In Defense of Caroline Kennedy

[mmonk]

Ever since it was learned that Caroline Kennedy inquired about the Senate seat vacated due to Senator Clinton's appointment to the Obama administration, many have had their say on the issue and what they have had to say is mainly a disparaging caricature of Caroline's inquiry. Suddenly, a famous name and wealth deems one unfit where previously, it was a positive in the name of Hillary Clinton. Suddenly some were concerned about being represented by a native New York City dweller (not representative of the whole state) when previously, not even being in New York state was of no concern. And finally, the caricature of an empty suit unfairly possibly getting a seat she didn't earn (a free one) was born though whomever is appointed will not have gone through an election process either (never mind the hypocrisy of the argument) in order to fill out the term.

Well let's take a look at her and see if she has qualifications or is an empty vessel of star power. She is daughter of a popular former president and the member of a political family (nepotism you want to scream or does this mean in some bizarre way a disqualification?). She is an author and an attorney (and member of the bar of New York and D.C.) which is hardly a disqualification given how many there are in office. She is a co-founder of the Profiles in Courage Award given annually to persons that exemplify courage in the face of obstacles in keeping with her father's book (is this supposed to be akin to ribbon cutting?). She has raised private money for NY City Public Schools (just a $65 million bake sale or is there more to it?) to ease the money crunch. She is also President of the Kennedy Library Foundation, a director on the Commission on Presidential Debates, the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and an adivisor to the Harvard Institute of Politics (is this as much of an experienced background as pest control or owning a baseball team?). It doesn't sound as if she is an empty suit to the average ear.

Caroline might even be better qualified than most elected Democrats already serving. What's that you say? Well let's look at two books she co-authored with Ellen Alderman, In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action and The Right to Privacy. It seems she understands the Constitution and the Bill of Rights which would be a big improvement over the many Democrats that allowed and even voted for violations of these rights by the Bush Administration and now refuse to discuss accountability. That would be a Democrat that I would prefer to the weak kneed ones in both Houses of Congress we have had to endure recently. And in this age of governance by think tanks, corporate interests and the revolving door of self enrichment when many leave office and lobby, there would be no inclinations of temptation of this for her given her status. But what she would bring in addition is a desire of public service for the common good. If we are to bring change, it will be through persons such as her that have soundness of soul and rightness of mind.

[mwei924]

1. Liberal Democrat who could keep that seat forever if she wanted.

That's all.

ZERO risk of losing it to a Republican.

[Phx_Dem]

2. Excellent post.

:fistbump:

[mmonk]

42. Thanks

:fistbump:

[NashVegas]

3. One of the Things That Bothers Me About the "She's Inexperienced" Arguments

Rahm Emanuel was talking Republican businessmen into switching parties to run as Dems for Congress, and he backed them against progressive Dems who were pressured to get out of their races.

So, the "inexperienced," arguments or even Cali's "she should have to run for it" argument aren't grounded in the reality that we have seen repeated over and over: if the party is prepared to back someone in particular, there's not a whole lot us little people have to say about it.

If Obama and Rahm want her in that seat, she's going to be in it.

[OneBlueSky]

10. when it comes to politics, "she's inexperienced" is an asset . . .

if appointed, she will be one of a very few senators (possibly the only one) who isn't beholden to special interests and/or in the back pocket of some corporation or industry . . .

that fact that she's not an experienced politician is, in my view, and asset . . . I've seen how experienced politicians behave, and for the most part it disgusts me . . .

[Cha]

4. Rec'd this Awesome post! There are many here

who see Caroline Kennedy in this light, too, thankfully:fistbump:

[mmonk]

43. You're too kind. I sure hope so.

:fistbump:

[AtomicKitten]

5. HuffPost: "Caroline Kennedy Turning the Tide of Skeptics"

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/16/kennedy-begins-to-turn-th_n_151551.html

[xenussister]

6. (Glad I'm) Not a Kennedy (song)

I can't start a thread and I wanted to put this somewhere where Kennedy family fans might see it. I love this 1987 song by Shona Laing, a New Zealand artist. It was written long before JFK Jr.'s death too. I always cry when I hear the snippets from JFK's speech.

Here's the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7a6hu6Z7Pkg

Here are the lyrics:
http://www.suspended-in-gaffa.com/SIG_07/kennedy.html


(Glad I'm) Not A Kennedy

Shona Laing

Living on through politics
Body-guarded, heart in bits
A blue-eyed honesty
Indigo injury
The family tree is felled
Bereavement worn so well
Giving up on certainty
Wilderness society

Wearing the fame like a loaded gun
Tied up with a rosary
Ooh I'm glad I'm not a Kennedy

Imagine being a Kennedy
Rule without remedy
To watch your family die
The world loves a sacrifice
Prophets longing for the three
Honouring the tragedy
They hunger for the crime
The privilege to take a life

Wearing the fame like a loaded gun
Tied up with a rosary
Oooh I'm glad I'm not a Kennedy
Glad I'm not a Kennedy

...and is not peace basically
A matter of human rights?
The right to live out our lives
Without fear of devastation?
The right to breathe air
As nature provided it?
The right of future generations
To a healthy existence?
Let us if we can step back from
The shadows of war and seek out
The way of peace...

I love the look in your eyes
I can see your soul sometimes and we laugh
When we try too hard we stop and start
Oh imagine being a Kennedy
I'm glad I'm not a Kennedy

Wearing the fame like a loaded gun
Tied up with a rosary
I'm glad I'm not a Kennedy

Imagine being a Kennedy
Ooh I'm glad I'm not a Kennedy

...the cost of freedom is always high,
Yet one path we shall never choose
- that is the path of surrender or submission.
When a man's way please the lord,
The scriptures tell us,
He maketh even his enemies
To be at peace with himself.
We will not prematurely or unnecessarily
Risk the course of worldwide nuclear war
In which even the fruits of victory
Would be ashes in our mouths
Ashes in our mouths...
Ashes in our mouths...
Ashes in our mouths...

(Extracts from John F Kennedy speeches, 1962)

*sniff* People forget, or they don't care, what this family has sacrificed. That it itself doesn't qualify Caroline for any position, but that she still wants to serve America publically after all the hatred and death should tell anyone where her heart lies. With the country.

[mmonk]

11. I'll never forget. Thanks.

[boppers]

7. I wasn't impressed by Palin's list of "qualifications", either.

Maybe my ear's simply not average, or I expect more of political leaders.

Thanks for posting this, though, as it helps people to be more informed about their opinions.

[AllentownJake]

15. Comparing Palin to Kennedy is like Comparing Bush to Obama (EOM)

[CTyankee]

16. I'd like to know the qualifications you would want that CSK doesn't have.

Really, I would.

I can think of one: extensive wheeling and dealing with other pols. That's one she doesn't have. To me that "lack" is much more of a qualification...

[HeraldSquare212]

29. So you would denigrate all elected officials?

Wheeling and dealing is what Obama is promising in saying he will work with the Republicans. That's not a bad thing: that's the point of politics. And that's the qualification I would like to see that she doesn't have: a history of serving in elected office.

[CTyankee]

30. OK, so if you lived in Minnesota you would have voted for Norm Coleman

and not Al Franken, right?

[HeraldSquare212]

31. That was an election, this is an appointment. Big difference.

[CTyankee]

33. Well, if they are qualified for an election then they should be qualified for an appointment.

We're talking about the qualifications to serve in the office aren't we?

[HeraldSquare212]

34. You know how people get qualified for election? They win an election.

[CTyankee]

35. So no person who has not been in elected office should ever be considered for

an appointment to office? On that basis, I presume you are in favor of not allowing a governor to appoint a state's U.S. Senator if the appointee hasn't been elected to anything, right?
If you do favor that, then fine. But right now we have a process which does not specify such a qualification. I imagine it would require an amendment to the U.S. Constitution to do so. Here is the text of the amendment:

Seventeenth Amendment - Popular Election of Senators


Amendment Text | Annotations
Clause 1. The Senate of the United States shall be composed of two Senators from each State, elected by the people thereof, for six years; and each Senator shall have one vote. The electors in each State shall have the qualifications requisite for electors of the most numerous branch of the State legislatures.

Clause 2. When vacancies happen in the representation of any State in the Senate, the executive authority of each State shall issue writs of election to fill such vacancies: Provided That the legislature of any State may empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct.

Clause 3. This amendment shall not be so construed as to affect the election or term of any Senator chosen before it becomes valid as part of the Constitution.

[HeraldSquare212]

36. I do believe prior elective office should be a requirement.

Someone should at least show they can get people to vote for them before they get appointed to one of the highest offices in the nation.

[CTyankee]

37. OK, start the amendment process. I'm glad to hear that yours is such a principled

stand. I'm not being flippant here, I'm very serious.

I'm no constitutional scholar but my guess is that, minus a strong public sentiment against appointments of people who have not held public office, such a stipulating amendment will not happen. It would be interesting to learn about the legislative history of that amendment, whether there were congressional hearings, and if there was any debate on just this issue (hello google). For instance, it would be interesting to know whether it was discussed and if so, what were the reasons for deciding to let it go forward the way it is written.

Just off the top of my head, I would imagine that the public would oppose your restriction because they would feel it is undemocratic. There are and have always been (going back to 6th century Athens) problems with democracy.

I didn't mean to write a doctoral thesis here but it is an interesting discussion!

[HeraldSquare212]

38. It doesn't have to be a law, just a matter of good judgment.

No one would have expected Obama to choose a previously unelected person as his VP nominee - I'm betting it's never been done. There's no prohibition in the Constitution on doing so, but everyone thinks it just makes sense to have someone who's put themselves before the judgment of the people before and prevailed.

[CTyankee]

40. The fact of the matter, however, is that it IS in the law.

I've been looking around in Google about the history of this amendment and found nothing about clause 2 ("Provided that...). If your sentiment had any significant support, I presume we would see it reflected somewhere inthe discussion of the amendment. This isn't to say that your stand does not have some merit. I do get your point. I'm just saying, think this through, do we need this restriction (self limiting if not by law)? Is it a good thing for our democratic process? Would we be better off by abiding with such a restriction?

