Caroline Kennedy Out

-

88403.jpgCaroline Kennedy is doing the right thing by withdrawing from her campaign to succeed Hillary Clinton in the US Senate.
Friends of hers and people that are part of the Ted Kennedy political franchise told me that her aspirations to be in the Senate had nothing to do with that job — but rather had a lot to do with positioning to succeed Barack Obama in 2016.
This was ultimately what Ted Kennedy wanted — but Caroline, appropriately in my view, would not have been suited for or prepared for that life.
Here was my earlier post on the subject encouraging Obama to avoid the train wreck of an embarrassing and aristocratically determined appointment by sending Caroline abroad to serve as an Ambassador in London, Paris, or elsewhere.
— Steve Clemons

Comments

34 comments on “Caroline Kennedy Out

  1. Steve Clemons says:

    Thanks for your speculation Kevin — but I’ll stick with my own and those close to Kennedy. Do some research and go talk to those close to the elder Ted. There are many who know him well and know how he thinks strategically. best, steve clemons

    Reply

  2. Kevin says:

    “Ted Kennedy thought Caroline Kennedy should become president? Really?”
    May I pose another possibility? The “Ted thought Caroline should become president” line is a pure invention of the millionaire chattering class that poses as journalists these days.
    It was as thrilling tale invented out of whole cloth and spread at the cocktail parties that Mr. Clemons so loves to frequent. Then it reaches print and broadcast, told over again so many times, without a shred of evidence to back it up, that it becomes the “truth.”
    I heard nothing to suggest that Caroline Kennedy had presidential ambitions, or than any member of the Kennedy family harbors such ambitions for any other member, Ted for Caroline included.
    It makes much more sense to me that Caroline might have been chosen only to keep the seat warm until the special election as a reward for her years of philantropic public service, with no intention of her seeking election. She has never really shown that kind of appetite for politics, and all the sleep-depriving, keister-kissing, fund-raising, rubber chicken eating, bare knuckle brawling work that goes with it.
    Paterson decided to go in a different direction, appointing a hard-nosed politician who is likely to keep the seat.

    Reply

  3. Dan Kervick says:

    Well, now, based on first impressions this seems like a solid pick. As I listened to the news reports on this New York seat this morning, what really stood out for me was the fact that the seat has to be defended almost right away, in the 2010 election year.
    I think the signal failure of Kennedy’s bid was her inability during the vetting process to display *any* of the skills required for a successful campaigner. She was looking like a dead-in-the-water Republican target for 2010.
    The fact that Gillebrand is supposed to be a very talented and tough-as-nails campaigner is very welcome news, including the fact that she faced down and defeated a four-term Republican congressman in a bitterly fought election.
    Ideologically, New York could have hoped for better. It’s a mixed bag, but she definitely inclines to the Democratic right. Gillebrand’s challenge will be to emerge quickly from her rural district with its Blue Dog sensibilities, and try to represent all New Yorkers. If she can move to the party’s center, she can probably become a rising star.
    In some ways, she seems like a a Democratic answer to Sarah Palin. Worked right up to the day she gave birth. Take that Caribou Barbie! But unlike Palin, Gillebrand is a Dartmouth Magna cun Laude graduate.

    Reply

  4. rich says:

    questions @ 6:29PM –
    “mass transit needs to be thought through carefully given how we use land at this point. Putting train systems in where a)people are scattered, b)land is parceled and difficult to package up c)people don’t have a “train sensibility d)local corruption and cost overruns are unmanageable”
    Great comment/question as these things need to be thought through.
    My biggest concern about transportation funding in the stimulus package is defaulting to highway spending as the price of getting something done. Simply because that’s the way it’s always been done.
    That’s a huge mistake–one that Corzine virtually leapt to make, using the recession as an excuse to muscle through a controversial highway bill. He could have done the same thing by expanding light rail in Newarwk (where none of the objections you raise exist)–with much greater payoff. Certain .. interests .. get first in line.
    Funding highway projects just digs us deeper into the hole. Worse, it misses an incredible opportunity to reap gains on multiple levels. Killing not two, but five+ birds with one stone.
    Highways eat up land, undermine our cities–and their economies, structure in higher fuel volumes necessary to run the overall regional-national metabolism, prevent thrift, increase emissions and runoff, and feed sprawl.
    Worse, highways run counter to sharp alterations in market trends. Turns out housing + transportation costs are 54% of hh budgets in outer suburbs, but only ~45% for city dwellers–leading to a sea-change in market values. Add in the mortgage crisis and spiking demand for urban amenities, and it’s an open question whether there’s any real demand for many of these highway projects at all. cnt.org
    We need mass transit–esp high-speed rail–to compete (at all) in the global economy. Right now America’s a third-world nation on transportation infrastructure, inefficient, slow, and behind the times.
    re “readiness” — transportation determines land use because people will use what’s there. Build light rail–and you get a building boom and revitalized neighborhoods within months. That’s happened all over the country –minneapolis, nj, houston, chicago, dallas, charlotte. Increases in tax base due to development projects near rail stations in charlotte alone is nearing $1 billion:
    “The estimated tax value of developments within the South Corridor is now in excess of $550 million. Property values in the South End Historic District area of the line increased 89 percent between 2001 and 2004, from $233 million to $442 million.”
    Same story in Dallas. Mass transit multiplies value and revitalizes cities — whereas highways spread out existing economic activity, without necessarily adding more. (Andrew Houghwout & Marlon Boarnet) Proximity matters.
    Bottom line: build a working, integrated system that re-creates the city as organism–and generate economic activity. Build highways, and you disarticulate that system, and make it more difficult, costly, and time-consuming for businessmen and workers to meet, conduct meetings, deliver services and create value. That doesn’t mean we don’t need highways–just that we’ve already got ’em.

    Reply

  5. WigWag says:

    Paterson Picks Gillibrand for Senate
    NY Times (By DANNY HAKIM and NICHOLAS CONFESSORE
    Published: January 23, 2009)
    ALBANY — Gov. David A. Paterson has selected Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, a 42-year-old congresswoman from upstate who is known for bold political moves and centrist policy positions, to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a person who spoke to the governor early Friday.
    The governor will announce his selection at noon in Albany. An aide to Ms. Gillibrand confirmed that she had accepted the appointment.
    Ms. Gillibrand is largely unknown to New Yorkers statewide, but is considered an up-and-coming and forceful lawmaker in her district and has gained considerable attention from Democratic leaders in Washington.
    Mr. Paterson made his final decision shortly before 2 a.m. Friday after a marathon series of phone calls and deliberations with his top aides, according to the person who spoke to him. He began making phone calls to other contenders about 9 p.m., and had notified most of the other contenders by midnight. By then, the only two candidates who had not heard from Mr. Paterson were Ms. Gillibrand and Randi Weingarten, the president of the United Federation of Teachers.
    One of Mr. Paterson’s preferences had been to select a woman to replace Mrs. Clinton.
    The governor continued to deliberate and discuss the matter with his advisers — despite earlier reports that he had settled on Ms. Gillibrand — until he made his decision, according to the person who talked to him. He then called Ms. Gillibrand, who had earlier in the evening been told to come to Albany to await an announcement, to let her know she was his pick.
    If Mr. Paterson was hoping to quiet the tumult over the selection process by picking Ms. Gillibrand, there were indications that he may not get his wish. Ms. Gillibrand, who has been endorsed by the National Rifle Association, is controversial among some of the party’s more liberal leaders downstate.
    Representative Carolyn McCarthy, a Long Island Democrat and ardent gun control activist, said Thursday that if Ms. Gillibrand got the job, she was prepared to run against her in a primary in 2010. Ms. McCarthy was elected to Congress after her husband was killed in a gunman’s rampage on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993.
    Ms. Gillibrand’s selection was a careful political calculation by the governor, who will run for his second term as governor in 2010, when Ms. Gillibrand will also be on the ballot. The choice reflects Mr. Paterson’s thinking that his selection should be someone who can help him attract key demographics — in Ms. Gillibrand’s case upstate New Yorkers and women.
    Ms. Gillibrand, who lives near Hudson, N.Y., just outside of Albany, with her husband, Jonathan Gillibrand, a financial consultant, and their sons, Theodore, who is 5, and Henry, who is 6 months old. (Ms. Gillibrand received a standing ovation on the floor of the House from her colleagues for working right up to the day she gave birth to Henry.)
    Ms. Gillibrand, who had never held public office, won her seat in 2006 against great odds, defeating a four-term Republican incumbent in a race that turned intense and nasty in its final days.
    She proved to be a formidable candidate, raising millions of dollars and assembling a campaign organization that aggressively exploited the personal and political baggage of her opponent, Representative John E. Sweeney, who frequently found himself on the defensive.
    Just before the election, for example, the Sweeney camp accused Ms. Gillibrand of being behind a published report that the police had been called to the congressman’s home during a domestic disturbance. Mr. Sweeney even ran a television spot in which his wife, Gayle Sweeney, spoke of how his rival was attempting to “slander my marriage, husband and family.”
    Mr. Sweeney eventually admitted that the police had been called to his home. In the end, Ms. Gillibrand won with 53 percent of the vote.
    The news of Ms. Gillibrand’s appointment followed a day of anonymous and often bitter sniping over Caroline Kennedy’s mystifying departure from the Senate field.
    Because the governor has often contradicted his own comments about the Senate pick in the course of a single day, no one in the capital appeared ready to say for certain who the new senator would be. Ms. Gillibrand’s was the name most frequently mentioned, though other candidates, including Ms. Weingarten and Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, were not ruled out.
    The governor’s announcement on Friday is unlikely to immediately undo the public relations damage over the collapse of Ms. Kennedy’s candidacy or put to rest criticism that the governor had lost control of the selection process.
    There was incredulity in Democratic circles on Thursday afternoon after the governor’s camp engaged in a ferocious public back-and-forth with Ms. Kennedy’s side, reaching out to numerous news organizations to disparage her qualifications; one person close to the governor said that her candidacy had been derailed by problems involving taxes and a household employee, but declined to provide details.
    That account was at odds with Ms. Kennedy’s own description of her reasons for withdrawing. While not denying that issues had arisen, aides to Ms. Kennedy played down their significance, saying they had been aired out in discussions between the Paterson and Kennedy camps over the last two weeks and were not considered by either side to be disqualifying.
    Ms. Kennedy’s only tax issue on the public record appeared to be a $615 city tax lien that she settled in 1994, a minuscule amount for a multimillionaire.
    The person close to the governor also said emphatically that Mr. Paterson “never had any intention of picking Kennedy” because he had come to consider her unready for the job.

