29 (D) state senators in New York.... none of 'em are Caroline Kennedy.

[boppers]

That's right, there's 29 of em.

29 people who ran for office.

29 people who have actually served constituencies.

29 people with actual experience in crafting legislation.

29 people who have chosen a career of public service.

29 people who are more qualified.

[TexasObserver]

1. as if that matters

[tabatha]

2. brush it off

[Smarmie Doofus]

3. The same logic would have held true for Hillary. No? nt

[La Lioness Priyanka]

7. a vote and a nomination are a little different. i dont mind caroline kennedy

but she hasnt run for anything yet so i dont think its fair to compare her to hrc

[Smarmie Doofus]

13. It's an appointment, actually. If memory serves, the state party...

... cleared the field for Clinton in 2000 so that there would be no primary fight. In effect, appointing her as the candidate.

Yes, it's true she then had to run against a republican. But the arguments against Kennedy would pretty much apply across the board to Clinton.

And ... there's one HUGE difference: Kennedy is a legit New Yorker. Clinton was a transplant.

[boppers]

28. Kennedy was actually voted upon, even if it was an easy election and a weak candidate.

Oh, wait, that's not right.

She's never actually campaigned or competed for a public office of any kind.

[jobycom]

11. Or RFK.

[boppers]

15. Hillary actually had people vote for her.

CK has *never* had the public vote for her.

Ever.

For *any* position.

[Drunken Irishman]

20. And all those people you listed didn't win a state-wide election.

What's your point?

[boppers]

24. You are correct.

None of them won state-wide elections. So, we can add those who did to the list.

While we're at it, we can also add mayors, sheriffs, dog catchers, and members of the PTA to the list of people who have more experience in being elected and holding public office.

That's my point.

[Drunken Irishman]

51. Winning an election does not mean you're better suited for the job.

And that's where you're failing here. Just because you won an election doesn't mean you'd make a better senator.

No one has earned the seat until they actually run and WIN that seat. Election wins aren't there to be banked for later use.

[gmudem]

31. And Kennedy hasn't won any election.

As a New Yorker, I feel that this seat should finally go to an individual who has already served New Yorkers in some form or another, not just somebody who felt like serving because of their family name and the opportunity just happened to open up.

[Drunken Irishman]

52. She has served your state.

She has worked over the years fighting for public schools. Sure, it might not be serving it as an elected official, but it says nowhere that you must be an elected official to be named to that seat. So why piss on her for trying to get out there? If people don't like her, vote her out in 2010, it's that simple.

No one earns a seat solely based on the fact they might have won an election at one point in their career.

[gmudem]

64. Do you think she would have a chance at getting appointed

if her last name wasn't Kennedy? I'd rather see her run in 2010. If she is appointed, it will reek of nepotism and more political legacies. She has never shown any interest in public office before, and I don't think it should just be given to her because she feels like having the seat now.

[DJ13]

4. 29 people who would STILL be rookies in the US Senate

You guys have my permission to keep Hillary there in NY and let Caroline serve directly in the Obama administration if you want.

[boppers]

14. They'd be rookies in the US senate, yes.

They wouldn't be rookies at making law. She would.

They wouldn't be rookies at winning an election. She would.

They wouldn't be rookies at representing a constituency of *any* size. She would.

[Beacool]

44. That would be fine with me.

I'm one who didn't want her anywhere in Obama's cabinet. She has more independence as a senator and her own power base.

[RhodaGrits]

56. No thank you. I'm delighted by the idea of the getting HRC

into D.C. where she is a much better fit. I resented her being shoved into the slot as my junior senator - election, my a**. She wasn't even a resident and there was no real primary. I am hoping my Governor appoints CK to the vacated seat who I believe will best represent my progressive interests.

[FrenchieCat]

5. Any who are statewide known?

Cause I know that if you all gave California a chance to run a Caroline Kennedy....we'd take here and run her over any elected State legislature members. I can't even think of one that I'd rather see.

Who'd you have in mind who is qualified out there in New York?

[Rabrrrrrr]

6. And...????

[BrklynLiberal]

8. I live in NY, and I would vote for Caroline Kennedy.

[AtomicKitten]

9. 30 Helens agree.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BDTZcj8Xink

[Richard Steele]

41. I'm gonna have to consult the "Daves I know" on this, and get back to y'all!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8b-N28eG2go

[saltpoint]

10. Such silliness.

Countless right-handers have pitched in the Major Leagues. And not ONE of them was Caroline Kennedy!

Hundreds and thousands of people have won Oscars. And not ONE of them was Caroline Kennedy!

Babies aren't aware that they're born into famous families or not-famous families. They're just born.

As adults they can choose to serve others, or not.

