Caroline Kennedy Tabbed As Clinton Replacement

[Shady]

CAROLINE THE 'CERTAIN'

DESPITE claims that he's still undecided, Gov. Paterson is "certain" to pick Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the US Senate, several unhappy contenders for the job have told friends and associates in recent days.

NY Post

It looks as though it's almost official, that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg will be picked as Hillary Clinton's replacement in the United States Senate. I'm sure she's a fine person, and has done great work in her several causes. However, she's clearly unqualified, and lacks any kind of political fire in her belly. And I'm sure most everyone will agree, that if it wasn't for her family name, there'd be no way she'd achieve such a job by herself.

[punked]

CAROLINE THE 'CERTAIN'

DESPITE claims that he's still undecided, Gov. Paterson is "certain" to pick Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the US Senate, several unhappy contenders for the job have told friends and associates in recent days.

NY Post

It looks as though it's almost official, that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg will be picked as Hillary Clinton's replacement in the United States Senate. I'm sure she's a fine person, and has done great work in her several causes. However, she's clearly unqualified, and lacks any kind of political fire in her belly. And I'm sure most everyone will agree, that if it wasn't for her family name, there'd be no way she'd achieve such a job by herself.

You mean the same women who worked as director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education? Her job being to come up with monies outside the public budget to help the failing schools and who in 3 years raised 65 million for those schools? Who ran the search for Obama's VP and unlike when Dick Chaney did that did not find herself as the person who should be picked?

I am not saying there are not more qualified people and that the name Kennedy didn't have a lot to do with it but I am saying "Unqualified Socialite Tabbed As Clinton Replacement" is a bit over the top.

[sharkman]

Well punked, I'm sure dobbin will be all over you(not) as he has determined with the finely tuned analytical prowess that caused him to name himself, "the Doctor", that this particular Kennedy is not going to be picked for the position since the media was all over her when they learned she was in the running. I'm not making this up.

By the way, the Caroline Kennedy parodies and bright spotlight focused on her has probably succeeded in removing her contention for the Senate job. The New York newspapers have been on her every day. The front page New York Times article probably ended her chances.

[jdobbin]

It looks as though it's almost official, that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg will be picked as Hillary Clinton's replacement in the United States Senate.

Far be it for me to contradict the New York Post but last AP story I saw said that the Governor hadn't made a pick yet.

I still think the edge goes to Andrew Cuomo but Carolyn Maloney might get the nod if they decide that a woman with legislative experience is better suited.

[August1991]

Yeah, well, you know. She's, like, you know, the daughter of, you know, a president. You know?

----

Will Chelsea Clinton, Susan Ford or Amy Carter get to be Ambassador some place?

And what is it about presidents' daughters anyway? You know?

[kimmy]

Far be it for me to contradict the New York Post but last AP story I saw said that the Governor hadn't made a pick yet.

To me the part that sticks out is this:

DESPITE claims that he's still undecided, Gov. Paterson is "certain" to pick Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the US Senate,

several unhappy contenders for the job have told friends and associates in recent days

.

The source of the story is the alleged opinion of associates of Kennedy's rivals.

US Rep. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan, a would-be Clinton replacement who is backed by several women's organizations, was the most publicly adamant in saying the fix was in, citing a scenario - first outlined in last week's Village Voice - under which Paterson, in a deal with Mayor Bloomberg, a Kennedy friend,

selects Kennedy in exchange for help for his own election bid next year.

That sounds like a pretty good reason. If you wanted to run for office, having the Kennedy family's connections at your disposal would probably be about as big a help as you could get, right?

Then again, if Paterson is perceived to have appointed Kennedy in return for political favors, the backlash in his upcoming campaign could be damaging.

Kennedy's rivals might be saying it's already in the bag because they believe it. They might also be saying it because they want to put political heat on Paterson to avoid the appearance of quid-pro-quo.

I still think the edge goes to Andrew Cuomo but Carolyn Maloney might get the nod if they decide that a woman with legislative experience is better suited.

Andrew Cuomo is most popular, Kennedy is most hooked up, and Carolyn Maloney is most qualified. I am guessing that puts Maloney a distant third in this race.

Yeah, well, you know. She's, like, you know, the daughter of, you know, a president. You know?

----

Will Chelsea Clinton, Susan Ford or Amy Carter get to be Ambassador some place?

And what is it about presidents' daughters anyway? You know?

Hereditary monarchies are a much older form of government than democracy... Suitable upbringing and clan connections might not be the best means of choosing a leader... but they can't hurt, can they?

Hilary Clinton's main political asset is probably that she had access to a big political machine. Ditto Carolyn Kennedy.

-k

[bush_cheney2004]

....Hilary Clinton's main political asset is probably that she had access to a big political machine. Ditto Carolyn Kennedy.

Agreed...we would know nothing and care even less about Sec'y Clinton were it not for her elected spouse, unless she blazed her own path.

As for Caroline, I purchased her Xmas holiday book as a gift in 2007, and the recipient welcomed her compilation as the standard bearer for Camelot and family, not the political process that has already cost her so much.

[jdobbin]

Andrew Cuomo is most popular, Kennedy is most hooked up, and Carolyn Maloney is most qualified. I am guessing that puts Maloney a distant third in this race.

The Governor might surprise people and pick Maloney. I do believe Cuomo is qualified though. I'm just wondering if he doesn't have his eyes on the governorship.

[kimmy]

The Governor might surprise people and pick Maloney.

Call me a cynic, but I don't think politicians generally "do the right thing" unless they think the voters perceive it as being "the right thing" or see the alternative as "the wrong thing".

In this case, it seems as if the public is behind Cuomo, then Kennedy, with Maloney barely a blop on the radar of public support. Picking Cuomo would be popular... picking Kennedy would be politically expedient... what's in it for him if he picks Maloney?

I do believe Cuomo is qualified though. I'm just wondering if he doesn't have his eyes on the governorship.

"Qualified" is a pretty subjective term. It's not like you can take a community college program to be qualified to be a senator (or any other political position, really.) As a former Attorney General, I'm sure Cuomo is probably very capable. But I gather Maloney has been in politics at various levels since Cuomo was still in high-school, and I gather she's highly respected.

-k

[jdobbin]

Call me a cynic, but I don't think politicians generally "do the right thing" unless they think the voters perceive it as being "the right thing" or see the alternative as "the wrong thing".

So voters are fickle?

In this case, it seems as if the public is behind Cuomo, then Kennedy, with Maloney barely a blop on the radar of public support. Picking Cuomo would be popular... picking Kennedy would be politically expedient... what's in it for him if he picks Maloney?

In large states, sometimes the Reps don't get nearly the exposure that state officials do.

"Qualified" is a pretty subjective term. It's not like you can take a community college program to be qualified to be a senator (or any other political position, really.) As a former Attorney General, I'm sure Cuomo is probably very capable. But I gather Maloney has been in politics at various levels since Cuomo was still in high-school, and I gather she's highly respected.

By qualified, I mean both Maloney and Cuomo have experience in political office and have earned respect for it.

However, experience is not always what political parties look for. Reagan, Schwarzenegger and Corzine all leaped to top spots without working their way up. They didn't do too bad.

If Paterson appoints Kennedy, he must think it will help his state because he could face a backlash based on opinion now.

[Canadian Blue]

So voters are fickle?

Yes, that's why voters tend to buy into rhetoric with no actual policies behind it.

[jdobbin]

Yes, that's why voters tend to buy into rhetoric with no actual policies behind it.

I guess this a variant of the "voters are stupid" theme we hear from the right wing.

[kimmy]

So voters are fickle?

So politicians prefer to make moves that are popular.

That's not always true, of course. Politicians often make moves that are unpopular because the long-term requires it (making social spending cuts to reduce a deficit, for example.) Politicians often make moves that are unpopular if there's a larger principle at stake (voting against the death penalty even if the public is in favor of it at some particular moment.)

But a decision like this, the long term effect of choosing from any of a number of arguably solid candidates is completely speculative. And there's no larger principle at stake in choosing one over another (unless, as we have learned, one of those candidates is black; see Roland Burris.)

In large states, sometimes the Reps don't get nearly the exposure that state officials do.

By qualified, I mean both Maloney and Cuomo have experience in political office and have earned respect for it.

However, experience is not always what political parties look for. Reagan, Schwarzenegger and Corzine all leaped to top spots without working their way up. They didn't do too bad.

If Paterson appoints Kennedy, he must think it will help his state because he could face a backlash based on opinion now.

I don't think there's any shame in respecting the polls in choosing a representative that the people elect anyway under ordinary circumstances. If one of the candidates was Paris Hilton and (god help us) she was the most popular in the polls, that would be different. That would fall under the heading of "larger principle at stake". But the guy the polls are behind happens to be a guy with a solid resume.

You said earlier you thought Andrew Cuomo might have his eye on Paterson's job. Would appointing Cuomo to the senate be a way to take him out of the race? I assume the Democratic nomination for governor will be hotly contested.

-k

[Canadian Blue]

I guess this a variant of the "voters are stupid" theme we hear from the right wing.

Yes, people are generally stupid and generally think the government can solve all of the worlds problems by snapping their fingers. Once we get over this notion that politicians are somehow infallible or that we need "charisma" in leaders we will have better politics. Until that time I'll allow the idiots to engage in their little cults of personality.

Edited January 21, 2009 by Canadian Blue

[Smallc]

Caroline Kennedy tonight withdrew her name from consideration to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate after learning that Gov. David Paterson wasn't going to choose her, The Post has learned.

Caroline Kennedy Ends Senate Seat Bid

Edited January 22, 2009 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

So politicians prefer to make moves that are popular.

I think everyone wants to make popular moves. However, in this particular case of what the New York governor does, I don't know if anyone can say what the popular move is. As you have pointed out, people are cynical. If the move seems to be self serving, as in Illinois, it can end your own leadership. The best thing seems to be to choose the best candidate whose credentials would best serve the state

That's not always true, of course. Politicians often make moves that are unpopular because the long-term requires it (making social spending cuts to reduce a deficit, for example.) Politicians often make moves that are unpopular if there's a larger principle at stake (voting against the death penalty even if the public is in favor of it at some particular moment.)

I agree.

But a decision like this, the long term effect of choosing from any of a number of arguably solid candidates is completely speculative. And there's no larger principle at stake in choosing one over another (unless, as we have learned, one of those candidates is black; see Roland Burris.)

See my statement asking who is to say what is popular.

I don't think there's any shame in respecting the polls in choosing a representative that the people elect anyway under ordinary circumstances. If one of the candidates was Paris Hilton and (god help us) she was the most popular in the polls, that would be different. That would fall under the heading of "larger principle at stake". But the guy the polls are behind happens to be a guy with a solid resume.

Popularity rises and falls. Had Kennedy been appointed immediately, it would have still been popular. In hindsight, the decision might have not played well for the Governor based on her performance. As you say, it can be speculative.

The smartest thing a Governor can do is to look like he/she takes the job of appointing someone seriously.

You said earlier you thought Andrew Cuomo might have his eye on Paterson's job. Would appointing Cuomo to the senate be a way to take him out of the race? I assume the Democratic nomination for governor will be hotly contested.

I thought about that myself in terms of Paterson removing a rival and gaining an ally in Washington.

Now that Kennedy is announcing she is removing herself, it is possible we might hear such an announcement. My thinking is still that he will appoint a woman though.

[Shady]

Apparently there's breaking news that claims she's not removing her self from consideration. Either way, Paterson has dismal approval ratings, and will lose to Rudy if he indeed decides to run for Governor of NY, like some think he will.

[jdobbin]

Apparently there's breaking news that claims she's not removing her self from consideration.

What breaking news are you reading?

Either way, Paterson has dismal approval ratings, and will lose to Rudy if he indeed decides to run for Governor of NY, like some think he will.

The race comes in 2010. Who is to say what the Governor's race will be like?

[sharkman]

Apparently there's breaking news that claims she's not removing her self from consideration. Either way, Paterson has dismal approval ratings, and will lose to Rudy if he indeed decides to run for Governor of NY, like some think he will.

And the removal from consideration is back on. Drudge report had it this morning, too bad, I was very interested to see if the powers that be would anoint her despite the fact she has no real experience for the job.

[punked]

Apparently there's breaking news that claims she's not removing her self from consideration. Either way, Paterson has dismal approval ratings, and will lose to Rudy if he indeed decides to run for Governor of NY, like some think he will.

When did 53% become dismal? Bush would kill for that. Ohhhh I forgot people on the right tend to lie hoping no one will call them on it.

[sharkman]

No no, punked, you're getting your own behavior (lying, that is) mixed up and are projecting it on those you disagree with. Bush's ratings were terrible, and so was the congress and I assume the senate ratings as well. What does that tell you? Take your time...

[punked]

No no, punked, you're getting your own behavior (lying, that is) mixed up and are projecting it on those you disagree with. Bush's ratings were terrible, and so was the congress and I assume the senate ratings as well. What does that tell you? Take your time...

You do know Harpers approval rating is at 33% right? You do know that, much less then Patterson who's approval rating while mediocre is no where near dismal. Also when you refer to Congress and the Senate it is important to distinguish, The Dems in both are about 15% higher then the Republicans.

Clinton and Reagan's approval rating average is about what Patterson is at now. 53% approval rating by all standards is not bad.

So it tells you don't understand what you are talking about that is what it tells me.

[Shady]

When did 53% become dismal? Bush would kill for that. Ohhhh I forgot people on the right tend to lie hoping no one will call them on it.

His approval rating has been dropping over the past several months, including a 10 point drop from November to January. His only hope from dipping down to the 40's is to not nominate Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. If he chooses Cuomo, he could stop the bleeding, at least for a while.

[sharkman]

You do know Harpers approval rating is at 33% right? You do know that, much less then Patterson who's approval rating while mediocre is no where near dismal. Also when you refer to Congress and the Senate it is important to distinguish, The Dems in both are about 15% higher then the Republicans.

Clinton and Reagan's approval rating average is about what Patterson is at now. 53% approval rating by all standards is not bad.

So it tells you don't understand what you are talking about that is what it tells me.

Let me make it easier for you. You referenced Bush's approval rating. Since this is a federal level approval rating, I showed you how Americans are equally unhappy with all federal branches of the US government. To suddenly reference Harper is irrelevant, even though it suddenly seemed relevant to you.

The point is, Americans are unhappy, not only with Bush, but even more so with congress, who suffered with an even worse approval rating. I'm still unsure you will be able to connect the dots, but make me proud!

[punked]

His approval rating has been dropping over the past several months, including a 10 point drop from November to January. His only hope from dipping down to the 40's is to not nominate Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. If he chooses Cuomo, he could stop the bleeding, at least for a while.

His approval rating has been around 55% from August on ward steadily. Where are you getting your information from seriously?

Sharkman we are talking about Patterson try to stay with it, I was pointing out 53% isn't bad or dismal. Saying so is lying you told it isn't so show me different. Summed up our conversation pretty good Sharkman?