If you have "no place to go," come here!

A Modest Proposal on Caroline Kennedy

gqmartinez's picture

While its always fun to throw out allegations of some conspiracy and chastise folks I'll throw out a simple hypothesis: Caroline Kennedy was not the best fit for the job.

Shocking as it may seem, there are some legitimate gripes about her candidacy. For one, her voting record does not indicate a deep commitment to NY Democratic politics:

A review by The News found that of the 38 contested elections since 1988, Kennedy skipped about half, almost all of them primaries.

Additionally, she hasn't shown much interest helping the next set of NY leaders:

This decade, other than a $1,000 donation to City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, the Camelot heiress has not financially supported any Democrat seeking city or state office in New York, records reveal.

Some say Kennedy, who is worth at least $100 million, missed an opportunity to curry favor among Democratic pols to establish herself as a serious political player as she lobbies Gov. Paterson for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.

Not so good if one of your selling points is about raising money for other Dems in the state.

Call me old fashion, but those two issues alone suggest a person who didn't feel much of a need to get involved in the *Democratic Party* process over the last 20 years. How can you reasonable expect people *not* to raise charges of entitlement/legacy and/or cronyism? Heck, even as a "poor graduate student" I donated to more local and state candidates than Kennedy (of course, not as much given financial limitations).

The two reasons quoted above are enough (even though there are more reasons) for me to not feel bad about Caroline Kennedy not getting the nod. I do feel bad she had to undergo a high level of scrutiny that I don't wish on anyone. Especially if she's as private as many are saying. But no, I don't think there is reason to chastise anyone for her not being appointed.

No votes yet


Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

not understand that you have a complete loss of privacy when you run for office? It is surprising to think that someone who values their privacy so much would even think about being in office. Of course, this might explain why she would consider and lobby for an appointment instead of actually running for office thinking that she wouldn't have similar issues.

Yeah, all the stuff you're posting here pretty much makes a huge gap in the argument for making her a senator.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Personally, if the president is a philanderer I don't care to know so long as he's doing a good job in his official capacity. For most of my political consciousness, I've had to deal with people's personal lives being exposed. I've known people on track to become politicians who are not great people or great leaders who are good at hiding their dirty laundry. I've seen people who should be running for office not do so because they may not be squeaky clean. It's a pretty terrible situation that hurts us all--the best and brightest are not usually the ones who make it because of personal matters.

Voting records actually do mean a lot to me, though. Seriously, how can you claim to want to be a leader in the political world if you can't do the most fundamental thing in democracy? And donating to candidates is also important, especially local ones. It's not buying favor, IMO, few of the local races have candidates who have the ambition to go very far. When you donate to school board and supervisor and council candidates it shows that you are seriously thinking about the local issues. Donating solely to federal candidates, on the other hand, reeks of trying to curry favor or at least a more lazy approach to politics since much of the nuts and bolts of daily life come from city and state policy makers.

Card-carrying_Buddhist's picture
Submitted by Card-carrying_B... on

raising money? Kennedy has quite a good record on that, actually.

While removing Gillibrand from that upstate seat benefits only Republicans. And Gillibrand's own fund-raising abilities may benefit Paterson. Hm.

Submitted by lambert on

Or somebody who was bullied by ferocious progressives into working against his own interests? Just dumb? I guess I'm not following the theory, here.

$100 million, though. That's a lot of oblige to noblesse. Even these days.

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

My beef isn't with her not trying to buy support. In fact, if anything, that could be a good thing. But, her's the beef, it's only a good thing is she'd been particularly active in other ways and save for the school board, she's shown a surprising level of apathy for politics. That's also not necessarily bad. However, it is bad if you're wanting to become the next Senator from the State of New York. There was just so many things wrong with her bid that you could pick from a bag and they'd all be good reasons on their own to be able to dismantle this bid. For me, she simply never explained a good reason why she wanted to be a senator; couple it with her past apathy and it was so obvious that she didn't deserve it.

If she wants to comeback when the seats back up, well, I don't mind one bit. She better with a serious bid, though, and that's going to require some soul searching on her part. She wasn't stopped by anyone but herself and by her own hubris.