This Weekend With Caroline Kennedy: Six Major Interviews
By Al Giordano
Congress is out of session, president-elect Obama is getting a well-deserved rest in Hawaii and most politicians are on vacation.
If not for Caroline Kennedy, who gave six interviews to news organizations upstate and downstate during the second and third days of Christmas, political reporters and news junkies would have little to talk about.
I'll link to each of those interviews and cite key passages - five of the six reporter teams were able to shake new information from the opportunity (while a pair of NY Times reporters got deservedly pwned for their obsession with fluff over policy substance).
But first, I'll demonstrate how some of the earliest and loudest arguments thrown out against Kennedy's possible appointment to the US Senate have already proved false and have even backfired, solidifying the passion of her supporters...
That Kennedy's expressed interest in Governor David Paterson's upcoming appointment has eclipsed so many other political news stories and sucked the oxygen out of other contenders demonstrates what one of her strengths would be as a senator: Kennedy's convocational power to draw attention to progressive agendas and issues that would otherwise get left on the back burner, unattended.
Being a member of the Senate or the House brings an opportunity for the best of them to create a bully pulpit of advocacy around issues, yet only a handful of legislators have been able to do that with success. Most end up as back-benchers, whose own mediocre tenure and get along by going along nature contributes greatly to the lethargy and timidity of Congress.
Some opponents of a Kennedy appointment seem to believe that how she obtained that ability - born into that name, photographed at age five at her father's funeral, yet not pursuing political office until now that two of her children are adults and the youngest is sixteen - somehow ought to be more relevant to Governor David Paterson's appointment than the fact that she brings such a unique strength.
Most folks, though, really don't care how somebody gained an attribute, as long as it wasn't done underhandedly or immorally. When looking for somebody to do a job, we look for he or she that can do it best.
Here's a parallel from pro basketball: In 2003 the Denver Nuggets team was laughingstock. It drafted a Syracuse freshman, Carmelo Anthony, although that had him essentially cutting in line ahead of athletes that had "paid their dues" and had remained in college all four years and graduated. Anthony averaged 21 points a game in his first professional season, more than any other rookie, leading the Nuggets into the playoffs. By his third season, he had the eighth best scoring average in pro basketball. By last year he was an NBA All Star starting player.
Carmelo Anthony recently gave $3 million dollars to Syracuse, the alma mater that he ditched after one year to go pro, for an athletic center in his name. Should Syracuse have declined the funds for the "message" that accepting them sends about a supposed unfairness? Should the university refuse to name the center after him given that other players had finished their academic careers first while he cut in line? Nonsense. Many New Yorkers likewise can see an all-star in Caroline Kennedy who can do more for New York than any of the others being mentioned for that senate seat, even if she didn't rise up through conventional paths (which are, in the view of many of us, overrated and often corrupting anyway).
In the US Senate, like the House, there are leaders and there are back-benchers, and some of the most effective leaders didn't come up through lower offices or "farm team" systems: Paul Wellstone had never served in elected office (and had run only once, unsuccessfully, for state auditor), Bill Bradley had never run for office - he'd only been a basketball player - yet he proved to be a policy wonk extraordinaire of the Senate. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Daniel Patrick Moynihan are other examples of senators that achieved national weight without having been elected to any office before becoming senators.
And sorry to state the obvious, but each of the US House members from New York being floated as alternatives to Kennedy - decent people for the most part - have not carved out major roles for themselves. Looking at the US House, for example, we know that John Conyers has defended our civil liberties, that Henry Waxman has investigated big tobacco, that Jan Shakowsky and Mary Kaptur have worked to stop bad trade deals, that Barney Frank has taken on issues of liberty - from medical marijuana to defense of legal online gambling - that others fear to touch, that Jim Clyburn and John Lewis have been lions for civil rights and that Raul Grijalva has worked hard for National Parks and the environment... and most that follow politics know that about each of them, too. NY House members Jerrold Nadler, Brian Higgins, Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney would each like appointment to the senate seat, and are probably very nice people, but they have had relatively lackluster careers in Congress, certainly compared to the ones I've just mentioned. Each of them would likely end up being back-benchers in the Senate as well.
New York Senators, on the other hand, more often have been real players, either through preexisting national presence (Clinton), charisma (Kennedy), sheer chutzpah (Schumer) or intellectual mastery (Moynihan). Two recent Republican Senators from New York - from "Senator Pothole" (D'Amato) to that unlikely champion of labor and civil rights (Javits) - also achieved national presence and weight. A state as big as New York needs bright lights in that body to compete for the resources of the federal government and to address the kinds of issues that a big liberal state's senator can and should be able to more easily lead than those from less progressive electorates.
