Why I back Caroline Kennedy for Hillary Clinton's Senate Seat

The news is so fresh it's still warm: Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg announced that she's interested in being considered as a candidate for Hillary Clinton's senate seat.

This is a big turnaround for Kennedy, who has historically kept to the sidelines of politics and stayed under the media radar as much as possible. Additionally, many, such as Richard Bradley at Slate, say her avoidance of political stances and pursuit of "easy" jobs (including mother) (?!?!?!) make her a lame candidate.

But don't mistake this to mean that she is unqualified or uninvolved. Kennedy has a BA from Radcliffe and a JD from Columbia Law School. Additionally, she's held executive positions for nonprofits, raised a family (and yes, that is a qualifier, and no, it's not an easy job), and written books about constitutional law (In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action, 1991, and The Right to Privacy, 1997).

Further, she's become more involved in the last couple of years, inspired by Barack Obama as so many of us are. She campaigned for the president-elect in places such as Hartford and Washington, DC, and even wrote an op-ed endorsing Obama for the new York Times back in January ("A President Like My Father," January 27, 2008).

Her name was bandied about back in October for an Obama cabinet position (Secretary of Education) and she was on Obama's team vetting vice presidential candidates.

She's bright, well-educated, connected, involved, inspired by Obama, strong on education (she has worked for the last five years for New York public schools), knowledgeable and dedicated to charitable works, and is, I believe, at the exact point in life where experience and wisdom meet to make her an excellent candidate.

I admit that I back a woman replacing a woman in the Senate, as well.

Kennedy has her backers and her detractors, but anyone who wastes breath saying she hasn't got what it takes---in personality or in her Curriculum Vitae---is just blowing smoke. Kennedy can do the job and do it well. She's a solid candidate for the job, and ought to be considered seriously.

Comments

[Laura]

So, we have another woman who shoots right to the top because of connections, when so many other just as capable women without connections languish, or at least don't rise like cream--just when they are ready. Why, why do so many start at the top and stay there? Honestly, this senate seat seems to be on hold for well-connected women: first Hillary Clinton and now, possibly, Caroline Kennedy. Is this a feminist kind of quota system?

[Julie Pippert]

Interesting perspective, Laura. I'm going to have to ponder that a bit. Yes, there is a nepotism and privilege for the "elite." But just as that alone doesn't qualify a person neither does it disqualify a person.

My concern is creating a competition among women for narrow opportunities rather than supporting women to help broaden opportunities. I do know a number of groups are working hard to create and promote more chances for women.

[Laura]

Yes, there are certainly a number of important organizations helping women gain representation in politics and on op-ed pages, and what they are doing is critical.

But back to Ms. Kennedy. Many of the reasons why she is capable of becoming senator are because she was given wonderful building-block opportunities because of who she is. No one offered me "executive positions for nonprofits" (I won't even say how far my master's got me in any door); and no one was offering to publish my books, could it be because my last name (at least in my family associations) is not so attractive? And could it be that I was not an advisor to Obama because I was merely part of the people power, but no more? Yes, privilege has its built-in advantages. Sorry for the bitterness; sometimes it is hard to feel happy for someone else's wonderful opportunities that you would have liked.

[Archivist]

I'd like to see a woman achieve high political office for reasons other than her affiliation with a popular man. Sorry, she's not qualified -- unless you count her experience being potty trained in the White House.

[PunditMom]

Sorry, I have to disagree. There is no way Caroline Kennedy should have that seat. Some actual qualifications would be nice. Yes, she has a law degree -- so do I. Unlike Caroline Kennedy, I've actually practiced law for 15 years and no one is saying I'm qualified to be a Senator.

Bright? Well-educated? I think all of the MOMocrats (even me!) fit that description.

I just want someone in that position who has experience in the political world and isn't just another Kennedy who thinks they are entitled to a big job because of their name.

[Linda]

I'm thinking back to when people thought Hillary shouldn't be NY senator just because she was connected to a President. Was she qualified? Was she a "show horse" instead of a workhorse?

Looking back, we can all see she held her own and proved the naysayers wrong, whether or not you always agree with her politics.

No question, being a Kennedy gives you an edge, to a certain point. Whether Gov. Paterson will give her a chance remains to be seen.

But here are my four thoughts at this point:

1. She's smart and may well do a very capable job, as Hillary did. (And she has lived in New York for most of her life.) Just because she's famous doesn't automatically mean she can't hack it.

2. If she falls on her face, the voters of the Empire State can easily vote her out in '10 (or '12!).

3. It can't be too hard to vet a woman who has been stalked by the press for the past half a century.

And finally, number four:

4. She's not Sarah Palin!

[Natural Skin Care lady]

We need qualifications for sure. This is not an OJT position.

[hibikir]

Is this the democratic party or a monarchy?
Smaller countries have little trouble making sure that the heads of their political parties aren't just like medieval dynasties. Are all capable people in the US Bushes, Kennedys and Clintons?

The party of the people needs a worker, not a princess.

[progressivegal]

I agree with you Julie. For me, experience doesn't make or break a candidate. I'm more interested in aptitude and intellectual curiosity. She possesses both in spades. Yeah she's a Kennedy and has had more opportunities than all of us, so what? I don't begrudge that - her success doesn't diminish anyone else's here or anywhere. She seems to have done all she can to make sure she lives up to her family's legacy in fact.

[progressivegal]

I agree with you Julie. For me, experience doesn't make or break a candidate. I'm more interested in aptitude and intellectual curiosity. She possesses both in spades. Yeah she's a Kennedy and has had more opportunities than all of us, so what? I don't begrudge that - her success doesn't diminish anyone else's here or anywhere. She seems to have done all she can to make sure she lives up to her family's legacy in fact.

[adriana]

I have mixed feelings about CK getting this job, but one positive is that she really cannot be bought in the way that the Clintons have sold themselves at every opportunity. You don't see Ted Kennedy selling lectures, access, etc. in the way that the Clintons have. So I think that CK should continue making appearances and expressing how much she wants the job. Patterson will decide, and if she does get it, NY can vote her out in a few years.

[Gunfighter]

What? There aren't any deserving members of New York's House of Representatives delegation?

I say an emphatic NO to dynastic succession, whether the dynasty be Republican or Democratic.

[Brandon]

Carolyn Maloney has done way more for working moms and families in this country; and if appointed she would have seniority in the Senate (even more than Hillary). In Congress, celebrity doesn't get you very far. NY would be far better served to have an existing congressman or congresswoman appointed, and then appoint CK to the vacant seat in the House if need be.