life experiences.

It really bothers me when people reduce CK's unpaid work to something she did when she wasn't having lunch or getting her nails all pretty. But, that's because I'm an unpaid volunteer. And the jobs and projects I take on are time-consuming and require a range of talents and skills. But, somehow, if CK'd spent all that time producing billable hours for some big-name law firm that would count, but raising (a lot of) money and focusing attention on education and public schools is immaterial.

Al,

I have a lot of respect for you, and Jane Hamsher, and Markos. While I don't have a strong opinion about the Caroline Kennedy issue, I have been pissed about Jane's tone in opposing her nomination and thought her critique should focus much more on the process and much less on the person.  This seems to be the tact that Markos has taken.

And I think you've brought some valuable insight to the behind the scenes power struggles of different factions.

That said, I think this last post is more than a little counter productive.  Gloating about victories against other progressives isn't helpful.  And in your reply to the question about what is behind the vehemence to the opposition to this appointment, I'm surprised that you didn't include at least the possibility that people are motivated by a sincere concern with dynastic politics.  I know it concerns me.

Anyway, let's save our gloating and ridicule for the wingnuts, not unleash them on our comrades.

Actual new information I've seen nowhere else.  Yet another reason to make this site a regular stop on my moring blog crawl.

not everyone opposed to nominating kennedy is a hillaryite or closet republican. i think she's very smart and principled, but i'm by nature suspicious of dynastic names

who would i like to see?

carolyn maloney

jerrold nadler

anthony weiner

tom suozzi

nita lowey

councilwoman letitia james (in my dreams. hi tish!)

see, we do have some good pols in new york -- back benchers. the leadership is the same moribund, unimaginative NY democratic party that gave us hillary and "three men in a room" 

but kennedy's all right. just the boomers' lifelong crush on her that feels icky.

Let's face it, NY politicians are scared for a one reason only. CK's appointment threatens their whole corrupt power structure. I'm tired of NY politicians putting up criteria that suits their own political interests. Their arguments about how she has not paid her dues, has not held public office, does not have the political experience are ridiculous. They are all smoke screens, that in the end don't mean anything. I know for a fact that Andrew Cuomo is about as corrupt as they come. I say out with them all!!!

No one is entitled to this Senate seat. It is fair game.

Here we have a brilliant, talented woman who was on the right side of history, who has written about the importance of the Bill of Rights, has used her fame and connections to raise 70 million for NYC public schools and is not part of NYC corrupt political circles.

The thought of her becoming our next Senator is like a bright ray of sunshine bursting through the clouds. The last time I felt this way was in 2004 when a certain Senator from Illinois rocked my world at the Democratic National Convention.

I worked tirelessly in NY to get that same guy elected. Believe me, I will do the same for Caroline.

Feral1 - My praise and genuine affection for Markos Moulitsas is well known and plastered all over this site and his own. I think he's a political genius. But he'd be the first to tell you that I've been around the block a bit more than he has in this game and I think he would do well right now to consult Alinsky's rule about "don't go outside the experience of your people."

Sixty or seventy percent of Daily Kos users - of which I am only one - want Caroline Kennedy to be appointed to that Senate seat. He's going outside their experience with some poorly chosen words and as a result he and some other front pagers there have hardened and sharpened Kennedy support among "Kossacks" much quicker than I could have done through a positive pitch! But I wince to see it because Kos is straying from his own "Taking on the System" rules here: In trying to set one narrative, he's inadvertently created an unintended one, and I suppose in my brotherly affection for him I'm hoping he comes out of this experience not wanting to attempt that again.

As for Hamsher, I've never been impressed with her as a political tactician or strategist. I think a lot of bloggers are more interested in getting on TV and other self promotions than the stuff they write about and she seems like one of those: molding her narrative on this to participating in the kind of mud fight that cable TV hosts love, but cheapening herself in the process.

My "gloating" as you call it is nothing compared to the nasty over-the-top insulting tone the folks I'm tweaking have taken against Kennedy. C'mon. A "princess" "filing her nails" and nothing but a "name" and a "monarchy" - those are far nastier than me laughing aloud at how that kind of politics of character assassination is no longer as effective as it used to be. We have Obama to thank for that. I wish my colleagues would learn better from it.

Al is 100% right but there is an odd taste in my mouth also.  And its the "system".  It also slightly reminds me of how Tammy Duckworth's sudden national political connections got her the inside track to the Dem. nomination in 2006 for Henry Hyde's seat (IL) when a deserving progressive, Christine Cegelis, had an organization in place.  Republicans won and retained the seat.

And Caroline Kennedy may be perfect for the NY seat, but I believe anyone with strong family political connections needs to be doubly scrutinized.  It is too easy for the PR machines to slip someone in who is not ready for the job.  Dubya should be the only example we need to remember how disasterous that can be.  Oligarchy can work sometimes but overall I do not believe it serves our country well.

..with the so called liberal blogosphere these days?  We seem like crabs in a barrel, pulling at each other, at Obama..unhappy, unable to reconcile our aspirations with our petty jealousies, resentments, downright vindictiveness and ultimately just meanness...

I actually thought that this would be a time of great reconciliation and preparation for the hard work ahead.  Instead we have fallen on each other like we dont know how to use our success -- or to have hope that things actually will get better..

Over at DKos I am beginning to believe that there is some sort of spiritual illness taking hold.  We successfully elected a President who we WANTED to bring us together -- all of our broken parts -- but we are appalled that he is actually trying to do that!

CK is suddenly a depraved "Princess" for daring to want to work in the political arena -- presumably to help her state and country -- unless we are now so cynical that we only think its for her own interests..

Please -- what is happening to us?

Al,

I appreciate you taking the time to respond to my post.  Thanks.  You cited the very comments by Jane Hamsher that pissed me off.  That said, I think she fought the good fight against Lieberman and she frequently highlights labor issues on FDL.  I give her a lot of credit for that and for now she's earned the benefit of my doubt, as far as her motives go.  Even though I disagree with her tactics at times.

And I guess that's where I'm coming from- Let's have honest disagreements about tactics among ourselves, and concentrate our fire on wingnuttia.

The amount of political capital Jane Hamsher expended in insulting and dismissing Caroline Kennedy on Huffington Post and MSNBC clarifies who Jane Hamsher is and what she wants.

I suspect she and others doing the same have no idea how ineptly they have handled an historic moment amid an epic American crisis.

I never knew that Patterson was connected like that. I agree with the comments here. The reaction to a Sen. Caroline Kennedy is strange and way over the top. Yes you can disagree with the pick but say so based on policy or say why you support a particular candidate for the job. That would be the sane, smart thing to do. But across the board all I read about is anger towards people with money and famous families. I do not come from a famous family but I got my first job because of who my mother was. They needed a temp at her job, she put my name in, I interviewed and I got it. My mom's connections helped and I got the job. But not because she was my mom, rather she helped me get my foot in the door. That's what Kennedy name does for Caroline. It means someone will know the name and take notice but she will need more and has more to offer beyond the name.

The reactions I've seen to this are just glimpses into the minds of the people writing their articles than who Caroline Kennedy is. People are spouting off about Camolot, about her father, about her pony. And then there are those that want to lump her in with the Bushes and all the negative Kennedy events of the past. I wish people would stop projecting onto this 51 going on 52 year old woman. I have read her books and followed her work with the educational system in NY and I can say with all honesty she is a decent commited person. Out of all the Kennedy's to pick on this is a poor choice of a target.