The arguments that somehow Caroline Kennedy could be controlled by Mayor Bloomberg or by a consulting firm are simply not credible (no more than the presidential campaign accusations that Obama would be controlled by the Rev. Wright). Those characters are in orbit around her, not vice versa. (Indeed, part of what is at play here may be a power struggle between the Governor and the Mayor over Kennedy's loyalties; a chess match in which Govenor Paterson, being the grand appointer, will naturally come out the victor: Paterson's recent statements of annoyance with the media over the senate appointment process can be fairly read as directed not at Kennedy, but more likely at Bloomberg).
Related is the accusation, first made by blogger Jane Hamsher, that because the Knickerbocker SDK consulting firm had been contracted by Senator Lieberman in 2006 and also works for Bloomberg that it says anything about Kennedy (who donated to Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, that year).
Anybody who makes that accusation must also, if intellectually honest, likewise condemn Knickerbocker SDK's other paying clients, which have included two other aspirants to the senate seat - US Rep. Caroline Maloney and Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown - as well as the Howard Dean-launched Democracy for America, Jobs With Justice, the SEIU, AFSCME, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, Al Sharpton, NARAL Pro-Choice of New York and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The selective indignation is foolish: If they're going to disqualify Kennedy over that, they've got to also make enemies out of all those people and organizations, too. That seems a high price to pay in exchange for ineffective bashing rights against Kennedy based on a specious argument.
Now, while the rest of our political leaders were resting this week, here's what Kennedy told the Associated Press in one of a series of interviews without conditions or restrictions over what reporters could ask her:
"I come into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anybody else. Nobody's entitled to anything and certainly not me. And there are many qualified people in this and so, you know, I am an unconventional choice, I understand that. I haven't pursued the traditional path. But I think that in our public life today we're starting to see that there are many ways into public life and public service. And all our institutions are less hierarchical than they used to be. And so I think that I bring my life experience to this and that includes being a mother, I understand those choices women make. It includes being a lawyer, I've written seven bestselling books, two on the Constitution, anthologies about American history and values, political courage, and I've really tried to encourage people to go into public service."
She's not just talking about laboring twice as hard: when it comes to putting forward her case for the US Senate, she's demonstrably doing it at the very hour when everybody else is off duty.
One could observe that had any of the other contenders offered themselves to those six news organizations this weekend, few if any would have taken them up on it. Again, that points to Kennedy's convocational power and an ability that only she, among them, has.
She also sat down with NY1 reporter Dominic Carter for the full half hour of his program, and he reports that he was able to ask any question he wanted.
Here's an excerpt on education policy from the transcript:
Dominic Carter: Can you think off the top of your head what would be some of your top priorities, issues-wise, in the US Senate?
Caroline Kennedy: Well, the issue, obviously we have the economy, which is everybody's top issue. We have the broken health care system, which is everybody's -- and those two things are connected. Because the cost of health care is too high, people can't get insurance. We don't invest in prevention and public health, and we need to fix that. And I think that we have an opportunity right now with the President-elect coming in, with the team in the Senate. All the stakeholders are at the table and have been working on this. And so I would work as hard as I can. Because I think then you can start talking about wages, and talking about jobs, and talking about a middle class, you know, tax relief. The issue I personally know the most about and would want to work on is education, because I think we do need to invest in early childhood education. We need to help families who can't deal with the child care crisis that they're facing, and the federal government has a much bigger role to play in that. So, No Child Left Behind is going to be re-authorized. You know, I would like to take the experiences that I've had here in New York and the struggles that I see, you know, in education across the state, whether it's high school, middle school, which is really the critical time in kids' lives. You know, work to bring arts and music back into the schools.
Dominic Carter: Well, let's talk about No Child Left Behind for a second. Was that a failure or a success?
Caroline Kennedy: Well, it was never funded adequately, and, you know, I think what, the, to the extent that we want to make, we want to have all kids get a quality education, we need to set the standards by which schools can do that and we can measure that. We need to allow schools to try different ways to reach every kid. And we really need to work with teachers to attract people into the teaching profession, to pay them adequately to help make that, make their jobs better, easier to support them as they try to teach, you know, our most difficult kids, and all kinds of different kinds of learners. And so, there's a lot that needs to be done. And we do need to fund it adequately, and that hasn't been done. So I wouldn't say that it had gotten, really, a fair test, because we didn't do any of the things that we said we were going to do. But we need to do a better job with our schools. They are in crisis. You know, 30% of our kids are not finishing high school. We are not going to be able to compete as a nation, to maintain the kind of position that we have in the world if we don't fix our educational system.
Now, this is from Friday's New York Daily News interview:
A defiant Caroline Kennedy says she "wouldn't be beholden to anybody" - including Mayor Bloomberg - if she's picked to become New York's next U.S. senator.
"I'm really coming into this as somebody who isn't, you know, part of the system, who obviously, you know, stands for the values of, you know, the Democratic Party," Kennedy told the Daily News Saturday during a wide-ranging interview.
