Caroline Kennedy continues to monopolize all of New York’s attention. Can David Paterson even not pick her at this point? And would Kennedy have made her quest for an appointment so public if she had not already gotten some assurance by Paterson that she was likely to be picked - or at least on his short list?
But not all publicity is a good thing: The coverage of Kennedy’s trip to upstate New York is being dominated by her refusal to answer journalist’s questions. Kennedy’s silence was the focus of the New York Times’s story, and the Syracuse Post-Standard’s transcript of the exchange is now making the rounds of political blogs:
“What do you say to New Yorkers who think you’re not qualified?” a newspaper reporter asked.
She ignored the question and started to leave.
“Are you ready for this, Ms. Kennedy? You’re not going to answer questions at all?” reporters yelled.
“Where are you heading next?” a television reporter asked.
“To the car,” Kennedy said.
“What do you say to New Yorkers who think you’re not ready or qualified for this job?”
“Have you ever been to Syracuse before?”
“Hopefully I can come back and answer all your questions,” Kennedy said as reporters followed her outside.
“What do you think your greatest qualification is to be senator?” a reporter persisted.
“You’re seeking public office and you don’t want to answer questions from reporters, Ma’am? When can we expect you to answer questions?” another reporter asked as Kennedy got into the passenger seat of a black GMC Denali.
This exchange is reminescent of Sarah Palin’s September adventures - not to mention the fact that Kennedy’s aides hurried her into the car and tried to prevent journalists from asking questions (a common occurrence when Palin was on the trail). Just like for Palin, Kennedy’s silence is a particularly damaging storyline because she has had so few political statements over the years: What does she think about Iraq, labor protections, health care policy, the economic plight of upstate New York - and does she even have a position on any of these issues?
Today’s confrontation just makes the dearth of Kennedy’s public record that much more obvious, and that her friends cite things like her carrying “sensible shoes in her bag for the walk home from a dressy event at Tavern on the Green” as evidence that she should be considered for the US Senate doesn’t make me that much more confident. As far as I am concerned, Palin was more qualified and less entitled than Kennedy is - at the very least, she had public positions on some issues. No offense to Roland Martin, but “having your heart in the right place” isn’t enough of a qualification for the US Senate - especially not in a state with dozens of other Democrats who would make credible appointments.
The issue isn’t lack of elected office, but her lack of a public profile; it is that latter lack that suggests that Kennedy would not - could not - be under consideration if it were not for her last name. Not to mention that there is an electoral risk in appointing someone who has never had to exhibit campaigning skills and has never appeared in a public forum - let alone a debate. As we saw with Wesley Clark in 2004, very intelligent people don’t necessarily have what it takes to be good on the campaign trail. At least Kennedy would have two years to prepare herself before having to face voters.
—
Meanwhile, Illinois Democrats have no path left but impeachment to force Governor Blagojevich out of office. Today, the Illinois Supreme Court refused to consider Lisa Madigan’s request that they declare that Blago is unfit to serve. This was expected: Blagojevich has not even been indicted, so there is little basis on which to hold him incapacitated. Madigan’s suit was widely viewed as her attempt to raise her profile as a Blagojevich foe.
With Democrats stepping away from a special election, the appointment power thus remains in Blagojevich’s hands for the foreseeable future. Blagojevich is showing no signs of resigning and is getting ready to fight impeachment proceedings, suggesting that the process is unlikely to reach completion any time soon.
A second development concerns Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr., whose Senate ambitions seemed dead last week when he was confirmed as “Senate Candidate 5.” Whether or not Jackson had done anything wrong, it looked like he was too tainted by the scandal to remain a viable contender.
But in a reminder that we should take nothing for granted in the Blagojevich story, it now looks like Jackson had been an informant against Blagojevich for years - ever since Jackson felt that the Governor had denied his wife a job because he had failed to donate $25,000. While Jackson does not seem to have collaborated with prosecutors in this latest investigation, these prior efforts to unmask Blago’s corruption could help him salvage - and potentially also his Senate prospects.