CKS chose to serve. She's served well. She would help sustain that Senate seat for our team, and lift many other boats statewide as well.

She would be a reliable vote for Obama's reform agenda.

I say let's back Gov. Paterson's decision, no matter which potental candidate he picks.

But at my house, CKS is the first choice.

[AllentownJake]

12. I doubt all 29 are good and qualified

or good win re-election. Some them probably suck ass.

[Renew Deal]

18. You are correct.

[boppers]

22. When you have 29 of anything, some of it will likely suck ass.

Not sure that all of them would, though.

[gmudem]

33. And I bet some of them are smart, qualified individuals

Who would be a valuable Democrat to have in the Senate. I don't know what the point of your statement is. Just because her name is Kennedy doesn't mean she would be a better Senator than any other New Yorker.

Besides the 29 state Senators, we also have 20+ Democratic representatives, people like Louise Slaughter, Jerrold Nadler, Anthony Weiner, Carolyn Maloney, Maurice Hinchey, John Hall, and several more. What makes Caroline more qualified than these individuals?

[AllentownJake]

53. This stupid Govenor appoitnment thing I feel has outlived its simplicity

People get too much of a political advantage by being appointed in the election that follows the appointment in the next primary election.

I think every state would benefit from a special election 60 days after the vacancy and the govenor appointing a place holder who cannot run in that special election with a primary 30 days after the vacancy. You need a primary because otherwise the state political party would step in and take on the role of Govenor running candidates off the ballot.

That way people have a chance to vote and the state is represented during the vacancy.

[onenote]

61. ask Louise Slaughter - she apparently supports Caroline

Its highly amusing (as well as pathetically sad) that some here blindly oppose Caroline Kennedy and argue that there are other "more qualified" individuals without having a clue about the people they are suggesting as alternatives -- whether they are as electable as CK, would have the same impact in the Senate as CK, have positions that are as progressive as CK. Nope, apparently, the main qualification of anyone that the folks opposed to CK getting the position is that they're not CK.

As for Louise Slaughter -- in addition to the fact that she herself has endorsed CK, there's the little fact -- well, little to you, who apparently knows her name and not a whole lot more -- that she's 79 years old and would be 81 when she had to run in 2010 and 83 when she had to run in 2012 and if she got elected to serve a whole term she'd be 89 years old when it ended so there is essentially no chance of her becoming a multiple term senators and achieiving the clout that comes with seniority in the senate (to say nothing of the fact that having a one-term senator means that the chances of the repubs picking the seat up at some point in the future increase significantly).

[gmudem]

63. Where are you from?

I've lived in New York for 20 years, but it's funny that me naming one name sent you on quite the rant. So Slaughter is old. How about any of the other people that I mentioned? Jerrold Nadler is 61 and has done some great work on the House Judiciary Committee. I feel that they are a lot more deserving of the seat seeing as how New Yorkers have already voted for them. And yeah, a lot of them would be able to win statewide election. You know why? It's fucking New York. Republicans just don't win here anymore and I see nobody on their bench that scares me even a little bit. Ghouliani? Please. So the electability argument is a ridiculous one.

If Kennedy wants to run in 2010 that wouldn't bother me at all, but I think if somebody is going to get appointed to this seat they should be somebody who's already represented New York votes.

[onenote]

68. I now live in the DC area. I lived in New York in the 70s and still have a lot of family there.

And if Caroline Kennedy gets appointed and faces a primary challenge after two years and can't hold on to the seat, so be it. But in those two years, she'll be a more effective senator for New York than any of the other people you mention. Why? Because Senators from other parts of the country will see a benefit in working with her -- seeking her out to co-sponsor legislation, working with her on legislation that she is intereted in -- horse trading. And why would they do that? Because Caroline Kennedy, just as HRC before her, is someone who will be capable of generating a lot of support for Democratic candidates when they are up for reelection. Her endorsement will carry a lot of weight, just as it carried weight for Obama. Her ability to raise money -- the life blood of politics -- is well established. Jerry Nadler, Anthoy Weiner, Carolyn Maloney, John Hall, Maurcie Hinchey -- all good people, but the fact is that none of them would bring those same qualities to the table. Maybe its not fair, but its the way it is. (At 70 today, and 74 when he would stand for election for a full term, Hinchey also probably would only be a one-termer).

In Virginia, where I now live, I supported Jim Webb over his more progressive primary opponent, not merely because I thought Webb was more electable. But also because I believed that he would immediately be more influential because of his background - that working with him would be viewed as having positive benefits by other senators.

[Tarheel_Dem]

16. You need to come to grips with the fact that if Caroline wants the seat,

it's hers. Simple as that. There are few in NY with the name recognition, and who could raise the enormous sums it would take to run for re-election. This is an appointment, if she's not suitable for NY'ers, they'll throw her out in 2010.

