I didn't like it when Hillary ran for the Senate. I was wrong.
I thought it was a legacy sort of thing and that it was just a stepping stone to the presidency.
No matter what, she ended up doing a great job for New York. So all my little theories about why she wouldn't do well, or that she was just using the position were really stupid. New Yorkers liked her. They elected her twice, even knowing that she probably would run for president some day.
If Caroline Kennedy is tapped for Senator, I'll be happy with it. Anybody saying she isn't qualified probably should go back and look at the qualifications that every other Senator had before being elected. I'd say she's probably as qualified as many of them were before getting into office, and probably more than quite a few of them were.
http://prorev.com/family.htm (DANA MILBANK, WASHINGTON POST, 2005) With at least 18 senators, dozens of House members and several administration officials boosted by family legacies, modern-day Washington sometimes resembles the court of Louis XIV without the powdered wigs..
Let's see. - Hillary Clinton (D-NY), wife of Bill - Libby Dole (R-NC), wife of Bob - Al Gore (D-TN), son of former Senator - Chris Dodd is the son of the late Senator Thomas Dodd - Robert F. Bennett (R-Utah) is the son of a senator - Mark Pryor (D-Ark.) is the son of a senator. - Evan Bayh is the son of the late Senator Birch Bayh.
Not to mention - George w. Bush, grandson of a senator, son of a president, brother of a governor - John Quincy Adams - son of former president... - Franklin Roosevelt - nephew of former president
Even in the House: Rep. John Sarbanes is the son of former Senator Paul Sarbanes. Rep. Patrick Kennedy is Ted Kennedy's son. Rep. Charlie Gonzalez (D-Tex.), is the son of former Rep. Henry Gonzalez. Rep. Harold Ford, Jr. (D-TN) succeeded his father in the 1996 election. Rep.William L. "Lacy" Clay Jr. is the son of former Rep. William J. "Bill" Clay.
Dan Boren (D-Okla.), Connie Mack (R-Fla.) and Rush D. Holt (D-N.J.), fathers were senators Shelley Moore Capito (R-W.Va.), Jim Cooper (D-Tenn.) and Jim Matheson (D-Utah), fathers were governors; Stephanie Herseth (D-S.D.), grandfather was governor; William Shuster (R-Pa.), Walter B. Jones Jr. (R-N.C.), John J. Duncan Jr. (R-Tenn.) John D. Dingell (D-Mich.), Charles Bass (R-N.H.), James T. Walsh (R-N.Y.), Alan B. Mollohan (D-W.Va.) and Daniel Lipinski (D-Ill.), fathers all served in the House.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Caroline Kennedy in the Senate wouldn't actually be that big of a deal. It's just that previously, this kind of thing wasn't such obvious national news. But everyone in the area or state usually knew.
11. Oh, but she's a Kennedy and they are our royal family.
Edited on Mon Dec-08-08 11:45 PM by Beacool
Hillary worked her butt off campaigning in every county of the state to win the respect and votes of its residents. She EARNED her senate seat the old fashion way: she was VOTED into office. Not only once, but twice and by very nice margins.
If Caroline wants to be senator that's fine, I got nothing against her. But, let her start fundraising and preparing to run in 2010. In the meantime, the bench warmer should be someone with some legislative experience.
16. If Hillary could have been appointed to it, bc of a vacancy, I doubt she would have
turned it down. And, if Caroline is appointed to it, she will have to run in two years and again in another two years, which Hillary did not have to do. This is not about Hillary vs. Caroline. It is about a seat that is vacant. Someone has to be appointed to it. Why not Caroline? That is the issue, not the fact that Hillary (and scores of others) ran for the seat in the past.
21. Royalty is not voted in and out as per the people's whims.
Royalty is not voted in and out as per the people's whims.
But we did fight a revolution so that we could vote or not for those whom we wanted to, regarldess of blood lines. Unless of course you believe that blood lines and parentage should disqualify an American citizen from holding office...
23. My point is that she could get appointed to that seat giving her
an overwhelming advantage of keeping that seat as long as she wants.
My contention is that if she wants the seat, she should run in 2010 when New York will be holding an election for the remainder of HRC's term.
Acting on appopintments like this just discourage people who view politics as a vocation. Why bother if you are going to basically be shut out of the process. She has money and the name to win hands down.
It just smells of elitism to me.