First off, it would be unfair to anyone that is appointed to the US Senate from Illinois at this time. The most transparent way to resolve this issue is to have a special election. Even if Quinn was to appoint someone, there would be a cloud over this person.
Second, I’m not in favor in Caroline Kennedy as US Senator. In general, I want the most qualified candidate to be appointed. Personally I wouldn’t be against appointing Bob Kerrey to this seat. He’s been in NY for several years, he’s been an effective Senator, and he showed some desire to rejoin the Senate when Hagel stepped down in Nebraska. I didn’t like it when Murkowski appointed his daughter to the senate several years ago, and I didn’t like it when Jean Carnahan was appointed. Again, I like the best qualified candidate instead of nepotism or bloodlines.
Qualifications mean nothing. Hillary married the right person, became first lady and moved her ass to New York to run.
How is Caroline any different? Neither of them had held elected office, before becoming a Senator.
People thought other candidates were more qualified then Obama, Obama was still elected President over the others.
There has to be a better argument then she is ‘not qualified,’ I dont think it will do much against her name.
No, voting for someone because of their name is not a reason to vote for someone, but in politics people use all the advantages they have.
S, Hillary at least had a record of positions, statements and of interest in public life, social reform and political change. But that’s also not the point: The fact that you disagree with how someone else took office does not justify Kennedy’s rise - quite the contrary, your comment is just further proof of the hold of dynastic politics and how important it is to not indulge in it. The problem with Kennedy is that she would not even be on anyone’s radar screen if it wasn’t for her name. She might be great, intelligent, competent… but she simply would not be considered.
Hillary had a definite public political life and although she failed with Hillary care, it was something that the public knew was specific legislation that she had crafted and attempted to pass in congress. Say what you will about her style and personality, but she was far more active politically that most First Ladies. Now, I agree that she was unqualified to portray herself as a New Yorker, but she did campaign for the seat as opposed to being appointed.
As to JJJ, does no one else notice that this is only coming from Jackson’s own people. Has any of this been confrimed by Fitzgerald’s office? Not that I’ve seen. It doesn’t seem to have occured to the MSM that Jackson might be engaging in damage control. Nah! After all, if you can’t trust a Chicago Democrat, who can you trust? ;)
Sarah Palin might have been qualified to be Governor (or Senator) of Alaska, but the Vice-Presidency is a different level of evaluation. And based on what we saw during the campaign, she clearly was an unqualified choice. It takes some leap of logic to suggest on multiple occasions that Alaska’s proximity to Russia is foreign policy experience.
It is too early to jump to conclusions about Caroline Kennedy. Her official campaign for the appointment is now all of two days old. Remember that Hillary was pretty shaky in the early days of her campaign, too. After years of low-key but mostly positive press, this is Caro’s boot camp with the brutal NY press corps. Let’s see how she handles it once she gets her sea legs. If she ever does. The concerns about her lack of experience are justified, but let’s see how she answers them in the coming month. Paterson does not have to make the pick until Hillary resigns, which won’t be until late January at the earliest. CK does bring some assets no other candidate can match.
“CK does bring some assets no other candidate can match.”
Please elaborate..the only thing I know that she has that no other candidate can match is (a) her name; and (b) the exposure to other elected officials. Maybe there is more, so please educate me and others.
Comparing Hillary’s election to the US Senate to Caroline Kennedy’s potential appointment to US Senator is like comparing apples to oranges. Hillary was elected, not appointed. Hillary also had much more experience on a National level than Caroline.
Please elaborate..the only thing I know that she has that no other candidate can match is (a) her name; and (b) the exposure to other elected officials. Maybe there is more, so please educate me and others.