    Reply

  6. chopper says:

    Seems like Caroline Kennedy would of made a good Senator in every capacity except needing to be a public person.
    She has a good intellect and is well-versed in certain policy areas.
    That’s a hell of a lot more than some Senators.

    Reply

  7. Steve Clemons says:

    For the record, I think Caroline Kennedy is quite honorable and
    impressive on many levels. I don’t think she would have been the
    best choice to succeed Hillary — but I think she’s impressive on
    many fronts. i don’t like the disparaging comments about her.
    best, steve clemons

    Reply

  8. roger says:

    According to what I hear, she has a shady past…

    Reply

  9. quetions says:

    And a bit more — mass transit needs to be thought through carefully given how we use land at this point. Putting train systems in where a)people are scattered, b)land is parceled and difficult to package up c)people don’t have a “train sensibility” d)local corruption and cost overruns are unmanageable –might not be the best version of transit. (I think rich is the person to comment on this though, since he’s an urban planner near as I can tell.)
    Bus systems go where there are already roads, so maybe developing pleasant buses is worthwhile. But this isn’t a building project and so won’t creat large numbers of jobs.
    Cross-country rail is not likely ever to replace cross-country flying here because of the distances involved. Inter-city rail between linked cities is helpful, but again has land-grab issues and cost-effectiveness issues in the long term. I love taking Amtrak on the eastern corridor and being hooked right into the subway systems in Boston, NY and DC. But I wouldn’t want to get to the west coast that way. Upgrading Amtrak isn’t going to create a vast leftwing job program, though.
    Highspeed rail links across the country are a possibility, but this needs to be priced out. What level of subsidy is reasonable, what kind of train fare would be required, would people leave planes and cars for trains? Would the land be gettable? It’s a HUGE distance and we have so very many cities to hook up. I don’t know enough to say whether it’s worth it or not, but these questions need to be thought through.
    Most driving, I’ve read, is right near home — taking the kids to school, getting to work, getting to the grocery store. Putting all of this on rail or bus requires, again, huge land grabs or big changes in people’s attitudes. Packing up 3 kids, 10 bags of groceries, a stroller, the stuff you need to return to the store, the letter that has to be mailed…and getting on a bus is a hardship for anyone who has to do it. Transit isn’t a savior at this level, cars and roads are.
    So maybe we need to look into mini-cars, golf carts, and the like. We could designate certain roads as “mini-vehicular only”. It might be a more American-friendly answer to local suburban transit, if nothing else.
    But for dense cities, there’s nothing like mass rail, and the expansion of rail lines.