Besides, she won't be representing you; you're in Portland, ferchrissakes.

[ShortnFiery]

45. "... if Caroline wants the seat, it's hers." So you acknowledge cronyism? nepotism?

WTF does that statement mean?!? Her money? Her family? Uncle Teddy? This is just sick. :(

[Tarheel_Dem]

69. WTF do you care? Like the o.p., she won't be representing you.

Let the Governor of NY do his job. Stay the hell out of NY's business.:eyes:

[Renew Deal]

17. What part of NY is Portland in?

Worry about your own problems.

[boppers]

25. Last I checked, this was about a US senate seat.

The part of the US that Portland is in? The upper-left (in more ways than one :evilgrin: ) side of the country.

[AndrewP]

26. Yeah! If you aren't in NY, then you shouldn't even have an opinion!

:sarcasm:

Last I checked, they actually represent not only their own states, but the entire United States as well.

Whether it's Kennedy or not, I really don't much care. Patterson will make the best choice he can, and they'll have to be up for election in 2010 as well.

[Lex]

19. Yay for them!

[MarjorieG]

21. A New Yorker who knows some of the Senators, not all equally worthy. Many unworthy.

In fact, not all US Senators are equally adept at writing legislation.

I think Caroline brings a lot, and as an ally of Obama policies a plus. I think Carolyn Maloney has at times distinguished herself., as well.

[Lavender Brown]

23. The NYS Legislature is not a treasure trove of great leadership, unfortunately

[verges]

27. And all 29 can

throw their names into the ring as well. Have any of them expressed an interest?

[SwampG8r]

29. i finally get it

the clinton lovers think the seat should be held open for hillary or given to bill
no other choice will do
the level of bitter that is exhibited bere by clinton lovers is immeasurable
what a spiteful bunch

[boppers]

30. Huh?

I'm opposed to CK on qualification/entitlement/nepotism grounds.

That's why I offered no less than 29 names of people with more experience than her. Later, I pointed out that there are literally hundreds of people more qualified.

Were you replying to me?

[Jennicut]

32. Biden was only on a city council when asked to run in 1972

and he was dead last in seniority when he got to the Senate. No one thought he would win as he had barely any experience but I'm glad he did. Caroline has not even done that but why does a person have to be in government first to be a Senator or Rep? Don't we want some "outsiders" there?

[gmudem]

34. Do you really think Caroline is an "outsider?"

Her uncle just happens to be a Senator who is trying to get her appointed, so yeah she's not much of an outsider.

[Jennicut]

36. Yeah, I guess not. She has not been a politician her whole life but has grown up in it.

I disagree on Senate appts in general. Just have special elections with two people from the party that held the seat and get on with it.

[gmudem]

37. That would probably be better.

If Caroline wants to run in 2010 than I certainly wouldn't have a problem with that, I just don't feel that she should get this appointment because of her name, especially when there are many other qualified New Yorkers who can take the spot.

[Tarheel_Dem]

70. How the hell do you know the appt would be based on her family name?

Do you have some inside information? What qualifies one to occupy a Senate seat? Decades in elected office? You need to accept the fact that you have nothing to do with this process, since I'm assuming you're not the governor of NY. Ugh....

[boppers]

39. This is where we intersect with Blago and corruption.

Should somebody with no experience, no history, no credentials, be appointed to a position mostly based on their family's fame?

I agree that we need outsiders at times, and your post is the first in the thread that made me question why it was *so* important to me to have experience. I guess my answer would be that *discarding* the more experienced, better credentialed, candidates, in favor of "brand name" candidates, reeks to me of political corruption.

It's not her fault that she has the name, but it is her choice to *actively seek a role* that puts people in the uncomfortable position of passing over the genuinely credentialed, in favor of the easily marketed brand.

What would you think of Chelsea putting her name in, as an 'outsider'?

[Jennicut]

46. Chelsea would be fine with me in like 10 years, she is a bit young

right now, what is she 27? I really don't care what your name is. What matters is do you care about the people of NY and where do you stand on the issues. I don't care that Beau Biden might run in two years for his father's seat. Maybe Caroline would never get a second look without her name but then again the name can be a detriment as well. Lots of expectations put on you of who you are when you are most likely just your own person. Lots of children of politics want to get into it. They are around it all the time, its in their blood. Al Gore ran for his father's seat. Then again, some of these kids want to get as far away from it as possible.

[whistler162]

43. heck... Moynihan couldn't even get elected

before he ran for the Senate!