"I know how important it is to, you know, to be my own person. And, you know, and that would be obviously true with my relationship with the mayor."
She's got a pretty good sense of humor, too:
She also says she realizes campaigning means making sure not to offend locals, by things like rejecting a sausage sandwich at a state fair, the way Republican Rick Lazio, who lost to Clinton in 2000, famously did.
When asked if she would eat the sausage sandwich, she laughed, smiled and said, "I'm starving."
And from Kennedy's interview with The Buffalo News:
Kennedy said she would also push to get Clinton's seat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the panel that likely will be considering how to divvy up hundreds of billions of dollars in federal bailout money among the states next year.
"That committee is going to be absolutely critical right now," she said.
And this, from the same interview:
She said she would push for more federal aid for public-private partnerships, such as the emerging Buffalo medical corridor, and seek to halt government aid to companies that ship jobs overseas.
Last week, in response to questions from The Buffalo News, Kennedy said the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, has had "unintended consequences in some regions of New York," and agrees with Obama that there needs to be a "careful look at the agreement and pay particular attention to its impact on jobs and wages in American manufacturing communities."
She also did an interview with Gannett News Service (which serves an archipelago of newspapers throughout suburban and upstate NY):
When asked about the future of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County-which Schumer and her environmental activist cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has wanted closed-Kennedy said she also thinks it should be shut down.
"We have an opportunity now," she said, "to really invest in alterative energy ... I think we need to develop alternatives to Indian Point in particular."
Another interview was with the New York Times.
The reporters, Nicholas Confessore and David M. Halbfinger, didn't succeed - as the Daily News, AP and even little ol' NY1 local cable news - in crafting questions that would similarly have made news. And so they blamed the interviewee for the mediocre performance of the interviewers:
she still seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: forceful but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way.
Finally getting their shot at the big interview they didn't ask about Iraq withdrawal timelines or financial stimulus packages or how she'd be independent from other politicians in the state or the Bill of Rights. Instead, the Timesmen went with fluffy and meaningless questions, for which Kennedy, with humor, put them in their deserved place:
when asked Saturday morning to describe the moment she decided to seek the Senate seat, Ms. Kennedy seemed irritated by the question and said she couldn't recall.
"Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman's magazine or something?" she asked the reporters. "I thought you were the crack political team."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I would like to see more politicians who wouldn't cower in fear of arrogant and often clueless NY Times reporters.
If you read the entire interview, it's a textbook case in big media botching a story. The reporters began the interview by asking her to criticize her former brother cousin in law! The next question asks her to criticize other Democrats. (Kennedy didn't take the bait, and in fact praised US Reps John Hall and Carolyn McCarthy for having, like her, "unconventional backgrounds.")
Here's a doozy from early in the Times interview ("DH" is David Halbfinger):
DH: Do you think you would be the best for the job of the people who are out there?
CK: Well, I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I would be the best. (Laughter) Do you think you're the best for your job? I assume you do. Uh, yeah.
Soonafter that, Halbfinger went all "PUMA" on her, asking another stupid question that is of zero interest to 99 percent of New Yorkers because it's not about the issues or how a senator can help them:
DH: Why is it that you apparently did not give Senator Clinton any kind of advance warning that you'd be coming out for Senator Obama?
CK: Um, I'm not going to talk about that particular process, but -
DH: Why's that?
CK: Because those conversations that I have had and had during that time are not something that I think is relevant right now.
NC: How come it isn't relevant? It kind of goes to your relationship with the person that you're trying to succeed in the Senate.
CK: I think this is about the future, and, um, you know, that's what I want to talk about, which is, what's going on in our state, you know, why I would be the best person to help deliver for New York. We're facing, you know, an economic crisis, the paper this morning said there's, you know, five billion dollars of construction projects which just stopped, you know, that's, you know - conversations a year ago, that's - beside that, I don't, as I said, I have conversations with a lot of people, and those are confidential.
Here's another example of "Timesman Stupid" and how badly they blew the interview by focusing on gossip rather than substance:
NC: I guess another way of thinking about it is that Jennifer Aniston movie, where she tells her boyfriend, ‘I want you to want to do the dishes,' you know? And I wonder if Senator Kennedy wanted you to want to do it.
DH: "The Break-Up."
CK: (Laughter) I hope you're going to put this in the article, not just the answer. OK?
Smackdown!
Even the usually sensationalist New York Post was able to outgun the Timesmen in terms of getting some new questions answered during its interview with Kennedy. Reporter Maggie Haberman summarizes some of Kennedy's responses to her questions:
* Asked if she's ever done illegal drugs, she said, "I grew up in the '70s so I'd say I was a typical member of that generation."
* Beyond Obama's encouragement, he has not been involved in her effort.
* Despite reports that Bloomberg is pushing for her behind the scenes, she would not be "beholden to anyone" if appointed to the seat by Gov. Paterson.
