Explain the whole Kennedy phenomenon to a 23-year-old North Carolinian

[Seen the light]

When I see polls on DU of 80%+ supporting Caroline Kennedy for Senate, that really makes me scratch my head. Probably less than a quarter of DUers hail from New York and I'm sure most people voting in these polls and posting on these Kennedy threads aren't from New York, so why so much support for her here? Because she supported then-Senator Obama in the primaries? So did many other New Yorkers. No, it seems to me that *most* (key word: most, I'm aware that that's not true of all of them) of the support here is from people that have fond memories of the Kennedy presidency and the run by RFK.

This is very strange and foreign to me. When I try to think 30 or 40 years from now of a situation when the Illinois governor of the future is getting ready to appoint Sasha Obama as the next senator from Illinois to continue in her great father's footsteps, I still don't understand.

Why the extreme need to want to *reward* someone that has grown up in a life of wealth and privilege? Caroline Kennedy has a better life than most of us (yes, I know of the horrific family tragedies, but tragedies strike most people's families), so why feel the need to owe her something?

Help me understand because I'm usually right in line with most people on DU, but on this one I think a lot of people have gone insane. I'm sure that's not actually the case, so help me out.

[Captain Hilts]

1. Nicely worded. People vote style over substance a LOT. Even here on DU.

[EFerrari]

11. Are you serious? Kennedy tried to ramp down the Cold War,

He and Bobby went for the civil rights. Teddy has been our tiger for decades. RFK Jr. has worked hard on environmental issues and on election reform. Caroline has worked with the NAACP and is now working to fund NYC public schools.

STYLE?! I wish we many more "stylish" Senators, then.

[Captain Hilts]

14. Bobby 'OK'd Hoover's bugging of MLK. JFK ran for prez stoking fear of a "missile gap"...

his acting like a juvenille blowhard in his summit with Khrushchev is what emboldened Khrushchev to put missiles in Cuba.

Eleanor Roosevelt had to get involved to get JFK and MLK in a room together.

Read some history!!!!

[EFerrari]

19. You assume much too much. Yes, Jack ran as a hawk AND he got elected.

Gee, what kind of juvenile politics do you have to run to win? :sarcasm:

And yes, Hoover bugged Martin. That's true.

But, Jack resisted escalating Viet Nam, he sent out feelers to Castro and diffused the Missile Crisis. He sent troops to Old Miss to protect it.

Jack and Bobby had to surf a sea change in this country and they did so well, they got killed for it.

Maybe you should read some fucking history.

[Captain Hilts]

22. Khrushchev backed down on Cuba. RFK gave the 'go-ahead' to bug MLK...

JFK was not ready to be prez.

And you didn't mention the health issues, blackmailable behavoir. He screwed up on Bay of Pigs. He screwed up at his summit with Khrushchev. He spent most of his first meeting with Brit PM Harold MacMillan talking about his sex drive.

He was also a sexist pig - he said the nature of the sexual act precluded women from having what it took to be president.

Obama will be a better president and Caroline a better senator.

[PM7nj]

27. What does any of this have to do with his daughter? nt

[Captain Hilts]

29. Nothing. But someone here is giving JFK credit for things...

he doesn't really deserve credit for.

[EFerrari]

32. You haven't shown that. You scatter buckshot.

The loss of Jack Kennedy was such a blow, the Democratic party floundered for forty years trying to recover. They had nothing, nothing, that even came close to replacing him.

[EFerrari]

30. Jack Kennedy inspired a generation, so much so, that Obama is trying to emulate him.

lol

[ShortnFiery]

61. Yes, but Obama isn't Catholic and having upteen kids that go ON and ON and ON.

Enough!

[EFerrari]

69. Jack Kennedy had two children, one of whom is now dead. Feel better?

[WinkyDink]

73. Too bad so many Kennedys have tried/try to serve this nation, isn't it?

Have they somehow stopped you from doing likewise?

[cali]

2. I can't help. And I'm 54 and have

an actual connection with the Kennedy family. Or rather I did. She's an admirable woman but if it weren't for her name, she wouldn't be considered.

