Caroline Kennedy
withdraws her name from consideration for Hillary's senate seat, presumably because Paterson wasn't going to give it to her. This is the reason she wasn't qualified in the first place. Kennedy was given much and did . . . not alot. She never did anything big enough to risk failure. This is the culmination of a career spent retreating from
the arena before she could be marred by dust and sweat and blood, much less error.
And that's a perfectly respectable way to live, one which I've adopted by the way. But you can't then turn on a dime and ask for a high political position.
It was always going to go to Cuomo, not because of the respective merits of the two candidates, but because the Cuomo appointment would be better for Paterson.
If Paterson appoints Kennedy, Cuomo will run against him for governor. If he appoints Cuomo, he can seek election without fighting the state's best known Democratic opponent.
People make actions based upon what's in there best interests. Perhaps they're not quite as obvious about it as the governor of Illinois, but they do.
She never did anything big enough to risk failure. This is the culmination of a career spent retreating from the arena before she could be marred by dust and sweat and blood, much less error.
And you know this how? (Asking mostly because you mangled the facts so badly in your Rosa Parks post.)
Mike, the arena is a public place. For instance, I know you have never run for President. Caroline Kennedy, if she actually had sought a life in the arena, would have been headline fodder every single day of her life.
I don't much care for Senator Clinton, but at least she had the nerve to actually, ya' know, run for the office she sought. People should only be given appointments like this if they promise to NOT run in the next election cycle.
McArdle sets a new low in her vitriolic rubbishing of a more successful woman's career. Sad, but not surprising.
Scoop analyzes the incentives accurately. The best possible choice for the man making it was Cuomo.
Megan's criticism of Kennedy may seem harsh, but the reality is this- she seems to have been asking for this appointment for the last couple of month. In my opinion, she had no business putting or allowing herself to be put forward for this seat.
Believe me, people have identified much lower than this, though I wasn't convinced by their unpleasantness, either.
Megan is pointing out something that hundreds of bloggers and millions of New Yorkers have thought - "who does this woman think she is?"
From what I can gather from the media, the most Caroline Kennedy ever did risk was not meeting a fund raising goal for one of the worthy causes she has helped. In which case she could have ponied up her own money to get over the top.
Not that she seems to have done any contributing to Democrats running for office in her own state.
There - I think that was meaner than anything Megan said or even implied. I pointed to a specific fault, not just an evasion.
Caroline Kennedy is more successful than Megan? More like she would have been more successful if she had been appointed to the Senate. Unless you're arguing that being a lawyer automatically makes you more successful than a journalist, I'd say the opposite is the case. She went to law school and bummed around on a bunch of charitable boards. If you discount for her being a Kennedy, she's kind of a disappointment.
"Megan is pointing out something that hundreds of bloggers and millions of New Yorkers have thought - "who does this woman think she is?"
What you meant to say is Megan, nerd bloggers and other wonks. I can guarantee you there are NOT 1M New Yorkers who care if Kennedy is the Senator or not.
You guys are the ones in a vacuum
k1
ryanculver.blogsport.com
Megan?
Alot isn't a word.
English majors whose careers involve using words should know that kind of thing.
That was an unkind and gratuitous indictment of someone about whom you have shown very little original insight in the past.
Caroline Kennedy "entered the arena" in 2008 in spirited support of Obama's candidacy. Her support and her help in delivering Teddy's endorsement provided Obama much needed help before Super Tuesday. When the history of Obama's historic campaign is written, Caroline's decision to take an unusually public role (for her) in a Presidential election during the Primaries will be highlighted -- as will the unprecedented role of a new generation of public intellectuals called "bloggers" who harnessed a new medium to help shape the narrative of a truly unique election season.
Watching your surrogate father (who walked you down the aisle on your wedding) suffer a seizure can shake you to reprioritize your life. People suffer and struggle to overcome their suffering. I don't envy Caroline's life of public tragedy (father) after tragedy (uncle) after tragedy (brother & sisters-in-law). Your definition of "arena" is Teddy Roosevelt's well-lit public forum. That's a limited view, I think you might reconsider. People bleed, sweat and stir up dust far away from the public eye every single day.
Inheriting enough wealth to lead a quiet, affluent life on the Upper East Side is a wonderful thing. Inheriting a prestigious name, guaranteeing you a lot of deferential treatment is also wonderful. If you have these things, enjoy them gratefully and humbly. Rubbing the peasants' nose in it is not OK.
Help, I'm being oppressed.
Speaking as a New Yorker, and the husband of a New Yorker (upstate, not the city), it seems there WAS a bit of a feeling of being offended that this Senate seat could be had for the asking by somebody with just a famous name. It wouldn't have been the end of the world, but even Clinton was resented by many for being a bit of a carpetbagger...obviously not many enough to keep her from being quite popular.
Or maybe NOT out of the shoving match for appointment (it isn't a race - or there'd be votes involved). Now the AP is saying she's still in.
Indeed, it hardly seems evident to me that having a father who is lionized largely because he was handsome and got shot is a sufficient qualification to receive a senate seat.
And Megan, why do you think it is that there seem to be people just waiting around to make nasty comments about whatever you post? I haven't noticed this (as much) with other bloggers.
"Alot isn't a word."
Posted by someone
If people use it and understand it, then it's a word. Proper English usage and grammar is based on common usage.
Certainly, you must know that, being a pedantic dumb-ass and all...
By all reports, Caroline Kennedy is a very bright women and dedicated mother. She has given freely of her time and money to causes that she supports, mostly education.
I am a bit shocked that she would want to enter politics. Her father killed when she was about 4. Her uncle was killed a few years later. When her brother considered a public career the press both fawned and dug for dirt.
If we want to keep people, who try to trade wealth and or family name for public office, out of politics we will lose half of Congress and 75% of local politicians.
Perhaps Caroline should have followed the Obama model. Charm Penny Pritzker to bank roll your political ambitions. Run for State Senator, accomplish nothing. Then run for the Senate, where the Chicago Tribune will trash all your potential rivals. BTW what is the relationship between Ms Pritzker and the Tribune editorial board. Achieve almost nothing as a Senator then run for President as a symbol.
Caroline could have been a great Senator. She has independent wealth and would owe very little to the powers that be in New York. She could have been, if you like liberals, a true independent candidate.
People also say "mute point" instead of moot.
Or nuculear instead of nuclear.
They are also wrong.
If we want to keep people, who try to trade wealth and or family name for public office, out of politics we will lose half of Congress and 75% of local politicians.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
"If we want to keep people, who try to trade wealth and or family name for public office, out of politics we will lose half of Congress"
Stop! I won't listen!
Oh, and what's with the crap about someone being a
"dedicated mother" supposedly qualifying them for something. I'm single, do I get to run for office on account of being a "loving boyfriend"? How about "earnest brother"?
That her motherhood (of which we don't really know anything) is used as a talking point goes to show how little this woman has actually ever done, besides being herself.
Speaking as a New Yorker, I assure you that a very large number of us do care, k1.
One statistic I haven't seen yet: Is support for Kennedy's nomination correlated with age? The political commentator on my local NPR affiliate was utterly enraptured by the prospect of Caroline getting the gig, because she's a Kennedy! And female!
I've spent my life (I'm 39) listening to the press report the doings of various members of the Kennedy clan. With a very few exceptions, the ones who've been active during my lifetime seem to be good mostly at getting DUI arrests or getting killed in unusual and dramatic ways. Considering the advantages of wealth and connection they're born with, they all seem like underachievers. I don't get it. What's the attraction?
No big surprise here, unless you're Ruth Marcus or Eleanor Clift.
One, two three: Awwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww.
I would wager people jump on Megan because she almost never corrects or addresses her mistakes in posts and acts as if addressing this would be akin to feeding trolls.
Often, a few seconds of googling or wikipedia before posting on unfamiliar topics could save her a lot of criticism.
Her tone and style of blogging (outside of economics) is often patronizing. That she gets so many things factually wrong without correction tends to irritate quite a few.
Also, it's pretty easy to get sick of posts that consist of "Oh, I won't vote for X, just to tweak Y group because Y group is being annoying" even if Y group isn't representative of the whole and is just a cherry-picked sample by Megan. As if voting for your beliefs can be swayed by mere annoyance and pettiness.
I assume a lot of people who complain a lot now haven't been reading since the janegalt.net days though and aren't used to this sort of post.
That being said, Megan always advocates reading other points of view particularly when it comes to economics, and the comments section is particularly enlightening and lively (which is why I've continued to read Megan over the years). There are more interesting discussions here than 90% of blogs out there and I'd like to thank Megan for allowing continued comments.
Btw, she knows "alot" isn't at word. It's just a typo. Pointing out grammatical errors in a blog is rather petty, but pointing out glaring factual errors or premises are another matter.
I'm thrilled with the damage Caroline Kennedy has done to the family brand!
Caroline Kennedy has grievously wronged the people of New York by interfering with the appointment of whatever desperately ambitious former county commissioner ultimately gets the Senate seat. She should apologize for having volunteered herself for the position, and also she should apologize for not being good on TV.
bravo meagan. i commend you for pointing out what should be perfectly obvious to any reasonable observer: namely that the combination of two realities - her indisputable lack of qualifications for the office she was seeking, and her attempt to gain that office by circumventing the democratic process as such - made her "run" for senate both idiotic and insulting.
and to those of you singing her praises, or bizarrely comparing her to meagan, i'm sorry but the gap between the gifts bestowed on kennedy and the results she has to show for it is vast - and eclipsed only by the likes of paris hilton.
Megan,
Are you channelling Harlan Ellison's classic story, "I have no mouth and cannot scream"?
I wonder how much of Kennedy's support comes from people who want to believe that, if they keep their nose clean, they too can rise to a position of prominence based solely on the reputation of their parents.
I also live in New York, and I do resent candidates who seek our senate seats based on their celebrity - especially because it's usually a stepping stone to something else. Now that Clinton's moving on, we once again have a senator with no seniority. Hurrah.
I think this is a case of a fairly private and unassuming person being shanghaied into applying for a job she never really wanted (but wasn't averse to taking) by her friends and family: "Hey Caroline, you'd be great at this, c'mon, Caroline, think of Dad, it's not as hard as all that, it's a golden opportunity, he'll give it to you easy as pie, the public loves you, blah, blah, blah."
And so she said what-the-hell, and immediately got scorched by the press and public (both of which, I think, overestimate the qualities necessary for a senator--look at the others, fer chrissakes), and was from that point just keeping up appearances until she could find an exit that wouldn't be too embarrassing.
As usual, a New York Times story today indicates you have it all wrong. Seriously, how do you people get your jobs?
Nominating someone to high political office because of who they are related to rather than what they have accomplished is a sign that your democracy is on a serious decline.
Color me cynical, but I expect Caroline to move to Massachusetts in the near future and start getting publicly noticed as she prepares to run for Teddy Kennedy's Senate seat when his term expires. Senator Kennedy is quite ill and my suspicion is his reluctance to resign his seat is really nothing more than him wanting to finish out his term- for a man whose been doing what he does for as long as he has, resigning is like deciding to lay down and die. If he can keep the cancer at bey long enogh to finish his term he will do so because that's just who he is.
If Caroline wants a Senate seat she could do worse than to move to Massachusetts, make herself a real public figure, then run for the family seat when it comes open. Sure, she'll get a lot of votes just for being a Kennedy, but at least she'd be elected, not appointed.
I'm not a fan of the Kennedy fable in any way, shape or form, but didn't we just take a swing at Obama supporters (and deservedly so) for tasteless gloating? Shouldn't that mean that we also show a little more grace?
Caroline didn't want the job but then she knew there were no duties.
It's good to be the King, but Senator isn't all that different. And the family will be pleased.
She knew she would pick up some nice perks, perhaps a lifetime diplomatic passport after she left office in two years.
And a personal staff on the public payroll.
And the campaign money that would come in (regardless of whether your really run in 2010) would pay for a lot of service, wardrobe, and more aides.
Even if you are rich getting a few million a year of your personal expenses paid isn't to be sneered at.
And what if some of that is illegal? Well, your chief of staff made the mistakes. You fire him/her. The problem goes away. The NYT will explain it to the underclass.
You might even like it and run for election. The people deserve the best.
@K: Caroline didn't want the job but then she knew there were no duties. ... And a personal staff on the public payroll. ... Even if you are rich getting a few million a year of your personal expenses paid isn't to be sneered at.
For what it's worth, I have heard that Ted Kennedy pays for a significant portion of his staff expenses, including policy types, out of his own pocket, so that he can have a bigger and better staff. (If you were a Senator with a pot of family money, and you really, really liked being better prepared and better advised than your adversaries, wouldn't you consider doing the same?)
In general, the idea that Caroline Kennedy would have wanted to be Senator for the money and the "perks" is not well founded. The perks look nice to you and me but if your net worth "easily tops $100 million" they are trivial.
And Megan, why do you think it is that there seem to be people just waiting around to make nasty comments about whatever you post? I haven't noticed this (as much) with other bloggers.
I've noticed this too. The other thing I've noticed is they all seem to use the same hyperbolic, pretentious language and sentence construction. I'd really love to see the server traffic logs for this site.
This article is a great example, too, since Megan's just pointing out something sort of routinely obvious - if Princess Caroline wasn't a Kennedy there wouldn't be any reason to consider her for the local mayoral race, let alone senator.
alkali: I won't differ with anything you said. It is all opinion, as is mine.
FYI, I was deliberately mimicking the rather vacuous tone of this Caroline affair. Only Patterson played it well and didn't paint himself into any corners.
In my experience the rich pay a great deal of attention to expenses, even those which we might consider trivial.
The ability to avoid expenses by shifting them to others is as much about power as money.
In political circles, and not only political circles, if you don't have to pay it signals you have power. If you have to pay it means you don't.
Like all generalizations there are always some who behave differently. Ted probably does,
possibly to keep up the old Kennedy family tradition of buying discretion.
In fifty years I can't recall a Kennedy insider revealing unauthorized details about the clan. In contrast, we see Paul Burrell, Diana's butler, selling everything he knows.