* On a term-limits extension for Bloomberg, she said it "would have been better if it had been put to the voters."
* She likes the Yankees, but isn't a huge football fan.
* She opposes the death penalty, even in cases of cop killers.
* She voted for Democrat Fernando Ferrer over Bloomberg in the 2005 mayoral race.
So there were six interviews in two days, and only in one case did the reporters fail to break any news. That speaks more about the lack of preparedness by the NY Times reporters than about Kennedy, no doubt. And the six interviews, taken as a whole, probably cause you to know more about her stances and priorities than you know about any of the other politicians that would like appointment to that seat. All in a weekend's work!
Maura Moynihan, daughter of the late US Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, penned a column for the NY Daily News endorsing Kennedy for that seat that resonates with Kennedy's own op ed earlier this year endorsing Barack Obama for president:
Caroline has a unique prestige in the nation's capital. But she has earned the respect and friendship of many legislators on her own. The new junior senator from New York will be ranked 99th in seniority. We need an individual with unique talents and access to fight for New York.
The Senate is where laws are made. Caroline is a first-rate constitutional scholar. She has co-authored two books on the topic: "Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action" and "The Right to Privacy." I watched Pat Moynihan apply his scholarship and intellectual rigor to his work in the Senate. I am confident Caroline will do the same...
As an early supporter of President-elect Barack Obama, Caroline will have a special bond with the new administration. That is not to be taken lightly. Our state and our nation are in crisis. It's not going to be easy to clean up the wreckage left by the Bush years. New York is fortunate that Caroline Kennedy is willing to do the job.
In a news "analysis" AP points out the obvious, that Kennedy has already eclipsed any other aspirants to the senate seat:
"There aren't too many people who can command the attention she's getting," said Doug Muzzio, professor of politics at Baruch College.
Whether one is happy or not with the objective conditions that lead to her sun shining brighter than those of competitors, the fact remains that the gravity she pulls on other politicians and the media - placing them in her orbit, rather than the usual vice versa - is an immense tool that can be used on behalf of the citizens of New York and the liberal causes she'll champion. That star power, in politics, is akin to a super-weapon. She can deploy it to bring attention to any issue, legislation or mission in ways that none of the others can.
And so if you conclude that Kennedy brings a very reliably progressive voice and intellect, a weapon of that size in her hands would be considered as a great thing for many, many progressive priorities. (And it will correspondingly be bad news for the forces of reaction and ultra-conservatism.) It already has: Who else of nationwide pull has come out and said, during the Rick Warren miasma, that gay marriage ought to be legal and in doing so associates it with a long history of movements for equal and civil rights?
Former California House Speaker Willie Brown, in his San Francisco Chronicle column, notes that politics - particularly in New York - is rough and tumble, and concludes:
Kennedy will weather the storm, just like Barack Obama did throughout his media-blessed campaign.
And yes, it's clear that some colleagues that don't support the idea of Paterson appointing Kennedy have tried to disparage one statement or another from these interviews, but this weekend has pretty much killed off the "Kennedy-is-a-Sarah-Palin" meme or the suggestion that she is unable to hold her own with the press corps. It's clear that she's smart enough, tough enough, knowledgeable enough and has the political instincts to do the job with all the convocational power she brings to it and keep the seat in the D column in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
It will be interesting, even entertaining, to see what new arguments her detractors move onto next. But after the first round, even if it only began a few weeks ago, those arguments are stale and old.
Meanwhile, a new bona fide liberal leader is emerging, at midlife, before the state and country's eyes.
It may not interest everybody, but it's a great story for any political reporter.
Email this page
Crossposted to Daily Kos
Submitted on December 28th, 2008 by Al GiordanoHere.
Go Caroline!
Submitted on December 28th, 2008 by Lola (not verified)It's not surprising the supposed paper of record had the worst questions. The Times has gone to the dogs the last several years- Jason Blair, Judy Miller, hiding Bush's wiretapping until after the election. I remember another gossipy "story" they did on the Clintons in 2006 that actually documented how many nights they spent together!! I was outraged and pretty much stopped reading it. Looks like things haven't changed much. Anyway, its good to see Ms Kennedy out there proving the naysayers wrong. It's fine to prefer someone else for the senate seat but the way some of the left bloggers- Hampsher, Kos etc- have stooped to character assassination is shameful. I've often wondered why the blogosphere doesn't have more influence with our elected officials. Now I know why.
I saw that you posted this over at Kos
Submitted on December 28th, 2008 by Kat (not verified)you brave, brave man. :)
I love this woman. I love seeing ridiculously smart, engaged people with non traditional resumes get into politics (Hi President Obama!) I love that, for the most part, Caroline Kennedy annoys people that I can't stand. I love that after enduring a list of personal tragedies that would leave most of us rocking in a corner, she wants to take this step at this point in her life.