[EFerrari]

16. If it weren't for selling points in retail politics, no one is considered. n/t

[Captain Hilts]

28. Very true. Especially in the senate. Linc Chafee, Margaret Chase Smith, ...

Jim Bunning, Liddy Dole, HillaryC, Claiborne Pell, James Buckley, JFK, RFK, Ted K, John Warner....

[sohndrsmith]

78. why? n/t

[Midlodemocrat]

3. Can you name a family that has gone through what she has?

Seriously? Father dead from an assassin's bullet. Mother dead prematurely from cancer. Brother dead very prematurely. Two uncles dead in service to their country. One aunt dead in service to her country. Last uncle battling brain cancer.

Cousins dead from accidents, overdoses. Seriously ill with cancer.

Seriously. Can you? I sure can't and frankly, I don't want to. I don't think she should get the seat because she's 'entitled' to it. I believe she should get it because she is qualified for it. She's smart, accomplished, kind and dedicated. I've worked with her.

I can't say that about most Senators.

[Seen the light]

8. If you don't think she should get it because she's entitled, why bring all that stuff up? nt

[Midlodemocrat]

12. You think suffering to that degree makes someone entitled?

Seriously? Wow.

Her entire family have served America. From Special Olympics to the Presidency. What is entitled about that?

[cali]

20. sure. the families of cops killed on the job

and her mom was 65 when she died. Not old but not young either. Tons of families have been through things every bit as tragic- and without the tremendous support and wealth of the Kennedys.

[Midlodemocrat]

25. Not the number of tragedies, cali, which is probably because of the

number of members of the family.

[cali]

26. Thousands and thousands of families have been through losses

just as tragic. It's absurd not to recognize that.

[Midlodemocrat]

31. Don't be obtuse.You know what I am saying.

I am saying the number of tragedies. My own family has been through horror that I wouldn't wish on anyone, but it is nowhere near what that woman has endured.

[WinkyDink]

76. There's a reason most deaths are just called that, and others are elevated to "assassinations".

Because of the latters' IMPORT to the BODY POLITIC.

Should we now denigrate Lincoln's assassination?
And I think we all know what happened to the world post-Archduke Ferdinand.

[EFerrari]

4. This isn't about rewarding wealth and privilege.

This is about recruiting someone with a demonstrated track record working for American families.

In fact, the whole Kennedy thing isn't based on fame or wealth or power but on their track record of advocating for working Americans.

Why should such a track record be foreign to you -- unless you are only thinking about their wealth and not about their work?

[Seen the light]

10. Thousands of other New Yorkers have advocated for working Americans

Yet they aren't being considered. I wonder why?

[EFerrari]

13. That can't be a serious question in the context of our present campaign finance system.

[Muttocracy]

47. so that sounds like it really is about $$$

[4_Legs_Good]

5. For me it's in no way because she's "owed" anything

Quite the contrary. I believe her privelige makes her *service* in the Senate more admirable.

For me, I've always found her (and, admittedly most Kennedys) inspiring. I remember when she spoke at the 2000 Democratic convention (It was 2000, not 2004, I think). It was the only time in the entire convention when I actually saw stars in people's eyes. When I actually felt like there was a heart to the party which was still reaching for a better country. I think that's largely come to fruition (IMO) with the election of Obama, and the more inspiration the better.

Just my starry eyed opinion.

David

[polichick]

6. Rumor is she's Obama's choice...

That said, the Kennedys have a long history of service to the Democratic party and the country ~ when Ted retires, there won't be a Kennedy in the Senate (unless Caroline or one of her cousins gets a seat).

[LisaM]

7. I looked up her resume today and she's done plenty that would qualify her

She hasn't just sat around and lived off a trust fund. She's accomplished a lot in public service.

Of course, I've always liked her. I was disappointed that she endorsed Obama over Hillary, but clearly her heart was in it.

I found this on Wikipedia, regarding what she's gone out and done with her life - which, IMO, is a lot.

