Caroline Kennedy: I'm a 'Clinton Democrat' (among others)

[wyldwolf]

Caroline Kennedy on Thursday offered a glimpse into how she would perform as a senator from New York State, providing a list of veteran politicians who she said share her same values.

"I feel like I'm a Kennedy Democrat, a Clinton Democrat, Schumer, Barack Obama -- these are all leaders whose values I share and I feel like those are the kinds of values that I would bring," Kennedy said outside the famed Harlem restaurant Sylvia's after having lunch with the Rev. Al Sharpton.

Kennedy didn't provide details about the values she shares with each of the politicians she mentioned, but suggested she would borrow from them if appointed to fill Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat.


http://www.newsday.com/iphone/ny-nykenn1219,0,1782908.story

[cali]

1. pretty meaningless statement. she's trying to please all factions of the party

and she's not, as the article says, being specific.

[GarbagemanLB]

3. but having a Kennedy in that seat would be so awesome!!! OMG!

:rofl:

[Onlooker]

7. Maybe a Windsor would be even more awesome ....

True, all the Windsors do is glorify the family name, but that's what Caroline Kennedy does too. She's wants to be handed the position of Senator to continue her lifelong effort to promote the Kennedy name.

[niceypoo]

23. And the Kennedy's have been bad for this country?

Sorry you feel that way.

[boppers]

38. How did Vietnam turn out? Cuba?

The Kennedy's haven't been perfect.

Sometimes, they've been so wrong it's downright scary.

How have things been looking in that latest Kennedy-by-marriage state, California? Didn't they just vote to strip a minority of their civil rights?

[No Elephants]

49. No one said the Kennedys are perfect. However, our involvement in Vietnam began right after

WWII, when Truman started financial aid. I believe it was Eisenhower who started personnel there and Johnson and Nixon who really escalates. Hanging Vietnam on JFK alone is a hugge distortion.

The Bay of Pigs is aptly named a fiasco, but the JFK and RFK handled the Cuban missle crisis very well. Moreover JFD did a lot positive for this country, at home and abroad, though segregationists were not happy with him. And JFK was not the only other Kennedy.

Your attempt to hang Prop 8 on the Kennedys is incomprehensible to me, though. You are implying that the Republican Governor had nothing to do with it, but his wife (who is a Shriver) did--and therefore that somehow reflects on Caroline? Quite a stretch there.

More to the point, what is your point? That Caroline Kennedy should not get an appointment because of things that happened when she was 3. As long as we are visiting the sins of the fathers, how many generations would it be fair to go back? Her grandfather was an adulterer before she was born too. And God only knows what went down in Ireland before her ancestors got to America.

How about you? Your ancestors and cousins perfect. are they? Is that what entitles you to your job?

[boppers]

65. My point is that "being part of the Kennedy family" is not a model to aspire to.

The family name, and culture, has both upsides and downsides, and her "being a Kennedy" isn't exactly much of a qualification.

Likewise for me, my family name says nothing about my ability to do a given job.

[No Elephants]

69. Who's aspiring to be part of the Kennedy family? Caroline is a member and the rest of never

can be. Every family name and culture has it's ups and downs. No surname is much of a qualification. Not seeing the point you are trying to make.

As I said, no surname, in and of itself, qualifies anyone for anything. I don't think anyone is claiming that it does. However, a surname should not DISqualify anyone for anything, either. One is just as undemocratic as the other.

I have yet to see one poster here that lists Caroline's qualifications and compares them with the qualifications of the candidate they want in that seat. It's been all about the name, dynasties (but some of them are just fine with the Clinton dynasty and the Cuomo dynsasty, LOL, so that's bs.). And many of the posts that oppose her seem to have an agenda that really has nothing to do with her qualifications, or her intelligence or her temperament or her work ethic. I doubt people even looked up her vita.

[Hieronymus]

37. So, you'd prefer a Clinton dynasty.

[Beacool]

47. There's no such thing,

unless Chelsea decides to become a politician.

:shrug:

[No Elephants]

50. So, it takes three to make a dynasty in national politics, not two? That seems arbitrary.

[No Elephants]

51. Did I miss something? Is the battle for the NY appointment somehow between Hillary and Caroline? I

thought the two principle contenders were from the Kennedy and Cuomo dynasties.

[avaistheone1]

28. She sounds alot like Obama

for better or worse.

[No Elephants]

52. Or the Clintons. Or any politiician who tries to triangulate and please everyone, as most do.

[tekisui]

2. Kennedy, Clinton, Shumer and Obama?

They are all the same type of Dem?