I viewed the AP interview
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Nancy ChesterI viewed the AP interview and then skimmed some of the comments on the YouTube site. I thought she did very well and was surprised that so many of the comments were petty, mean and poking fun of her shyness. Several talked about Caroline's tendency to use the phrase "you know" a lot and belittled her. I'm sure that she will grow into her interview skills and will do very well when explaining her thought out positions on policy and bills. I don't understand how her detractors simultaneously push the rich-princess-with-a-name idea and simultaneously belittle her for her un-princesslike shyness. I do hope Patterson picks her.
The Quinnipiac poll of New Yorkers shows her a few points ahead of Cuomo. Nate seems to think this is because there's a gap in women liking Kennedy but not seeing her as particularly qualified. Kennedy Struggling to Win Over Key Demographic - Women. http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/
Pissing off Markos
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Nancy ChesterThe first comment to your cross-post at Kos, posted by "mjd in florida" is telling:
...I have always been impressed with her family values, intelligence and down-to-earth work ethics and I believe that she would become a Senator in the mold of her Uncle Teddy. Plus, I want her to be selected to just piss off Markos! His constant rants against her, diary after diary, have been based on no valid reasons that I could discern except to cause extra site traffic and unnecessary conflict. It would be one thing if he had a substitute to recommend instead of Caroline that was a better "progressive" or one more "electable" in 2010. But, he hasn't done that either! Go Caroline!
Nothing more to say
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Anne CrumptonGO Caroline!
Minor point
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Anonymous (Gemma) (not verified)Great piece Al. I'm certainly enjoying watching this all from over here in the UK and look forward to seeing what happens with the NY appointment.
Anyway, one minor point... In the bit where you talk about the NY Times piece you've put that...
The reporters began the interview by asking her to criticize her former brother in law!
That should be cousin in law surely, as Caroline doesn't have any brothers in law - I presume it's referring to Andrew Cuomo (not had a chance to read the NYT article yet)
@ Al - a couple of typos
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Michael Chapman"Once could observe that had any of the other contenders offered themselves to those six news organizations this weekend, few if any would have taken them up on it."
"I don't know about the rest of you, but with more politicians wouldn't cower in fear of arrogant and often clueless NY Times reporters."
BondiBeachViews
Thanks, Al
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Christine CovelliI really appreciate your research and astute commentary, so I activated a pledge of monthly support through PayPal. Best wishes for the New Year!
Pathetic NYT
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by C.B. Todd (not verified)I find the entire blogsphere with a few notable exceptions to be astonishingly lazy and petty on the subject of CK.
Thank you Al - for showing that if someone is willing to do the work and think out of the box - there is much to learn about CK that is positive and worth considering.
I am confident that they will be eating crow in a few years. But it has been a real education for me as to the the limitations of even Kos and Steve Benen and others (like Sullivan) who I thought were more nuanced in their thinking and self reflecting as to why they may or may not support someone.
Going forward - I will remember NOT to take them at face value any more. Perhaps, that is a good lesson to learn. I am particularly appalled at Kos - no one should use their considerable power to try and slap someone down (including CK) who has done nothing to harm the "progressive" cause (and in the case of CK may actually be a strong voice for progressives) based soley on who their parents are - because that's what it comes down to.
It goes against EVERYTHING - I hold sacred about this country. And I mean that.
I think Kennedy fits in well with the culture of New York
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by transgenmom (not verified)One thing to note is that she should be a represenative of the state she lives in.
Markos lives out west in California where people are making fortunes left and right. Culturally speaking Californians aren't going to like old money. In New York however old money is much more respected as there is a lot more of it and the new money is all bankers who wrecked the economy.
So while Kennedy would never fly in California I think her getting the senate seat by appointment fits in with the way New York works. It is perfectly understandable that Califorinans like markos would not like her and that New Yorkers would.
That reminds me of a speech in which Noam Chomsky complained that America the richest nation on earth elects rich people as her leaders. Then he point out that poor countries elect poor people as their leaders. In both cases the leaders represent the culture of the country.
Yes, Virginia....there is a city called Buffalo
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Fai BorowiecAs a resident of the 2nd poorest city in the entire nation, Buffalo, I am thrilled by the prospect of having a senator who will actually recognize the western part of the state as desperately needing attention. We have been suffering under recession conditions in Buffalo LONG before the rest of the nation joined us, and now we are plunging into depression conditions. Unlike our soon to be ex-senator, Clinton, I believe Caroline Kennedy will devote more attention to the areas of the state that are the poorest, rather than directing all attention to the wealthiest areas merely to position herself for a future presidential run.
