Separated at Birth?

Al,

I'd love to hear your perspective on issues other than Caroline Kennedy.

I can only assume you are a newbie to The Field, else there would be no logical basis for posting the comment you did.  Perhaps you might want to spend a bit of time looking back over the vast & varied topics Al has written about over the course of the past year, before casting snark. 

Now Ackerman just looks like an older Franco sans glasses!

why these people are going after her  in such a mean sexist way,when they know perfectly that she is a strong ally of the president -elect, the head of the party, and the leader of a new movement of millions.

I mean...it's just stupid....oppose her all you want, but hurling names at her will not endear these fools to the next senator of NY and her great friend, the president elect.....what are they doing?

Fai - Erick's been around Narco News since before The Field was a glint in its daddy's eye. I'm sure I'll write about something that interests him more soon enough.

I saw that program and it was obvious that Ackerman was not being literal.  He was simply making a point about nepotism in a humorous way.  Caroline Kennedy being handed a N.Y. Senate seat because...she wants it???  I'm a liberal New Yorker and I feel insulted that she is being taken seriously.  This woman has done nothing in public service in 51 years besides volunteer part-time for a friends education charity?  She won't talk directly to the press?  This is a joke and if she were anyone else she would be deservedly laughed at.   No thanks Caroline, I'll take someone who has and knows how to fight for their state.  And no, I'm not a Kennedy hater.

Where haven't I heard the baseless objections you are repeating here. The New York crowd in their insistence on defamation of Caroline Kennedy remind me of the character in Liar Liar. What are you doing? "I'm kicking my ass." Ferraro and all the shills for corporate cuomo are looking ridiculous to those of us who live off the island of fake beads.

That there are a large number of liberal types, that just aren't happy unless they are unhappy.

They have become so used to being rightfully pissed off for the last eight years, that they forgot that it's okay not to be pissed off all the time.

They have built websites, whole infastuctures, as a result of being rightfully pissed and now pissed off has become their default setting.

JMHO...

 

Though there are lots of talented people with the last name Ackerman in the world, not all of them are immediately qualified to be Senator. Gary should be cognicent of that fact and would be more helpful if he devoted himself to the future Senate races of Spencer or myself instead of his own PR campaign.

No snark here. I was just trying to find a polite way to say that I'm tired of reading about Kennedy :)

I greatly respect and appreciate Al's work.

Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis loved NY and moved her children back here to raise them after JFK's assasination.  Caroline Kennedy grew up in New York, was educated here, passed the bar in New York, raised her children here and has been working both behind and in front of the scenes for a long time.  Just because she hasn't held elected office doesn't mean she hasn't been involved in public service.

I will not get into the long history of carpetbagging that our state has hosted, but suffice to say our most recent Senator may have been First Lady, but she was not a New Yorker until it served her political aspirations to become one.  

I have a much better feeling about Caroline's commitment to our state and progressive issues than the Senator who, supposedly representing us, voted for use of cluster bombs (land mines), the war in Iraq 7 times, etc...

 

 

How dare CK want to be Senator of her home state!  The gall of her not running for congresswoman of the Upper East Side first! The least she could do is not seek the appointment and wait to sand bag the appointee and blind side Paterson by waiting until next year to announce her run in 2010.

This is all nonsense - she doesn't answer to the press because she is NOT campaigning for Senator right now and it is inappropriate for her ( as it would be for Cuomo or Maloney) to be seen as trying to win the appointment through the press. It is Paterson that makes the appointment. If he has any questions about her policies  - I am sure she would be glasd to answer him directly.

Ha ha. Um, Representative Ackerman: "Rembrandt" was the Dutch master's first name, schmuck. And if Rembrandt Harmenszoon van Rijn (1606-1669) did have a brother named Murray, it would have been Murray van Rijn.

Nice reasonable post from the New Yorker for all you pro-Caroline types:

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/12/three-strikes-s.html

Re: "That there are a large number of liberal types, that just aren't happy unless they are unhappy.

