For some reason, I now cannot seem to reply to anyone, so to answer a few questions:
1) I'm not disrespecting Hillary. She had not held public office before she was elected either.
2) The "sour grapes" I mentioned were aimed at other politicians and pundits, not the general Jezebel population.
3) The idea that anyone could just "throw their hat in the ring" is ridiculous.
Wrong. Look at the qualifications for being Senator. They don't say anything about previous political experience being required. Look at the qualifications for President: simple as well. The Founding Fathers did not want the average American to be locked out of the political process, which would create an "in-bred" legislature. Anyone who is "qualified" should be able to run and/or be appointed to serve. No one votes on Supreme Court justices; they are appointed, and not by the people, but the people's elected representatives. Governor Paterson is the duly-elected representative of the people of New York; the NY Constitution gives him the power to make Senatorial appointments.
Does this mean that everyone. who applies will be considered. Of course not. But there's nothing that says even a person like myself cannot apply (except that I do not reside in NY).
4) She's a Kennedy, and while there is a mystique in her name, it is certainly not an automatic "get into office free" card.
@NefariousNewt: You completely and apparently intentionally misread points 3 and 4, and answered what was not asked. I felt like calling you disingenuous was a little confrontational earlier, and felt kind of bad about doing so. No longer.
@yvanehtnioj: It's not adoration, per se. Many of us are just tired of the griping over her announcing that she'd like to be considered. That's all it is -- asking the Governor to consider her. Why should it be a big deal? It's still on Governor Patterson's head to come up with the best fit for the position. She's just throwing her hat in the ring.
@suzannelb: That totally makes me love Joe Biden even more, we all know the man is know Dan Quayle when it comes to experience so after having to deal with a VP that would shoot a puppy on sight, its nice to have a change of pace
I would really appreciate it if the Caroline Kennedy supporters here could answer a few questions for me.
What is her position on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars? What is her position on the bailout of Wall Street and the Big 3 automakers? What is her position on abortion? What is her position on health care? What is her position on immigration reform?
@Jamie Sommers: Seriously. This is why it's more important for an appointed person to have a political background than an elected person -- we can't vet this person! We have no record to evaluate. Especially given that one of her admirable qualities is apparently the ability to stay off the radar.
I'm not saying she'd suck, I'm just saying where's all this adoration coming from?
@Jamie Sommers: Hopefully the positions her constituents hold on those issues would be more important than hers. A Senator is supposed to work for the people after all. But you have a valid point; there's still much we don't know. Again, it's up to Governor Patterson -- he has plenty of qualified candidates and I'm sure he'll make a good choice.
@Jamie Sommers: I have no idea about her position on most of them but I feel pretty confident in saying that she has in the past publically supported Teddy Kennedy's health care plan and that during her public education fund raising stuff she repeatedly referenced the need for free health care in society. Admittedly this is in my mind from way back when I had to cover a couple of speaches she gave on the education front but I think that's right.
I would suspect her abortion position is similar to Biden and Kerrys but I have no evidence to prove that one.
@Jamie Sommers: She wrote a book on the right to privacy, which is the arguement presented in Roe V Wade. She is a constitutional scholar, and backs healthcare reform. Don't know he ideas about the war.
@yvanehtnioj: It's not up to you to "vet" her. Let the Governor do his job. I think we can rely on him to do it honestly and with the best interests of the state and the country in mind.
@yellow_dog: Well, she wants to be my Senator. The idea that I should STFU and not have an opinion is bizarre. Or should I just not have an opinion that doesn't line up with yours?
Also, I have to say, I don't really understand how Caroline thinks it is acceptable to ask for the seat. Seriously. I have to believe there are other people more suited.
@emilyanne: Precisely! Which is while all this angst and outrage is so misplaced. Look, she is a Kennedy; that's not going to change. But she is her own person, and she's made that clear over the years. If she wants top be considered, fine. If she doesn't get in, so what? Maybe then she'll start to work on getting elected to the position in 2010.
@SisterMaryMartha: While anyone can have any opinion regarding who is best suited, she has to ask because it's an appointment. If she sat at home and wished really hard that she got the job, it's not likely that Paterson would assume the usually publicity shy Kennedy wanted to serve in public office.