    Reply

  10. questions says:

    Dan Kervick,
    (not sure this entirely addresses your concerns as I reread your post above)
    The biggest problem with tax cuts (in rebate-check form at least) is that they do not really provide money in everyone’s pockets because we don’t treat all money equally. If you get a check in the mail for $500 and it’s a one-shot deal, you don’t spend it the way you would if you were to get a permanent raise of $50 a month. The stimulus, then, needs to be set up so that it’s a permanent raise and not a short burst. At the same time, though, $50 a month might not make most people’s lives easier in a significant way. Fifty bucks would cover my electric bill, but it wouldn’t heat my home, cover much gas or food, pay tuition or any of the other stuff I have to deal with. (Much of this has been gleaned from recent readings around the news world.)
    What really needs to happen is instant just-add-water jobs. Not road and bridge stuff, but nurse’s and teacher’s aides, library book shelvers, handyman home fixer-uppers, exterior painters– all kinds of middling service/helper jobs that could be set up quickly. It wouldn’t take long for a school district or a hospital or nursing home to hire a bunch of people to do a bunch of useful stuff. Governments can do this kind of thing as well. There needs to be support at this economic status because these are the people who will instantly spend several hundred a week on food, clothing, back rent and the like. And these kinds of jobs can help families with second or third incomes without huge amounts of training. Were we to move money into the economy this way to start, it might help bridge the gap, and it might have a reasonable multiplier effect. So I’d suggest grants to local agencies, governments, and school and park districts for helpers in large numbers. Patronage might eat up a percentage of the jobs, but likely many will go to actual people and not just third cousins of the mayor….
    As these kinds of jobs get filled, we plan at the same time for grander investments, but we should be careful about dumping money into sectors of the economy that can’t eventually sustain themselves, OR that are grossly inflating at some level. (Tuition assistance is a wonderful way to get people warehoused in school for a while, but it makes space for schools to jack up tuition accordingly. So schools that accept the aid need to agree to tuition limits for a time.) Getting large numbers of people to insulate their homes or whatever green work is a great idea, but if greening is too much in demand without a steady supply of greeners and greening supplies, then the green world inflates to bubble levels. So we need the more modest version of greenification, the more modest version of education and transportation…. I think avoiding bubbling would be prudent.
    In the end, paradoxically, people don’t need money, they need income. But they need modest income that can be supported by the overall economy as we crawl out of the BUSH recession.
    So I’d argue for jobs that are not directly related to consumer consumption but are related to services in keeping with what a liberal government might provide in a generous society. And I’d suggest that warehousing a generation in college might not be a bad idea. Nothing like a few million people with 3 or 4 Ph.D.s!! Think of all the Latin that could be translated into Aramaic and then Greek, and then rendered into Spanish!