On my wall
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Erin RosaThere is a signed and framed photograph of her uncle dated April 1968, a few months before he was murdered. I've really been amazed over how some individuals have been trying to disparage Ms. Kennedy simply because of her name. But their folly is in the fact that the name “Kennedy” doesn't automatically delve up negative connotations for many people. In fact, it's exactly the opposite. I don't know a thing about East coast politics, but I did grow up in a family that has always had a positive view of that name. In fact, when I first touched U.S. soil it was in the airport named after her father. Despite personal faults, which every family has, I like the Kennedys and I think it would be quite something to see this one in the Senate.
Wow...
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Pamela Hilliard...How many ways can we call Al a "genius"!?!?! Wonderful commentary, Al. I've always been a "Kennedy-lover"...even with their flaws (like in all families), I always thought that they were one "rich family" that really "got it" about the rest of us. They may not use a grocery scanner themselves, but at least they know what one is! Plus, they have "progressive" in their very blue-blood; and that's a good thing!
Thanks for the shout-out for my wonderful Congressman from the 14th Michigan Congressional District, John Conyers!
I don't live in NYC, but I have several family members and friends who do, and they are all for CKS for Senate!
Obama will be a great President because he always felt he didn't NEED to be President for his own ego, unlike others (HRC?)...to me, same with CKS...she doesn't NEED this for herself. That alone separates her from all of the others who WANT it for themselves.
waterprise2 AKA Pam
Liberal with a Capital L!
Congressional clarification
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Tom W. (not verified)I don't want to stand in the way of all the "Go Caroline!" sentiments here, but I do think you may have been too dismissive of a couple of New York Democrats in the rush to screen "Camelot II: This Time It's Personal!"
Jerry Nadler is pretty well-known for his transportation reform efforts and is perhaps the nation's leading proponent of light rail systems moving cargo in densely populated areas to reduce the use of air-clogging trucks. He also led the fight for benefits for Ground Zero workers.
And Carolyn Maloney has done yeowoman's work in the area of parental leave.
They may also have other accomplishments to their names, but these are quite well-known.
I don't know whether they're "very nice people" or not, but I do know Nadler's done an able job as a progressive since succeeding my favorite NY Congressman (and former reporting subject), the estimable Ted Weiss.
Also, another minor point - Robert Kennedy certainly had some degree of "national presence" when he moved to NY to run for the Senate, just as Hillary Clinton clearly possessed some measure of "charisma" when she did the same.
I do think Gov. Paterson has a tough choice, and the long nature of the process - the choice won't come till after Clinton resigns the seat, post-Senate confirmation - doesn't make it easier.
Caroline Kennedy:
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Tommyo (not verified)What do so many New Yorkers find apalling about CK announcing that she believes she should be appointed to this senate seat? I think this, courtesy of Tom Tomorrow, sums it up nicely:
I think I might have caught her on a talk show once talking about one of her books. That’s it. I understand that she’s had a semi-public life, but I tend to follow electoral politics, not the lives of celebrities from political families.Seriously, this isn’t a joke. If Caroline Kennedy were a normal candidate for elected office, she’d have a website in which she presented herself to the people she’s trying to represent, but the closest I could find to that in five minutes of Googling was a Wikipedia bio and her entry at the IMDB.
Unlike every other name on the AP’s short list for the Senate seat, Caroline Kennedy has never been elected to anything, ever1. The people of New York are supposed to accept her jump from “professional Kennedy” into the U.S. Senate based on the assurances of a few powerful elites?? At the very least, the Senate seat should be filled by someone who has actually been chosen by the people of New York for something. Congressmen, State Senators, Mayors, and other elected officials from New York should be outraged by the fact that Kennedy is able to cash in on her family’s name and skip ahead of dozens of dedicated public servants to ascend to one of the most powerful positions in the nation.
Responses
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Al GiordanoTom W - I don't think this is rough on Paterson. I think he's enjoying the process of dragging it out. It makes 12 figures in New York politics have to cater to his every desire until he picks one of them, and makes him more relevant in the media - not bad for a Lt. Governor that rose to the seat because of the problems of his predecessor. If I were him I'd hope Secretary Clinton's nomination takes extra weeks to get confirmed, because every day he doesn't have to appoint someone he has his hands on a dozen levers of power to flick on and off at will. (And, as I note above, it helps Paterson establish an upper hand over Bloomberg.)
Oh, and by the way: I believe you're eligible for a copublisher account to be able to post here without moderation. Just fill out the form.
Tommyo -
You seem to suggest that there should be no "citizen legislators," that there must be a homogeneity in the Senate so that we are governed only by a professional bureaucratic class.
Professor Tunku Varadarajan, a New York citizen, had some interesting observations on this today:
That resonates with me. There is, today, an imbalance in the Senate and the House, and in government overall, in which career politicians and bureaucrats have created their own screwed up ways of doing things, even their own language - that's another form of elitism.
As the professor says, "we need both kinds." But the imbalance today is so heavily toward the hack class of politicians (they come from upper and lower economic classes, but merge into something of their own creation; in a word, a bureaucracy).
