home

ABC Report: Paterson Will Pick Caroline Kennedy For Senate Seat

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:14:57 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

ABC:

Officials say the daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy will be the governor's choice to fill the New York Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton. Two people close to Gov. David Paterson tell The Associated Press they believe Caroline Kennedy will be his choice, but the governor cautions he's still looking.

I am fine with the choice personally. Kennedy is smart and holds the right views from my perspective. I would caution Kennedy that she needs to get better in her public appearances. While defeating her in 2010 would seem a tall order for any New York Republican, if her level of performance does not improve, it seems to me it could be doable.

Speaking for me only

< A Fuller Picture of Aspen's Jim Blanning | Report: Gov Ritter To Name Denver Schools Chief To Replace Salazar >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    ABC Report: Paterson Will Pick Caroline Kennedy For Senate Seat | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    There is some good in everything (5.00 / 3) (#1)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:25:45 AM EST
    Get better? What an understatement.

    You know....I never want to hear anyone....you know...make a comment...you know...about Bush's speaking abilities.....you know....again...you know.

    And I promise....you know... when I am your princess...you know... to pay attention to elections and vote....you know..

    First Blago's antics have created a scandal and now Patterson will appoint Caroline?

    You know...the Repubs...you know....couldn't do this themselves.

    In my personal defense (none / 0) (#2)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:28:28 AM EST
    I vocally disagreed with those attacking Sarah Palin for her speech patterns.

    Parent
    Really? (5.00 / 2) (#73)
    by jimakaPPJ on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 07:54:09 PM EST
    I don't know if I should applaud or laugh and I am not sure what Palin has to do with this. But since you opened the door:

    Joke:

    What do journalist call Palin after they have interviewed Caroline?

    Answer: Genius.

    Parent

    The "you know" couple of (none / 0) (#8)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:40:35 AM EST
    interviews she gave is one of the silliest arguments against her I've seen on the lefty blogs.

    Recall that her beloved uncle Ted is well known for the semi-inarticulate "uh's" and "ah's" that are part and parcel of his unscripted speech pattern.  Then there was his disastrous interview with Dr Mudd where he bumbled and stumbled over an easy question about seeking the presidency -- and that was after 17 yrs in the senate.  Somehow, amazingly, the people of MA don't care about such trifles.

    BHO himself does his share of uh-ing and ah-ing when not reading from a prepared text.   Big deal.  We've all got our quirks.

    That said, it probably would benefit CK to schedule some major time with one or two experts in this area to work on improving her informal speech.  Her father worked hard to improve his speaking style, and so can she.

    Parent

    So Sarah Palin's interview (5.00 / 2) (#15)
    by hairspray on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:54:59 AM EST
    shouldn't count either?  After all it is Alaska and you know... how they are up there. As for how great uncle Ted is...please give me a break.  There is a word for it and it is called nepotism.

    Parent
    Synecdoche (5.00 / 5) (#19)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:00:08 PM EST
    I think the "you knows" are just the handle by which we note she really had nothing to say. She was inspired to get involved with politics because of 9/11 -- which was, what?, 8 years ago. She's had more opportunity than most to get involved. She's been secretive, and handled the press not only badly, but without any real goodwill. She doesn't seem to have any understanding of why people have legitimate reservations about her. And she's about to become senator of a very major state.

    I'm reluctant to participate in the female-bashing that seems to be all the rage this year, but this smells like another corrupt little deal.

    Parent

    didnt even vote (5.00 / 5) (#32)
    by jedimom on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:53:23 PM EST
    she doesnt even VOTE. no to caroline

    you want a great experienced person with what BTD calls the right views? how about carolyn maloney!! she is all that AND  a BAG OF CHIPS!

    go see her at work here

    she has EARNED it, UNLIKE kennedy..I am sick to death of people being knighted without the work, Hillary was one of the top lawyers in the country what has caroline done? not even voted that's what..