A good debate...

[Muttocracy]

8. I agree that if people supported Hillary they shouldn't be skeptical of Caroline

but I and some others made the same arguments against Hillary as we do now about Caroline.

[Carolina]

9. K&R Thank you!

Caroline would be great with her "soundness of soul and rightness of mind." Great phrase and oh so true!:hi:

[mmonk]

12. Thank you

and you're welcome.

[cooolandrew]

13. Randi nailed it she has the same experience Hillary had in 2000 and is from NY.

[AllentownJake]

14. She's lived a life of public service

She's one of the good ones and I'm appalled at how some on here want to tear her down. She worked for and campaigned for the President Elect tirelessly since February and played the political game pretty well when it came to picking a VP. Not leaking anything nor pissing off all the people who wanted to give her their input.

Caroline could have lived a very different life with the assets she has. She could not care. I do not believe that she's seeking this appointment for herself but because she can use it to do good for the people of NY and this country as a whole. She has used her position to life to benefit others and that is why I like her and find her inspiring.

[Bake]

18. See, this is the thing that bothers me

People keep saying things like "a life of public service." No, she hasn't. She has lived a life safeguarding the Kennedy legacy. She's a lawyer. That's not a public office (unless you consider that chestnut about lawyers being "officers of the court").

Is she qualified? Maybe. The only qualifications I know of for Senate are age and residency. Would she be a good Senator? Possibly. I guess we'll have to wait and see. But people here are already talking about her for PRESIDENT, for cryin' out loud! PRESIDENT!! And while I'm at it, I'm a little tired of the "Sweet Caroline" moniker. Yeah, yeah, I know the story about that ... I'm just not particularly a Neil Diamond fan.

It's the OVERSTATEMENT of her resume by zealots that bothers me. And I LOVE the Kennedys. I still remember where I was when I heard that JFK had been assassinated.

Bake

[EFerrari]

19. I think that's very fair, Bake. n/t

[AllentownJake]

21. Public Service

She's never practiced law. She has given an enormous amount of time and energy to various causes that have nothing to do with the Kennedy name unless you consider the NY public schools and the NAACP legal defense fund Kennedy family name causes.

I'm not overstating her resume. What pisses me off is people understating it or failing to awknowledge that Caroline has done alot of good things in her life. Does she deserve a Senate Seat. I don't know however, she would like to be a Senator and there is a vacancy. She's doing nothing wrong by making her case.

[ellacott]

17. Most people here support Al Franken

He had no experience.

[SwampG8r]

20. you dont need to defend her

her cousin in law is the frigging terminator!

[mmonk]

23. What was that you said?

[SwampG8r]

24. those are the new ones

obviously designed by a sexist!

[mmonk]

25. Lena is Sarah Connor, John Connor's mother, not a terminator.

I plug Lena when I can. She will be directing a movie in 2010. (I know, off subject).

[PufPuf23]

22. Caroline is well-qualified, smart, and has soul.

I would gladly trade Feinstein for Caroline Kennedy as Senator from CA.

She just might turn out to be the best of the Kennedys.

[InAbLuEsTaTe]

26. Caroline needs no defending - she stands tall on her own and her detractors are just jealous . . .

as hell of her abilities and stature in life. Eff 'em.

[mmonk]

27. I agree.

Just voicing support. She will do great I have no doubt.

[HeraldSquare212]

28. Counterpoint

She raised $65 million for NY City schools: the annual budget for NYC schools is $21B, just to put that in perspective. Did she speak out on the fair funding lawsuit that took years of litigation and negotiation with the Governor (Pataki, originally) to get the same level of funding for city schools that suburban schools were getting?

She wrote a book on the Constitution: did she speak out against Bush's trashing of constitutional rights?

No temptation to trade on her office: but isn't she trading on her name? You have to admit, she wouldn't be under consideration if her name were Jones.

A lawyer? She's hardly ever practiced; in fact, her registration was lapsed and just reinstated last week.

[senaca]

32. The Patriot's Handbook came out when pressure was excurted to not say anything against the Pres.

This was after 9/11. She didn't have to speek out using her own words. What made it powerful was that it included words in the past in support of the right to protest. It pretty much had every legal act., and famous speech that was a step forward for Democracy. She couldn't have argued better against what was going on in the Bush Adm. if she tried. Look to her books and compilations to see where her ideals are. She has a keen sense of history and the ideals to want to attempt to emulate her father's Profiles in Courage. It's a weighty legacy to carry, but it's better to have someone there who wants to attempt to do her best for the people she represents than have someone who is in it for power.

[acmavm]

39. I don't understand why, or maybe I should say 'how', anyone can argue

that this woman is unqualified???? How many wives have taken over an office for their dearly departed hubby? A couple I believe (Sonny Bono's wife pops into mind). Hell, how qualified was Sonny Bono for anything by conventional standards? Or for friggin' sakes Ah-nold?

[CTyankee]

41. I don't know about Sonny's wife...just sayin'

n/t