They are sending the cute puppeh off for 6 weeks of special puppeh training with a K-9 unit so he's going to be a hard ass. I hope Joe doesn't cry while he's gone. Also, the idea that a puppy is the VP's present, along with the President's daughter's present, makes me laugh. Joe Biden = 9 year old little girl?
@SisterMaryMartha: No, it can't be DEAD! Camelot is the SIXTIES! WHEN THE BOOMERS WERE YOUNG! If it's DEAD that means they're OLD and the world has MOVED ON! Nooooooo!!!! If we can't reminisce/argue/rehash the Sixties ad infinitum, what will the Boomers ever talk about?
Christ, have a special election. Then her campaign slogan can be:
Elect Caroline Kennedy and Save a Boomer's Sole Conversation Topic For Another Decade Or So.
@Shotrock: Because as we all know, every Boomer who existed in the 60's was a radical changeaholic and was just activisting every second of the day.
It couldn't possibly be that Boomers dropped the ball, at so many levels, and must revisit history in order to stay relevent. Um, I grew up in the 80's so they can STFU.
"I understand the thinking behind Carolyn Maloney, and she's great, but she's not exactly a dynamic person."
I disagree with this statement. Even if I didn't I don't think it makes sense as an argument against appointing Maloney. Isn't the argument against "not dynamic" people that they can't get a crowd excited, and therefore cannot win elections? That line of reasoning is doubly pointless in this case, as she: 1) would be getting appointed, and 2) has already won many elections.
I think this picture is a sign that America is moving in the right direction. I mean, have you ever seen Cheney cuddle a puppy? Can you even picture it? Would you even want to?
I applaud the new administration's long-overdue attention to cute furry animals.
Thank pissing Christ that I'm not the only one who did a double take at the New York Post "Look! She wears ball-gowns! Hillary wore pants suits!" idiocy. I also wonder if there is actually a screening device at their website that filters out Dems who want to comment.
@sarah.of.a.lesser.god (subservient to the ovumlord): Hef. That's just the usual misogyny and sexism talking. She'd have to deal with that no matter what. The thing that torques me off so much is the idea that she's being presumptuous in trying to get the seat, because she's never held public office. What difference does that make?
@NefariousNewt: Gee, the GOP didn't balk when Schwarzenegger sought public office. The thing that also frosts my cookies is, it's not up to Caroline Kennedy whether or not they hold a special election. If appointment is the only way she can get this particular Senate seat, then take it up with the people who made the rules.
@NefariousNewt: I really don't get this. It is presumptuous! I can understand thinking that, even if it is so, she'll do a great job so the ends justify the means, but I cannot understand people who think that it isn't presumptuous in the least.
She isn't UNqualified in any spectacular way, but she's basically equally as qualified as a million other people. I'm a lawyer. I've worked on non-profits. I'm committed to education reform. But I didn't call up Paterson and inform him that I'd like to be considered, and if I had I would be considered a complete nutjob. Because I'm not a Kennedy.
Clinton had to face the same thing when she first ran for Senate, the people saying "who does she think she is?" versus the people saying "but I think she'd be effective." But then there was an election. And therein lies the difference.
@yvanehtnioj: Fine -- then let the millions of qualified people put in a call to Governor Patterson's office and ask to be considered. No one is stopping them. It's presumptuous to think that just because she is a Kennedy, she can't ask to be considered along with anyone else who is qualified.
@yvanehtnioj: ETA: I don't think it's a particularly great reason, as I don't think that NY is in any real danger of electing a Republican in 2010, but I do appreciate that it's an actual reason.
How ironic that Caroline Kennedy is being accused of being unqualified for a seat that's been vacated by Hillary Clinton. Any criticism of Kennedy could just as easily be have been lobbed at Clinton!
@mama_t: yes but Hilary was elected. The voters ultimately rejected that charge. Thats the tricky thing about appointing such a high profile person like CKS who has no experience, people are always going to attribute it to special favors. Incidentally, if CKS actually ran I think she'd win easily so if this is what she wants I don't know why she doesn't just wait and run.
@bluebears: Yes, but Caroline Kennedy has been a long-time resident of New York, and worked for New York causes. Appoint her, give her a couple of years, and I bet she has no trouble being re-elected.
@NefariousNewt: you're probably right. I just think that until the time she's actually elected you're going to hear people talking about how she just traded on her name to get the seat. I'm sure she is as aware of this as anyone though and it seems she's made the decision.