    I dont know how anyone can compare the resume of Carolyn Maloney with that of Caroline Kennedy I really dont...how about a meritocracy? or is it the House of Lords now?

    Parent

    As I've noted elsewhere, (none / 0) (#24)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:17:07 PM EST
    I like the way she stood up to be counted, when many lefties and softy libs ran for cover or went the pile-on route or decided they'd like to hear the evidence in the senate trial, when Bill was about to be impeached.  

    Looks like that by Dec 1998 at the latest she was sufficiently interested in politics to get involved.  If not before that, when she was co-authoring a few books about privacy and civil liberties.

    The 9/11 answer she might have given (haven't seen the quote) sounds geared more along political lines for a specific NY constituency ...

    Parent

    That one's a tough sell (5.00 / 4) (#25)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:27:10 PM EST
    You mean she was pandering?

    Sorry, but you don't need handlers and prep people to warn you that you might be asked why you are running. It's an obvious, no-brainer question.

    If she couldn't anticipate it, there's something wrong with her instincts. Or else she is surprised that anyone would have the nerve to question her at all.

    And all her answers were like that. To obvious questions.

    Look, I'm not arguing that she is a crappy person. I've always kind of admired her. But New York is a tough state with real problems.  

    If Obama wanted to thank her, he should have given her an engraved Steuben bowl, and not brought "we the people" into it.

    Parent

    Thank you for the "co-authoring" (5.00 / 4) (#26)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:27:40 PM EST
    and let's call it what it is -- Kennedy was second author (hardly counts in some circles) on both books, which were mainly authored by a fine lawyer (Ellen Alderman) who gets no credit from the media for those books.  Instead, in msm and even on law blogs like this one, it's constantly stated, "but Caroline wrote two books!"  Nope.

    Parent
    And she can't write, either (5.00 / 2) (#27)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:30:19 PM EST
    There was something online about the fiasco of her "Rolling Stone" column on Elvis's funeral. Not only her insensitivity in the way she pursued the story, but the fact that it needed a head-to-toe rewrite.  

    Wish I'd gotten that many chances.

    Parent

    I wasn't aware those books (none / 0) (#33)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:53:27 PM EST
    had any formal designation of "primary author" and "secondary", but perhaps you can help me with a definitive cite.  Iirc, in their book tour for the first one, where both appeared for interviews, they both spoke of it ("Right to Privacy") as a joint effort.

    And it's a little unfair to blame CK for the way the media or blogs subsequently describe the authorship.  They always simplify things and leave out what they consider irrelevant little details -- it's all about storytelling of course.

    Her hands-on co-authorship of two well-received books on substantive matters counts very positively for her, in the end.  I just don't buy the "hardly counts" secondary authorship theory absent some believable basis for asserting it.  

    Parent

    Can't speak for the books (none / 0) (#38)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:03:50 PM EST
    But the details of the "Rolling Stone" fiasco were quite revealing.

    I've edited "celebrity" journalists before. It does fall into a pattern.

    Parent

    Again, it would be helpful (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:21:24 PM EST
    to see a cite backing up this curious and possibly dubious assertion.

    And, let's see, in 1977 CK was all of, what, 20 yrs old?  And you're alleging she wasn't yet as polished a writer as Tina Brown?   Wow.  Stop the presses ...

    Parent

    Point taken, brodie (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:19:56 PM EST
    I didn't realize she was 20.

    Earnestly looked up the reference, and couldn't find it. But if she was only 20, you're right, it wasn't fair.

    Parent

    Easy way to look it up is (none / 0) (#39)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:04:50 PM EST
    in the Library of Congress (the definitive source) or even easier is Amazon.

    And as it happens, I know of what I speak about credit for first authorship vs. second authorship.  I also know about how books -- and authors -- are promoted.  (I was in charge of a press for years, and I am an author.  And no, not a coauthor.)

    But you don't want to believe this, obviously, so you could look up the ways of the world of words for yourself.  Or not.