Extremely high name recognition is not a negligible asset in politics. Quite frankly, many in NY will vote for her just because of it. Without question she will be able to raise the vast sums of money required (perhaps $70 million) to hold the seat in back to back elections in 2010 and 2012 and given her vast connections, without sucking away all the local money from other NY Dem pols who need it. Having the Kennedy Machine behind her will make many potential challengers think twice. Furthermore, once installed in the Senate she will be able to fundraise and campaign for other Democrats nationally in a way that no other candidate could, not even Cuomo. I suspect this is a big reason why Harry Reid endorsed her. The political IOUs she will collect from doing this could use for leverage in the future. And she will command a bully pulpit like no other incoming freshman senator, able to gather media attention and a national audience to issues she focuses on.
Besides Senate Majority Leader Reid, Kennedy has been endorsed by Michael Bloomberg, Liz Moynihan (widow of Sen. Daniel Moynihan) and Al Sharpton (!).
Is she the most deserving candidate? No. But a legitimate argument can be made that she is the strongest candidate to hold the seat. My argument may sound crass, but it is simply a fact of life in politics.
Ogre, I think there is an argument to be made that we simply don’t know whether she’d be a good candidate and it’s a huge risk for Democrats to find out after she’s been appointed. Not everyone is a good campaigner, a good debater… and there is nothing to base our arguments on. Peter King would face an uphill campaign in 2010, but he is certainly credible enough that Kennedy will have to perform on the stump. There is no way of knowing whether she will… especially if she doesn’t answer questions from the press.
Ogre, I’ll ask again, besides (a) her name; and (b) the exposure to other elected officials, what other assets does Caroline have that no other candidate can match?
The ability to raise a vast sum of money doesn’t mean a thing to me. George W. Bush could raise a vast sum of money, and we all see how that turned out. I also believe that the so-called “Kennedy Machine” has stopped working a long time ago.
I am not saying Kennedy’s candidacy doesn’t have shortcomings. There are serious ones.
The ability to raise a vast sum of money may not mean a thing to you, but without it you cannot win in the expensive New York media markets. Comparing her to Bush is specious. As for the Kennedy Machine no longer working, you should read this article.
http://www.observer.com/2008/politics/caroline-stakes-claim
Ogre, that’s a very good article. There is no doubt that many people have announced in public their support/endorsement of her. I do not deny this, but at the same time, I question the motives of such support. Are they setting her up to fail? Do these endorsements have the best interests in the people in NY? As I stated about George W. Bush, the ability to raise great sums of cash doesn’t equate to good government.
As far as the “Kennedy Machine”, it’s really the “Kennedy name”. She will always have that name, but the true “Kennedy Machine” has flamed out over the years. Ted Kennedy, who I think is one of the best US Senators ever, will not be around the Senate for much longer. His influence is still strong, as it should be. Her cousin in Rhode Island (Patrick) has had many ups and downs over the years with alcohol and prescription drugs. Sometimes he comes off as erratic. I just don’t believe that these two men represent “Kennedy Machinery”.
Back to my main point, her biggest 2 assets that no one can match are her name and her exposure to other officials. Raising vast sums of cash shouldn’t be a consideration. A Democrat in NY will most likely have a stronger ability to raise cash than a Republican, anyway.
BTW Ogre, I truly respect your opinions and beliefs–they are very strong considerations. I don’t want to come off adversarial because we all have different takes on this issue.
Actually, I have mixed feelings about the Kennedy appointment, although slightly leaning toward the positive. The fact she has a scant record and no experience in elected office are serious problems. Appointing someone with no track record is a risk and sets a bad precedent. She would have a steep learning curve and likely to make mistakes early in her Senate career. Someone like Carolyn Maloney, who has been in the trenches for years, is more likely to be able to hit the ground running quickly.
But like Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Caroline Kennedy would be the rare senator with a national constituency. It goes without saying that she would be the most helpful to the national party. She raised $65-$70 million for NY City Public Schools, so I think she is truly interested in public service. Given her fame and connections, if she learned to use her Senate platform to advance progressive causes, she would have a far greater impact than any other potential choice. So her potential candidacy has a powerful pull.