[onenote]

35. thank you for conclusively establishing that having run for office isn't a guarantee

of anything, least of all that someone is the best pick for the United States Senate.
Whoopee, 29 state senators. Name one that you can guarantee would be a stronger candidate for Senate in two years or that would make more of an impact in his/her first term in the Senate than someone that senators from across the country will want to work with and have campaign for them. HRC, whom i supported for Senate (albeit not for president) was the right choice in 2000, even though it meant catapaulting over deserving elected NY officials like Nita Lowey, because unlike any of those other potential candidates, HRC was a better bet to get elected and, because of her name and connections, likely to have a greater impact than the typical freshman senator. Caroline Kennedy offers similar qualities.

[Stardust]

38. DUmmy award for worst post in this day of very DUmb posts.

:thumbsdown:

Sorry, no offense. I just can't help but think that Caroline is intelligent enough to learn how to legislate very quickly. We need her and the legacy. We really do.

[boppers]

47. Don't worry, I just posted another.

I may out-do myself just yet!

[Stardust]

48. Yeah, I saw it. Nice work.

[boppers]

49. Hm. Being congratulated on being a DUmmy...

In the tradition of IgNobels, I hope it makes people laugh, then think.

[ShortnFiery]

40. Excellent point. But too many of our fellow DUers want to believe in the FANTASY of Camelot.

:(

[whistler162]

42. Okay.... lets have Paterson appoint Bruno!

[babylonsister]

50. I remember being told a Senator shouldn't be prez, because it had

never happened.

If there's a sterling opportunity in the above, I hope someone affords that person a chance.

But I do like Caroline. She's smart and liberal. She could be very quietly effective.

[Radical Activist]

54. How many of them are black?

Other states besides Illinois are allowed to have a black person in the US Senate after all. There are currently none and what will happen in Illinois is uncertain.

[onenote]

60. Ruben Diaz is black. He also is adamantly anti-gay, anti-abortion and votes with the conservative

party position more than half the time. But, heck, he's a Democrat, he's been elected to the State Senate, and he's black. So he's definitely a better choice than Caroline Kennedy.

:sarcasm:

[FLAprogressive]

55. I'm glad the only thing that's important is "party loyalty". Seems to be the only thing that matters

to establishment DLC'ers. Wouldn't want an outsider in our senate ..... no sir!

[sohndrsmith]

57. more qualified? per who's and which criteria? n/t

[OneBlueSky]

58. 29 people who are no doubt beholden to this special interest or that . . .

and/or are in the back pocket of one or more corporations . . . thanks, but I'll take the neophyte with no outstanding political debts . . .

[onenote]

59. so you'd rather have Ruben Diaz Sr than Caroline Kennedy?

He's one of the 29 you claim to be more qualfied that Caroline Kennedy. He also is someone who has been threatening to block the selection of the Democratic leadership of the NY state senate unless he is promised that no attempt will be made to enact legislation legalizing same sex marriage. NARAL views his record on pro-choice issues as "mixed" and he has voted with the Conservative party position 60 percnet of the time.

And I guess you also prefer Carl Kruger -- another one of the 29 you blindly prefer over Caroline Kennedy (at least I hope is blindly). He is a Democrat who has "been serving his constituency for 14 years (which means he has a lot of actual experience in crafting legislation. He also is regarded by NARAL as "anti-choice" and also votes with the COnservative Party position more than half the time.

Yet these guys are "more qualified" to be Senator (and presumably, therefore, if there was a primary held between them and Caroline Kennedy, you'd vote for one of them since they have served constituencies, have experience in crafting legislation, and have chosen a career in public service and Kennedy hasn't).

Or maybe you don't have a clue what your goofy talking point actually suggests.

[TheWraith]

62. Actually, I wouldn't trust a lot of those people with a shiny nickel.

We've got a shitload of Dem State Senators who've fossilized in office, who are just as stodgy and set in their ways as the ones across the aisle, and have no interest in anything approaching real reform.

[Bjorn Against]

65. I am willing to bet Kennedy could beat any one of those 29 in an election

I don't have a strong preference as to who is chosen in New York, but to suggest someone automatically would be a better choice simply because they were elected before is ludicrous. Kennedy has a background in Constitutional Law which most of the Senators you cite could not compete with her on, there is more to being a Senator than simply getting elected.

I am willing to bet that if you were to put Kennedy on the ballot against any one of those 29 you cite she would win by a large margin. I don't necessarily know that she would be the best choice for the position, but don't dismiss her simply because she hasn't been elected before. I am from Minnesota, the state that elected Paul Wellstone to the Senate despite the fact that he had never served in elected office before and he ended up doing a pretty damn good job.

[polichick]

66. Being elected does not equal being qualified. Bush was elected, more or less.

[SidneyCarton]

67. Governor Paterson? Is that you?

No? Ooookkkaaay then, your opinion means what exactly?

...

Thought so.