They have become so used to being rightfully pissed off for the last eight years, that they forgot that it's okay not to be pissed off all the time."

Ekhart Tolle from the book, "the New Earth" calls the aggregation of all our emotional pain, "the pain body." He says the pain body loves more pain because that is how it perpetuates itself and keeps its power. Warren really triggered the pain bodies of many people. Calling the pastor a monster, a demon, a Hitler, etc, actually adds to the pain body. Calling him human, multi-dimensional, not all bad,nor all good does not increase the pain body but might lead to something like forgiveness which the pain body hates.

Sorry, if this is OT but everywhere I go, the Warren thing still broils so this is one insight.

 

 

I'm amazed at how schrill all of you supporters of Ms. Kennedy are!  I said nothing about supporting Cuomo (I don't), being an unhappy liberal (I'm not), or claimed she is a carpetbagger.  I simply stated the obvious.  Facts hurt.  Simply being raised, raising your kids and passing the bar in N.Y. does not entitle anyone to a N.Y. Senate seat.  If her name was Caroline Jones she would not be taken seriously by anyone.  Thee are plenty of New Yorkers who have experience representing the people who should and hopefully will be considered before Ms. Caroline (what happened to Schlossberg?) Kennedy.

 

"On Alert"?

 

Maybe some followers of Authentic Journalism aren't plugged into the current liberal version of "conventional wisdom".  Turns out there's only three allowed topics of political discussion these days:

Per Daily Kos:

1) Caroline Kennedy? - Oh no you d'int!!!

2) Rick Warren is a homophobic secret Muslim terrorist, and Barack Obama is the Anti-Christ after all!!!

and if you prefer Cable News:

3) Why US Attorney Patrick Fitzgerald, Rod Blagojevich's own words and President-Elect Obama's internal report all show no wrongdoing whatsoever by anyone on the transition staff - and how we're still going to talk ad nauseum about how this will be a problem for Barack Obama!!!

 

It's nice to hear from someone who has reality-based opinions™ on these "burning" issues of the day.  And as long as the blogosphere wants to feed these distractions, they need answering.  Maybe next month we can get to the economy, Southern Republicans' War on the UAW, an unresponsive change.gov, Iraq, and other secondary issues that may be of marginal interest to progressives..

 

P.S. - Al Franken driving a stake into Norm Coleman is also a topic liberals are talking about, but there's no discussion per se, just an echo chamber of "ha ha".

Know anything about this, Al?

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4BM3GW20081223

On the one hand, the idea of producers having more control and profit from their produce is a good idea in principle.  On the other hand, Colombia's government is made up of hard-right fascist thugs, so I suspect that the peasants who grow the beans will see very little benefit.

@ tommyo -  I agree. No one is entitled to an appointment. I haven't seen anyone who suggests that Caroline Kennedy would be a good replacement for Hillary Clinton say she is entitled to anything. I have seen informed people suggesting she would aptly fill the responsibilities. I have seen informed people suggesting that name recognition is an important aspect of electability. I have seen informed people suggesting her life experience, and her willingness to serve, will result in readiness on day one to serve the people of NY and this country.

Other informed people see it differently. That is OK. Personally, I find it refreshing Caroline Kennedy is willing to do the job, should she be selected. It would be so much easier to continue doing what she has been doing. I am glad she is willing.

@Edwina

Thanks for highlighting Hertzberg's article on Caroline.  He addresses all the negative comments - experience, dynasty etc. and adds two interesting twists to the pot - the advantages of an appointment and curiosity.

http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/hendrikhertzberg/2008/12/three-str...

....To harp a bit on the theme of my current Comment, one of the plus sides of getting a senator by appointment is that he or she doesn't have to “earn” it—i.e., doesn't have to spend years begging for money over the phone, doesn't have to....—in short, doesn't have to have organized his or her entire life around the American way of office-seeking.....

