We've gotten lots of mail from readers asking us to comment on the open U.S. Senate seat from New York, which is vacant because Hillary Clinton is headed to the State Department. Caroline Kennedy has made it known that she's interested in the job.
Like Dana Goldstein (and lots of other bloggers), I was initially averse to the idea because of the legacy. Just as there was something off-putting about the idea of replacing a second Bush president with a second Clinton president, "just being a Kennedy" didn't seem like enough of a reason to hand Caroline a Senate seat. Plus, there are lots of other people who have had experience in government -- Nita Lowey and Carolyn Maloney, to name just two.
But Dana eventually came around to the idea of Kennedy, listing many of her accomplishments that are public, but not necessarily in government. And while I wouldn't call Caroline Kennedy my first choice for the job, I do think that she'd be capable.
matttbastard rounds up some commentary on the Caroline question, including this quote from Jane Hamsher:
It seems Caroline Kennedy has decided she'd rather have a US Senate seat than a pony for Christmas[...] Really? She's "making calls this morning to alert political figures to her interest?" I guess it was either that or get her nails done.
Gendered much? Also, as Bint Alshamsa points out, it's not as if anyone else in the running for Clinton's Senate seat -- or Hamsher herself, for that matter -- is without a fair degree of privilege. And Echidne makes an important point:
At the same time, it has always been harder for women to get to the top and being born or married into a political family has historically been almost the only avenue which women have had to power. Just check what would have happened to the early women Representatives and Congresswomen in this country if we had applied a no-nepotism rule for the last eight decades.
Of course, it's important to keep in mind that this is all still firmly in speculation territory. Gov. Paterson has yet to appoint a replacement for Clinton, and has not said that Kennedy is even the front-runner.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The Caroline Kennedy Question.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11000
I'm a rural upstate resident who's not that thrilled with the prospect of Caroline Kennedy, even though I'm a boomer who's awfully fond of the Kennedy family and what they've done for the US.
Here's the thing: a senator really has two constituencies. They've got to represent the best interests of the country and they've got to represent the best interests of their state - their entire state. Hillary Clinton set a very high bar for what it means to represent upstate NY and while I'm comfortable with Kennedy as someone who'd look out for the country I'm not sure that she's someone who'd be able to do the same for the interests of working people and farmers up here in the boondocks, where things have been crazy hard for a long, long time. Maybe it's a failure of my imagination but I have a hard time seeing Kennedy doing things like fighting to create defense manufacturing jobs in our hollowed-out industrial cities or for shaping agricultural subsidies in ways that help keep families on their farms. I hope I'm wrong about that.
Didn't the feminist organizations endorse Carolyn Maloney? Why isn't there more discussion of her candidacy for this position? She's an elected official with a long track record of doing great things for New York, and she doesn't pose the same uncomfortable dynastic issues that Carolyn Kennedy poses. Also, she's, er, genuinely accomplished, without the aid of a family name propelling her forward. And her experience is on a broad range of issues INCLUDING ECONOMIC ONES.
Thank you! It's as though Caroline Kennedy has already been anointed (dynastic pun intended).
I have no particular opinion either way on the NY senate seat. But the commentary on Kennedy that I've seen always raises the issue of "most qualified" candidate. Have I missed some sort of edict about what represents the correct qualifications for senator or president? Is there even clear agreement about how one measures the job performance of a senator or president? The only people I've ever spoken with who believed in hiring "the most qualified candidate" were the ones defending racist and sexist hiring.
Yes, but now we've got plenty of women reps and senators. Should the female exception to the no-nepotism principle continue.
It's a foolish argument in the first place anyway. Hillary's candidacy for the senate is called the result of nepotism, but who cares--she stood for election, and NY voters chose her. If their choice was influenced by her marriage to Bill, well, that's their right, and trumps any reservations about her family connections.
That's not the case here--Kennedy is seeking an appointment. She lacks the 'will of the people' trump card.
Hillary won the senate seat in an election, but she was given the Democratic nomination out of sheer nepotism. NY didn't have a shortage of NY Democrats who wanted to be senator. They all jumped or were pushed out of her way.
That said, talking about nepotism in the senate is like talking about water in a lake.
For example, it's pretty commonly believed that Joe Biden's seat is being reserved for his son, when he finishes his military service in Iraq.
Fairness _would_ dictate that Representative Nita Lowey, who was passed over by the party bosses for Senator Clinton (as Aleks points out), should now get a shot. She's had 20 years and would restore my faith a little bit in the notion of political meritocracy.
I'm not a New Yorker, so it's not like I have skin in this game, but as someone who's worked on several campaigns, I'd show more respect for anyone who has actually put herself through a campaign than someone who's never invested the sweat equity.
Caroline Kennedy may have made some worthwhile contributions in the public sector (e.g., her work for the New York City public schools), but there are several other officeholders on the NY scene who've had the ovaries to undergo the gruelling gauntlet that is campaigning. To pick Kennedy over any of them is a slap at women who have the guts to campaign against the odds.
Since the Senate makes national decisions, we all have dogs in this fight. My main concern, of course, is that the seat stay Democratic. Obviously NY is good ground for Democrats to hold their seats, but does her name and her personal appeal tell us enough about how she'll smack down a Republican challenger? If not, then her lack of electoral history becomes a problem.
Will NY hold a special election for the seat in 2010, or will the appointee stay until Hillary's term ends in 2012? As a general rule, appointees lose the next election, so despite NY's Democratic tilt we need someone who will defend the seat strongly.
Personally, I think it is a little disingenuous of her to express interest in the seat that is being vacated by Hillary Clinton since she essentially campaigned against Hillary Clinton saying that we should end political dynasties in the United States.
That being said, I do not think the qualification question is fair at all. If JFK Jr. were still alive and being considered for the seat, I don't think the same questions would be asked about him. I think that Caroline Kennedy would make a great Senator, regardless of her past political involvement. I don't think that is the only thing that makes one qualified.
Of course, I don't live in NY and so really have no say in who would be the best Senator for NY. I do hope that gender is considered, since there are so few women in the Senate, and there are many qualified ones to choose from, including Caroline Kennedy.
The same questions might not be asked of JFK Jr. because JFK Jr. demonstrated a level of political and civic engagement that Caroline Kennedy has not (until, at least, her endorsement of Obama).
JFK Jr. was a NY assistant district attorney and sought to bring politics to "the masses" with George magazine. Caroline Kennedy has served on charitable boards and authored some books. She's accomplished in her own right, but these aren't the sort of accomplishments one looks for in a Senator. Especially when there are so many other qualified candidates.
Is there anything in Caroline Kennedy's background (aside from her name) that demonstrates she should be appointed over many other qualified candidates?
Define "qualified" please. Seriously. Some senators suck, some don't, what qualification has any predictive power whatsoever?
The bare minimum standard: to be qualified for a Senate APPOINTMENT, one should have held a public, elected office.
This minimum standard demonstrates that 1.) one can perform one of the duties of a Senator--work with both sides to find common ground and 2.) one has the will of the people behind them.
Qualification is like pornography, hard to define but you know it when you see it. Having some sort of record in the business before asking for a top job is a good start.
In America, one qualifies by campaigning (and having a record to campaign on) and the judges are the voters. Obviously because it's an appointment, no one has won an election for that seat, but someone like Rep. Lowey has at least been judged qualified repeatedly by a segment of the NY electorate. Carolyn Kennedy is a fine person, but she hasn't been elected by anyone, and hasn't put in any time or legwork. Giving her the seat because she's well connected and has a great name would screw over NY Democrats who're climbing the ladder on their own merits. Again.
Is the ability to work with both sides to find common ground the, or at least, a, important qualification? Is that ability proven by that qualification? Is the will of the people necessarily more important than, say, judgment, or some personal guiding ethos? Surely a senator must sometimes oppose the will of the people, when the will points toward discrimination against a minority, for example.
Are some kinds of legwork more valuable than others? Most candidates trained as lawyers, which makes sense as far as becoming lawmakers. But every so often someone comes out of a business background, or medicine, or even acting. Are those better or worse qualifications?
Let me reiterate that I don't have a dog in this fight. I'm just trying to think through these considerations, particularly in light of the past eight years of disastrous political leaders.
Campaigning for office heavily favors those who are rich, connected, and have name recognition, so if Kennedy wants to run for senator, she would have an unusually good shot. For that reason alone, I'd prefer an appointee who wouldn't have a chance in an open election, maybe an atheist.
The appointee is going to have to stand for reelection in two or four years.
Kennedy was in Syracuse this morning and made sure that if she is appointed, neither she nor Governor Paterson will get my vote in 2010 (there will be a special election that year for the senate seat, assuming Hillary Clinton is confirmed to State and vacates her seat).
She walked out of the mayor's office, said she was glad to speak with him about her experience, and said that the governor has a process in place. She actively avoided questions like, "Will you please tell New Yorkers what experience that is?" and "You're running for public office and you're not going to answer any of our questions?"
She did answer one, though. In response to the question, "Where are you going next?" she said, "To the car."
Here's video from the local NBC station.
http://www.cnycentral.com/news/video.aspx?id=236916
I sure as hell hope that Kennedy is paying attention to the comments on NYT blogs from voters. The vast majority indicate that New York voters, or at least those voters who follow Times blogs, do not want her.
Still, everybody seems to be comparing her possible appointment to Clinton's run for the same seat -- as though twice running for office, based on politics and policies that were broadcast nationwide over eight years as first lady, is anything like being appointed after never having held public office and instead having worked behind the scenes for nonprofits a public school district!
If Kennedy were floating the idea of a bid to campaign and actually be voted for in a Democratic primary, I wouldn't blink. I might roll my eyes, knowing that -- like Clinton -- her fundraising resources might bar other Democrats, but I'd be confident that she'd be running against a slew of able contenders.
That's the thing: New York has a lot of promising politicians who, if appointed now, would be in a great position to win reelection in 2010. Among them are a bunch of women, if that's Paterson's priority (which I think it needn't necessarily be). I could understand Paterson's appointment of Kennedy if he thought that no Democratic stars besides her looked promising enough to run against somebody like Giuliani for the seat in two years. But that isn't the case.
As for upstaters, I'm hoping for Kirsten Gillibrand or Byron Brown, personally. Or, if a legacy, at least one like Andrew Cuomo who's run for and won an office before and whose politics and political savvy are clear.