Snip......"Kennedy is an attorney, editor, writer and member of the New York and Washington, D.C. bar associations. She is one of the founders of the Profiles in Courage Award, given annually since 1990 to a person who exemplifies the type of courage examined in her father's Pulitzer Prize-winning book of the same name. The award is generally given to elected officials who, acting in accord with their conscience, risk their careers by pursuing a larger vision of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or powerful pressures from their constituents. In May 2002, she presented an unprecedented Profiles in Courage Award to representatives of the NYPD, the New York City Fire Department, and the military as representatives of all of the people who acted to save the lives of others during the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001.<4>

From 2002 to 2004, Kennedy worked as chief executive for the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education. During this time, she helped raise more than $65 million for the city’s public schools.<3> She currently serves as the Vice Chair of The Fund for Public Schools, a public-private partnership founded in 2002 to attract private funding for public schools in New York City. <5>

In addition, Kennedy is currently President of the Kennedy Library Foundation,<3> a director of both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Honorary Chairman of the American Ballet Theatre. She is also an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics, a living memorial to her father.

Kennedy has represented her family at the funeral services of former Presidents Ronald Reagan in 2004 and Gerald Ford in 2007, and at the funeral service of former First Lady Lady Bird Johnson in 2007. She also represented her family at the dedication of the William J. Clinton Presidential Center and Park in Little Rock, Arkansas in November 2004." Snip

[blueclown]

9. You might want to research what the Kennedy family has accomplished.

They have a long and storied history of helping American families.

[Captain Hilts]

17. I wouldn't vote for the kids of TRoosevelt, Winston Churchill or F&E Roosevelt if you put a gun -

to my head!!!!!

But I would probably vote for her if I were voting in '10.

[stillcool]

21. Who is the writer of all those..

Washington DC mystery books? She's the daughter or grand-daughter of someone..I think Roosevelt.I'd like to see her in government.

[Captain Hilts]

24. Elliot Roosevelt got a ghost writer for his mystery books. Marg Truman gave him the idea.

Elliot was an ill-tempered lout and his four siblings basically disowned him in the end.

[stillcool]

38. I just did a search.....

and didn't find anything about that. Did the ghost-writer write the book about his father too?


http://www.wymaninstitute.org/articles/2003-05-mother.php

[Captain Hilts]

56. He wrote his own non-fiction. The mystery books came very late in his life..

and a few were published after he'd died.

Margaret Truman not only didn't write the mysteries, embarassingly, she didn't even read them and was clearly clueless about them in interviews and steered away from that. I don't think she wrote that last book about first ladies. It's lousy.

Elliot did write the non-fiction. After "Mother R," the other four kids had a press conference and denounced him and the book.

The story you've linked to I certainly believe. Having lived in the White House for so long, Eleanor would have seen such an act as complicating an already complicated issue and medddling in Truman's affairs while he was getting his feet on the ground in the presidency. She also would have understood the hazards of prominent US citizens engaging in what would be seen as US foreign policy outside of government.

He wasn't actually a combat pilot. He flew reconnaissance flights. A ton of them and distinguished himself by all standards.

The Roosevelt kids all got into trouble. Elliot refused to go to college. James barely got through Harvard. FDRjr actually got good grades at Harvard and graduated from UVA law school and passed the bar, but FDR continued to favor James, who got into some very dodgy financial deals that enraged William O. Douglas as head of the SEC. FDRjr also distinguished himself in the war but was an impatient jerk who had a tendency to drink too much. He did, however, politically, take his mother's advice on things and worked with her on Americans for Democratic Action, for example. James Roosevelt totally pissed off Harry Truman by trying to get Eisenhower to run as a Dem in '48. Truman returned the favor by not campaigning for James when he ran for Gov. of California in 1952. When Truman was asked why, in his memoirs, he was so easy on James Roosevelt, whom he could not stand, he said, "because that boy's mother is one of the greatest people who ever lived." "We all failed her," said James.

The Churchills got one decent kid out of four: Mary Soames, who has penned books about her parents.

