-
sponsorship
Dahlia, Meghan, like Jessica, I'm not so alarmed by the Girl Scout Research Institute findings (so that's where the Thin Mints money goes). Hillary Clinton almost became president this year, didn't, and now she's secretary of state. Sarah Palin could have become vice president, but wasn't ready for the job, and when you're not ready for a very public job, you can find yourself humiliated (ask Dan Quayle). Caroline Kennedy (whose paper doll image I played with as a girl, and so I find myself untroubled by the appearance of Malia and Sasha dolls) almost became senator from New York, but it turns out more than a famous name was called for, and a better qualified woman, Kirsten Gillibrand was chosen. I think the parents of the girls who took the poll need to help them to see that the lessons of this political year are that there are and will be plenty of opportunities for them to be become leaders—but that not everything will go their way, and when things don't, they have to be flexible enough to seize the opportunities they can. And also that Girl Scout training provides a crucial lesson in getting ahead: Be prepared.
-
sponsorship
Sweet Sammi, these two girls are already America's sweethearts, and there is not a kid over 5 years old in this country who can't tell you which one of the president's daughters he or she likes best. J. Crew and the makers of Ty Girlz dolls are not the only retailers to take advantage of that. The commercialization of Sasha’s and Malia’s adorableness started the moment their dad was elected. The manufacturers of the dresses the girls wore to Grant Park instantly exploited the connection. I'm surprised www.sashaandmalia.com is not a Web domain for some savvy marketer yet. The Obamas cannot keep their daughters’ popularity in a bottle, and I don't know what their mother will do to protect them. Now that former White House cute kid Caroline Kennedy has an opening in her schedule, maybe she can come help Michelle Obama figure that out.
-
sponsorship
I'm glad to see Caroline Kennedy out of the running as well. But what mainly strikes me about the travails of this season's Senate vacancies is a point Slate's Bruce Reed made weeks ago: They illustrate what a bad idea it is to give governors the power to fill them. The voters of New York chose David Paterson for one office, not two. Thirty-nine states fill vacancies this way, as the 17th Amendment ostensibly allows. Tom Geoghegan argued recently that the amendment should, in fact, be read otherwise, because the relevant passage starts by saying that when there is an open Senate mid-election in their state, governors "shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies." The amendment then goes on to allow a state legislature to "empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct," but Geoghegan's point is that this subsidiary clause has eaten the main directive. He also points out that the Supreme Court has never really weighed in: Instead of interpreting the 17th for themselves, the justices merely summarily affirmed a lower-court decision in 1969 upholding a governor's choosing of a senator. (It was Gov. Nelson Rockefeller's appointment of Robert F. Kennedy's replacement, in lieu of a special election.)
That doesn't mean the Supreme Court would tackle the question now. Courts are notoriously reluctant to poke their noses into this kind of exercise of power by another branch of government. But the 39 states with automatic handoffs to the governor could take the ball away and give it back to the voters via special election. Call it the Thank You Caroline Act.
-
sponsorship
I agree, Noreen, that it's hard to believe her uncle's health is the reason Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for replacing Hillary Clinton as a senator. His grave illness is the kind of thing that makes Kennedys want to make sure another Kennedy is ready to carry on the name. It seems more likely that in her brief foray into retail politics Caroline discovered that the bubble she has been able to put around herself and her family all these years was going to be permanently popped, and that it's also no fun being mocked by the press and pawed by the public. (I await news as to whether another reason for Caroline's withdrawal is that she found out Gov. Paterson wasn't going to appoint her.) Since Caroline doesn't seem to be temperamentally equipped with the coat of armor that Hillary Clinton possesses, I would be very surprised if Caroline stepped up later to actually run for the seat. I also hope that if Ted is unable to serve out the rest of his term his wife won't succeed him, as Kennedy has apparently requested. You can honor the service and sacrifice of the Kennedy family without buying into the notion that they are entitled by some hereditary right to two U.S. Senate seats.
-
sponsorship
Noreen is having technical difficulties, so I'm posting her thoughts on Caroline Kennedy dropping out of contention for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat:
So Caroline Kennedy is withdrawing her name from consideration for the Senate, reportedly to spend more time with her ailing Uncle Teddy. Whether that’s the full story or a rather a graceful cover-up for what would have been an embarrassing PR fiasco if she hadn’t been picked, I think this could be an opportunity for her in the long run. I was among those who felt Kennedy was getting an easy, entitled pass without showing how much she wanted the seat or why. But if she picks herself up and runs for the open seat in 2010 (with real voters and everything!), she’ll get a chance to prove me wrong and maybe even grab my vote.
-
sponsorship
Am I the only one who sees Caroline Kennedy's "lack" of political experience as no big deal? At least Lisa Belkin mirrors this point of view in "The Senator Track." Instead of spending the past several decades of her life walking the "traditional" political career paths of her forefathers before her, this Kennedy wrote books on civil liberties, raised millions for public schools, and reared three children. Many have declared that privilege and a last name catapulted Kennedy into the spotlight as a senatorial candidate, but these knee-jerk reactions overlook the finer nuances of what Kennedy may bring to office, not to mention the idea that a life spent outside of politics might serve the public better than a professional glad-hander. In Obama's case, claims that he lacked sufficient political experience to win the presidency were drowned out by a nation that demanded change. Personally, I thought we were done judging candidates by their political track records the day Reagan was elected. Then again, I hail from a state that elected the Terminator its Governator.
-
sponsorship
That's an interesting question, Susannah: Why aren't women (and other) writers obsessing about Caroline Kennedy's makeup and hair, cleavage and (lack of) peep-toe pumps? I wonder if it doesn't have to do with the fact that her looks are at odds with the preferred narrative about Caroline Bouvier Kennedy, child of privilege and woman of leisure. I mean, she's a handsome woman, but she doesn't look like she spends her life getting facials and shopping, does she? If the visuals screamed Park Avenue Princess, you can bet we would be going on and on about them.
-
sponsorship
What with all the time spent this year by women and journalists and everyone else obsessing over Sarah Palin's looks and lipsticks and wardrobe, it's hard to believe the absolute dearth of women journalists obsessing over Caroline Kennedy's physical appearance, makeup choices, and hairstyles. Why are her highlights not front-page news? I haven't a clue. Perhaps people are more interested in focusing on her politics. Just kidding! (See also: Tattoogate.) In either case, Fashionista points to Christopher Andersen's hammily titled biography of the Lady Kennedy, Sweet Caroline: Last Child of Camelot, which reveals Caroline's refusal to become Jackie O. 2.0.
According to the book, Jackie was irked a young Caroline wouldn't diet. When Caroline requested the dessert menu at the end of one meal, her mother purportedly informed her 5-foot-7, 145-pound daughter: "You're not having dessert," warning, "You'll be so fat nobody will marry you."
Caroline was not the only one suffering from the Kennedy women's obsessive body consciousness; the pressure to be was also felt by one of Caroline's favorite cousins, Maria Shriver. But only Caroline was routinely compared to her famously svelte mother, and as a result her self-esteem plummeted. In a fit of pique that bordered on the bizarre, she shaved off one eyebrow. "My face," she offered by way of explanation, "is too symmetrical."
-
sponsorship
Poor Caroline Kennedy: After eight years that made Bush I look way less embarrassing than he used to, we've had enough of political dynasties, thanks. It's unfair, though, to blame her for representing the old way and old guard when the true knock against her is that she hasn't been old school enough, and failed to fork over the kind of campaign cash to state and local Democrats that anyone plotting a political future knows is part of the cost of doing business.
In the end, New York Gov. David Paterson will fill Hillary Clinton's Senate seat with just one consideration in mind: He'll choose the person who he thinks will best secure his own political future. But if that's not Caroline Kennedy, then all the hand-wringing about her unfair familial advantage will have been wildly off-the-mark. The open criticism of her by any number of New York Democrats has already made clear that party people aren't exactly quaking in fear of offending her family; the oligarchy ain't what it used to be. And that this is the reaction at a time when Ted Kennedy is fighting brain cancer makes me think that maybe the "dynasty" has died out already, without an heir.
-
sponsorship
Emily Y., Emily B., and Melinda, you all make very important and good points about Caroline Kennedy's possible anointment/appointment to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. The level of nepotism in Congress is unseemly and does send a negative message to those young people—heck, to adults, too—who are not from rich or famous families and are not politically connected, that they should not even consider going into politics because they have little chance of breaching that increasingly elite wall that separates members of Congress from Average Joe peasants. But I beg to differ a bit with Emily B, who liked the idea of a woman taking over Clinton's seat but wondered if it was right to "overlook Kennedy's lack of most of the usual qualifications, like holding public office?"