    Parent

    Iow, you don't have a cite (none / 0) (#47)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:16:10 PM EST
    to back up your dubious "secondary authorship" theory.  Sorry, but "go look it up" (huh?) and "trust me" don't impress me as evidence you need to make your case.  

    What would be helpful for you would be something from the book itself, some words from one or both of the authors where one acknowledges the heavier lifting by the other.  

    But I doubt if that was the case, and again it doesn't jibe with my recollection of the two authors' "50-50" assertions in their book tour.

    Nice try though ...

    Parent

    It's so commonly understood (none / 0) (#65)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:13:39 PM EST
    about the diff between first and second authorship that I really don't even know what you mean by a "cite."  Standard weighting for tenure for profs -- in law schools, for example -- is 100% credit for sole author but in the case of coauthors, 50% for first author, 25% for second author, 10% for further authors.

    Perhaps it would help you to understand this if you looked closely at copyright law.  Standard interpretation is that a second author can use  facts and ideas from such a book -- but would need permission to copy the original author's expression, the original author being considered the first author.  But again, this is common knowledge in my circles, so I can't imagine what you would consider a "cite."

    Parent

    Secondary authorship (none / 0) (#41)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:05:42 PM EST
    isn't necessarily a bad thing. Sometimes the "secondary authors" do all the work to prop up a primary "celebrity" author. But not, apparently, in this case.

    Parent
    'Course not. Coauthorship can be (none / 0) (#66)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:16:09 PM EST
    fruitful and even fun.  Or it can be sheer h*ll.  I've experienced both (in coauthoring articles and contributing to books of essays -- so that I knew to sole-author my books).

    But in the case of Kennedy's books, this is not "Caroline as told to Ellen."  Instead, Ms. Alderman is the first author -- and the one with experience and expertise in her legal resume.  (I understand that Kennedy never actually practiced law after graduating from Columbia?)

    Parent

    Maybe Ms. Alderman should be the senator (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by Angel on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:51:52 PM EST
    instead!  ha!

    Parent
    Unbelievable! (5.00 / 6) (#3)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:31:45 AM EST
    Well, I, for one, am sooo glad Hillary did not get the presidential nomination because we don't want dynasties in America, do we?

    I'm not sure what exactly Caroline Kennedy has done to deserve this high honor, particularly since she's made it clear she would not deign to actually RUN for this office, but hey, whatever...

    It's amazing that the Democrats have barely tasted power and they are already sinking back into their worst habits: corruption, favoritism, behind-the-scenes influence-peddling, and of course nepotism. This is the sort of stuff that gave the GOP its 1994 victory.

    Hillary as President (5.00 / 6) (#13)
    by NJDem on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:50:48 AM EST
    would not have really constituted a dynasty as she and Bill are of the same generation.  And I think it's insulting to think Caroline has anything close Hillary's qualifications and knowledge-base.  

    The dynasty issue would be more appropriate if Chelsea was appointed--and after seeing her on the trail this last primary season, I honestly believe she too is more knowledgeable about the issues (and is better at articulating them).

    And beyond Caroline's inconsistent voting record, it doesn't appear she gave much to NY Dems either.  

    There are really no qualified NY female elected officials anywhere in the state with a "D" by their name?    

    Parent

    I agree! (5.00 / 5) (#17)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:56:43 AM EST
    I don't believe Hillary's presidential win would have amounted to a presidential dynasty for the reasons you list, but that's how the issue was framed by many Obama supporters during the primaries.

    Parent
    I also don't think (5.00 / 1) (#51)
    by BernieO on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:27:29 PM EST
    that anyone should be disqualified just because they come from a political family. What counts is qualifications.
    People accused Hillary of not being qualified for the Senate but she actually had a long list of accomplishments. For example, as First Lady of Arkansas she spearheaded one of the earliest educational reforms. It was a very difficult, controversial effort, but Hillary managed to succeed. She even managed to convince Sam Walton, Walmart founder to support a corporate tax as part of the reform - an amazing accomplishment in my view. Also as the person in charge she personally shepherded the reform through the very contentious Arkansas legislature.
    People who said her only qualification to be Senator was being Bill's wife did not have a clue about her many accomplishments - or deliberately ignored them. Not to mention, she had to win the seat, not just be appointed.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#76)
    by ericinatl on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:39:32 PM EST
    For a party to claim that they hate Dynasties to then force the nomination of a Kennedy to a Senate seat is just plain ole hypocrisy.  