Theodore Roosevelts kids were wild, unruly and undisciplined. When TR won the Nobel Peace prize in 1908?? he gave a good chunk of the change to Eleanor, "because she'll know what to do with it." Much to the dismay of his unruly spawn. TR said Eleanor reminded him more of himself than any of his own children, which really ticked them off.

Ain't families strange? Be glad you don't have a famous relative!

[stillcool]

57. that was really interesting...thanks.

I haven't read the book he wrote about his family..but I'm going to have to check it out.

[Captain Hilts]

59. They're actually lousy, but interesting once you've read other sources.

Oddly enough the BEST book about the Roosevelts and the politics of NYState in that day, and later the presidency, is "Mostly Morgenthaus," by Henry Morgenthau III, brother of the Federal prosecutor in NYC.

The Morgenthaus were very tight with the R's. So, much so that I think it's a crime the vistors center at Hyde park was named for Henry Wallace - he denounced both R's later in life.

The Morgenthaus lived just south of Hyde Park. Henry Morgenthau actually slept with FDR during a campaign! His wife, Elinor Morgenthau was just about ER's closest buddy. Elinor was Herbert Lehman's sister, I believe. Her relationship with ER is undervalued because there isn't much correspondence - they saw each other nearly daily.

This book provides the best descriptions of the two camps that followed Franklin or Eleanor.

It's actually a sweet book.

Elliot's books were denounced by his siblings as inaccurate and mean-spirited. So, James Roosevelt wrote "My Parents: A Differing View," in response. ALL the kids praised "Eleanor and Franklin," both the book and the movie.

[stillcool]

64. thanks again! The Morgentheau's...

small world. I knew they were an established family but I had no idea.. that's fascinating. Is that the son who is the New York Prosecutor? The one I know has got to be too old to still be there.

[Captain Hilts]

86. YES! The guy that caught BCCI. He is very old, but it's the same guy. He's the guy that ...

Eleanor assigned the task of cooking the hotdogs at the picnic for King George and Queen Elizabeth (the Queen mum) when they were in Hyde Park. SAME GUY!!!! Isn't that amazing?

After Elinor died of heart trouble in the late 40s, Eleanor stood in for their mother at their various weddings.

Henry Morgenthau, son of the Ambassador to Turkey during WWI, was FDR's Sec. of Treasury. He got the job a few months into 1933 when the first designate bailed. He did not have a college degree, oddly enough.

[hlthe2b]

46. Exactly... She is a special, capable individual that I would support

whether she were a Kennedy or not. That being a Kennedy gives her a springboard is not in question. But, it is Caroline and not the Kennedy franchise per se' that I would be supporting. There is a reason no one has ever heard of the kids/grandkids of the Roosevelts, Churchill, etc. We know of the Kennedy clan, because they are out there making a difference--Caroline, most certainly.

[Captain Hilts]

55. Women's life patterns dictate different paths. If people want "change"...

this is where you get it, oddly enough.

She's a decent person.

[sohndrsmith]

79. even if - after doing research you found any of them to be

qualified per your standards? Would the name/heredity disqualify someone who might be the best person for the job?

Maybe... I can't figure out how that works, though... this individual isn't asking to be judged or qualified based on her connections. At least I've not heard anything indicative of such. I'd be highly surprised to find out that she had that perspective, and I find it refreshing that she doesn't.

[PM7nj]

15. Walk into almost any Irish Catholic home and you will see a picture of JFK on the wall.

There are many, many, many Americans who loved her father and her family. Many people view the Kennedy's as America's royal family. I totally understand why some people do not like that idea. But I also totally understand why some people do.

[WinkyDink]

74. Maybe Irish-Irish, but HERE? In 2008?

I guess my relatives and I are in the minority.

[stillcool]

18. I'm from New York...

I've lived in PA, MA, and Florida, and I meet New Yorkers everywhere. I would love for Caroline to move to MA and run for her Uncle's seat. There are actually some Democrats that appreciate the efforts that she has made through-out her lifetime to promote Democratic causes. That's why I vote for her Uncle too.

