If you objected to Clinton being a "legacy" candidate and now

[cali]

you're oohing and ahhing over Caroline being appointed, you're under hypocrisy is showing. And I've seen lots of posters doing just that. No Clinton dynasty but a Kennedy dynasty? No problem. At least Hillary Clinton ran for office instead of being appointed. And for the record, I'm hardly Hillary's biggest fan.

[atimetocome]

1. good post.

[mtnsnake]

2. Yup, selective criticism on DU is alive and well, as always

What's holds true for Hillary doesn't hold true for anyone else (except for Bill maybe)

on edit: You shouldn't have to temper your post by telling everyone you're hardly Hillary's biggest fan, but yes, this is DU where you're pretty much an outsider if you like the Clintons. Bizarro World. lol

[DevonRex]

30. No matter what, both women are qualified to be senators. And both

women are probably more qualified than many senators were before taking office.

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

3. A question

Is Caroline a bona fide New Yorker? My beef with HRC (and RFK, for that matter) is that they took advantage of NY's liberal residency laws to run for Senator, even though both of them had spent the majority of their lives in other states.

[cali]

5. Yes, she's a bona fide NYer. And I can't say carpet bagging

is appealing to me either. However, neither is an appointment to Senate based on name.

[pnwmom]

13. Her mother moved the family to NYC shortly after Onassis died in 1975.

Caroline has lived there ever since. Is that bona fide enough for you?

[Freddie Stubbs]

25. "NY's liberal residency laws" are no different than any other state's

The Constitution sets the requirements for a Senator:

No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the age of thirty years, and been nine years a citizen of the United States and who shall not, when elected, be an inhabitant of that state for which he shall be chosen.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/constitution.ar...

[Retrograde]

35. inhabitant vs voter

When Robert Kennedy ran for senate from NY in 1964 he was unable to vote for himself, as at that time the state had a 1 year residency requirement for voters.

It's a moot point in any case: all the people mentioned for the spot are NYS inhabitants.

[Arkansas Granny]

4. Good point.

[onehandle]

6. Yep. nt

[H2O Man]

7. "No Irish Need Apply"

Everyone who is against Caroline becoming Senator hates the Irish. And most of those in favor of her becoming Senator hate the Irish, too ..... especially the Irish-Americans who either oppose or favor her.

Sorry, I couldn't pass on the opportunity to claim victimhood.

On a serious note: I tend to be opposed to dynasties. In general, they tend to be attempts to have a ruling class elite, who assume an entitlement to office. George W. Bush is the obvious example of this.

With Senator Clinton's run for the democratic nomination, I thought that there was an issue in terms of the history of either a Bush or Clinton as President or VP since 1980. However, I did not think that alone was reason to decide on how one should cast one's vote in the primary. Because I think Hillary Clinton is qualified for office, I had supported her in both of her campaigns for the Senate in my state.

In regard to the Kennedy Clanna, I think that their political history indicates the approach to public service that I favor. Certainly, Caroline's grandfather opened the door to the following generations' ability to be considered as serious potential candidates for office. Thus, I think that her family history is a valid topic for consideration for NYS residents. However, as with Senator Clinton, I do not think that it alone should determine how people think.

[cali]

8. I think you're splitting hairs, crowding angels onto small surfaces

etc. Yes, I know consistency is the hobgoblin, blah, blah, blah. If Caroline wants to run, I support her. I do not support anyone being named to the Senate because of their family name.

[mtnsnake]

9. named to the Senate? Here on DU she's already being annointed as President of the USA in 2016

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.ph...

[Billy Shears]

38. you know it's coming. watch as the pattern emerges...

[H2O Man]

10. I suspect that

she is being considered for a variety of reasons, including the belief that she is qualified to serve as a Senator. But you are correct: there is a small crowd of democrats who I would be pleased with being appointed to the position. I would favor Rep. Hinchey if it were up to me, but will be pleased by whoever is selected, including Caroline.

[mopinko]

26. isn't the definition of a dynasty generational?

i never went in for that clinton bush thing. i don't see it as the same thing at all. maybe someday if chelsea runs, we can beat that for a while. but neither of the clintons came from some long line of patricians. or crooks for that matter.

[H2O Man]

39. It certainly can be.

And many people think of "generational" when they think of "dynasty." But, as Kevin Phillips notes in his book on the Bush dynasty, it can also correctly be applied to a spouse (he used the Clinton example).

Despite Cali's calling me a pin head with split ends, I still think that it is one issue, but certainly not the only issue, that people can consider when deciding who they would vote for. The question in the context of US politics is as old as the debates between Hamilton and Jefferson. Would we be a republic, governed by an elite ruling class? Or a more open democracy?