Kennedy would not be the first member of Congress to lack that particular qualification. Hillary Clinton had not held public office before becoming a senator either. Even though during the presidential primaries she counted her time as first lady of Arkansas and of the United States as political experience, no one actually elected her to those positions. Using Clinton's logic, if her stints as first lady are to be considered as political experience, then why shouldn't Caroline's membership in a political dynasty be counted, too? After all, she did live for a time in the White House, albeit as a little girl. Other political wives have been similarly appointed to Congress (to fill the seats of their dead spouses) and then went on to win, or lose, re-election. (U.S. Rep. Mary Bono, widow of Sony Bono, and former Sen. Jean Carnahan, wife of the late Sen. Mel Carnahan, come to mind.) Wouldn't it be nice, though, if more members of Congress were like U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and got there by dint of their own hard work?
-
sponsorship
All the talk about Blago's fundraising in Illinois makes it harder to hear the talk about Caroline Kennedy's potential fundraising in New York, don't you think?
I mean, rationally, one has nothing to do with the other. On the contrary, the country's most entrepreneurial governor (we hope)—and Kennedy are from such different parts of the jungle that Blagojevich's apparent thuggishness is something of an argument for her candidacy: Her granddaddy was a bootlegger, so his descendants didn't have to be, and she isn't likely to be tempted by the kind of pay-to-play schemes that seem to have so consumed Blago's brain that I'll be amazed if he doesn't wind up pleading insanity.
Still, you hear that story about how Jesse Jackson Jr.'s wife may have been passed over for a big state job because she wouldn't be held up for $25,000 by her extortionist of a governor, and that can't help but effect how you hear Harry Reid's comment about all the lovely pots of money that Caroline K. could raise for herself and other Democrats: Ugh, right? As Emily B. points out, that should not be the yardstick we use to take the measure of a candidate.
Whether we talk about it or not, though, the ability to raise pots of cash is, in fact, a huge part of the job. So much so that my distinct impression back when I used to cover the New York congressional delegation was that they had very little time to learn about public policy—through no fault of their own—because they had to spend so much time dialing for dollars and attending fundraisers. As a result, I don't assume that her potential competitors who've been serving in the House are necessarily so much more steeped in policy than she is. And while I agree with Emily Y. that nepotism is demoralizing for those of us who are have-nots when it comes to family or other connections, our current system virtually guarantees political dynasties and other celebrity candidates, like Reagan and Arnold and Al Franken, maybe even as a protection against Blago-style graft. As long as name ID equals campaign cash and the candidate who raises the most so often wins, how could it be otherwise?
I also take issue with Emily B's feeling that New York Democrats don't have to worry too much about campaign cash anyway, because they'll surely hold on to Hillary's Senate seat in 2012. The likely Republican candidate, Peter King, is so reasonable, likeable, and well-funded that I'm not at all certain of that; he's no Rick Lazio and should not be underestimated.
Mostly, though, I like Caroline for the job for reasons that have nothing to do with money: Because her Uncle Teddy has done such an admirable job on so many issues that are high on my own list—health care, anti-poverty programs, pushing for worker protections—I can't help hoping that his favorite niece has learned from him and could take up where he leaves off. She's a plain old-fashioned great story. And for perhaps silly, sentimental, even tribal reasons, I'd like to see her happy.
-
sponsorship
Emily B, great catch on Caroline Kennedy selling her mother's handbags as tag sale dreck. I also agree with you that however admirable her volunteer work is, it's ridiculous to say this qualifies her for appointment to the Senate (even while acknowledging it's hard to fathom what qualifies many senators for the Senate). But I disagree with your Palin analogy. However ill-prepared Palin was for the vice presidency, she was chosen to run because she got elected governor of Alaska. And she did that without money, connections, or a famous name. Melinda eloquently wrote about wanting to see Caroline take up the Kennedy flame. But I would rather to see it doused. This country is ever more becoming a nation of haves and have-nots. By "haves" I don't just mean the rich. If you are lucky to have caring parents who are good role models and nurture good habits in you, you have an advantage in life—but you still have to work to make something of yourself. But there are many kids who have nothing—some of them go to the New York public schools Caroline Kennedy raised money for—who think there's no point making an effort because everything is already wired for the haves. They think that when the haves want something, all they have to do is pick up the phone and life's opportunities are handed to them. So Caroline Kennedy picks up the phone and announces that for her first full-time job, she'd like to be senator from New York, and thus is annointed. That's a bad message to send.
-
sponsorship
Melinda, I see the appeal of framing whether Caroline Kennedy should get to be New York's senator in terms of whether she'd be good at it. But why should we take only her measure, as opposed to weigh her against other candidates? I'm with my fellow Emily, choking on dynasty fatigue. What especially irks me about this example is the wielding of Kennedy's fundraising potential as an argument for appointing her. (Thank you, Harry Reid.) It's bad enough that name recognition gives candidates a big money edge when they run for election. Can't the playing field at least be level when a candidate is getting appointed and doesn't actually need to run a single ad or print a single poster? Whomever Gov. Patterson chooses will have years to amass the war chest of an incumbent. He shouldn't make this appointment based on who starts with the biggest money edge. Especially since New York shouldn't be tough terrain for Democrats in this new blue era.
Nor do I see much in Kennedy's lovely public service record to demonstrate why she'd be a great senator, either. I'm glad she helped get the Gates Foundation to give $51 million to the New York public schools even though schools chancellor Joel Klein helped sue Microsoft as a Justice Department lawyer in the Clinton administration. But that's about rich and famous people courting other rich and famous people. It's not proof of a deep mastery of policy. Or even skill at handling constituents or fellow politicians. Obviously for some women (including me), it's exciting and somehow fitting to imagine a woman taking over Hillary Clinton's seat. But is that reason to overlook Kennedy's lack of most of the usual qualifications, like holding public office? Framed this way, how different would her ascension be, really, from the pole vault that Sarah Palin tried?
One more pressing question: The NYT reports that at a Central Park tag sale Kennedy put together for the schools, some bargain hunters, "unwittingly, walked away with evening bags that belonged to her mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis." Does that mean that Caroline K. sold off her mother's things without saying whose heirlooms they were? And she's supposed to be a fundraising goddess? Think how much more those handbags would have sold for if they'd been auctioned off as a piece from Jackie O.
-
sponsorship
Have to say, Emily, that your case against Caroline Kennedy for Hillary's Senate seat is a lot more convincing than Richard Bradley's argument that she'd been too tough on him but might not be tough enough to campaign or legislate. (Huh?) And when she heard that Gary Ackerman had compared her to J.Lo., I hope she laughed her tushy off. (Cee K from the Block for Senate? Isn't that a lot like John McCain comparing Obama to Paris Hilton?) Still, I find the whole idea of her second act in Obama's Democratic Party completely irresistible.
She's already come a long way since she stood by her Uncle Teddy at American University last year and endorsed Obama; in retrospect, that seems to have been a turning point both in the campaign and in her life, just a beat ahead of her uncle's cancer diagnosis and her discovery that she not only wanted to pass the baton, but run with it. I find it moving that it took Obama to call her to public service, and think it would be awfully compelling to watch her function as both keeper of the flame and confidante of the change-agent-in-chief. As someone who never wanted to get in the game before, she could be a bridge between the old guard and the new politics.
It is true that suffering and experience are not the same thing—though they were confused often enough during all those arguments about why Hillary ought to get this or that job simply by virtue of all she'd been through. But for me, the question isn't so much whether Kennedy "deserves" the seat. (If politics were about deserves, Nita Lowey would be in her second term as New York's junior senator, and we wouldn't even be having this conversation.) The more important question is whether she'd be any good at it, and I'd have to vote yes on that—then watch with intense interest to see if she proved me right.
-
sponsorship
So, Caroline Kennedy has apparently decided she would like her Uncle Robert's Senate seat (about to evacuated by Hillary Clinton). One of the refreshing things about Caroline supporting the presidential race of Barack Obama over Clinton was that it signaled a rejection of dynastic politics. Yes, that was ironic coming from the Kennedys, but, fool that I am, I thought it meant that they, somehow, were recognizing the end of their own dynastic ambitions. Shortly afterward Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer, and I read that said upon his death, he wanted his wife, Victoria, to get his seat. And now Caroline Kennedy, who has famously led a very private life, has deigned to allow that she will accept an appointment to the Senate. This depresses me. One wonderful thing about Obama's election is that is says in America if you have the drive, the smarts, the will you can come from nowhere and get to the top. The appointment of Caroline Kennedy just says what we all know—if you want to get to the top, the trip is a lot easier and shorter if you're born there.