[Karenina]

23. No one OWES her anything

but many of us geezers hear her request to serve. We answered he father's call in myriad fashions. She has accomplished much while remaining out of the glare and raising her family. If she's rarin' to come out publically now with all she has garnered from experiences, we trust her motives. Call it "late blooming boomers."

[latebloomer]

52. That's me!

:D:

[paulk]

67. in other words

"noblesse oblige"?

[Number23]

33. I think I'm with you, Stl

If Caroline Kennedy is as qualified and accomplished as some say she is, then let her put her qualifications and accomplishments on the table and make her case for why she should be Senator. That would end all discussion.

[EFerrari]

34. Um, she is. To the governor of New York who is in charge of this nomination.

[Number23]

43. Ummm....that's not my point

My point is that she should make her case to the folks in NY, not just the governor. That would end all discussion.

[hlthe2b]

48. If appointed, she will have to stand for reelection--- first in 2010

and again in 2012. That's how it works. And, frankly most appointees do not win election when they first stand. Caroline, I strongly suspect would be the exception.

[Number23]

49. I understand that

Good grief. All I'm saying is that there is so much discussion over whether the woman is legitimately qualified or if she's banking on her name. To minimize or eliminate the issue completely, all she would have to do is pitch herself to the citizens of NY. That seems far more "democratic" to me anyway.

And my "good grief" is not necessarily directed at you but just the way that the most innocuous statements on DU somehow lead to a 15 post sub-thread. Didn't want you to think that was for you.

[sohndrsmith]

80. I think she's done a pretty good job of that... if you aren't aware of what

she's done and contributed to NY, my guess is you haven't done your homework. (not you specifically, but anyone who is still assuming she is just banking on name recognition)...

[onenote]

35. My best effort to explain:

As far as I'm concerned, the qualifications that I look for in a potential Democratic officeholder are (1) will they support the Democratic party agenda and (2) are they electable. If they meet those criteria, I consider what impact they are likely to have. HRC (who I supported in 2000 for the Senate, but not in 2008 for the presidency),met the first two criteria, as did, potentially, other possible Democratic candidates. However, as fine a person as Nita Lowey might be, she would not have had the same impact as a first time senator as HRC because, simply put, she didn't have the name or the connections. I view the appointment of Caroline Kennedy in much the same light. As was the case with HRC, other senators will seek out Caroline Kennedy if she is in the Senate and look for her support on legislation and in campaigning. And when you are trying to build and maintain Democratic majorities, that is an important consideration

[mwei924]

36. She's also close to Obama, who is riding high in popularity right now.

[happychatter]

37. it's not a reward it's a job - nt

[Honeycombe8]

39. She is as qualified as others on the short list. She has raised millions for NY schools.

Tell me....what qualifications did Hillary Clinton bring, when she became Senator of NY? Had she lived in NY for years? Had she raised millions of dollars to try to improve NY schools? No.

I think you are displaying some hostility for a family because they are wealthy. The Clintons are wealthy. The Obamas, to a lesser degree, are wealthy. MOST politicians are wealthy.

The question is: Why SHOULDN'T Caroline Kennedy be appointed Senator for her state?

[sohndrsmith]

81. ... as far as being a "native NYer" being born and living most of your life in NY must

qualify - not that THAT should be the decisive factor, obviously... but regarding residency, C. Kennedy is far more connected to the state than her predecessor... (I wince at the upcoming pummeling as a result of saying that). : )

[tledford]

40. Like you, I'm still waiting for a response that is logical and reasoned rather than emotional.

And I'm a 52-years old North Carolinian who actually remembers (both) assassinations and, as a seven-years-old, saw Lee Harvey Oswald shot on live television. Talk about making an impression!

Anyway, the simple fact is that Caroline Kennedy may not be the MOST qualified candidate for the Senate seat, but she is MORE qualified than many people already serving in the Senate. She is arguably as qualified as our (not lamented) dear Liddy, after all...

I live in North Carolina, however, and have no opinion on who the next Senator from New York should be -- thank God s/he'll be a Democrat, that's what's important.