[snowbear]

35. LOL..

.
.

Out of the four of them, I'd say Schumey is the most different..

[wyldwolf]

4. Let me clarify: The OP is not an endorsement of Kennedy from me.

Not that my endorsement would mean anything...

[MADem]

8. It is tiresome when assumptions are made, isn't it?

You post an article that you think might be of interest to the group, and automatically you come under fire as though you crafted the article and endorsed the viewpoints contained therein. Sometimes, even if you post the "NOT MY VIEW" disclaimer ahead of the article, you still take heat for it.

It's unfortunate and stifling when that happens.

[Bucky]

10. As wyldwolf goes, so goes the nation

[MADem]

5. Wow, TRIPLECLICK! That's a hiccough!!!

Beg pardon....

[MADem]

......sorry.....

[MADem]

6. She means "Bill" when she says Clinton.

She did a ripe job of sticking it to the other Clinton, her Senator, this year.

I think she's a wealthy housewife with a famous name who has decided she wants to dabble in politics. I also think she's got the people skills of a piece of furniture.

I hope Sharpton talks, in detail, about their meeting. I'm not holding my breath, though. I'd like to know what he meant when he made this remark:

Sharpton, who has been a longtime Clinton supporter, said Kennedy had "unique qualities" that would make her a solid pick for the Senate.

[Beacool]

27. Good assessment.

Truman was right, if you want a friend in politics, get a dog.

x(

[No Elephants]

53. How did Caroline stick it to Hillary this year? Please tell me you are not saying that

simply supporting Obama during the primary equals "sticking it" to Hillary. You cannot possibly mean that.

[MADem]

59. Yes, I can possibly mean that. In fact, I can decisively mean that.

You can pooh-pooh, and insist it's not a factor, if you'd like.

However, others would disagree with you.

See here: http://gothamist.com/2008/12/13/enter_the_caroline_kennedy_backlash.php

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-hamsher/caroline-kennedy-lets-pol_b_151193.html?page=5

[No Elephants]

64. Too bad for you then. My condolences.. People have the right, and probably the obligation, to

endorse the candidate they think will do the best job. Whether they agree with you or not, they have that right. And disagreeing with you does not disqualify anyone from public office. Dorry, bui linking to other people inexplicably still carrying a grudge bc someone had the gall to favor someone other than their candidate just shows that you are not the only one who is wrong about this.

When several candidates run for President, some people favor your candidate. Some favor other candidates. It's called a primary. It's an rdinary part of the political process. It happens every four years. When it ends, people move on. I don't know why some Hillary people cannot seem to deal with that.

[MADem]

66. Save your pity for the gay people who are discriminated against and

disrespected by Obama's administration. Too bad for me? Too bad for YOU. I don't want or need your "condolences."

I never suggested that you follow my lead. I simply know that I am on the right side of that issue, and Obama is on the wrong side.

I don't think Caroline Kennedy is a terribly good choice for the Senate, but, ironically, she's on the right side of that issue, too. Of course, she doesn't have to "run" this time around. She simply has to win an appointment.

Stop trying to make this something other than what it is. It's not a question of "moving on" or "Hillary people." I have stated consistently that Obama's gay hating, dog whistling with McClurkin and Caldwell turned me OFF to him. This is simply a fact. It what pushed my decision to Hillary--though she's not any better on the issue, either (see, I ACKNOWLEDGE that), at least she didn't "Get out the gay hating vote." It was a "lesser of two evils" call.

You aren't obligated to DO anything with that fact, yet you've got to pretend or suggest that my feelings are meaningless and my motives are something other than what I've clearly and plainly stated that they were, to justify your ignoring the fact that your hero is imperfect. And on the issue of gay marriage, Obama has feet of clay. It makes Caroline's endorsement of him all the more curious, particularly when her OWN Senator was in the running. There is likely a Quid Pro Quo afoot in the touting of her as a candidate.

[No Elephants]

67. Apparently, you have not read my posts. You will not find one that is indifferent to gays or one

that defends Obama's invitation to Warren or his opposition to gay marriage. And, Obama was my candidate, not my hero. I don't cnfuse the two. And, if you are opposed Caroline simply bc she endorsed Obama in the primary, rather than YOUR hero, yes,you do have my condolences. All the Hillary supporters who seem unable to shed their bitterness over the primary have it. It corrodes them, no one else.

[MADem]

70. Someone is carrying a grudge, and it isn't me.

That's your issue, not mine. See, I am not at all "bitter" or "corrosive." You're anxious to use rather "laden" language when speaking to me, though. Why, I've no idea, and frankly, I don't care to know.

