Resolved: Caroline Kennedy Should Not Get Hillary's Senate Seat



Okay, I love the Kennedy's. Let's get that out of the way at the outset. Apartheid quite possibly would have lasted another decade if not for the opposition in the United States Senate of Ted Kennedy (against the fucking Reagan White House). And Caroline's support of President Obama -- at a critical moment -- was welcome. Mrs. Kennedy probably was the straw that broke the proverbial camel's back and tilted Teddy Kennedy into the Illinois Senator's corner up from his customary silence in the intramural family matter that is the Democrat Presidential primary. Clearly Obama owes Mrs. Kennedy, politically, vastly.

But is it just me or is there more than a whiff of over-privilege in this Senate seat thing. It's just wrong, this granting of a Senate seat to a Kennedy because she feels "engaged" for the first time in her adult life politically. Like, whatthefuck? Glad to hear that the Obama campaign activated the juices of democracy, but that, Mrs. Kennedy, is not enough. That Senate seat and what it represents -- sociologist/Ambassador Moynihan, Aeschylus-quoting former Attorney General RFK, or even a celebrity policy wonk/ former First Lady/Health Care guru like Hillary Rodham Clinton -- is a vast political marker; higher than the United States Ambassadorship to the United Nations. What, really, has Caroline Kennedy done, aside from being a Kennedy and ornamenting important boards of directors and offering some important but light consulting in the NYC public schools, that merits such a high-level position in American government at this moment of exigency on the international stage? Is the ability to raise the requisite $30 million on her name enough to consign the seat to one so relatively inexperienced politically? And what does this say of the asking price to become a United States Senator in the Democrat party in the age of Blogojevich?

A strong argument can be made -- from the point of view of party strength and fairness -- that the seat should go to someone from upstate. Congresswoman Gillibrand, for example. So far as I know, Caroline is a downstater, like the Governor and the two present Senators. How do we square that away with our patient neighbors to the north? Second: there are quite a few people ahead of Kennedy in line, to be frank, like Andrew Cuomo (who has already shown the ability to win statewide). Nydia Velasquez. Jerry Nadler. And The Corsair's personal favorite: H. Carl McCall.

Just because Caroline Kennedy shares the last name of a previous and famous occupant does not make it an inevitable conclusion. Someone ought to remind Caroline that we are a democratic Republic and not an aristocracy. I'm pretty sure a Republican challenger would bring that up if she does get appointed to the seat by Governor Patterson. An ambassadorship to the Court of St. James, which also has had a famous Kennedy occupant (and is more indulgent of aristocratic mindsets), is a perfect resume-builder for an aspiring US Senator.

Again, The Corsair likes Caroline Kennedy, I like the family, we think what Ted did on South Africa deserves him a Nobel Prize. But Caroline Kennedy should not be appointed to this position. This is also starting a dangerous precedent for Democrat Party, that only recently gained the reins of power. Joe Biden's son, who we met at the convention, may get his father's Senate seat. Ken Salazar's brother may get the Colorado Senate seat vacated by the incoming Interior secretary. And need we get into the whole Blogojevich thingie?

We thought the Dems were the party of meritocracy and the Republicans aristocracy. Succession is based on merit, not genetic markers, thank you very much. I'm sure Caroline Kennedy is a fine woman (in fact, we are sure of it), but this reeks of privilege. There are a half a dozen upstate legislators that deserve the seat more than her (but lack the Kennedy name). And it looks like the seat is slipping away from her. Jonathan Capehart describes the ways that what was once a sure thing is looking not-so-sure, indeed. From WashPo:

"Please tell me you aren't really surprised by the growing backlash against Caroline Kennedy's quest to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton as the junior senator from New York. More than a few prominent political folks, including Rep. Gary Ackerman (D-N.Y.), were put out by Kennedy's celebrity giving her a leg-up on others who would like to get the nod from New York Gov. David Paterson. And celebrity could have taken her far, were it not for five big political, style and substance mistakes committed by her otherwise able strategic team that have diminished the prospects of the highly regarded Camelot heiress.

"Mistake No. 1: Not voting in many New York City and State elections over the last 20 years. It's hard to carry the mantle of America's political royal family, with its well-earned history of public service, when it's been revealed that you couldn't even muster the energy to vote for Democrats.

"Mistake No. 2: Refusing to swear allegiance to the Democratic challenger to Mayor Bloomberg when he seeks a third term next year. New York Democrats are right to demand it.

"Mistake No. 3: Not giving money to New York's Democratic Party candidates. According to the New York Daily News, in the last ten years, Kennedy has given $1,000 to local office seekers. She was more generous at the federal level. She even maxed out to Clinton, who gave the money back after Kennedy publicly endorsed Barack Obama.

"These three errors might not be fatal, but they most certainly diminished Kennedy's standing and gave competitors and critics the opening they needed to throw cold-water on the political neophyte with a storied last name."

More here.