Yet Ted Kennedy, who started out as the family meathead, blossomed into one of the greatest legislators in the history of the Senate. The odds are that Caroline would do very well there. And, for sure, I’m curious to find out.

"If her name was Caroline Jones she would not be taken seriously by anyone."

Well, here in Australia we would all sit bolt upright and start cheering.

Caroline Jones was one of our first national female serious television journalists and her career continues as an 'imminence grise' on our national broadcaster (philosophy, religion, 'difficult questions' and stories of unsung heros).

Perhaps Ms Kennedy is just trying to keep up with the Joneses.

;)

BondiBeachViews

It's nice to see all of South America colored blue.  I would dearly love to see the thermometer get up to at least my area of Seattle.  Is there any chance the drive could be extended into the new year before hard priorities have to be set?  I will see what I can pitch in next week. 

I thoroughly enjoyed the Joe Camel Christmas story with one reservaton.  As one who would have been in the 1st grade and probably listened to Gene Autry sing the song on the radio, I was distressed to read about the 1994 demise of Comet & Cupid.  

Merry Christmas everyone. 

This blog and FiveThirtyEight are the best. I also laugh at these people who pop up complaining how Caroline wouldn't be in this position if it weren't for who she is. Duh!! Hillary Clinton could never have run for president or avoided serious primary opponents in NY as plain old Hillary Rodham, Andrew Cuomo could never have thought about running for governor if not for his dad Mario, same goes for G W Bush & the Texas governor's race and his brother Jeb down in Florida. Even out of politics how many kids are admitted to the Ivy League because of their families? In the business world does anyone seriously believe Warren Buffett's family members don't get preferential treatment when they apply for jobs? When you're famous, when your family has clout and power you often go to the front of the line. That isn't fair but its not new either. It's been that way since the beginning of time.

I've been really confused about the faux outrage on the left blogoshere about CK. This isn't a supreme court appointment. The appointee will have to run in 2010. If she sucks as a politician or doesn't do the job well there will be a line of pols in NY waiting to beat her in a primary or if not there she can get knocked off by a republican. That's what gets me- if Caroline is really nothing more than an upperclass Sarah Palin why all the drama? Let her have the seat, get humiliated, destroy her political career and not even bother to run 2 yrs from now.

Oh, Jason Horowitz of the NY Observer does some great political reporting. He's got a very informative article about Ms Kennedy and the senate seat  http://www.observer.com/mobile/article/80641

 

I was 6 years old when John F. Kennedy was elected president.  I was crazy about him, even at 6, and I remember standing right in front of the TV on January 20, watching him be sworn in as president.

I also remember that my mom was absolutely furious - she said JFK had gotten elected because of his money, and not because he deserved it.  January 20 was her birthday, no less, and she was double-mad because of that!  So there is nothing new about this anti-Kennedy, anti-entitlement anger.

In defense of my mom, I will say that she was a brilliant woman who grew up dirt poor in Wyoming. She had only a 4th-grade education and had to fight for every single thing she ever achieved. She had some amazing accomplishments for a woman in the 1960s... on city council, head of our city planning commission, head of the business association in our suburb of Chicago.

I like to think that if she were still alive she would be happy about Barack, even if he is a democrat, because he worked hard, earned everything he's gotten in life, and is fighting for the middle class.

I wonder how it is that - as a 6-year old - I could form a different opinion about the election than my parents. Please don't try to tell me that it's because I believed the media hype about JFK - I prefer to believe that I came out of the womb as a progressive who was also an excellent judge of character.  :-)

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to everyone!

Because of an increase of spam on anonymous comments, all anonymous comments will now be required to verify that they are made by a human. Co-publishers will not be required to verify.

Sorry for the inconvenience!

I'm glad you made that point (about families of politicians), it's a good one.  Look at the Udall family: Stewart - or is it Stuart - Udall, former congressman and Sect'y of Interior;  Mo Udall, AZ congressman who also ran for president, and now there are the young Udalls, in New Mexico and Colorado.  Seems to me the goal of public service can also run in families.