It's interesting, though...your choice of "emotional" words, when you attempt (and fail) to discuss a policy issue.

What's that comment--whoever smelt it, dealt it?

Further interaction will surely be nonproductive. Happy holidays. You have a nice day, now!

[No Elephants]

71. LOL, I'M the one carrying the

grudge and using "laden" language? Do you read your own posts? The ones on this thread to which I was responding? Here's just one. http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8013579&mesg_id=8013630speaking

I was not here during the primaries (thank heaven) and my candidate won, so I have no grudges. But whenever I see a post here that seems angry or bitter for no reason apparent from the thread on which it appears, it usually turns out to be a Hillary supporter still holding a grudge. I have never seen anything like the apparently inability to let go after a primary.

Yesterday, I finally figured out yesterday why people who never met Caroline Kennedy seem so vitroliolic about a woman who, as far as I know, never did a bad thing to anyone. Saying she would not make a good Senator would not be out of place. But the anger seemed odd. And, sure enough, it turned out to be about Hillary and primary grudges.

And, yes, I do think it's unfortunate for the people holding the grudge that they seem unable to move on. They hurt no one but themselves and they certainly don't help Hillary.

It's especially ironic, given that moveon. org was founded for the benefit of the Clintons, to suggest people move on rather than keep obsessing over allegations against the Clintons.

And happy holidays to you, too.

[MADem]

72. Angry, bitter.

"Usually turns out to be a Hillary supporter still holding a grudge. I have never seen anything like the apparently (?) inability to let go after a primary...."

Big fat broad brush, laden language, and yes...it does sound like you're the one carrying a grudge.

You've got to find "motives" for people who don't bow down and agree with your opinions.

That's your "issue," not mine. And it is "ironic" that you're blind to it.

[Bucky]

9. Ah, she panders like a pro. I told yall she'd be a good senator!

Don't let the "frail society lady of a certain age" routine fool ya--she's a lawyer... and crackerjack to boot.

[saltpoint]

11. She noted the clouds on the horizon and remembered to take her umbrella.

Very nicely handled, no bumps or scrapes.

On a personal note, I would have been dismayed if she'd said, "Oh, I'm a Howell Heflin Democrat." Or worse, "Oh, I want to return the Party to the days of Ax Handle Maddox."

That would have been a problem. A real big problem.

But she didn't.

[stillcool]

12. She needs to STFU, and GTFO...

although it is good to see the 'issue' of Caroline Kennedy re-emerge. I wish I could come up with a short and sweet trash and bash, but I don't have it in me.

[saltpoint]

17. O, I agree. It is profoundly offensive for people born into privilege to

leave the sanctioned hush of that privilege and pursue the impulse to serve others.

It's offensive and repellent for Caroline Kennedy to breach that singularity. It suggests responsibility to Madison's and Jefferson's notion of an informed citizenry and the frailest stay against pre-Enlightenment forms of government. Themselves landowners, the Founders knew whereof they spoke.

Plus, it would potentially advance the record of public service of one of the most famous families in history, which cannot be abided. Caroline Kennedy is just using her family's name, her inarguably sturdy education, her sustained commitment to the arts and education, and her personal dignity and grace to enter the sphere of public service, as if those were commodities were to be valued in a Constitutional republic.

It's disgusting.

[stillcool]

21. Not at all the qualities needed....

to represent the people of New York. I think the seat should be filled by someone similar to the current Jr. Senator from New York. A recently transplanted non-Native New Yorker, completely unfamiliar with the complexities of the New York landscape, someone with no previous experience in public service in New York, and most importantly someone with huge political aspirations. Most certainly not Caroline Kennedy. She obviously is totally incapable of matching those requirements.

[Cha]

25. Positively

revolting. :( Actually, I'm revolted by the ignorance I'm reading about Caroline Kennedy(not you).

I've talked to some friends about Caroline here in New York and they think she has what it takes..go figure.

[saltpoint]

32. zidzi, you make good sense, as always.

It took me awhile, but I did finally put in a few email inquiries to awfully long-standing Dem pals in Buffalo, Purchase, and NYC. I wanted to hear what the buzz was.

In their respective circles, CK is the cat's pajamas, and they're very cool with her in that job.

[Beacool]

29. It is offensive if she expects to be APPOINTED to the US senate.

She chose to stay away from actively pursuing an elected office of her own for most of her life, but now she should be given a senate seat??????

Why, pray tell? Because she's a Kennedy? Because she endorsed Obama?