    Now, I'm a Kennedy fan -- I even worked on one of his Senate election campaigns while in college.  But this is just ridiculous.  Caroline has not earned this appointment.

    Parent

    That story feels a bit light ... (5.00 / 3) (#4)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:34:03 AM EST
    to me "sources close to ... believe."  

    But I agree with your other points.  I'm a New Yorker, and I'm not opposed to Caroline taking the seat, but she lacks the Kennedy rhetoric abilities.  Or as you delicately put it:

    she needs to get better in her public appearances

    And I question her skills in constituency services.  A big part of being a NY Senator.  She isn't the worst choice.  Not the best choice either.

    AP (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jedimom on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:55:37 PM EST
    Oh after this election season and Nedra Crotchshot Pickler AP stories I no longer believe a word they print.

    This is an attempt to paint it as a fait accompli and pressure Paterson and that is all....

    pls if you are in NYS contact Gov Paterson, pls go take a look at Carolyn Maloneys lifetime of work for NYS!

    HERE

    Parent

    I agree ... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:02:49 PM EST
    and that was my initial point.  Story feels light.  Sounds like some Kennedy people reached out to ABC to try and put the screws on Paterson.

    I also agree with you about Carolyn Maloney.  She's a preferable choice.

    And she's just one choice.  The Democratic bench in NY is deep.

    But there are also worse choices than Kennedy.

    Parent

    Answer to rumors (none / 0) (#59)
    by Amiss on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:48:19 PM EST
    I believe you could have hit the nail on the head after the rumors of Bill and Mario Cuomo being thought of as "placeholders" it would be very logical for her people to put pressure on the press like this to quell the rumors or perhaps Patterson's serious thoughts of a placeholder regardless of who it would be.

    Sounds like some Kennedy people reached out to ABC to try and put the screws on Paterson.


    Parent
    Not to worry. Constituent services (none / 0) (#9)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:47:39 AM EST
    are primarily staff responsibility and 'the best senator money can buy' will buy 'the best ataff money can buy.'

    Parent
    As long as she cares. (none / 0) (#30)
    by Lysis on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:43:13 PM EST
    That's all it comes down to.  If she cares enough to learn and is willing to learn, she'll be great.

    Hillary's been a phenomenal senator because she did the work, right down to the district level.   For someone who was accused of using it as a "stepping stone", she put in far more work than any other New York senator in my lifetime.  Not even the man she replaced was that good at constituent services.

    If she's given a free hand as SoS, she really will change the world, as she'll know how the decisions made will effect the little girl living in the rural village, not just the big boys and girls playing on the geopolitical stage.

    Parent

    Gee, I wish someone had said that ... (5.00 / 3) (#34)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:55:02 PM EST
    ...at my job interview! As long as I cared...

    I haven't seen much strong evidence Caroline cares about the issues that face the New York people. Certainly not enough to vote.

    Hillary had worked as a lawyer on behalf of women and children for years at the point she'd been elected senator. She'd been first lady of Arkansas and first lady of the U.S., and in both roles chief advisor to her husband. She'd taken on national health care.

    "Caring" is just one characteristic Hillary brought to the job.

    Parent

    You're misunderstanding my point. (none / 0) (#56)
    by Lysis on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:42:11 PM EST
    The case I made was that Hillary cared enough to do the work, and that she was the hardest-working senator I've seen from NY in my lifetime.