[Number23]

44. I feel exactly the same way

I've heard about her bio and she seems impressive. She may not be the MOST qualified person, but she certainly seems to have SOME qualifications. And like you, I find it curious that many folks have responded to this question with emotion and not sound logic and facts.

[hlthe2b]

51. Ok.. here is a dispassionate and unemotional--logical

discussion. Paterson doesn't want to risk losing this seat to a Republican when his appointee has to stand, first in 2010 and two years later in 2012. He needs someone with statewide name recognition, acceptance, prestige, and the ability to raise major cash for these two upcoming elections. He's going to have to focus on his own election.

Historically appointees rarely are elected/reelected when they run... They have a boost certainly from short term incumbancy, but it is not the same as a long term Senate holder. Lawrence O'Donnell probably makes the case best. From his recent posting on HuffPO:

Paterson's choice will have to run for the seat in the next election in order to earn the right to complete Clinton's term, then run again two years later to earn a new full six-year term. The worst thing the governor could do is appoint an obscure member of Congress who promptly loses the seat to the opposing party--exactly what happened the last time a New York governor appointed a senator. Andrew Cuomo is a good bet to win those two elections, but Caroline Kennedy is a better bet. And every other name that has been floated is a risky bet.

Cuomo would be shaking the same New York money tree that Paterson is counting on for his own campaign in 2010. Caroline could tap Kennedy fundraising sources and Obama money sources who are forever grateful for her endorsement and leave more of the New York money tree to Paterson and the rest of the New York Democrats who need it. Kennedy's fundraising power extends far beyond her own campaign. Upon taking the oath of office, she would instantly become the second most sought after headliner for Democratic candidates' fundraisers. If a senator couldn't get Barack Obama to come to his fundraiser, he would beg Caroline Kennedy to do it. This would give her more power in the Senate than any other freshman. Committee chairmen would give her goodies for New York not just because they like her--which they would--but because she could raise serious money for their reelection campaigns. She would be the only freshman who, through fundraising and campaigning for senate candidates, could help push the Democrats up to 60 votes in the senate.

No one has ever been elected to the senate already knowing what he had to know to be a good senator. Caroline knows much more about New York than Hillary Clinton did when she decided to run for senate. Caroline is more prepared to be a senator than Bill Bradley was when he won his seat in New Jersey. Bradley, whose only adult activity prior to running for senate was playing basketball, turned out be an exceptionally good senator. And Caroline is much older, wiser, and better prepared for the job than her Uncle Ted was when he joined the senate.


more:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/caroline-has-what-it-take_b_149684.html

[hlthe2b]

41. the answer for me lies in the term "noblesse oblige"

While many prominent wealthy families in this country have a sense of entitlement simply because of their birth (e.g., Bushes*), the Kennedys have managed to a very large degree to transcend that. Those of us who have known the Kennedy's since the tragic, but bright lights of John and Bobby through Teddy and Eunice Shriver through two more generations, from Bobby JR, Caroline, Kathleen, and others down to their adult children, have seen not simple entitlement, but noblesse oblige. In its original form this implies, "from those to whom much is given, much is expected." While we all have reason to have become more cynical, this is actually a concept that the Kennedys themselves have embraced. It dates back to ancient times-- used to summarize a moral economy wherein privilege must be balanced by duty towards those who lack such privilege or who cannot perform such duty. In today's parlance, it implies significant responsibility among the privileged to use their power and wealth to help the world at large. Like him or not, Bill and Melinda Gates have embraced that concept. So too, had Ted Turner. It is a harkening back to the active work and philanthropy of times past.

Caroline has embraced that concept. That's why I can not simply discount her as a mere legacy appointment. I would bet everything I have that this very intelligent, principled, articulate woman wants to take the position for ALL THE RIGHT REASONS. She doesn't need the position, after all--at all. And, yes, I think she is qualified.


Having said that, I realize (as do several others I suspect) that her assuming this Senate seat, might actually close a final door on Hillary Clinton's future ambitions. I'm guessing, for at least a few people, that that may be flavoring the discussion.