Please.........

:eyes:

[saltpoint]

31. I'm thinking you must be living in some other country than the USA or

in another state than New York State.

In New York, the governor is constitutionally empowered to select a replacement senator if a sitting senator dies, resigns for any reason, or is otherwise incapacitated or unable to serve.

In several states, in fact, this is the way it's done.

Swear to god.

You will have reason to cheer if he does not select Caroline Kennedy but most of us are behind Paterson, no matter which potential candidate he chooses.

The selection is made by appointment in the current circumstance.

[Beacool]

36. I didn't need the civics lesson. I can see Manhattan from my town.

I live in Hoboken, are you in NYC? If you are, then you'll know where's Hoboken. I meant that she's never ran for anything and there are other people who are far more qualified. If she wishes to be senator, then let her run in 2010 and see if she can hack campaigning like any other politician, which by the way she's not.

:eyes:

[saltpoint]

39. I know Hoboken. I got no problem with it.

The point in question is the entitled power of the governor of the State of New York.

It's Paterson's call. He might make a pick you like a lot. He might not.

But it's his appointment, and it is an appointment that he will make. No matter who is appointed, he or she will be an appointment.

CK meets all criteria for the job.

[No Elephants]

56. Hillary had never run for anything either, when the party handed her the NY primary. Did you have a

problem with that.

My Auntie had a GREAT view of the skyline from Weehawken. It did not tell her what was in the NY state constitution or the NY state laws, nor did it enable her to tell how New Yorkers felt about a candidate. Too bad Sarah Palin kind of ruined the "I can see Russia from my window" line of "reasoning for all of us.

[pecwae]

40. Both.

She left out some Democrats in her statement. The fact she put this meaningless statement out proves she's becoming a politician, though.

[Beacool]

46. Well, either way it ticks me off.

The US senate is becoming the freaking House of Lords!!! There are far more qualified candidates who already have a track record. Like Lowey, Cuomo, Velazquez or Maloney, for example.

:(

[No Elephants]

63. Specifically , what makes them more qualified?

[Beacool]

73. They have years of experience in elected office.

New York, like most of the nation, is going through trying times and needs someone who knows the process and will hit the ground running the minute they step into the senate.

I have no problem with Caroline running in 2010, like any other candidate, and letting the people of NY decide whether they want her as their senator.

[No Elephants]

58. Put out a meaningless statement? She simply said she shares values with Kennedy, Clinton, Obama,

and Shumer. She did not put out a position paper or a press release. Maybe someone simply asked her which Democrats she might compare herself too and she had the unmitigated gall to reply. Newsday did its best to spin it into something it isn't and people here fall for it.

[No Elephants]

55. She has made it clear that she does not expect to be appointed, but that she would

like to be considered for the appointment. What on earth is wrong with that?

[saracat]

13. And we should pay no attention to the fact she doesn't bother to vote!

[Alexander]

22. Neither did Weiner or many other Congresscritters being considered.

Even Hillary Clinton missed lots of votes in the last two years.

[saracat]

26. Don't be obtuse. She doesn't vote in local or national elections.

She hasn't ever been "elected " to vote on anything in congress or to "miss" those votes.Caroline rarely excercises her right to vote, the right people have dies protecting. Her interest in Democracy just isn't that passionate. Why should anyone vote for someone who does not herself vote ?

[AtomicKitten]

34. primaries

They were primaries she didn't vote in, local, state and national. Five or six over her entire voting history, some 30 years.

Your hyperbole on this is petty.

[saracat]

42. No there are also GE's she didn't vote in. Including one for the Senate seat for which she now

claims she wants to be appointed and will run for if she is appointed.This is not a huge crime but it does bolster both her lack of politcal concern and the evidence that she hasn't had a desire to be a part of the politcal process. .
I think Caroline is an accomplished and bright person who has led a very private life.
I do not think that makes her the best choice for the Senate. I would like to see someone who had "earned it" by participation be appointed but should it be Caroline, I wish her the very best!

[AtomicKitten]

43. that's not what I read but the fine details of your comment are beside the point

Your criticism on this basis is petty. "Earned" doesn't count in a political appointment, plus its precise meaning is in the eye of the beholder. Caroline is as qualified as Clinton was in 2000. The party cleared the field for Clinton to run then, and Clinton sustained much of the same criticism you are making against Caroline now. Gov. Paterson is the final arbiter of this anyway.

[saracat]

44. Whatever. She is certainly NOT as qualified as Clinton who had dedicated many years of her life to

public service and was invested in the political process.Whatever the result, I wish Caroline the best.