    The point is if Kennedy cares enough to do the job well, she could be great.  If she just wants the glory and status of the office, and doesn't care about constituency services and learning everything she can, she will not be great.

    Parent

    RP, as I noted below, Uncle Ted (none / 0) (#10)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:48:28 AM EST
    has less than stellar rhetorical abilities.  Especially in the informal conversational speech area, like CK.  Some would say, and I'd agree, that he's also a bit of a shouter in his stump speaking too, as if he hadn't noticed that new invention called the microphone.

    His brothers too, JFK and Bobby, both had quirky informal speech habits -- speaking in half-sentences frequently, along with the uh's and ah's as, presumably, they sought to avoid making verbal/political missteps.

    Her father though was the best formal speech maker of the 20th C among presidents -- but only because he worked at improving himself in the 50s and then prior to his Inaugural.  I have no doubt CK has gotten the message about her speaking style, and will work to correct the situation over time.

    But the policies she advocates and her votes are by far more important than her imperfect speech.

    Parent

    JFK was quite impressive in Press Conferences ... (none / 0) (#14)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:52:12 AM EST
    but you're right about Teddy.

    Remember the disastrous 60 Minutes appearance prior to his '80 run for the presidency, which many feel single-handedly derailed his chances?

    Parent

    Yes, I remember it, but (5.00 / 2) (#20)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:01:15 PM EST
    there WERE other issues.

    Parent
    Yeah, I mentioned Ted and (none / 0) (#23)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:11:38 PM EST
    Mudd in another post upthread.  And that was after nearly 3 full terms in the senate ... (though if I recall the chronology here, TK can be partly excused because, at the time of the interview, he hadn't yet publicly declared his candidacy, and so didn't want to really address such matters ...)

    As for Pres Kennedy, indeed he handled his pressers well and was witty and so forth, but that was after 14 yrs in Congress, a tough 1960 election cycle, and, not to be overlooked, prior to each presser he was grilled by Sorensen and others about possible Qs.  

    No question in my mind CK isn't getting such high quality prep from her handlers, but otoh she's in a dicey situation where she can't appear to be campaigning too hard for the position yet has felt she needs to be out there trying to seal the deal with voters ...

    Parent

    How do we know that Caroline Kennedy is smart? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by befuddledvoter on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:37:12 AM EST
    I don't know that.  Umm, you know, umm.  I have no idea.  

    She was smart enough to endorse Obama, I guess... (5.00 / 8) (#11)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:49:19 AM EST
    ...and to be born into the Kennedy political dynasty. How much smarter do you need to be?

    Parent
    You said it. (5.00 / 4) (#70)
    by bridget on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:19:04 PM EST
    The reason for handing her the senate seat on a silver platter can be summed up in a short sentence.

    Needless to say I almost fell over when I heard that she was considered to be the next Senator. After Hillary Clinton of all people.

    A disgrace.

    And that is all what I have to say about  this "democratic" decision.

    Parent

    Has Intelligence (none / 0) (#67)
    by CDN Ctzn on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:16:51 PM EST
    ever been a standard when it comes to not only running but also being elected to public office?

    Parent
    She makes Phil Bredesen sound like an (5.00 / 7) (#6)
    by Teresa on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:37:53 AM EST
    exciting speaker. If you've ever heard the Gov of TN speak, you'll know what I mean.

    I don't really care either way but I will never understand her wanting a Senate seat out of the blue like this. Obama inspired her? That just sounds silly to me.

    "out of the blue..." (none / 0) (#22)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:03:50 PM EST
    I'm looking forward to the tabloid take on her sudden interest in moving to DC.

    Ugh.

    Parent

    What kind of Senator will she be? (5.00 / 4) (#7)
    by shoephone on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:38:56 AM EST
    I have no idea. I only know that she has been abysmal in public appearances and interviews -- prickly, evasive, and generally inarticulate. So, I really can't figure out why she is Paterson's choice.

    Why? Money. And if you (5.00 / 4) (#16)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:55:14 AM EST
    had to run for 'reelection' as governor, would you really want the Kennedy faction mad at you?

