I like a lot of what Slothman8888 has to say, and I think this post brings up several pretty key points. I don't agree with everything, but on balance, I thought this was a pretty well presented argument against Caroline Kennedy taking over Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.
posted by slothman8888
Mon, 12/08/2008 - 3:27pm
I've noticed there has been a lot of press recently, a lot of speculation about who will be tapped to replace Senator Hillary Clinton when she heads south to take over the Department of State. And as speculation goes, besides a smattering of usual suspects, I found this interesting:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12...
Caroline Kennedy? Caroline, as in, JFK's daughter?
You know, don't get Slothman wrong: I DO like Caroline Kennedy as much as the next voter. And she has a really varied, eclectic background as well. She's been an intern, she's been an attorney, she's been an author, she's been a philanthropist, and she's headed an initiative for the NY Department of Education. But is that enough to be the United States Senator from New York? Is it enough to represent Wall Street, itself being hit hardest by the worst economic period in almost a century?
I do not think so.
If this were a general election year, then it'd be up to the voters. And that is appropriate: it should be up to us voters to determine whether - sorry to say it - these somewhat thin political credentials qualify her to take over one of the most visible seats in the Senate.
Now, I know another commentator has suggested that if Gov. Patterson selects someone with fewer kilowatts of name-recognition and celebrity standing, that the GOP would go heavily against them and maybe turn the seat in 2010:
http://www.r8ny.com/blog/rwall...
I think the commentator is on to something, alright. But what is needed is not celebrity - what is needed is experience to hold the fort.
Look at this election year. In a brutal economy and against an erstwhile campaign (as John McCain's was), those arguments were not enough to sway the voters against Obama. But, let's imagine we are 2 years down the road. What if Obama has had a few slip-ups, as often happens when a party returns to power after an absence (recall the Health Care Defeat of 1994 for Clinton). Worse yet, what if the economy hasn't turned around markedly, as many are now predicting? I think in that kind of environment, Kennedy's inexperience would become a substantial obstacle for her actually winning election. And you only need to look at this historic General Election to see why.
If the economy had not tanked spectacularly, and if his opponent had not been so inept, does anyone think the McCain-Obama race would not have been closer - or dare I say it, that McCain might actually have won?
Facts are facts: the question over experience was the single greatest challenge to Obama this season, played out over, and over, and over, and over again in countless campaign statements and commercials. That is because for ANY politician, the question of experience is one you have to address.
So back to 2010 ...
If the economy doesn't turn around despite the Democrats' best efforts, that means in 2 years' time we'll have an already weak Senate candidate for the Democrats being lashed mercilessly by what would likely be a resurgent GOP. Because face it, that is what happens in Mid-Term Elections - it is no time to have your B- or C-String Players in the game.
I strongly believe Caroline Kennedy would land in an unenviable position. She will have 2 years during which she is going to have to spend virtually all of her time trying to focus on two finish lines - torn between trying to represent the people of NY and all those financial services professionals being let go in the worst economic climate since the Great Depression, and between campaigning and trying to grease the right palms so she can stay in power in 2010.
Making that more complicated is the fact that as a freshman Senator in an elite club of 100 egomaniacs, Kennedy won't get a free pass. They are not just going to let her waltz in and take the spotlight. Even Hillary Clinton had to put in her dues, and it took a helluva lot longer than 1 or 2 years.
You know, when Hillary first ran in 2000, a lot of these same criticisms were thrown around then. She was called an usurper. She was derided for moving to NY solely out of political expedience. The skeletons in her closet were again trotted out. Her credentials were challenged by the Right AND Left. It was argued that being First Lady and sleeping next to a President in NO WAY qualifies you to represent one of the biggest, wealthiest, and most important of the United States.
Yet despite all that - she was elected. And why?
Because the people chose her. The people - in one resounding voice - asserted that despite the risks, despite the doubts, she would do a good job for the people of the State of NY. And I think most would agree that she has.
But we're talking about a different situation here. We are talking about appointing a political novice to an extremely powerful Senate seat. Or more appropriately, a Governor who himself was not directly elected Governor being asked to appoint someone who has NEVER held elected office to one of the most powerful Senate seats there is?
I don't even see why this is a possibility.
And frankly, I don't care what your pedigree is, Kennedy or otherwise. Working for MOMA does NOT qualify you to fight in Washington for NY's social spending budget. Working for the State Department of Education does NOT prepare you for international affairs involving the United States and its allies (and enemies) abroad. Interning for Ted Kennedy does NOT give you some deep understanding of the back-room deals that are needed to win compromises and pass progressive legislation. I'm sorry, but they just aren't, period.
Hillary Clinton had way more experience, particularly in the realm of foreign affairs, than Caroline Kennedy does. And what that means is that for 2 years, NY will wind up with a lesser degree of representation and power in Congress. Furthermore, Kennedy has no exploitable network, no connections in Congress, and of course, no practical, intimate knowledge of how Congress actually works.
NY doesn't need an armchair politician with ambitions way above her experience. And Obama doesn't need an untested candidate representing Wall Street on the national scene, not while the good and decent workers of Wall Street are suffering (the CEOs and shady traders can go rot ;) ).
It would be as if Barack Obama launched his Presidential bid while still a State Senator. All of a sudden, at this point in her life, Caroline Kennedy wants to take up the family profession? I applaud that - I applaud anyone who willingly takes on the responsibilities of public service. But, why not the State House? Why not working her way up locally? Why does she need to shoot for the National stage? And more importantly, what "right" does she have to an unelected position anyway?
My biggest concern is that I feel that the US Senate has grown too accustomed to having a "Senator Kennedy." Given that Ted Kennedy has been, by all accounts in the media, ailing since the diagnosis of brain cancer, I hope this is not somehow expected to be a ceremonial passing of the torch from one Kennedy to another. We've seen how badly that can go, when you fall into thinking that a son or relative is somehow entitled to a position: George W. Bush.
I am all for improving women's representation in both the House and the Senate. But we should be picking good representatives regardless of their gender, not because of it. And I personally believe there are way better women out there who could do the job, and do it well. I know there's been a lot of press around Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney for instance, and I think she'd be a great pick for NY - as she's someone who understands the plight on Wall Street and can speak articulately for its workers in 2008 AND 2010.
It's time for America to break free of this sense of entitlement. Clinton, Bush, Kennedy - they are just names, and names have nothing to do with ability. NY needs someone strong to come in who understands national politics, who understands how government works from the inside-out, and who has the guts to take the torch from Hillary Clinton and carry on her good work. Caroline Kennedy has nothing in her career to show she could do that. Maybe someday, when she cuts her teeth on local issues. But not now.
When she ascends to the title of Senator Caroline Kennedy, it should be because she knows what it takes to represent the State of New York - not because of her last name.
