I know I'm late weighing in on this, but let me say that Caroline Kennedy has no business being appointed to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. She may have done somewhat respectable charitable work in the private sector, but if her name weren't Kennedy, she wouldn't even be a footnote to anybody's afterthought in re: choosing the next New York senator. As Noam Scheiber (among others) points out, anyone endorsing the Camelot princess for the US Senate owes Sarah Palin a huge apology, inasmuch as the Alaska governor was far more qualified for the presidency than Caroline Kennedy is for the US Senate.
Yes, Palin backers more or less had to take refuge in the end in the fact that whatever her many shortcomings, at least she made the right enemies. Kennedy backers can only say for their candidate that she has the right name. But at least Palin actually won several elections, and had governing experience, first at the town level, and then as a state's chief executive. Caroline Kennedy can't hold a candle to that. But she is a Kennedy, and we know mindless Democratic atavism (worshiping the Kennedy family) is romantic and lovely, while mindless Republican atavism (worshiping anti-intellectual populism) is low-class and dumb. Ahem.
I'm just glad none of Ronald Reagan's children sought public office.
Add to Del.icio.us
Add to Technorati
Add to Digg
Add to Newsvine
Add to Facebook
Add to StumbleUpon
Subscribe
The reality is that, as with all dynasties throughout history, the fact that she is a member of a powerful family has given her specific tangible assets: familiarity with associating with powerful people; broad travel experience; all the fringe benefits of being upper class, such as education.
Doug -- not to be picky, but don't you mean "INtangible assets"? A tangible asset would be something like a house or a boat or money.
***
I guess the whole idea of Caroline Kennedy getting the Senate nod doesn't bother me as much as it does some people, and not just because I'm not from New York. After all, her family connections just get her foot in the door. She'd still have to perform, and would then accumulate a record on which she would be judged. Ted Kennedy's name and connections got his foot in the door, but then he turned out to be a very effective senator. (C'mon, even if you disagree with him, you have to admit he's been very effective for his constituency.) Same with Hillary Clinton -- after big-footing her way into the Senate race (as I characterized it in a previous post), she did in fact face the voters, and then, by all accounts, has worked very hard in the Senate and established a good reputation among her colleagues.
Maybe that's the real value of celebrity -- that, if nothing else, it can get your foot in the door or cause people to take a look at you when otherwise they wouldn't have.
***
We don't have endless discussions of every male who steps into a senatorial seat.
True, but when Ted Kennedy first ran for the Senate, he was accused to being an unqualified neophyte who was taken seriously as a candidate only because of his family connections.
Personally, I'm disappointed to think she'd get the appointment over other qualified candidates (women or men), but I would hope we will all accord her the respect and courtesy that she should have. The simple facts of how she lost her father in a rather traumatic way in service to this country, of how she has unquestionably conducted her public (and seemingly personal life) with a remarkable amount of poise and class given the spotlight and trappings of fame available to her, how she has used her name and her celebrity largely for the public interest and good, should command that respect and courtesy.
As someone who knows little about Ms. Kennedy, I find the conservative criticism of her shallow, juvenile, and unpersuasive. She's a Kennedy. Get over it. She worked on the boards of major non-profits. Good. Doing that well is hard. She hasn't run for office before. So? Are conservatives now fans of career politicians?
The criticism fails to even argue anything that would disqualify her.
Caroline Kennedy is seeking to be a freshman senator, not vice president to an aging president. Palin's own remarks and actions showed that she was shallow, uninformed, intellectually incurious, and personally vindictive. What specifically in Kennedy's background disqualifies her (other than your dislike for Kennedys generally)?
What qualifications do you have to have to be a Senator?
If you're going to compare Sarah to Caroline, my gut would tell me to go with Caroline, because she seems to have some brains. Of course, Sarah has mixed it up, won elections, and has political experience. Unfortunately, to me, the experience she's displayed does not impress me.
Bottom line: no one person should have the power to appoint a U.S. Senator. Just as House vacancies are decided by special election, Senate vacancies should be decided by special election.
Duh-sciple
It is truly amazing to me that even now the Palin haters are out in force with unsubstantiated criticism.
And Rod's still pissed that Sarah didn't take the summer after college and backpack around Europe.
'Lacking intellectual curiosity' what the heck is that? How do you even know? The interviews I've seen with Palin have shown plenty of engagement with issues that are of importance to her and the people of Alaskan and indeed to the United States. I have never seen any politician so well versed, with their head so in the right place, on energy policy as Palin. Even her so called gaffe about 'Putin rearing his head' showed about 100 times more, as they say in the military, situational awareness than any other politician I've seen . ( The Russians have been buzzing our West Coast , including Alaska, for about 4 years now, in a return to Cold War style games -- Google it!) No doubt she could have articulated that thought better, but at least she showed some knowledge of the real security situation , as it affected her immediate area of responsiblity. I have no doubt that if she were in charge of US security (Ojala!) she would be just as aware.
Post a Comment
By submitting these comments, I agree to the beliefnet.com terms of service, rules of conduct and privacy policy (the "agreements"). I understand and agree that any content I post is licensed to beliefnet.com and may be used by beliefnet.com in accordance with the agreements.