Winner 2013 Webby Awards for Best Political Website
Top Banner, Site wide
Apr 17, 2014

 Choose a size
Text Size

Top Leaderboard, Site wide

Star-Spangled Baggage
Science Finds New Routes to Energy




Paul Robeson: A Life


Truthdig Bazaar
Black Tuesday

Black Tuesday

by Nomi Prins

more items

 
Report

You Can Never Have Too Many Kennedys in the Senate

Email this item Email    Print this item Print    Share this item... Share

Posted on Dec 18, 2008
Caroline Kennedy
welt.de

By Ellen Goodman

    In 1962, a young Massachusetts man who had barely passed the constitutional age barrier decided to run for the Senate. At the time, one of his brothers was president of the United States; the other brother was attorney general.

    The air was full of charges about nepotism and dynasties. During a debate, his opponent attacked him with fervor and bitterness, charging that if his name were Edward Moore and not Edward Moore Kennedy, his “candidacy would be a joke.”

    Now that brash cub of a politician is the lion of the Senate—the lion in winter, as he is called—wrestling with brain cancer. And another Kennedy wants to be a senator.

    So the question again is: Would Caroline Kennedy be considered for the seat if her name were, say, Caroline Schlossberg? What qualifications does she have? As one pol barked, she has “name recognition—but so does J-Lo.” Is this all about entitlement?

    I thought of this too when Kennedy made her bid for the seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, a senator who had herself been pilloried in 2000 for being nothing but a first lady running on name recognition. Caroline Kennedy is, as one of her friends says, “the last person I ever expected to want to go to the Senate.” The child of the White House who lost her father to an assassin, the grade-schooler hounded by paparazzi, she was protected fiercely by her mother.

Advertisement

Square, Site wide
    As a lawyer, writer, fundraiser and mother of three who worked for many causes, she was always dutiful and gracious about her role as a Kennedy. But until this year, the closest she came to pressing the flesh was on a book tour. She was famously private, an oxymoron without irony. She can, as a friend says, “walk down the street without a hat and sunglasses. She enjoys that.”

    If life were fair, as her father famously denied, the first Kennedy woman to achieve high rank would have been Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, the one who wanted it most, or Maria Shriver, the true natural in this crowd of cousins. If life were fair, the jobs would go to the dutiful, not the charismatic, to the workhorse, not the high-profile.

    But I find myself unable to dredge up even a modicum of outrage at the idea of this Kennedy bumping to the top of the list of Senate candidates. Her résumé shows no more chutzpah than Al Franken’s. Her celebrity is no greater than that of her cousin-in-law Arnold Schwarzenegger, “Kindergarten Cop” and governor. Is she any less entitled to this post than the business leader who decides that his acumen at widgets qualifies him to lead a country?

    There is something refreshing in seeing a mother and public citizen auditioning for a second act. Beyond that, there is something tender and timely in seeing this particular woman coming home to the family business.

    Caroline’s childhood photos are part of the family album of my generation. When she reappeared as a 50-year-old cover girl for the AARP magazine last year, a shock wave ran through many of us—and maybe even her. When asked why she made her first presidential endorsement—of Barack Obama—Kennedy repeatedly merged the political with the personal. “I really felt like it was a crucial moment,” she said, adding “I recently turned 50, so I figured, I’d better get going—what am I waiting for?”

    Kennedy’s moment coincided with Obama’s moment. “All of my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives.” But Obama changed her life. Kennedy went from a high-profile endorsement to helping lead the vice presidential search team to weeks in unglamorous campaigning. It was less of a Kennedy farewell tour than an Obama trailblazer.

    I don’t know if Kennedy is tough or politically talented enough for the back-to-back races she would face to win a full term. Appointed candidates do not have a high rate of success in elections. But I do have a sense that this woman is less focused on the Kennedy legacy—perhaps even less than the rest of us—than the Obama beginning.

    She described her reasons for supporting Obama, saying: “My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined.”

    So are the reasons for seeing her as a Sen. Caroline Kennedy. Pick Caroline and you are not choosing the latest scion of a dynasty. You are choosing the emblem of a generation—and maybe a country—coming back to life. Public life.
   