@yvanehtnioj: But there is no special election this time around. The people can't decide (which I think needs to be changed). I'm not sure I want Kennedy as my Senator, btw, so I'm not lobbying on her behalf. I like Maloney a lot. But I can't fault Kennedy for seeking an appointment and not an election because there is no election to be had right now.
I have a problem with the idea that a lot of her ability to be considered seriously comes from her last name, and when people notice that they're accused of sour grapes. I'd take her supporters a bit more at their word if they evaluated the uncomfortable truth that is: she's not uniquely qualified, she's just uniquely famous. And then said, "even so, here's why I think she's the best candidate..." But as far as I can see that's not what's happening.
@yvanehtnioj: Gotcha. I only saw you saying that Hillary was elected (and I voted for her, yay!) and thought your issue was with the appointment part of it. My bad.
12/16/08
1) I'm not disrespecting Hillary. She had not held public office before she was elected either.
2) The "sour grapes" I mentioned were aimed at other politicians and pundits, not the general Jezebel population.
3) The idea that anyone could just "throw their hat in the ring" is ridiculous.
Wrong. Look at the qualifications for being Senator. They don't say anything about previous political experience being required. Look at the qualifications for President: simple as well. The Founding Fathers did not want the average American to be locked out of the political process, which would create an "in-bred" legislature. Anyone who is "qualified" should be able to run and/or be appointed to serve. No one votes on Supreme Court justices; they are appointed, and not by the people, but the people's elected representatives. Governor Paterson is the duly-elected representative of the people of New York; the NY Constitution gives him the power to make Senatorial appointments.
Does this mean that everyone. who applies will be considered. Of course not. But there's nothing that says even a person like myself cannot apply (except that I do not reside in NY).
4) She's a Kennedy, and while there is a mystique in her name, it is certainly not an automatic "get into office free" card.
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
1. Sasha Obama, 7
2. Malia Obama, 10
3. Joe Biden, 66
...as others have said before me, I really like the direction we're heading in, here.
12/16/08
12/16/08
What is her position on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars?
What is her position on the bailout of Wall Street and the Big 3 automakers?
What is her position on abortion?
What is her position on health care?
What is her position on immigration reform?
12/16/08
I'm not saying she'd suck, I'm just saying where's all this adoration coming from?
12/16/08
12/16/08
I would suspect her abortion position is similar to Biden and Kerrys but I have no evidence to prove that one.
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
Christ, have a special election. Then her campaign slogan can be:
Elect Caroline Kennedy and Save a Boomer's Sole Conversation Topic For Another Decade Or So.
12/16/08
12/16/08
It couldn't possibly be that Boomers dropped the ball, at so many levels, and must revisit history in order to stay relevent. Um, I grew up in the 80's so they can STFU.
12/16/08
12/16/08
Here's an obscure musical reference La Lupe (in the background on "watermelon man") used to throw shoes in her act.
12/16/08
12/16/08
I disagree with this statement. Even if I didn't I don't think it makes sense as an argument against appointing Maloney. Isn't the argument against "not dynamic" people that they can't get a crowd excited, and therefore cannot win elections? That line of reasoning is doubly pointless in this case, as she: 1) would be getting appointed, and 2) has already won many elections.
Carolyn Maloney!!!
12/16/08
Okay.
12/16/08
I applaud the new administration's long-overdue attention to cute furry animals.
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
She isn't UNqualified in any spectacular way, but she's basically equally as qualified as a million other people. I'm a lawyer. I've worked on non-profits. I'm committed to education reform. But I didn't call up Paterson and inform him that I'd like to be considered, and if I had I would be considered a complete nutjob. Because I'm not a Kennedy.
Clinton had to face the same thing when she first ran for Senate, the people saying "who does she think she is?" versus the people saying "but I think she'd be effective." But then there was an election. And therein lies the difference.
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
Thank you for being the first.
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
12/16/08
I have a problem with the idea that a lot of her ability to be considered seriously comes from her last name, and when people notice that they're accused of sour grapes. I'd take her supporters a bit more at their word if they evaluated the uncomfortable truth that is: she's not uniquely qualified, she's just uniquely famous. And then said, "even so, here's why I think she's the best candidate..." But as far as I can see that's not what's happening.
12/16/08
12/16/08