    Reply

  11. WigWag says:

    “Tax cuts, at least if they are administered in the right way, fall into the category of immediate economic stimulus, injecting money directly and quickly into the economy.”
    Your right that some tax cuts are better than others. For example, reducing payroll taxes is better (in terms of fiscal stimulus) than either a reduction in corporate taxes or a tax incentive for businesses to create jobs (which smart economists know won’t work).
    But no tax cut is as simulative as immediate direct government spending. Some portion of individual tax cuts will be saved (although admittedly a tax cut aimed at lower tax brackets ameliorates this)and the multiplier effect of tax cuts is in general less than the multiplier effect of direct government spending (although there are exceptions to this too.)
    You’re right that increasing aggregate demand in the near term needs to be emphasized now, not just longer term infrastructure spending. But Obama has been presented with a once in a generation opportunity. He has to get this right from the beginning or the chance will pass and may not reemerge in our life times.
    In the last half of the 20th century there were exactly two periods when the economic circumstances encouraged a public appetite for significant infrastructure spending. One period began with the New Deal and ended with the Eisenhower inspired construction of the Interstate Highway system. The second occurred less than a decade later with the Johnson’s Great Society.
    The long lasting effect of both was amazing. I don’t know where you live Dan, but wherever it is, I bet you can’t travel far from your home without seeing an edifice or a piece of art created as a result of the Works Projects Administration. Similarly millions of people have college educations not only because of the GI Bill but also because of programs initiated by Lyndon Johnson (many of which were actually continued under Richard Nixon).
    Economic forces have conspired to give Obama a similar chance to have a lasting economic impact. As bad as things are for us now, people 50 years from now can benefit from infrastructure projects started today; but only if Obama gets this right. Once the economy begins to improve (as it eventually surely will) the focus will change and everyone will be paranoid about cutting government spending to reduce the deficit.
    Placating Republicans may give Obama some type of spiritual “charge” and it may even show some type of perverse fidelity to his credo of “change we can believe in” but it won’t make America a better place.
    Investing in mass transit will make America a better (and ultimately wealthier) place.
    That’s all I mean.

    Reply

  12. Tahoe Editor says:

    Check out her “personal reasons”
    http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/23/nyregion/23caroline.html
    MSNBODC says Patterson will announce TOMORROW.

    Reply

  13. Dan Kervick says:

    Krugman continues to puzzle me, as he has for a couple of years now, by his chronic habit of eliding the difference between a stimulus package and broader economic policy agenda.
    There are certain policies that Obama has committed to that consist of longer-term public investments in infrastructure, green economy initiatives, and other such projects. These will be good for our economic health in the short term and long term, and will produce many additional social benefits for our environment, our foreign policy, etc. But they don’t help much in the immediate term.
    And in the immediate term, we are facing a very deep recession. I come to work every day and read more gloomy news about layoffs in my industry and other industries. Obama sees that too, and its clear he’s been getting extremely dire and frightening forecasts about 2009 since he was elected. His tone has shifted markedly. He has had to redirect some of the emphasis away from the longer term projects toward the immediate term projects. His first tasks now are relieving the pain that is already upon us, and preventing catastrophe. Obama is under enormous, and quite reasonable, pressure to front-load more of the spending and get money into people’s pockets fast, so that he doesn’t end up presiding over Great Depression II. Some of the changes that Obama he has made have much less to do with placating Republicans and more to do with shifting from long-term public investment into up-front economic stimulus.
    Tax cuts, at least if they are administered in the right way, fall into the category of immediate economic stimulus, injecting money directly and quickly into the economy. Now maybe tax cuts aren’t the best way to do this, or maybe the currently envisioned tax cuts could be replaced with other ones. There are all sorts of immediate-term measures that can be taken. But to run large mass-transit projects together with tax cuts is to confuse apples and oranges.
    Matt Yglesias countered that argument this morning by saying that we could do both immediate stimulus and mass transit investment at the same time by providing some kinds of temporary fare subsidies for mass transit riders. Now maybe that would be a good thing to do. It probably would create immediate stimulus. But saying that a fare subsidy is doing something for mass transit is a bit like saying that providing additional food stamps is doing something for the nation’s agricultural system. We’re just not talking about the same forms of government spending here.

    Reply

  14. boonies says:

    C’mon everyone, GROUP(ie) HUG for The Little Mermaid, the big bad man refuses to give Brookline Barbie her just reward for being born to Jackie….instead of, say, Marilyn Monroe or whatever pair of feet were pointed skyward on any given day in the Oval Office in the day…Thank You Gov. Paterson!!!
    PS If you think that people were royally (pun intended) po’d @ Mrs. Slushbag preening for office in NYC, I daresay the people in the Commonwealth of Mass. would REALLY go berserk at her succession to the Kennedy throne when Uncle Alky…er, Teddy… heads down the eternal escalator.