    Ellen Goodman’s e-mail address is ellengoodman(at)globe.com.
   
    © 2008, Washington Post Writers Group


New and Improved Comments

If you have trouble leaving a comment, review this help page. Still having problems? Let us know. If you find yourself moderated, take a moment to review our comment policy.

By Maani, December 23, 2008 at 12:59 pm Link to this comment

CK refuses to make public financial disclosure:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/23/nyregion/23kennedy.html?sq=kennedy&st=cse&scp=2&pagewanted=print

Peace.

Report this

By dihey, December 23, 2008 at 11:17 am Link to this comment

I have made a 180 degree turn on Caroline Kennedy. No, I do not say that she must become the senatorial replacement for Hillary Clinton because there are other candidates as well. My turn is due to her statements regarding her positions on hot-button progressive issues. I am especially impressed that she favors same-sex marriage on constitutional grounds. That is particularly gutsy because the candidate she supported does not. Maybe she can teach Obama a thing or two on constitutional issues and break him away from the Warren-swamp.

Report this

By Maani, December 22, 2008 at 10:00 am Link to this comment

gatlinggun:

I am almost willing to concede your first point.  However, your second point is specious.

How do you know who else may be “lobbying” for the position - but WITHOUT the “public fanfare” that CK is undertaking?  THAT is what I find objectionable: the very public way she is going about this.  It is unseemly and inappropriate.  If she wants the seat, she can, like at least four others that I am aware of, lobby for it quietly through Paterson’s office.  Doing it that way avoids any hurt feelings (at least publicly) and allows Paterson to make the choice without unnecessary power plays.

Peace.

Report this

By KDelphi, December 22, 2008 at 2:18 am Link to this comment

Gatlinggun6   —First off, who said that they “hated” CK?? I know you did not specify me, but, I said that I think she would be no worse, and , no better than any other big name Democratic politician. Whether she is “deserving” is a moot point. Whether she would be good for NY is what is important. I said that I thought she would be, for the most part.

This is all up to NY, but people are allowed to have opinions about it. Any kind of opinion that they want.

I think that people are sick of privileged families running DC. That is understandable. Many people voted for Obama over Hillary , for that very reason.

If PE Obama wants to “stay away from the Clintom machine”, then he should do it. Apparently, Obama is impressed with the Clintons, He has as much as said so. I used to be—-now, not so much.


“....deserving than CK or anyone else?
That would not be the issue. The people would decide how qualified someone is. You are correct that this is not an “election” situation.

“..Every New York Democratic politician had an opportunity to run against Hillary Clinton in 2006, but almost none did. Since they were unwilling to throw their hat in the ring then, why the hell do they DESERVE anything now, other than consideration.”

What is this “deserve” stuff?

“At least CK had a reason not to run in 2006, what reason did the others have? Oh gee could it have been fear of the Clinton machine?”

What reason was there in 2006? I am honestly asking, as I hadnt heard. There wer plenty of other times , as well as offices, for her to run for, if she was interested in entering politics.

Like I said—ok with me. Jackson Jr., too. I just fear the US is way too into “royal families”. I also have no problem with Obama having input into who replaces hiim in the Senate. There also shouldnt be a problem with Hiolary helping to decide who should replace her, also. They would both have input, whether anyone admits it or not.

But, she will be SOS nopw—Obama’s choice, From the way people talk, you would think that she had just “inserted” herself, with “no input from PE Obama” or something.

Report this

By gatlinggun6, December 21, 2008 at 11:18 pm Link to this comment

Let me get my main points out right upfront. 1. When a Senate seat vacates prior to the end of a term, the Governor of New York, as do many governors, appoints “someone” to fill the position UNTIL the next Senate election, that’s 2010. Further, the seat must again be contested in 2012 at the normal expiration of said term. So you dolts who say a special election should be required, fine then work to change the law for NEXT time. But wait, if you have not heard elections cost the money, taxpayer money. In New York that’s around $50 mil plus. So you Caroline Kennedy haters are willing to gamble $50 mil or more of State funds, that New York does not have, that CK would not run and win outright. So please no more talk of a special election.
2. Some of you say, appoint someone who is more deserving than CK. To you I ask: based on what? Is it because they hold some other political office? Why does that make them anymore deserving than CK or anyone else? Every New York Democratic politician had an opportunity to run against Hillary Clinton in 2006, but almost none did. Since they were unwilling to throw their hat in the ring then, why the hell do they DESERVE anything now, other than consideration. At least CK had a reason not to run in 2006, what reason did the others have? Oh gee could it have been fear of the Clinton machine?

I’ll be back but let me close this segment with, it’s obvious CK wants to serve because she wants to make a difference in the lives of everyday citizens. There is no other reason for her to want to serve. Why now you ask? That’s easy, you can thank Obama. I think he showed CK that you can win and serve as a different kind of politician, that you need not be a brash, uncivil, crude, loudmouth to win. I for one would welcome her grace, manners, thoughtful intelligence, coherent speech and civil attitude to the Senate. Unlike too many of the rest of you, I do not for one minute see a conflict between mental toughness and good manners. Part 2 comes later since I’m on the road

Report this

By mike112769, December 21, 2008 at 7:38 am Link to this comment

To me, the word Kennedy equals Chappaquidick. Gross abuse of power. I’m for term limits on everything, now political power is hereditary? One day, our nation might come up with a Magna Carta!

Report this

By KDelphi, December 20, 2008 at 2:58 pm Link to this comment

ITW—ALL of your compliments of Dems (well, except Harry Reid and Weeny Weyden) seem to involve cmparison with GOP—and, the worst of them at that. Youre so terrifed of another GOP neo-con, that youre satistifed with neo-liberals and consistently degrade those that are not. So, LaHood and Gtes and Blue Dogs are just fine with you . Anybody but Bush. How sad.

“See, when you start LOOKING at the clods, crooks, and fascists in today’s Senate, it’s not hard to imagine Ms. Kennedy towering over them.”

Exactly!! Compared to the shit we’ve had there for the last couple decades—she looks GREAT!

JD Smith—“At least Al Franken has made it clear he believes Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are either idiots or liars.  That alone would have given him my vote.”

ANOTHER good example of the depths we have sunk to, in picking leaders. How pathetic is it that , to be one of our so-0called “leaders” all a person has to do is “not be who we really hate”.

Gee, I sure am glad we fought the Revolution , so there wouldnt be any more Monarchies—and then we go and elect monarchies!

Look CK is “just fine” She has no real experience, but, she seems just as qualifeied as any of the other Dems considering the seat. I dont have a problem with it. I dont have a problem with Jackson Jr taking Obama’s seat.

The uS Senate is bought and paid for. Sen. Kennedy may have been a “lion” in the past, but, lately, it amazes me that,  with brain cancer,(which is horrible, and I should know) which my father died of, he would back a health care plan that is market based, tax based , and will leave out 15 million people. Yes, everyone in my family wrote to him about it, wished him well, and asked ourselves whether my father would still be here if he had had the doctors that Kennedy has. We wil never know. But, we do know that people are dying today, because of our market based health care.

In general the Kennedys have been “good ” for the US. But, gawd, Bush, Clinton, Kennedy , Dodd, I could go on and on. I say we have an amendment that , when a person wins (not “is gifted”) a job in the Congress (or as presient) his/her family is recused from working in the same type of capacity in DC. It would stop the nepotism.

Better still, take the money out of it, with public financing, term limits, a stop to ALL lobbying (it is NOT “free speech”—that is just a way for rich people to convince you that it is just “equal access”). We would do better with a Parliamentary system, also, in my book.

That being said, CK is no worse , and no better, than any other Dem.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 20, 2008 at 11:56 am Link to this comment

Folktruther, December 20 at 9:18 am #

That must mean, Inherit, that she qualifies on your major criteria for political leaderss:  she supports apartheid Israel’s violence and she isn’t anti-Semticn enough to raise your taxes.
*********************************************

Let me translate for the rest of you: That means Caroline Kennedy isn’t a neo-Marxist and isn’t to the left of Ralph Nader. 

Beyond that it’s just the usual chattering of a parrot.

Report this

By dihey, December 20, 2008 at 11:25 am Link to this comment

How “refreshingly” challenging. I assume that Ellen’s goal is a Senate of 100 Kennedy’s. Once that is achieved we can rest assured that the country is in good hands.
But seriously, when JFK was a Senator he was too busy womanizing to be a legislator, Bobby at one time worked for Senator Joe McCarthy and the current member of the clan may have been drunk when he drove his car into LI Bay. Great examples, huh?

Report this

By Folktruther, December 20, 2008 at 10:18 am Link to this comment

That must mean, Inherit, that she qualifies on your major criteria for political leaderss:  she supports apartheid Israel’s violence and she isn’t anti-Semticn enough to raise your taxes.

Report this

By Inherit The Wind, December 20, 2008 at 7:08 am Link to this comment

Folktruther’s against it. Since it’s not connected to Bush, the GOP, or Blagojavitch, that means it’s definitely worth considering.

I cannot imagine there being ANYONE Gov. Patterson will realistically consider appointing that FT won’t find fault with, along with most TruthDiggers.

I would say that immediately Caroline Kennedy would be above average, meaning more competent than at least 50 other Senators.

I mean, compare her to Saxby Chambliss or James Imhoff or…John McCain.  Or Joe Lieberman or Ron Weyden or Harry Reid.  My fav moron is Jim Bunning.  The Clintons’ cat, Socks, is brighter than the Kentucky senator who is NOT Mitch McConnell (Oh, let’s not forget him—married to Elaine Chao, Sec of the Dept of Union-Busting, er, Labor).

See, when you start LOOKING at the clods, crooks, and fascists in today’s Senate, it’s not hard to imagine Ms. Kennedy towering over them.  Less than a year ago, the normally reclusive Caroline stepped into the spotlight and did it brilliantly.  She certainly led Obama’s VP search team better than McCain’s crew (who gave us Palin).  Then there was George Bush’s VP search leader, Dick Cheney, who gave us….Dick Cheney!

Cuomo’s rage at her getting the spotlight is what is wrong with Andrew Cuomo—he lets his anger get the better of him all the time.

Again, most TDrs commenting and FT are against it.  That means it’s DEFINITELY worth considering.

Report this

By Folktruther, December 19, 2008 at 10:10 pm Link to this comment

Ooh, Thanks, Little Brother, for the correction.  I read and write this stuff very fast, and I just assume well known truthers are going to sell out.  Occasionally I am wrong,  My apologies to AMY Goodman.

Report this

By ThePartyThatBroughtYouTheKlan, December 19, 2008 at 9:18 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

As a black American I am disgusted, appalled, offended - but not surprised by the hypocrisy of the Democrats. So Sarah Palin is unqualified to be Vice President? But Caroline Kennedy deserves to be Senator simply because she was born into “The Royal Family?” Please. I am sick and tired of this corrupt political party re-inventing history and destroying the black family through its entitlement programs and “Gov’ment Cheese.” I am sick of Jesse, Jessie Jr, Obama, Dingy Harry, Stretch Pelosi, Al Simpleton, Oprah, etc… Our country is in big trouble and the people have been dumped down to the point where they are blindly following a false Messiah. God help us.

Report this

By Lourdes, December 19, 2008 at 4:52 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

The Senate is not supposed to be the old House of Lords although it seems to be turning in to that (see the younger Biden). I don’t see why Caroline should be “awarded” the seat when her only real qualification seems to be that she is really well connected.

Report this

By J D Smith, December 19, 2008 at 2:10 pm Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

“Her résumé shows no more chutzpah than Al Franken’s.”

At least Al Franken has made it clear he believes Rush Limbaugh and Sean Hannity are either idiots or liars.  That alone would have given him my vote.

Report this

By samosamo, December 19, 2008 at 12:44 pm Link to this comment

By mackTN, December 19 at 10:54 am

It appears that to satisfy the sticking of everbody else’s nose in New York’s business, that the governor or whoever makes the choice should just have an election. This episode of selecting caroline kennedy to fill hillary’s empty seat exposes a weakness that for the sake of the voice of people be done by special election. Who I have not heard from are any others maybe wanting the position or being considered for the position, though I seem to remember here or else where that they have. Certainly a senate seat carries more weight than a house seat so to avoid politizing everything, have an election. Caroline, as smart as she may be has not had the dubious honor of going through such a process and that would tell a lot about her by doing so.
But that’s new york’s business and that decision will be made by new york and it most likely will hand over the keys to the kingdom to caroline, so to speak. That being said, I am tired of beating this dead horse and will move on. You’re welcome.

Report this

By Little Brother, December 19, 2008 at 12:26 pm Link to this comment

By Folktruther, December 19 at 11:03 am #

It is the sanitizing of nepotism, among other sins, by mainstream progressive truthers like Amy Goodman that has helped make the US political process as corrpt as it is.
__________________________________________

Amy Goodman?  Did you mean to write Ellen Goodman, the author of this column?  Or has Amy endorsed Sweet Caroline too?

Report this

By Folktruther, December 19, 2008 at 12:03 pm Link to this comment

It is the sanitizing of nepotism, among other sins, by mainstream progressive truthers like Amy Goodman that has helped make the US political process as corrpt as it is.

Report this

By mackTN, December 19, 2008 at 11:54 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

I have no problem with CK wanting a job in govt.  I do have a problem with CK getting the job over others because she asks for it.  These aren’t democratic values nor change we can believe in.  I’m rather surprised she’d go along with a process that would operate this way for her. 

Franken, at least, has had to compete for the job and ask for votes from we the people.  Hillary at least had to campaign for the job for a couple of years (although her wanting to be president of the U.S. smacks of this same CK business).

This is discouraging at some many levels.  You tell your kids all those so-called democratic truths about the best person winning and meritocracy etc and clearly it’s a bunch of bs that we uphold passively.

If CK had some kind of mission that she desperately and passionately wanted to advance through this opportunity, I could sympathize.  But I don’t hear that from her at all. Instead I see a 51 year old woman who’s raised her kids, enjoyed her marriage, and perhaps needs a reason to get up in the mornings at this stage of her life.

Report this

By MAR, December 19, 2008 at 11:19 am Link to this comment

Hey, next she will be called Princess. Can Queenie be far behind? In your dreams, Kennedys

Report this

By samosamo, December 19, 2008 at 9:26 am Link to this comment

By Little Brother, December 19 at 7:57 am #

samosamo, maybe we mean different things by the term “puff piece”.
*************************************************

Probably so. You did clarify your self well and I respect your view of this which actually, as you said, is like mine which is focused more on the ‘gushieness’ of a literally celebrity type that maybe could or would not do no wrong. As been said by sen. sanders ‘living in democracy is pretty serious stuff.’ And now that we are in the position we here in america are in, slowly but surely people are starting to wake up to what has been done to them via the msm, gov’t, and corporations. And I believe more and more people are realizing the importance of that ‘eternal vigilance’ that is required in a demoracy. We may have to use other sources than the msm, but the internet, books by capable authors, magazines of reputation are still around and the msm might go the way of the dodo if peole really switched to other real news outlets but it is just too bad and too sad that so many people are addicted to flipping on the tv for their doses of information, mind control and disney land, none of which helps to live in a democracy.
Think how different or less bad it would be if the SEC had practiced eternal vigilance on those hedge fund operators like madoff, lehman brothers. But I guess that would have ‘fettered’ those crooks more so than they wanted. Where are the SEC’s prioities? Obviously not with the people’s welfare in savings and investing.

Report this

By Tesla_x, December 19, 2008 at 9:20 am Link to this comment
(Unregistered commenter)

Political Polarization, Power Consolidation, Voter Disenfranchisement in progress

The ‘Kennedy Legacy’ goes on, but more importantly, the continued distancing of the power elite from the voters continues, simply because new blood with new perspective is even more lacking these days.

The appointment of anyone connected directly or indirectly with existing political circles is nothing more than perpetuating a fraud upon what is suppose to be a democracy.

No excuses, however flowery the retort or response will suffice.

Many of you voted for CHANGE….this is NOT it.

Want to stir things up as is needed to re-connect with the will of the people?

Find a practical Joe the Plumber type (or Josephine as the case may be…)

Anything else reeks of continued corruption and elitism.

CHANGE!

Period.

Report this

By Little Brother, December 19, 2008 at 8:57 am Link to this comment

samosamo, maybe we mean different things by the term “puff piece”.

I don’t disagree with anything you wrote.  I was merely observing that this particular article is one of a several authored by a soft-liberal infotainwhore expressing starry-eyed and sentimental gushing for Sweet Caroline .

Ellen and her cohort naturally fuss and drool over Caroline, having invested decades of uncritical positive regard in her as Amerika’s First Daughter.  She grew up so beautifully!  She’s not ambitious and self-serving!  Her qualifications and motives are beyond question! 

As I joked the other day, we are to applaud the latest storybook episode of Clan Kennedy life—Sleeping Beauty awakened by a kiss from Bonnie Prince Barack!

True, the “Get Into Political Office Free” card that was gathering dust in Caroline’s jewelry box has no expiration date, and it might be just the thing to forestall or cure a mid-life crisis.

I’m not suggesting that columns like this should be ignored; I’m only observing that they’re cotton-candy fluff for those afflicted with nostalgie de la Kennedy.

Report this

By samosamo, December 19, 2008 at 8:12 am Link to this comment

By Little Brother, December 19 at 6:39 am #

As noted, another dizzy puff-piece.
*********************************

I don’t think so, considering the bush crime family’s service to this country all the way back to prescott’s money laundrying nazi money for them, his kid, herbert walker’s mess in desert shield and storm where the current ambassador to Iraq indicated to Saddam that the US would not object to him invading kuwait, and little w’s nuclear holocaust of our country and the world and the global economies for that matter. Now another kennedy indicates she wants to be able to dictate what you and I have, don’t have and will or won’t do; remember, the kennedy’s money comes from smuggling booze into this country, they will protect their stuff, all other prioities are rescinded.
So I think it important to scurtinze those that not only serve in elected office but those that want to be elected. Or did you forget that part of the eternal vigilance part of maintaining a functioning democracy that our msm has absolutely put on the back burner of prioities because pieces of crap like rupert murdoch want to control the information you get, if they let you have it.

Report this
sciencehighway's avatar

By sciencehighway, December 19, 2008 at 7:58 am Link to this comment

Speaking as a Canadian citizen who was 11 years old when Ms. Kennedy’s father was assassinated, I must admit to having warm memories of those years, and Caroline and John Jr.‘s childhood photos were a part of that. (We can’t help it, it’s a generational thing, unrestricted by national boundaries. A British friend of mine - one of the founders of Radio Caroline, the shipboard underground radio service of the early-60s - confirmed that their boat was indeed named for young Ms. Kennedy.) So I suppose I’m also one of the tangential targets of Mr. or Ms. Prole’s bitter screed. But speaking as one who has never trusted most politicians, I have to say I think this would be a terrific appointment. Ms. Kennedy has always struck me as a bright, well-informed and caring individual, untainted (until now at least) by personal ambition. I attribute this to the fine work done by her wise and erudite mother, tasked with raising two young children in the wake of such unimaginable, high-profile tragedy. Prole is correct in that we can’t know what’s in the hearts and minds of others, nor what really goes on in those back rooms. For those very reasons, I would prefer that more of our leaders and representatives were the products of wise, attentive parenting. I believe that’s what we’ve seen (and voters responded to) with Mr. Obama, after eight years of studying such a clear example of the alternative approach.

Report this

By Little Brother, December 19, 2008 at 7:39 am Link to this comment

As noted, another dizzy puff-piece.

Report this

By samosamo, December 19, 2008 at 6:29 am Link to this comment

I can only look at this as another ‘elite’ getting into the senate by the easiest method,  being appointed. Though legal, I believe there are a few that would or could be less subserviant to ‘elite’ agendas. And since we don’t get to see what is going on in the back ground and any pressures for her to get the appointment, I can only surmise that when critical votes come down that would affect an ‘elitist’ agenda, say, tax increase, I would not feel ms kennedy’s loyalty for the people would take priority over loyalty to her family fortunes. She could surprise me but I doubt it.
I have much much more faith in bernie sanders of vermont who has visible and ardently tried to work for the people and our democracy. But he is vermont, what new york does in a different thing. But this country need more like sanders. (I sure hope he doesn’t come up charged with some underhanded scheme now)

Report this
prole's avatar

By prole, December 19, 2008 at 1:40 am Link to this comment

Caroline Kennedy “described her reasons for supporting Obama, saying: ‘My reasons are patriotic, political and personal,’” - not necessarily in that order. And despite the trite alliteration, that tells us absolutely nothing - just like Goodman’s inflated puff piece for her.  The Boston Globe, of course, has been a Kennedy clan booster for decades, for obvious reasons. “In 1962, a young Massachusetts man”...decided to run for the Senate…At the time, one of his brothers was president of the United States; the other brother was attorney general…The air was full of charges about nepotism and dynasties” -  and all completely true! The air at that time was also full of questions about his personal integrity, too, which he has done little to dispel over the years.  “Now that brash cub of a politician is the lion of the Senate”... thanks to that same party machine and family fortune - and the lack of constitutional term limits on philandering, porkbarrel politicians like him in Congress. Sen.  Kennedy has in fact been a leading opponent of attempts to impose term limits on members of Congress, again, for obvious reasons. And now a middle-aged New York woman wants to repeat that feat and the Kennedy machine is once again calling on its family friends and media contacts to put a rosy spin on the latest example of backroom political fixing. “If life were fair”, the Kennedy’s and others like them wouldn’t be able to use their wealth and connections to be parachuted into political “high rank”. “If life were fair, the jobs would go to the”... downtrodden, not the connected, to the working class not the high-born.
  “But I find myself unable to dredge up even a modicum”  of justification “at the idea of this Kennedy bumping to the top of the list of Senate candidates.”  “Her résumé shows no more chutzpah than Al Franken’s”...which damning comparison should be enough to kill her candidacy right there. But no, as if that isn’t bad enough, she also is redolent of “Arnold Schwarzenegger, ‘Kindergarten Cop’ and governor”. and vain widget salesmen. Welcome to the brave new world of American politics in the 21st century. This is the motley crew of new age pol’s that will bring us “change we can believe in”. And these are some of the same old journalists who will try and sell us on it. Maybe it wouldn’t be such a bad idea if some journalists did have an ‘uncertain future’ after all, with this kind of spoony spin. “Caroline’s childhood photos”...are a forerunner of the same sort of PR schmaltz as this dotty article. Kennedy’s opportunism coincided with Obama’s opportunism. She went from a high-society hostess to “helping lead the vice presidential search team to weeks in unglamorous campaigning.” Just think, whole weeks away from her glamorous NY mansion in unglamorous campaigning - poor darling!  “It was less of a Kennedy farewell tour than an Obama” ...flim-flam parade. But it was all worth it, she earned her political spurs quicker than you can say ‘What-I-did-on-my summer-vacation’.  And the nation will be forever in her debt for helping make Joe “I am a zionist” Biden (yep, he really said that!) VP. Or at least Goodman and her cohorts will be. Next to Uncle Teddy, Jingo Joe was probably the most rabid AIPAC grunt in the Senate. And you can expect Caroline will be too if she’s the newly-appointed puppet senator from NY. It goes with the territory. “Pick Caroline and you are not choosing the latest scion of a dynasty. You are choosing the emblem of” ...the Senate - rich, connected, elite,  “You can never have too many Kennedy’s in the Senate”.  Just ask AIPAC!

Report this

By Shift, December 19, 2008 at 1:27 am Link to this comment

If one reads between the lines the real unspoken question being asked is, is she corrupt enough to be the Senator from New York?

Report this
G.Anderson's avatar

By G.Anderson, December 18, 2008 at 9:22 pm Link to this comment

Yes I’m sure she has some fine qualities, however maybe I’m old fashioned but I prefer my political leaders to run for office.

Let the people have their say, and if she’s elected then fine.

Report this
Newsletter

sign up to get updates


 
 
Right 1, Site wide - BlogAds Premium
 
Right 2, Site wide - Blogads
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 
 
 
Right Skyscraper, Site Wide
 
Join the Liberal Blog Advertising Network
 

A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion   Publisher, Zuade Kaufman   Editor, Robert Scheer
© 2014 Truthdig, LLC. All rights reserved.

Like Truthdig on Facebook