But hey, go ahead and believe what you want about appointing dynastic names. It usually works out so very well....
It seems people are having more problems with "Kennedy's" than with Caroline Kennedy. The argument against her is ridiculous. Women who have been housewives have been appointed to Representative and Senate seats by Governors because their husband died. Some of them have run when the term was up and many have won the seat; Caroline Kennedy has more qualifications than any of those appointed people. Aren't we always screaming we need people not politicians, well she has worked thirty years at being "just one of the people." She has always been a reflective and thoughtful person, she isn't going to change now. She is a progressive democrat and we need progressive democrats, as many as possible.
There are drunks, pedophiles, crooks and worse sitting in the Senate and House of Representatives, if you don't like the Kennedy's and don't want another one in Congress, just say that, but Caroline Kennedy is qualified, she knows politics and has campaigned for her family and John Kerry, there is absolutely nothing in her background that says she is not qualified for this position and people look foolish trying to make this about her "silver spoon" as if that's the only qualification she has. The Kennedy's, as a family and as politicians have spent more time working with "real people" than most anyone I can think of, including Special Olympics, non-profits, migrant workers, union workers and inner city kids, including and especially Caroline Kennedy. You don't like her name? Ok! but you sure as heck know more about her than anyone else wanting the seat, and if you've taken time to find out about her you would know that she absolutely is qualified and can have every expectation that she would be a good Senator.
I think it's the best post of the day, especially because you worded it so nicely about both women without putting one over the other, and you said it so perfectly in so few words. How nice to see such appreciation expressed for two deserving Democratic women like that. Thank you!
Hillary *ran* for office, and it was by no means a sure thing at the outset that she would win. (In fact, many considered it a long shot.) Sure, she wouldn't have run or won if she hadn't been married to Bill Clinton, just as Patrick Kennedy and Joseph Kennedy wouldn't have won their House seats if they hadn't been named Kennedy -- but they did run for the damn offices.
What's happening in this case is that the Kennedys are informing Patterson that Caroline Kennedy thinks a Senate seat would be nice right now, so he'd better give it to her or have a very powerful family mad at him. The arrogant sense of entitlement is absolutely mind-boggling. I can only hope that New Yorkers recognize how outrageous it is, and that Patterson has the gumption to say no.
14. No, it doesn't constitute a slam, but it's ignorant and irrelevant
Edited on Tue Dec-09-08 01:56 AM by digidigido
Whoever gets appointed to fill the seat will not run before they get to serve as junior senator from NY. So why act as if that's an issue? Whoever is appointed, if they decide they want to continue to serve, will have to run in 2 years. There are many very good Democrats out there. To slam Caroline Kennedy is foolish. She's an intelligent person, with a great political lineage, who comes from a wonderful progressive tradition. Does Du want to snarkily turn them all off from wanting to serve? is it that much fun to nit pick and go negative on the progressives who want to help set a progressive agenda?
Fran Drescher be appointed, and run in 2010? She was born in New York, lives in New York, has been involved in the New York education system, has been a spokesperson for the Democratic party her entire life, and yet she should not put her name up for consideration because she is a Kennedy?
25. That's exactly how I think. It's all about the last name for some people.
And that isn't fair.
Someone will be appointed. Nobody can run for this seat. I think that it is wrong to assume that Caroline thinks she is "entitled" to the appointment because of her heritage. That is extremely judgmental, IMHO, and we democrats should be above that.
26. So did any number of NYS Pols who may want the seat as well
And they've actually ran for office before.
Frankly, I wasn't too crazy about Clinton running here either. Unfortunately every reason why I didn't really want her running here turned out to be true. She ran merely as a stepping stone for bigger and better things. I think NY deserves better than that.
That's not to say that Caroline Kennedy wouldn't make a fine Senator should she be appointed but the use of the word denied smacks of a sense of entitlement that I don't much like when used in reference to a position that should be in service to the people of NYS not payback to a family whether the name is Clinton or Kennedy.
She would be representing her state- her constituents. I think she is very capable.
Alot of folks will come down on her because she is a woman and she holds some power and of course she can't deserve it because her family is rich and her Father is a legend. Everyone knows those women don't "do" anything. They just have "tea" and talk about their children.
Sexism is a nasty little thing- denied by most, yet we have been unconsciously conditioned to the point where almost all are guilty of it at some time or another. Including myself.
Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators
Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.