    Reply

  15. WigWag says:

    “You know how sometimes, knowing your boyfriend is about to dump you, you dump him first just to say you dumped him? So does Caroline Kennedy.”
    From(Madam Secretary,ForeignPolicy.com)

    Reply

  16. John says:

    bad day for NY. While New Yorkers don’t care for
    dynasties – they appreciate hard work and Caroline
    is an extremely hard worker. Her only agenda is to
    advance the common good.
    Now Paterson, who was not elected, has a choice
    between a coke-addicted AG in Cuomo or a worse
    choice with Maloney (who has done nothing for NY).
    I suggest that Paterson choose Spitzer. Seriously.
    Spitzer, for all his faults, is the most competent
    candidate.
    And quick q 4 u Steve — do you still think she
    should go to London?

    Reply

  17. WigWag says:

    Obama at work
    From Paul Krugman’s blog:
    January 22, 2009, 8:27 am
    “The emerging stimulus plan contains surprisingly little funding for mass transit. According to Talking Points Memo, mass transit funding may have been slashed to make room for tax cuts.
    I feel a bit of post-partisan depression coming on.”
    Obama would rather placate Republicans with tax cuts than invest in mass transit. No surprise there. If only Kennedy had become NY’s Senator; she was steadfastly committed to mass transit; after all, she took the subway to work everyday, didn’t she?
    Oh, that’s right, she’s never had a job.

    Reply

  18. Sweetness says:

    Excellent insight, Rich.
    I guess what this means is that Patterson needs to appoint
    someone who has already “done it” by holding an elective office or
    a post of major governmental responsibility.

    Reply

  19. rich says:

    BIG difference between doing it and wanting it.
    Two lessons. This explodes the criticism that Barack Obama wasn’t experienced. He ran for office numerous times, proving his mettle; held a job, and served in office. Caroline hasn’t.
    Second thing: the story exposes the faulty perception and self-delusion of socially-connected folks — and their social circles — that ‘I’m qualified (or more qualified)’ or ‘I can do that’. And, significantly, that ‘I can do no wrong’.
    Key point: Anyone can serve in office and as Przt under our system. Some rationalizations you hear don’t understand how that plays out on the broad middle ground of electoral politics. Sure, Jesse Ventura and Al Franken won elections—but that doesn’t mean anything goes. Both held jobs, both made sense (surprising to many), and both campaigned and won votes. Hillary Clinton won an election too–but that didn’t absolve her of the next performance test. Her mantra that “I’m more experienced; he’s not experienced” was not a testament to her qualification, nor was it an assertion of how she’d lead the country. It’s another example of saying it–but not doing it.
    BIG surprise that Ted Kennedy equated Barack Obama and Caroline. They do not have the same professional experience, nor do they display the same method in implementing their objectives. That’s not to say Caroline couldn’t do it or doesn’t have the skills to do it. Just–we all want to see her do it. And she’d rather take the appointment than go ahead and–ust do it.

    Reply

  20. Bart says:

    Enough with political dynasties.
    We almost were saddled with yet another one in John S. McCain III, in that his family’s status kept him in the Naval Academy and later in the Navy in spite of his lack of competence.

    Reply

  21. WigWag says:

    If Caroline Kennedy still harbors any political ambitions for the future (which I doubt), maybe to prepare she should go out and get her first full time job; a mayoral appointment to some commission where she had to show up for work every day, as a lawyer, in the publishing industry (like her mother), as a waitress; anything.
    Enrolling in Toastmasters might also be a good idea.

    Reply

  22. susan says:

    my guess is that Paterson notified Caroline that she would NOT be
    the appointee, and this spares her the embarrassment. I am
    astonished that CK or TK could have imagined a path to the WH,
    though.