The fetishization of government "experience" is itself another kind of elitism.
Good CNN opinion poll about Caroline
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Kit (not verified)52% of Americans nationwide think she is qualified to fill the New York Senate seat, 42% say she's not. The 42% who don't think that she is qualified - Republicans and Markos
Great work, Al...
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Allan BrauerThanks for covering this story so well.
I just threw some more coins into the Fund for Authentic Journalism. And for that you can thank David for his email today detailing your IT budget and the technology behind the site.
And I don't know how important making the Rec List at DailyKos is to you personally, but since it's the way diaries like this get the attention they deserve, you might want to pay more attention to the timing of your posts there. An evening post gets more play if it hits at about 5 pm PT/8 pm ET. You went live with this one at 11 pm PT, too late for a big swath of the country to see it and recommend it before it crawled down the diary list.
Caroline Poll link
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Kit (not verified)http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/12/29/poll-gender-gap-over-car...
$100 in the can
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Joel WiensTime to turn America blue again!
Cutting to the chase
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Bill ConroyIn reading all the diatribes in the mainstream media and blog land over the "appointment" of a U.S. senator in NY, it seems to me the underlying meme, rarely if ever stated, about such an appointment, no matter who it turns out to be, is the realization by most of us that incumbency in our democracy is an advantage that is very difficult for any political challenger to overcome.
That seems to be at the core of all of this, not so much who is appointed.
If that were not the case, then should someone like Caroline Kennedy be appointed, and not really be the people's choice, then that appointment would be nullified easily in the next election by the people's vote.
So if incumbency didn't carry such an advantage in our electoral process, the concern over the appointment would, I think, be less an issue, since the people's choice would ultimately win the day. Now, that doesn't mean the discussion over that appointment is not necessary, even healthy, in a democracy, but the stakes wouldn't be quite what they are now being made out to be -- the assumption, even if not stated overtly, that whoever is appointed will likely be in the seat for a long time to come, regardless of whether there is a better qualified individual. In other words, incumbency [absent gross misconduct in office] almost always, particularly in the Senate, confers near dynasty standing.
But I also think this past election, where the inevitable candidate was defeated through democracy revitalized via the Internet, might mean we are in the midst of a sea change going forward, where incumbency's advantage may at long last be waning. Time will tell.
In any event, if we could remove the incumbency card from the table, whoever is appointed would shortly after face the will of the people through the ballot box absent the advantage of simple inertia. Caroline Kennedy would not be immune from that test, nor would any appointee, and the risk of taking an appointment and failing to later gain the approval of the people could well be a career ender for whomever that appointee is -- a major risk for whoever that turns out to be and a possible advantage for someone who failed to gain the appointment.
But from what I can see, that is not the tone that most of these discussions take with respect to this issue. Between the lines, I read this whole affair, in most cases, to be an argument cast — particularly by opponents of Caroline Kennedy — in terms of a mere appointment representing a type of Senate-seat-for-life nod that is tied up in the a name [Kennedy in this case] and the notions of political dynasty and elitism that have long marked this nation's electoral process [Bush/Clinton/Bush ... the inevitable one where the chain was broken].
But what if that is changing. What if Caroline Kennedy, or any political office holder, now must face their job each day knowing incumbency is a cancelled annuity, that like the rest of us who work, you have to prove yourself each day to keep your job.
We do have the power to make that happen. And if it does, Caroline Kennedy, whether appointed or not to that Senate seat, should she be the people's choice in NY, will ultimately win the day. Idealistic, I know, but at least in that way of thinking about it, we focus the choice to be made on the subject of leadership qualities — and render moot the petty discussions over pedigree [and the assumed incumbency advantage earned simply by the fact that public office was held previously].
Ultimately, that latter way of thinking tells us nothing about the future, or more importantly, the quality of an individual's character.
great post -- thank you
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Amanda (not verified)Thanks so much for this exhaustive and informative post. I nodded so hard while reading this I think I pulled a neck muscle!
I was especially pleased to be reminded of CK's donation to Ned Lamont. Had forgotten about that. That act alone puts her in rarified company indeed and should earn her HUGE props from the grassroots. Same goes for her opposition to the death penalty even in cases of police officers being killed (!!) -- we could probably count on less than one hand the US Senators who would take that position; speaks volumes about her likely position on a host of "law and order" issues including prison reform -- and all of it encouraging. And you make an excellent point about her position on gay marriage -- and that she announced it now, in light of the Rick Warren and post-Prop 8 miasma. Again, speaks volumes about her courage on civil rights issues across the board.
I also liked what she said about NCLB -- that it never got a fair test. And that she doesn't feel the need to smack down teachers and make them the scapegoats. Consdering that Ted K was the main booster of NCLB, I was impressed with her thoughtful comments on that.
Bring on Senator Kennedy 3.0!
