The Family Business
By Tobin Harshaw
“The crazy speculation about Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat may not be so crazy after all,” reports ABC New’s The Note: “A Democrat who would know tells ABC News that New York governor David Paterson has talked to Caroline Kennedy about taking the seat, which was once held by her uncle, Robert F. Kennedy. It’s not exactly shocking that Paterson would reach out to one of the most highly respected public figures in New York, but this is: Sources say Kennedy is considering it, and has not ruled out coming to Washington to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.”
Todd Beeton at MyDD is thrilled, and thinks Kennedy’s affiliation with Barack Obama is key:
This access to the president could be good for New York and hence good for Patterson, as the man with the burden of making the choice. And certainly her celebrity, which comes with 100 percent name recognition, is worth a fortune when it comes to running statewide in 2010. But that’s the thing, she’ll have to run and win in a couple of years and that’s something Kennedy has never done. I’ve seen her speak, she is almost painfully reserved and charisma-free; will she be able to convince the state that they should vote for her on her own merits? And will her appointment be seen as having been earned or just a function of her famous name? Or will any of this matter because really, how do you run against Caroline Kennedy?
Even Mary Katharine Ham at Weekly Standard sees it as a possibly smart choice:
When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disavowed interest in the job this week, he suggested Caroline as a replacement, and her endorsement of Obama during the primaries would make her a pleasing choice for the president-Elect, to whom she’d likely have great access. It was partly her comparison of Obama to her father that allowed Obama to luxuriate in a week of Kennedy comparisons when the primary contest was heating up, as it gave a news hook to everything the media had wanted to say about him.
But Ed Morrissey at Hot Air thinks that even a Kennedy can be a neophyte:
Any choice would be better than Bill Clinton, as I wrote over the holidays. But Caroline Kennedy hasn’t worked in the public sphere at all prior to Obama’s campaign. What specifically besides her last name makes her more qualified to represent New York than people already elected to office by the people of the state?
It appears that people want to settle for name brands rather than appoint or vote for people of substance. That argument can certainly be made with Barack Obama, but the name-brand impulse precedes him by decades. Both parties indulge in it. The Bushes have three generations in national politics, and more on the way. The Kennedys have four, and counting. The Clintons only have one, but they’ve managed to make it work for twenty years, and Chelsea’s waiting in the wings. She might have gotten considered for this opening except for the age requirement.
Although the Cuomos have a dynasty going in the state of New York, one might think Andrew Cuomo would make a better choice. At least Cuomo ran for an office and has a track record on public policy, even if we disagree with it. Instead of looking for publicity stunts, Paterson would be better advised to find people who have built a record on policy and have at least some concrete evidence of backing from the people of the state. We already have too many beginners at the top level of national politics.
By Tobin Harshaw
“The crazy speculation about Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat may not be so crazy after all,” reports ABC New’s The Note: “A Democrat who would know tells ABC News that New York governor David Paterson has talked to Caroline Kennedy about taking the seat, which was once held by her uncle, Robert F. Kennedy. It’s not exactly shocking that Paterson would reach out to one of the most highly respected public figures in New York, but this is: Sources say Kennedy is considering it, and has not ruled out coming to Washington to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.”
Todd Beeton at MyDD is thrilled, and thinks Kennedy’s affiliation with Barack Obama is key:
This access to the president could be good for New York and hence good for Patterson, as the man with the burden of making the choice. And certainly her celebrity, which comes with 100 percent name recognition, is worth a fortune when it comes to running statewide in 2010. But that’s the thing, she’ll have to run and win in a couple of years and that’s something Kennedy has never done. I’ve seen her speak, she is almost painfully reserved and charisma-free; will she be able to convince the state that they should vote for her on her own merits? And will her appointment be seen as having been earned or just a function of her famous name? Or will any of this matter because really, how do you run against Caroline Kennedy?
Even Mary Katharine Ham at Weekly Standard sees it as a possibly smart choice:
When Robert F. Kennedy Jr. disavowed interest in the job this week, he suggested Caroline as a replacement, and her endorsement of Obama during the primaries would make her a pleasing choice for the president-Elect, to whom she’d likely have great access. It was partly her comparison of Obama to her father that allowed Obama to luxuriate in a week of Kennedy comparisons when the primary contest was heating up, as it gave a news hook to everything the media had wanted to say about him.
But Ed Morrissey at Hot Air thinks that even a Kennedy can be a neophyte:
Any choice would be better than Bill Clinton, as I wrote over the holidays. But Caroline Kennedy hasn’t worked in the public sphere at all prior to Obama’s campaign. What specifically besides her last name makes her more qualified to represent New York than people already elected to office by the people of the state?
It appears that people want to settle for name brands rather than appoint or vote for people of substance. That argument can certainly be made with Barack Obama, but the name-brand impulse precedes him by decades. Both parties indulge in it. The Bushes have three generations in national politics, and more on the way. The Kennedys have four, and counting. The Clintons only have one, but they’ve managed to make it work for twenty years, and Chelsea’s waiting in the wings. She might have gotten considered for this opening except for the age requirement.
Although the Cuomos have a dynasty going in the state of New York, one might think Andrew Cuomo would make a better choice. At least Cuomo ran for an office and has a track record on public policy, even if we disagree with it. Instead of looking for publicity stunts, Paterson would be better advised to find people who have built a record on policy and have at least some concrete evidence of backing from the people of the state. We already have too many beginners at the top level of national politics.