    Reply

  23. TonyForesta says:

    That’s funny Don Bacon. Every office bush ever took was handed to him by cronies of his daddy. His time in Texas, was more about profiteering for baseball team, and pardonning finders than any worthy experience.
    You can tout bush to your cold hard dark hearts content, but you cannot escape the fact and the truth that gwb was nothing but a pampered papasboy who was ushered into this or that position by the underhanded untoward machinations of what Indira Singh aptly calls the bush crime family cabals, and had his daddy not been director of the cia, vp, and president, this cokehead, acoholic, and manytimes failed business man would never have graduated from college, let alone been governor of the wingnut state of texas or tragically, and president of the United States of America.
    Bush always was, is now, and always will be an empty suit, a cheerleader, and a cataclysmic failure!
    You’re joking right?

    Reply

  24. Don Bacon says:

    Tony, you forgot to mention Bush’s two four-year terms as Governor of Texas, an experience that Caroline has avoided.

    Reply

  25. Linda says:

    Obama could make Kennedy Ambassador to UK as her grandfather was.
    However, I really hope that he considers adding a new cabinet department of Secretary of Culture–arts, humanities, etc. and puts her in that position. She would be perfect for it.

    Reply

  26. TonyForesta says:

    While there are compelling arguments to be made regarding the possible legal appointment of Ms Kennedy, whose public service is exceptionally laudable, but whose experience as potential senator of the Great State of New York are admittedly thin, – there was never a question raised when the pampered papasboy, Andover cheerleader, AWOL guardsmen, cokehead, acoholic, and failed businessman with a laughable record of bankruptsy, failure, and bailouts by his daddy was hoisted on the American people as a viable candidate for president, in which two elections were stolen, – issue of rank hypocisy must be raised.
    Maybe the people and the Obama Administration are better served by Ms Kennedy’s departure, – but it is more than overwhelmingly obvious that the people suffered horrificly greivous, costly, grotesque abuses by the craven hoisting of an empty suit and pampered papasboy favored by wingnuts to the highest office in the land and the socalled mainstreammedia’s rank failure to question or vet the cataclysmic choice of bush as president nine years ago, – and the ruthless sliming of Ms Kennedy in the recent weeks.
    Hopefully, the great State of New York will seat a worthy candidate, but I sincerely doubt there will be any more committed to the peoples best interests and the peoples work than Ms Caroline Kennedy.

    Reply

  27. texas dem says:

    Ted Kennedy thought Caroline Kennedy should become president? Really?
    I hate to speak ill of the ill, but he must be delusional.
    I mean, on the surface I get it. Hillary was in the senate for eight years and could well have become president. Obama was there only four.
    But they were both individuals who were propelled into politics by their own massive personal drive and ambition. They liked politics. They lived and breathed it.
    There is no evidence whatsoever that Caroline Kennedy has the personality and temperament to be president. I mean, you have to actually want it first and there’s almost no evidence of that, much less various of the other things you’d need.
    If Caroline were the kind of person who really wanted to be president and who would really be good at it, we would have known 15 years ago.
    I’m disappointed to learn that Ted Kennedy thinks this way. He’s some kind of pillar of the Senate and party and country, so it’s a little disconcerting.

    Reply

  28. natthedem says:

    Thought I’d come back to update the latest in the yes-no-maybe
    saga: the AP is now saying that Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn
    her name:
    http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-
    caroline-kennedy,0,6924327.story

    Reply

  29. Don Bacon says:

    Steve scores again.
    NYT: Caroline Kennedy announced early Thursday [damned early] that she was withdrawing from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, startling the New York political world after weeks in which she was considered a top contender for the post.

    Reply

  30. natthedem says:

    Also, this updated post from Elizabeth Benjamin from the NY Daily
    News: Reports: Caroline To Bow Out –
    Or Not (Updated)

    Reply

  31. natthedem says:

    Here’s the AP Story saying she’s in:
    http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/wire/sns-ap-
    caroline-kennedy,0,6924327.story
    David Gregory confirmed the same on the Rachel Maddow show.

    Reply

  32. Steve Clemons says:

    thanks for the head’s up. I take the correction from them but will
    stand by my view that her appointment would be a mistake for her,
    for Gov. Paterson – and for Obama. I can live with her appointment
    — but I think it would ultimately not be stable. She can do other
    things that would be useful for the country. But for AP and MSNBC
    to both have the story wrong, if it is wrong, is pretty wild.
    best, steve clemons

    Reply

Add your comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *