Friday, 09 January 2009
Caroline Kennedy and the U.S. Senate
Apparently you can take the old woman out of New York, but you can’t take New York out of the old woman. Even though Crabby Old Lady now lives in Maine, she has been following the public discussion of Caroline Kennedy's bid to fill out Hillary Clinton’s Senate term, and she is annoyed about the growing chorus of criticism.
They say Ms. Kennedy says "you know" too frequently. Piffle. So she's not a great public speaker (yet). Neither was Barack Obama two years ago and now he is renowned for it. Ms. Kennedy too will improve if she remains in public life. Even Crabby Old Lady has gotten better at it over the years and she isn't called upon to speak nearly as often as a senator would be. Practice does wonders.
The greater charge is that Ms. Kennedy has no experience. Crabby disagrees. No one grows up in the political dynasty of John F. Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Ted Kennedy, Robert Kennedy, Jr., Patrick Kennedy and some other cousins without picking up some reasonably good knowledge about how politics and government work.
But that’s not Crabby’s main point. The Constitution has only this to say about qualifications to be a senator:
“No person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.”
(Now don’t go getting picky about that male pronoun. You know as well as Crabby that we fixed that with an amendment.)
At the dawn of our republic, service in Congress was not envisioned as a professional career open only to politicians who worked their way up from dogcatcher. It was a duty and responsibility for those who were so inclined after which, it was expected they would return to private life.
(Too bad that idea didn’t hang on. Crabby Old Lady has, in general, had enough of professional politicians almost all of whom spend more time in Washington raising money for their next election campaign than governing.)
Ms. Kennedy is an attorney, writer and advocate for public education. She has co-authored two books on civil liberties including The Right to Privacy which Crabby found useful during her internet career. Kennedy is also a member of the boards of directors of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund – all of which entails a great deal more day-to-day involvement in public issues than a lot of congressional legislators have.
Crabby Old Lady is certain there are other New Yorkers equally qualified for Senator Clinton’s seat in Congress, and Crabby isn’t lobbying for the appointment of Ms. Kennedy. She just believes the “unqualified” argument is bunk. A smart, thoughtful, serious-minded, middle-aged woman (or man) with any surname would be qualified and probably better than long-time political animals.
Or maybe Crabby wrote this post today only because she wanted an excuse to publish this recent photo of Caroline Kennedy who, at 51 and on the cusp of early elderhood, has more than enough means to undergo any procedures she wants in an attempt to maintain a youthful appearance. Instead, she has chosen to age as she naturally is and Crabby thinks she looks terrific, wrinkles and all.
It’s not a qualification for senator, but good to see among a certain class of women who often choose otherwise.
[At The Elder Storytelling Place today, Virginia DeBolt tells us about a special item she had owned since childhood in The Gift.]
Posted by Crabby Old Lady at 05:35 AM | Permalink | Email this post
Comments
Thanks again for another great post.
Posted by: Ernestine on Jan 8, 2009 7:11:41 AM
Well said!!! And I agree completely! I think she will do an excellent job.
Posted by: Kay Dennison on Jan 8, 2009 7:37:04 AM
She sure seems qualified to me.
Posted by: zuleme on Jan 8, 2009 8:04:31 AM
I wonder if people would be so hard on Caroline Kennedy if her name were Murphy or Manfredini? From the distance of Georgia, she seems more qualified than the several career politicians who are brushing up their resumes.
As you say, it seems that being a politician now is considered to be more a career than a temporary job. It saddens me that too, too many otherwise qualified people do not run for office because of the distortions to the original notions of public office that have taken place.
And I, too, admire Kennedy's age-honesty. It's another indicator of her right-headedness.
Posted by: Mike Nichols on Jan 8, 2009 8:16:56 AM
As a former, very often homesick, NY'er, I often follow NY stories of interest.
I admit to being surprised to the reaction of Caroline Kennedy. I have mixed feelings about it - perhaps, it is fair to say, that the last decade or so has opened my eyes and a bit wiser as to we elect.
I have no issue with her background, experience or what is considered lacking - yet, I sense a turnaround in what the public wants.
Maureen Dowd in her Op-Ed (NY Times - available online) has endorsed Caroline Kennedy. Speculative as to what this really means or how it plays out.
Ronni,I understand your feelings - I sense more than the issue of is she or isn't she (Caroline's running) - it is more the buzz around the issue and how it is covered by the press... as well, as speculative discussions.
Posted by: Linda on Jan 8, 2009 8:45:50 AM
I'm an upstate New Yorker, and Caroline Kennedy hasn't shown any signs of awareness of the plight of upstate New York. Here in the Buffalo area, we've been insulated so far from the economic collapse because we've been in economic collapse for so long. I'm among those who think Kennedy's qualifications are simply irrelevant to half the citizens of New York. I would much rather see Rep. Brian Higgins (D) as US Senator. He's done a good job in the House.
Posted by: mary jamison on Jan 8, 2009 10:08:11 AM
I think that the objection to Caroline Kennedy is more about the idea that she was able to pick up the phone and propose to the governor that he appoint her to Clinton's senate seat and less about her qualifications. Gladys
Posted by: Gladys on Jan 8, 2009 10:16:33 AM
More of concern to me would be that she often hasn't voted on New York elections for lesser positions-- quite a few times. Also she hasn't spoken out on issues in the past which might indicate she doesn't know much about them now. She still is not speaking out on the issues that a senator will have to vote on for the public to know her stands. She definitely has thrust herself into quite a quick study time. That doesn't mean I disapprove of her being chosen. She could develop into a great senator. She certainly has the family connections to show genetic potential. I do see though that her beauty is a factor along with her family and not necessarily her ability. There are families where they all are good at something and others where some have it and others do not.
Personally I think it's good they have been hassling her and if it doesn't cause her to grow stronger and more determined, she shouldn't be in the Senate. No senator who easily gets their feelings hurt and has a weak backbone will get very far in that body-- name or no name. So far it does not appear that the criticism has weakened her determination and that's a good sign.
From what I have read they think the governor has already decided to appoint her. It will be interesting to see how she grows into the position.
The other one they are pushing for it, Cuomo, is also counting on family dynasty but has more of a public record himself. It is beginning to look like we are forming these family dynasties which we can't get rid of in some cases like daddy bush wanting his other little boy to get his chance to be president...
Posted by: Rain on Jan 8, 2009 10:16:37 AM
Marvelous picture of Kennedy -- a good reason to write a column about her!
But dear Crabby -- I must point out that we DID NOT pass an amendment to "fix the pronoun." Folks in our age group may remember a thing called the "Equal Rights Amendment" (see here) that never became part of the Constitution. Inequities that hurt women remain until we fix them piecemeal, a bumpy and unpleasant process.
I think you are thinking of the Suffrage/Right to Vote amendment that passed in 1923.
Posted by: janinsanfran on Jan 8, 2009 10:30:53 AM
I definitely agree. It seems to me that if the founding fathers wanted the candidates to have more experience for the job, they would have written it into the Constitution. And if we, as a nation, think that more experience is needed, we can amend that Constitution. Well, they didn’t and we haven’t. Those who wish to argue that point need to turn to the mirror and argue it there, with someone who will agree with them.
And, as we know, ‘Junior Senators’ are not allowed to touch the steering wheel or press on the gas pedal for as long as it takes before the ‘Good Old Boys’ of the Senate approve of them.
Posted by: Steven on Jan 8, 2009 11:01:35 AM
She's smart and she's beautiful. How many politicians can you say that about?
Posted by: Anne Gibert on Jan 8, 2009 12:29:58 PM
I was stunned to read, "(Now don’t go getting picky about that male pronoun. You know as well as Crabby that we fixed that with an amendment.)" Finally, I decided that Crabby was making a point. Well done, Crabby!
I do not go along with the idea that the expressed qualifications/disqualifications for the office of senator are an "adequate" reflection of requirements any more than I go along with the idea that the expressed qualifications/disqualifications for the office of president are "enough". How much of the presidential nominee picking process was devoted to just such a discussion--whether a certain person was qualified or not?
Too, I am delighted to see that Ms Kennedy looks not nearly as frightful as she did in the photo that was published a week or two ago. Beauty isn't a requirement.
Posted by: Cop Car on Jan 8, 2009 2:36:03 PM
Call me crazy, but I see a correlation between the press's coverage of Caroline Kennedy and that of Sarah Palin. There is something going on that seems to automatically reject a vivacious, pleasant looking, accomplished female. Unless they make everyone happy about everything, they just aren't good enough.
Posted by: Eileen on Jan 8, 2009 5:37:11 PM
You have to be kidding...she is not qualified for office, and she is much worse then Sarah Palin ever was in so far as she seems completely oblivious to the people she is supposed to be working for in New York. Kennedy is the only reason she is being considered. Good Grief, she doesn't even vote most of the time. Disappointing post and shows a terrible bias towards all things liberal, even when they are more idiotic then their Republican counterparts.
Posted by: Stacie Florer on Jan 8, 2009 7:41:49 PM
I believe that Caroline Kennedy would be a good, not great choice to be a U.S. Senator. She has not proven herself in the political arena as a contestant -- more as an observer.
This to me is actually a point in her favor...perhaps we need a few more "non" career politicians in the Senate, who may have a bit more in common with the rest of us.
I am not familiar with New York politics and I am sure that there are others who have done more to promote the Democratic party in NY and deserve based on merit and party loyalty to be the Junior Senator from NY.
But thinking about it, what do most of us have in common with a "Kennedy"?
1. A desire to Make the Country better. (That goes a long way in my book).
2. Not great at public speaking.
3. Open minded (more so than some others)
4. Intelligent (its okay we all aren't all that intelligent, but I think she actually is)
5. Career Change (at around 50 we all start to think about the world around us differently and how we want to leave it for others)
6. and last and least she is the same age as I am. :)
The more I write about Caroline being a Senator - why not?
Harold
Posted by: Harold Shaw on Jan 8, 2009 10:04:17 PM
When I was working in London, a Brit friend once said "You yanks always think more of something is always better. If 'One a Day Vitamins' are good for you- then you think ten a day would be much better." We do't need any more "experienced politicians" either in the House or the Senate- look where that bunch got us. What we need are more Citizen Statesmen who will represent the people and not the pols. True, Ms. Kennedy is not exactly an ingenue in the world of politics but maybe more political experience would be too much of a good thing.
Posted by: mythster on Jan 9, 2009 3:39:03 AM
To not be familiar with New York issues and politics is the strongest reason that I should not be expressing any public opinions on this issue. But, that has not seemed to have stopped others in my category so…..
Let me prerequisite my personal comments on the subject by saying that I am an Independent and a centrist. And although your post deals specifically with Caroline Kennedy, I do know that submitted comments inferring perhaps some similarity between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin in any sense is almost comical, other that the fact they are both females. When they were casting for the popular movie “Clueless” I’m surprised that Sarah Palin was overlooked for the lead role by casting. Granted of course, they were looking for an actor and not an actual person. Senator John McCain had my vote until selecting her as his running mate. But I have already digressed haven’t I?
I have, on the other hand, all the respect in the world for Caroline Kennedy but these are extremely serious times and we need to muster all the EXPERIENCE and WISDOM that we can in the people we send to Washington to drain the ever deepening swamp. I just have not seen any serious indication of that based on what I have seen and read with regard to Caroline Kennedy since this issue surfaced.
I am reasonably certain she could ultimately become an excellent Senator, well representing the Nation along with the people of New York. Although I am not from New York, I do have a vested interest in all the Senators as do we all. Now is not the time to send anyone to Washington before feeling confident that they have at least finished the ‘Washington Politics 101’ course.
Oh my…..speaking out publicly on things political in nature is so not like me! Am I becoming a “Crabby Old Gentleman”?
Posted by: Alan G on Jan 9, 2009 9:07:58 AM
re palin vs kennedy. yes, sarah, class has a LOT to do with it--i.e., you have none, caroline has lots. ugh.
does anyone even think whether sonny bono had any class/intelligence/experience/wotever??? or, god help us, ronald reagan or that fred guy from iowa?
Posted by: m.e. on Jan 9, 2009 9:19:33 PM
It's a wonderful shot of Kennedy. Younger voters who know the history simply can't have the same reaction to her appearance as those of us who are her age or older. My heart just opens with admiration when I see her, the last of her own family who meant so much to the country.
I don't think there's a sense of entitlement involved with her seeking this office. She has public service, not aristocracy, in her blood. She's offered herself in service; how very touching, how very profound.
And there is nothing touching or profound about Sarah Palin, nor do I believe will there ever be. What a low-class, pitiful indulgence she is for her fans.
Posted by: lydia on Jan 10, 2009 5:49:11 AM