    Parent
    Yes but (none / 0) (#28)
    by Natal on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:40:28 PM EST
    at least she doesn't seem to be mean-spirited, blatantly dishonest and a vicious person.  But then again it seems the electorate doesn't value senators with these qualites. You gotta be aggressive and fighter to make it!

    Parent
    Neither am I (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:43:10 PM EST
    and I've never been hired based on those characteristics.

    It's always been on the basis of my experience and what I can do - not on my naturally curly hair.

    Parent

    Maybe you should start... (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by pmj6 on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:52:58 PM EST
    ...putting these qualities on your resume. "Not a vicious person" does sound very impressive, almost Senatorial...

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#48)
    by Natal on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:18:46 PM EST
    what is senatorial?

    Parent
    So Why Do You Sound Jealous (none / 0) (#54)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    If you are so comfortable with your own limitations. Oh, that's right it is not Jealousy al all, it is all about Hillary losing POTUS.

    Parent
    huh??? (none / 0) (#62)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:24:19 PM EST


    Parent
    Here (none / 0) (#63)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 02:53:39 PM EST
    Gee, I wish someone had said that ...
    ...at my job interview! As long as I cared...

    And she can't write, either .....
    Wish I'd gotten that many chances.



    Parent
    You're right, squeaky (5.00 / 2) (#64)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:00:49 PM EST
    I'VE ALWAYS WANTED TO BE A U.S. SENATOR!

    Are you always so catty, or is it "cyclical"?

    Parent

    Neither (none / 0) (#71)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:23:45 PM EST
    I just find it objectionable that so many here are all of a sudden so vocal about Paterson's judgement and the fate of NYS.

    The cries of nepotism, unfairness and implied corruption by the same group that ridiculed anyone who was supporting Obama seems wholly disingenuous to me.

    You have argued that AA's around the country will do damage to party unity if Burris is not seated. Why is it not also the case that the AA's will also do damage to the party if Paterson's choice and right to appoint a NY senator of his choosing is also not respected?

    Parent

    A good point, and to the point (none / 0) (#80)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 01:25:55 PM EST
    as it may well be perceived that Paterson is being pressured by a white man from Massachusetts (Teddy) to put an inexperienced white woman into the office.

    Reading the black press, I see this surfacing -- and there are African Americans in New York State being mentioned, such as Meeks.  From what I saw of him in the campaign, he has a great future ahead, anyway.  So why not get it started now?  That's the take in the black press:  Why not, gasp, have two African Americans in the Senate?  One in Illinois, one in New York.

    And Paterson sure is pushing back, every time (as yesterday) the Kennedy machine pushes him.  

    Parent

    Clearly Your Position (none / 0) (#81)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 03:52:32 PM EST
    it may well be perceived that Paterson is being pressured by a white man from Massachusetts (Teddy) to put an inexperienced white woman into the office.

    But another point of view that may be more realisitic is that Paterson is not a racist. He is making the decision based on his best interests which one would also think would be in the best interests of his constituents.

    Anyone who thinks that Kennedy is a bad choice, that is if Paterson in fact chooses her, had to take it up with Paterson. Kennedy is irrelevant to the discussion.

    Quite frankly the whole thing bothers me because the main underlying issue that no one opposing Kennedy seems to be talking about, is Paterson's integrity.

    Can't have it both ways. Either Paterson is a pastsy, weak, and unable to think on his own or not. Kennedy is not the issue.

    I believe that Paterson will make the right choice, if not I get to choose not to vote for him in 2010. So far Paterson has not disappointed me one bit. At this point I expect to vote for him in 2010, with enthusiasm.

    Parent

    But the two are not mutually (none / 0) (#82)
    by Cream City on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 04:33:57 PM EST
    exclusive.  Sheesh, you see no such pressure on Paterson?  You didn't see what was going on with the stories yesterday that he had caved?  And then the stories from his camp saying no way?