CK:
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Tommyo (not verified)I'm not against citizen legislators. Is Caroline Kennedy the best person to fill that role for New Yorkers? Are the times such that we need people in government who can get things done rather than provide charisma? Should Ms. Kennedy be put at the top of the list of nominees because.....she's a Kennedy? Talk about elitist.
I disagree that desiring competence from my government officials is fetishizing goverment experience.
I see
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Chaz (not verified)Tommyo,
I think Al was addressing what your saying. We need all sorts of tragectories into politics but your narrow thinking allowsx but one. "Working" (and I use that word with caution) your way up through politics as the only type of competence is flawed. I know many people with the basic skill sets to work in elected government who have never done so before. Is a president of a university, a CEO, or a dean lacking the "skills" needed to be a legislator? I doubt it. It isn't parlypro that your need... basically I think your argument lacks any teeth. You've basically defined political competence as political competence. That's a non-starter.
Caroline Kennedy gets my
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Steve Hunt (not verified)Caroline Kennedy gets my support because she has strong progressive and healthy instincts. If she weren't inclined toward progressive policies I wouldn't bother to comment.
What I keep hearing is the question as to whether CK is 'the best person for the job'--well, the answer to this will always be totally subjective. There is never a 'best person' for any job--but there are an array of forces that come to bear on any particular person's chances of obtaining the seat. Al and others have sketched out a very strong case for CK becoming an excellent senator--with myriad strong arguments for this person at this time.
I really don't like either Shumer or Clinton as senators--and CK will have the main benefit of not being 'owned', and being able to make solid, more egalitarian/democratic judgements as a function of her core values.
This debate is getting old. CK has not stumbled significantly, and Paterson, I hope, will make a timely announcment in favor of Kennedy in short order.
The bottom line for me is that CK really cares about everyday people, and she has killer instincts when it comes to decision making. Unlike Hillary Clinton she is not cynical, and that is very encouraging.
I can't add to the very cogent arguments made by Al and others. The woman, though 'priviledged' has been tested by life experiences, and she comes out on top.
During the past two weeks I have spent over an hour reading the objections to CK being appointed to the senate seat, now it is time for Paterson to make the right choice--which is only his perogative by law--and move on. If the govenor has aspirations to run for the govenorship in 2010, then I think that having a solid ally like Obama and Kennedy in his corner will accure to his benefit.
It occurred to me that one angle we aren't considering is
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by CarolDuhart (not verified)That being a relative of a politician who gets appointed to the Senate or elected to be Governor is fine with many voters as long as its a wife or a daughter or even sister. The person who gets the office often is someone who has never run for office at all, nor was even considered for it. However, no one questions these people's qualifications at all, indeed the first women to serve as Governor or Senator were the wives of deceased politicians.
Caroline has her own career and has done extensive work in the non-profit sector, work that is her own work and not an extension of a husband or father. She is at least as qualified as the other kind of appointment in terms of education and experience.
@ Tommyo
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Joel WiensI don't really understand how "being a Kennedy" and all the things and experiences that come along with that are so easy to dismiss for you. As "just a Kennedy", Caroline Kennedy hasn't exactly sat on her thumbs, as many prevous posts have pointed out. So how do you just dismiss this advantage as being "elitist"? That's a little simplistic, no? I mean, I can appreciate your increased level of suspicion, but your outright dismissal is a little difficult to deal with as an argument. It isn't an argument - it's just dismissal.
@ Al
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Joel WiensLMAO - thank you for introducing this lovely three letter word into my vocabulary - Pwn. Did you pick that up in a scrabble dictionary or South Park?
Thank you and contribution
Submitted on December 29th, 2008 by Jess (not verified)Hi Al - Thanks for the comprehensive post. My mom and I were talking about this a few days ago (our family is all from NY though we're scattered now) and we both agreed that she'd be a fantastic choice not only for NY but for the entire nation. My mom kept coming back to the point that she's "uncorruptable." I wouldn't go as far since I think pretty much anyone can be corrupted but I do thing it'd be far more difficult to corrupt Caroline Kennedy than most any other senator. On top of that she's got the smarts, a background that more than qualifies her, and I think her family name is a boon in the end (and I say this as someone who has not always viewed the name as a boon - Robert Kennedy Jr. was not popular with folks up at my first staff reporter job in the Catskills).
I added a bit to the fund. I wish it could be more and know the $ is long overdue. Thanks to you and all the reporters who work here for a wonderful resource.
Just donated!
Submitted on December 30th, 2008 by Russell JosephThat's way too ridiculous
Submitted on January 24th, 2009 by Kevin Anthem (not verified)That's way too ridiculous when people simply dismiss Caroline's qualifications just because "she's a Kennedy." I mean, c'mon people, does it really matter? Enough of the Kennedy stigma (or curse if you want) and let her do her job as she should. Give her a chance like everybody deserves to have.