[WinkyDink]

42. You had to be there, and of a certain age, also. IOW, shaped by the 60's.

[ShortnFiery]

60. I was there in the 60s and I still don't get "the celebrity" - that's how CA got Arnold.

The Kennedys are no better than any other hardworking family line in the USA, they just get more credit because they're filthy rich and share "some of it." Well, BFD. The Kennedys are nothing special and "Camelot" is a FANTASY. It's time to wake up from the ether. :shrug:

[digidigido]

66. Your ignorance is showing if you think Caroline and Arnold have anything in

common other then Maria Schriver

[WinkyDink]

71. Yes, an assassinated President, assassinated Senator on his way, a KIA WWII brother, an

Ambassador father, and a (Liberal lion) Senator brother = "nothing special".

Hopeless.

[CTyankee]

45. She has distinguished herself throughout her lifetime with grace and service.

She believes strongly in Obama's vision for this country and is offering service to her country. She doesn't have to do this. She feels she can help, she can serve, she can be useful to get Obama's vision enacted legislatively. She has never sought political power before. Only now, when she has been asked, she said she would serve.

Why do you now doubt Obama's judgment? He is the last person to want any kind of dynasty or monarch in this country, yet he is asking her to please, please step up and serve. If you supported Barack Obama with your vote, you should support him with his choice of Caroline Kennedy to be next Senator from New YOrk.

You should be glad we have such people as Caroline Kennedy!

[tabbycat31]

50. I've pretty much stayed out of this

and I will admit that I have incredibly selfish reasons to want Caroline to be appointed Senator. I'm not in NY anymore, but I am from NY and my parents still live there, and both of them would vote for her in a second. I am 28 years old, so I was not around during the Kennedy administration (my parents were children then). I've only read about the allure in history books, and I've witnessed it from my parents still years later. They (particularly my mother) liked the family so much that they decided to name their firstborn (me) after a Kennedy (Caroline). So my selfish reason for wanting her in the Senate is that I'm named after her, and maybe it would mean people would learn how to correctly prouounce Caroline.

Looking at her resume, she's no less qualified than many others in the Senate. she may not have that much direct experience in politics, but it's in her blood. I could imagine that every Thanksgiving and Christmas dinner, politics is discussed at large. She would also not be the only senator to be there on a family name. Besides being a family member of a president, what political experience did Hillary Clinton bring to the Senate? Caroline Kennedy at least has ties to New York.

I can also think of another reason. Senior Citizens generally vote Republican (as a demographic, 65+ is the only age demographic won nationwide by John McCain this year). They are the ones who would remember Caroline as a young child (correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Caroline and John Jr were the youngest kids to live in the White House). Maybe if they see her as an effective Senator, then it would turn seniors blue.

[jberryhill]

53. JFK got us into Vietnam, which in turn gave us older folk a hobby for life /nt

[WinkyDink]

72. Try Eisenhower. JFK continued the policies, but the context was the non-win in Korea and only 15 yrs

post-WWII.

[jberryhill]

87. Relax.... it wasn't a serious comment /nt

[mmonk]

54. This 52 year old North Carolinian wants you to explain your opposition

to her. Tell me how she is not qualified as in relationship to others who may want to serve in the seat or what factual information you may have against her.

[anigbrowl]

58. Fail. There was no opposition expressed in the OP, just a lack of comprehension

The OP asks a perfectly legitimate question.

[Lex]

68. There was certainly opposition expressed

in the way the whole "I just don't get . . . " was couched.

[anigbrowl]

82. Uhuh.

:eyes:

[Lex]

89. Genius.

Your points are hard to refute.

[mmonk]

88. Would that question be asked of another well known person?

[anigbrowl]

90. Surely, if they had no political background.

(as in running for office)

[xenussister]

62. Anything to piss off right wingers is ok by me

And her appointment will piss them off something fierce. None of the other candidates would do that. She'll make a great senator, and will almost certainly be re-elected for decades, ensuring that no conservative will ever get their nasty mitts on that spot.