    I see Paterson being pressured.  And I also see, as I have said here before, Paterson pushing back because he admirably appears to be his own man.

    Parent

    No I Did Not (none / 0) (#83)
    by squeaky on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 04:42:56 PM EST
    You didn't see what was going on with the stories yesterday that he had caved?

    Just googled Paterson caved Kennedy and came up with bubkis.

    Got links?

    Parent

    Hillary's the opposite of all of those things. (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Lysis on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:45:10 PM EST
    And she's been a wildly popular senator.

    Parent
    The kennedy name has its limits. (5.00 / 5) (#12)
    by hairspray on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:50:38 AM EST
    Kathleen Kennedy Townsend lost her bid for the MD governor, despite her experience as the Lt. Gov. for 8 years which with her name and experience should have given her a leg up. I didn't understand her to be a disaster in her role and she ran against a Republican in a blue state. I wouldn't count on Caroline holding that seat in 2010 given her performance on the "listening circuit."  The upstate media is really skewering her for her less than competent behavior.  If the Democrats pull this one, they are going to have a black eye. This smacks of the good ole' Democratic party, just like the caucuses.  

    You're right (none / 0) (#21)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:02:08 PM EST
    Maybe they'll elect a Republican in 2010. Enough is enough.

    Parent
    debates (5.00 / 2) (#36)
    by jedimom on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 12:57:28 PM EST
    I do NOT want to have to support Kennedy in a debate in 2010, my Gawd even Rudy will wipe the floor with her, vocal coach or not, she doesnt KNOW anything about NY politics and economics and there is a LOT to learn...we need Maloney I'm tellin ya or we will lose this seat in 10...

    Parent
    Isn't King def going to run? (none / 0) (#42)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:07:38 PM EST
    Is Rudy going to run for Senate or Gov?

    If not Maloney, we still have other choices that are far better than CK, imo. I can't see CK getting a handle on the "rest" of NY let alone the city by the time she needs to start running for re-election. And then there are the national issues . . . OY.

    Parent

    I really doubt King can beat her. He's no (none / 0) (#45)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:11:59 PM EST
    shining star himself. I don't think Rudy has any interest whatsoever in being a Senator. He dropped out in 2000 when he had a chance at winning. He's not going to want the job now.

    Parent
    King could at least speak to the issues (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:29:55 PM EST
    and right now, CK doesn't even have that! 9/11 and Obama (hehe, her and Rudy could have a 9/11 debate!) and she hasn't done anything since 9/11 "inspired" her. I don't think it would take much to for a Repub to give her a run. She may get propped up in the Senate, but she would have to produce some results for the state to be somewhat believable in an election.

    This whole thing just stinks. I'm hoping this is just another pressure Paterson story. Yesterday it was Clinton or Cumo as a placeholder, so this is a bit suspect timing wise.

    Parent

    Um, no. He dropped out b/c he was losing. (none / 0) (#60)
    by Lysis on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:55:41 PM EST
    Though he used the fig leaf of treating his cancer, he exited right after the story broke about his mistress.   He announced his separation from his wife in a press conference without informing her first.  

    Parent
    Supposedly she ran (none / 0) (#55)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:38:08 PM EST
    an atrocious campaign.

    Parent
    Do you think CK would do better (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by hairspray on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 07:51:24 PM EST
    in a campaign in 2010? Caroline Kennedy is inherently apolitical.  Do you think that will change in 2 years?

    Parent
    This is really just silly. At the risk of (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:05:28 PM EST
    offending non New Yorkers, this is a state that is just too important for this kind of bull. Why couldn't she go after a seat in Wyoming?

    Teddy should gift her his seat (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:11:03 PM EST
    if this is all about keeping a Kennedy in the Senate and/or passing on the legacy.