[AtomicKitten]

45. I'm so not surprised that you said that, and I completely disagree.

Caroline is dead serious about this seat and I too wish her the best in that endeavor.

[No Elephants]

61. Disagree that Caroline is not as qualified as Hillary was when Hillary got that seat; and

Caroline has dedicated many years of her life to public service as well. But, the point of the comparison is eluding me. Hillary is vacating that seat, but you and others here are posting as though Hillary and Caroline are competing head to head for that appointment. Puzzling.

[Beacool]

48. First of all, she's NOT as qualified as Hillary was in 2000.

Second, Hillary was VOTED into office by the people of New York. Caroline wants the seat given to her on a silver platter even though she has never ran for elected office in her life and by her own choice. What makes her deserving of the job over far more qualified New yorkers?

[AtomicKitten]

57. I completely disagree. Caroline is Clinton 2000 redux.

No experience in elected office, big name, and the ability to raise cash.

This seat is up for appointment as per the NY Constitution with a special election in 2010. Your bitter interpretation of the statute, however, is duly noted.

Its unseemly that some Clintonites are jealously guarding this seat, particularly those screaming "Sexist!" throughout the Democratic primary.

Best get your boot off Caroline's neck because chances are increasingly good she will be the next junior Senator from NY.

[No Elephants]

62. Caroline is as least as qualified as Hillary was in 2000. Further, if the seat had been up for an

appointment in 2000, do you seriously believe that Hillary would have sat it out for two years until a special election was held? Or expect anyone else to believe that?

Finally, whoever gets this appointment is going to have to run for the seat twice in the next four years alone and for re-election every six years after that.

I don't understand why some people are acting as though Hillary and Caroline are going head to head for this seat? Is it simply still resentment bc Caroline endorsed Obama in the primary? If so, Good lord.

Over half of all primary voters endorsed Obama by voting voting for him, as did tons of Super Delegates. So did over half the nation's voters. When, if ever, do you think you will finally be able to get over that, for your own good?

[NashVegas]

41. Sorry Saracat

I'm done tying to hold Democratic politicians to higher standards than Republican voters do theirs.

[No Elephants]

54. She has voted more often than she has not voted. And no one needs to tell any Kennedy that

people died for our right to vote. Her Uncle Joe did. And several of her relatives were killed so no one could vote for them.

[bottomtheweaver]

14. I think it was a perfectly nice thing to say

considering where the heat is coming from and very decent of you to post something on Caroline.

[Autumn]

15. I don't think that politics

holds an interest for her.I think that this is something that she is doing for her Uncle. He seems to be her rock.

[iamthebandfanman]

16. wow already playing the game

and shes not even officially in it yet ;)

[bottomtheweaver]

18. And if she didn't, there would be ten threads

assuring us she'll never make it with that tin ear. :crazy:

[MannyGoldstein]

19. How Can One Be Simultaneously A Kennedy Democrat And A Clinton Democrat?

I don't get it.

[wyldwolf]

20. both triangulated to great success? Both avid free traders?

Both concentrated on empowering the middle class?

But you'll have to ask Caroline who's been involved up close for a while.

[MannyGoldstein]

24. LOL!

I meant Bill and Hillary Clinton, and JFK/Bobby/Ted Kennedy.

[wyldwolf]

30. LOL!

I get it!

See, when the term KENNEDY Democrat is used, most people are referring to JFK. And when the term CLINTON Democrat is used, most refer to Bill.

But now that I know YOU use it to refer to the entire Kennedy and Clinton clans, I see where your take on it came from.

However, Ted Kennedy is really the only monkey wrench in the equation being that Bobby Kennedy was more like John than Ted.

[No Elephants]

60. Why not? Bill Clinton claimed Jack Kennedy as his hero. Besides, do you really expect Caroline to

say she is a Clinton Democrat but not a Kennedy Democrat.

[JI7]

33. she is an Al Sharpton Democrat also

[saltpoint]

68. Our folks and grandfolks who voted for CK's dad in the election of 1960

voted for him before anyone knew he was the president of legend.

They cast their votes to him because they listened and liked what they heard, and felt he represented the significant and honorable elements of public service they valued as citizens.

His daughter is not less the child of privilege than her father, and her father properly received the support of millions.

Paterson must appoint someone to that position. Whoever he chooses will be on the state's ballot in 2010 and in 2012. I am yet to hear a compelling reason, nevermind a Constitutional or historical one, to disqualify Caroline Kennedy.