[Jennicut]

63. I am glad Kennedy won over Nixon that is for sure. Too bad Tricky Dick had to come back.

JFK and RFK are more legends and icons then real people. They had many negative parts to their policies and personalities but they did succeed and giving people hope when people needed it. With Senate appts, I say lets avoid this in the future and just have a special election but only with two people from the party that was in office before. Then let them just fill out the rest of the previous person's term and be up for reelection again. Too much back and forth over who should be Senator for all 3 of these seats, NY, IL, and DE. Biden has a placeholder which is not a bad way to go. There will be an election in 2 years to fairly decide who will be their Senator. Caroline seems okay to me, I am not in love with her or dislike her. She is an intelligent woman. Maybe does not have tons of experience but she has been involved in politics her whole life, Who knows how to get things done with people better then children of Presidents? Plus, I am in CT and we are next door to NY and MASS and we liberal New Englanders like their Kennedys. Its embedded in us at an early age! I am 32 and have always liked the Kennedys.

[zulchzulu]

65. Check out these YouTubes:

1963:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gOqkbHrD488

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ybJXAsum9lM

2008;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWMNBnb0_gw

[sohndrsmith]

70. I have no idea what the "phenomenon" is, but I'll tell you what I think:

I have no judgment on Caroline Kennedy simply because of her name, but since she is a strong supporter of the president I voted for - and since she has expressed interest in a Senate seat that is clearly not out of self-promotion or nothing more than a power-grab, I thought it worthwhile to look into her background as well as her reasons for seeking the position.

Make sense? I thought so. If someone disagrees, I'd love to know why...

I didn't know a lot about Caroline Kennedy other than her legacy as the daughter of JFK, and the fact that she was not a publicity seeker - basically, I knew she was a mom. But that doesn't cut it as far as being equipped for a Senate position (actually, being a mom is much harder and more demanding, guessing from experience with being one), so I started researching Ms. Kennedy to see what she was all about.

What I found was a gleaming, honorable resume, with qualifications that went far beyond (or at minimum - equaled) those who have sought and won (by election or appointment) a Senate seat. So then what? What makes her wrong? Or right?

What I find most indicative of Kennedy being the right person for this position is her reason. She is not a life-long politician. She does not live and breathe being in the limelight. She is here now, making it known that she wants the position because of the inspiration that she felt from a once-in-a-lifetime leader, namely, Barack Obama, President-Elect. It is a calling for her, not a political stepping stone. For that reason, among many, I find her inordinately qualified regardless of her name or supposed legacy. This is not about opportunistic self-glorification, which sometimes the seeking of political appointment or election is. Ms. Kennedy has said herself that she wants to be involved because what she sees in this new administration has inspired her like nothing else has since the death of her father and the hope that died with him.

These are the things that I see in this situation, wrong or right... I think Caroline Kennedy's reason for seeking the Senate seat is incomparable... what better reason is there?

She believes and is inspired.

And she's qualified.

Is there a problem with that?

[WinkyDink]

75. We don't "owe" CK, but to say "tragedies strike most people's families" as if it compares to

TWO ASSASSINATIONS is, IMO, wrong.

I don't think "most...families" DO experience "tragedies", and I mean that in the common sense (just because people die as a part of life doesn't = "tragedies") and the Aristotelian.

[Life Long Dem]

77. Because it's such a phenomenon!!

Just don't ask me to explain your wording.

[eshfemme]

83. Eh, I'm from New York but I'm 24 years old and I don't understand either.

I don't have the romanticism about the Kennedys that most people older seem to have either but at the same time the Clintons invite all sorts of drama that just tire me out. At this point, I don't care anymore as long as there is no more drama.

[FlaGranny]

84. I would assume that

it is because she is a liberal.

[harun]

85. Being wealthy and still devoting time to public service is something

to be commended. Her families politics of fighting for the rights and dignity of those without the resources to fight is what I am attracted to. There are many Senators on the right who have big money and use their time in the Senate to help make the rich, well... much more rich. She also did a good job on Obama's team to pick Biden and is loyal to Obama. Corporations would have a hard time buying her.

So yes lots of people for the job, and she is one I can say I would trust.