Jefferson and others were influenced by the Six Nations Iroquois Confederacy. The Haudenosaunne (SNIC) had a manner of selecting chiefs that tended to avoid hereditary office-holding. At the same time, it was not rigid: the question always comes down to who is qualified.

In this case, the position has been offered to Caroline because she is qualified, and considered most able to win the relection in 2010.

[mopinko]

42. well, let's also argue about illinois.

one of the leading contenders to replace president obama is jesse jackson jr. i like junior a lot, and he certainly worked his buns off for barack. i suspect that he has been elected to congress more in spite of his famous dad than because of. but dad has certainly helped his kids, and jr helped to get his wife elected to the chicago city council.
my personal preference would be to see my fabulous representative, jan schakowsky, take the seat. she has family baggage, in her husbands most ridiculous, imho, conviction on check kiting. but bob creamer served his time, and that ought to be that. especially since he is not the one running. jan is a great rep, and has been a courageous opponent of the bush regime.
i did not know until recently how she got into politics. it seems that as a full time mom, she figured out that packaged food had codes on them that told you when things were manufactured. except that they were just that- codes. she traded information with other moms that she knew, until they began to crack the codes. but the whole idea ticked her off, and she started lobbying for open dating. next time you go to the grocery store, and see a sell by date on your food, thank jan.
she built on that, and replaced the late great sid yates when he retired. that is the kind of story i would like to see more of.

like i said, i like jj jr fine. he would make a fine senator. but i would rather see someone like jan succeed. i like caroline kennedy fine, and am sure that she would be a fine senator. but i wonder who else would be a better representative of the american dream.

[bridgit]

37. Only In America!! What a country!! From the soot & thuggery of The Five Points...

to the annointed, rose scented forums of international reknown Far and Away ~ Open Range

[Cha]

46. Your post makes perfect sense

to me. There were a lot of reasons I didn't want Hillary as our Pres candidate regardless of the "dynasty" thing. And, a lot of reasons I would want Caroline as our Senator here in New York regardless of her being a Kennedy.

[ProSense]

11. If after Caroline Kennedy is appointed

she runs and wins in 2010, then the point is moot. The people of NY elected Hillary, and if they elect Caroline so be it. Americans decided they preferred Obama over Hillary for the Presidency. It's a good thing we get to elect our candidates. Despite these temporary appointments, the appointee has to run and be formally elected in order to retain the seat.

People being tired of a legacy is usually tied to something they perceive as negative. I'm sure no one wants to see another Bush in the Presidency or Senate.










edited year.

[pnwmom]

14. Alas, lots of people in FL might want another Bush in the Senate. n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

21. 2010.

She would have to run in 2010.

[ProSense]

24. Edited, thanks. n/t

[Clio the Leo]

12. I'm down with anything EXCEPT a Bush dynasty. NT

[Maven]

15. Thank you.

A point that needed to be made.

[nomaco-10]

16. If she is appointed by Governor Paterson, I'm sure...

it will be because of the input and approval of both HRC and PE Obama. If she's got BOTH their approvals, then she's good enough for me as well.

Give her a chance. Good grief, it's not like they'll be putting a joe lieberliar type of dem in office for two years. The good people of NY will decide if she's a worthy representative in 2010. After all, it is up to them to decide, not us.

As far as the name, I have absolutely no problem with that. The Kennedy legacy has always been associated with dedicated public service. I would never approve an appointment based on name recognition only, nor would I penalize anybody for their last name. I believe each and every person running for political office has the right to stand or fail on their own merits.

I'm looking forward to some fresh new faces in the senate. I'm tired of career politicians. Hell, we just elected a relatively fresh new face on the national scene to be our next president. Thank goodness some decent politicians in Chicago saw potential in Barack Obama and took him under their wing and helped launch his political career.

I say we give give Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg the same opportunity.

[LanternWaste]

17. "Dynasty"-- the most irrelevant and ineffectual argument

"Dynasty"-- the most irrelevant and ineffectual argument that's existed to argue either for or against a candidate.

Use of the Dynasty Argument automatically places the user into the "I-Don't-Really-Know-What-I'm-Talking-About" Category.

Continued use of the Dynasty Argument will eventually cause the user's brain to drop down through the neck, into the esophageal passage, move into the intestines, and finally passed through, wiped up and flushed down.

[cali]

18. oh, baloney. Furthermore I explained precisely what I disagree

with in appointing Caroline, both in this thread and another long running thread.

Please answer this question:

Would Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg be considered for this appointment if not for her family name?

[LanternWaste]

19. No, no, no...

No, no, no... not you.

Just anyone in general who uses the Dynasty Argument (as seen during the primaries, and mentioned once or twice on this thread). I should have been more clear about that-- but I've only three cups of joe in me so far and am barely muddling through existence as it is.

MMmmmm... baloney with sliced cheese and ranch dressing.

[nomaco-10]

20. How 'bout because Obama worked with her closely during the ...

primaries and had enough confidence to bring her into his inner circle after the election and appoint her to the committe to help vet the next VP. I'd say such an important matter as selecting the next VP, clearly shows a certain amount of faith and confidence in a person.


Are you saying Obama chose her for the important task of vetting the next VP just because of her last name?

[nichomachus]

22. Do you have any proof?

Yes, some people objected to Clinton as a dynasty candidate.

And, some people approve of Caroline Kennedy.

However, your whole post is based on the unsupported assumption that they are the same people.

Unless you can demonstrate that and show that there is a significant overlap in those two groups, this thread is just purposely divisive and a waste of time.

So, please point to the myriad of posters who held both opinions. And, one or two doesn't condemn a whole board.

[cali]

23. That's against the rules as you well know.

And no, I wouldn't do it anyway. I'm sorry, I'm not going to search for comments; anyone barely observant who was present during the primary season could easily see the overlap.

[wyldwolf]

34. wrong. Cali said IF you objected to Clinton and approve of Kennedy...

... you're a hypocrit.

She didn't say the two overlapped. But many of us know they do.

[pecwae]

27. K&R

The OP is pointing out hypocrisy.

[WeDidIt]

28. I had no problems with her being a "legacy" candidate

I just thought Obama was the better candidate.

I think Caroline would be an awesome appointment.

Keep in mind, there has been a Kennedy in the Senate ever since the before assassination of JFK. I believe this may be something Ted is pushing in anticipation of his own demise.

[DevonRex]

29. All I know is that Hillary has done a fine job for New York.

And I suspect Caroline would, too.

Anyone who says that either woman isn't qualified needs to check out the qualifications of all the other senators before they became senators and then tell me why either Hillary or Caroline is less qualified than they were.

[FrenchieCat]

31. Didn't care for the thought of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton.....

But I never minded that Hillary Clinton became Senator of New York.

[Alter Ego]

32. What if you don't care?

I don't really care who is appointed to Hillary's Senate seat as long as it's a Democrat.

[Life Long Dem]

33. Your comparing apples to oranges.

The Kennedy's are the Kennedy's. Clinton was a governor.

[Billy Shears]

36. How can you even compare the Clintons to the Kennedys?

It's like comparing Alexander Hamilton to Thomas Jefferson,
or Rotten Apples to Oranges.

[wyldwolf]

40. It's really easy, actually...

[harun]

41. What's "under hypocrisy"?

[brentspeak]

43. And if you spammed DU during primary season with "Obama is the most progressive of all Dems running"

posts and then, after Obama was elected, followed those ridiculous posts up with threads bloviating on how "Obama never claimed to be a 'progressive'; he has always been a centrist", then you (yeah, YOU - the OP) look pretty damn stupid.

[stillcool]

44. Well..she is from New York..

she is a lawyer, she has been involved in things like the New York Education System, and she certainly has been an advocate for the Democratic Party though-out her life. I hope she does get it, and I hope she runs in 2 years and wins the seat.

[qwlauren35]

45. No oohs and ahhs over here.

I just did some Googling and posted it in another thread. The history of wives succeeding husbands and sons/daughters succeeding fathers is virtually an American political tradition. I think it only gets major media attention when someone moves to a state to run for office.

I thought Hillary's move was to New York tacky. If she had run from her home state of Illinois or from Arkansas, I would have been okay with it. I would have been equally pissed if Alan Keyes had won Illinois after moving there from Maryland.

It turns out that Caroline Kennedy was born in New York City, raised in New York City and currently lives in New York City. She has a law degree and has passed the Bar in New York State. Based on her strong New York connection, I think she deserves at shot at the Senate, as would anyone else in New York State that had the approval of the people.

I think it's "nice" that she's a Kennedy, but I think it's even nicer that she's a real New Yorker.

I won't ask personal questions like Jets vs. Giants... Mets vs. Yankees.

[Whisp]

47. Caroline is not a proven liar, has self respect and dignity.

and I find her far more trustworthy than Hillary, who lacks good judgement and just isn't with it, she's a dinosaur - ran her campaign much like McCain's thinking the old ways of backstabbing and visciousness win out in the end.

nothing hypocritical about that, you idiot.
if you want to start calling names.