    Parent
    Furthermore, if Kennedy had wanted to get (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:10:14 PM EST
    a little experience before becoming Senator, it would have been very easy. Pick any one of 20 House seats and she could have easily won an election there in the past 20 years. Instead, she clearly never had any interest at all, Ted got sick and the one in Rhode Island is a doofus so she's the only option for continuing the line. Silly.

    Do the right thing (none / 0) (#46)
    by Upstart Crow on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:15:41 PM EST
    The best thing for her to do is to withdraw gracefully, and work to get some chops in the next few years.

    Parent
    Like Obama's Presidential run, now is (none / 0) (#50)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    really the best time for her. Schumer isn't going to retire any time soon and whoever takes over Clinton's seat will hold onto it for a long while. Unless she want to be Governor (which I really, really doubt - even that won't open up for some time) this seat is her best shot at high office. Even though I find the appointment ridiculous, it makes sense for her.

    Parent
    I f she gets the appointment (none / 0) (#18)
    by oldpro on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 11:58:36 AM EST
    she may not run for election, once the bloom is off the rose.

    That would be my bet.

    And if she does, she'll be primaried...by at least one AA candidate and probably by a string of others.

    it takes money... (none / 0) (#75)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:20:04 PM EST
    It takes money to primary an incumbent, not just ambition.  Who in New York is going to contribute to someone facing an affable Caroline Kennedy with a large war chest?  If an AA runs against her that will just burnish her credentials with the upstate whites and an AA cant't win the NY primary on black votes alone (and won't even get all of them-the Sharptons and others will stick with Caroline).

    Parent
    One Thing For Sure (none / 0) (#52)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:29:40 PM EST
    Is that she is following the illustrious tradition of Hillary in that she is not destined to be a media darling. She has told the press that they are morons, which, in case no one noticed happens to be true.

    Personally I enjoy that in a pol.  

    That may be her only positive point (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by starsandstripes on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:17:04 PM EST
    But it hardly balances out the negatives

    Parent
    The thing about the "family business"... (none / 0) (#58)
    by kdog on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 01:46:05 PM EST
    is eventually it is run into the ground..sometimes in one generation, sometimes two or three.

    I like new blood...no more Kennedys, no more Bushs, no more Clintons, etc.  Reeks of aristocracy and nepotism, especially in this case absent an election.  

    I think it's unfair (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by starsandstripes on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 03:18:25 PM EST
    to discredit someone because of the family they come from. That almost smacks of reverse classism. If she has the qualifications, it shouldn't matter that she is a Kennedy, a Clinton or a Bush. But in this case, she doesn't even have the qualifications.

    Parent
    ham sandwich (none / 0) (#74)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 09:15:55 PM EST
    The only way that a non-incumbent Republican gets elected in a statewide race is in a three way race (the way Amato got in) or in the case of extreme voter fatigue with the Democratic incumbent (thus, George Pataki beating Mario Cuomo).
    CK needs to be able to appear (none / 0) (#78)
    by nycstray on Fri Jan 02, 2009 at 10:33:14 PM EST
    competent in one year for campaigning. And she needs to accomplish something. I think it needs to go beyond that vague "NY will get noticed in DC if I'm appointed". That would require Teddy staying in strong health and Obama not throwing her under the bus (if he has any deal/talks going on with them). Methinks some NYers may expect her to "do something". Oh, and she'll need to change the public opinion of her and this appointment. Kind of a tall order for the woman who can barely string a thought together in public and hasn't figured out why she really wants the job . . .

    Parent
    It is my understanding Kennedy (none / 0) (#79)
    by oculus on Sat Jan 03, 2009 at 12:02:31 AM EST
    had an appointed post raising money for education for NYC schools and she did raise a ton of money.  Also, her undergrad degree is from Radcliffe and she finished her law degree at Columbia just before giving birth to her first child.  But--she was shy and maybe aloof as a child.  See Wiki.  

    Anyhow, I'm not a NY resident or voter, so please carry on.  

    Parent

    ABC Report: Paterson Will Pick Caroline Kennedy For Senate Seat | 83 comments (83 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment