"If your name were Edward Moore instead of Edward Kennedy, your candidacy would be a joke."

[bigtree]

Ted Kennedy's opponent in his 1962 primary race, Edward McCormack, son of the speaker of the House, made the attack about his opponent's famous family connection, suggesting Kennedy wasn't qualified for the Senate seat.

Despite the reservations about the appropriateness and wisdom of sending a Kennedy to Congress, I think it worked out spectacularly well. It should follow that Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of John F. Kennedy, would similarly exceed the expectations of critics of her bid to serve in that same political arena.

[Horse with no Name]

1. What a great picture

Those kids had some pretty spectacular parents, didn't they?

[hlthe2b]

34. Isn't that the truth... Really a beautiful picture.

[peacetalksforall]

2. Nice post. I can't believe that anyone would hesitate to push for her.

If not a Senator, I think Obama should create a Cabinet seat for her as Secretary of Privacy.

If you're not aware of it, she co-authored a scholarly work on Privacy, just as Gore before her hunkered down, studied and wrote his books on the environment praised by the scientists.

She's not just a key person at her father's Library or the Kennedy Center for Performing Arts awards.

Peace, Privacy, Environment

We need to repair our country.

I would vote for her for Senator or Cabinet.

I admire her for raising her children, then giving to the country this way.

We need intelligent, devoted citizens who think and care.

Edited to add:

The Right to Privacy - co-authoried with Ellen Alderman
plus
Profiles in Courage for Our Time
A Patriot's Handbook: Songs, Poems, Stories, and Speeches Celebrating the Land We Love

plus two books related to poetry - her mothers' favorites and her favorites for children. And one on Christmas.

[question everything]

55. Send her as an ambassador to Paris

this is where socialites often went. Keep a literary salon, be photographed, spread the good name of the U.S. around.

[HeraldSquare212]

63. Exactly. She's has no compelling qualifications for Senator, other than her last name.

[peacetalksforall]

66. I'll take a self styled scholar and lawyer with passon for the country and its people

over many wannabe politicians.

I feel rather insulted that people only connect ther to classy European countries.

She has integrity in total. And is motivated politically. I regret that people demean her.

[HeraldSquare212]

67. Where has that passion been exhibited?

Where's the evidence she is politically motivated? I'm sure she has plenty of integrity (even if she is having an affair with the publisher of the NY Times, as gossip alleges).

[peacetalksforall]

64. She's much more knowledgeable and serious than an Ambassadorship.

She qualifies as much as Pawlenty qualified to be VP. Or any other of many positions.

I can't follow the reasoning of anyone who thinks of her as a homemaker.

[question everything]

72. Can she hold her own during a campaign?

Pawlenty, and Hillary in 2000 and Franken now at least criss crossed their states, shook hands of regular folks, chowed on chicken necks, participated in debates and endured dirty campaign ads.

[monmouth]

3. Couldn't agree more, and yes, a great pic....Thanks..n/t

[stray cat]

4. Teddy did ok for a legacy appointee

[bigtree]

26. 'most succesful legislator in Congress'

. . . EVER.

Fact.

[John Q. Citizen]

5. bigtree, my preference for who gets the seat is irrelevant. But your logic isn't.

just irrelevant but also flawed.

It was argued formerly that royalty was better suited to lead than commoners because they had superior blood, among other assertions. That notion has been widely rejected.

I believe her connections will probably land her the seat. I bet I will like her voting record (once she has one)better than I liked Liddy Dole's. But that's of no consequence as to whether C. Kennedy gets the appointment or not.

[bigtree]

7. the position requires a connection between the legislator and the public

It's not 'royalty' which defines the connection many Americans feel for the Kennedy family. That support has some unarguable sentimentality over their tragic losses, but it is also a reflection of their belief that these folks have already demonstrated their commitment to the public they intend to serve.

The position of Senator may well be best filled with a seasoned practitioner of politics or some sort of tactician or someone with some particular expertise. But one of the most important roles they play, in my view, is that of an advocate. In that vein, Caroline Kennedy will have a ready audience and a ready trust among the folks who she intends to serve. That's a pretty valuable commodity in politics and New York is a state which values and gets plenty utility out of the political role of their legislators.

[JackRiddler]

9. And what makes this connection? A TV declaration?

Day before yesterday, Caroline Kennedy was just another gossip-sheet celebrity to 95% of the New York public. This "connection" you're detecting suddenly is the product of the television bozos (and a few party hacks, notably not those based in New York) declaring it to be so. In a democratic and constitutional republic, connection to the representative should come from votes, not from touchy-feely and basically disposable emotional assessments by the punditocracy.

The corporate media, the Kennedy PR machine and out-of-state cheerleaders need to STFU and let the governor make his decision without pressure. Not that this is any more possible.

The very fact that Kennedy publicly announced her "candidacy" as though this were an election would, in all history until now, be understood as an attempt to strong-arm the governor and constitute an immediate disqualification.

[EFerrari]

10. She is a candidate for the appointment. I was a candidate for a degree.

People are job candidates.

[JackRiddler]

11. Oh, is that how you get a job?

You announce through the media that you want it, and then every TV pundit on the planet feels a need to tell their opinion, and then the boss feels the pressure of a bogus "popular" wave...

You know this isn't how replacement appointments for the Senate were ever done. Show me one example.

[EFerrari]

13. There is nothing wrong with the use of that word. Now you are being silly.

[JackRiddler]

16. Never mind the word, let's hear your take on the substance...

Someone who'd like to be appointed by the governor as a replacement to a resigning senator announces her eligibility through the corporate media and thanks to her celebrity status gets a huge wave of positive PR stories (and cheerleading by party hacks, albeit not in New YOrk itself).

Since when do candidates for such appointments conduct themselves in this way, since when is it considered a good thing to strong arm the governor, and since when does it work?

One day you will see something similar done on behalf of Donald Trump or Martha Stewart or Oprah. And plenty of people here would cheer if the lucky celebrity happened to make a good simulacrum of a Democrat.

Star quality is not inherently desirable - star culture is the problem!

[bigtree]

20. I don't think what she's doing is 'strong-arming.'

And, I don't think you can blame her for the NY media spin. Popularity matters, but she has substance as well. I posted some below (#18).

What should we make of similar 'positive' stories about other prospects?

[EFerrari]

38. I largely agree with that.

But it would be stupid for her or for anyone to allow themselves to framed randomly by the media.

Hillary Clinton, iirc, got out ahead of similar situations in the same way and, she was right to do it. Her camp tried to control the VP speculations as they tried to control the spec about a Cabinet appointment.

I don't think celebrity is a good basis for choosing public servants and I don't support Caroline because of her "celebrity". But, the media is going to behave in the same craven way it always does. That's the culture we live in.

[hfojvt]

45. I think celebrities are often pushed as candidates

How else did we get Hillary, Al Franken, Sonny Bono, Elizabeth Dole, etc., etc. Some of the primary requirements for being in office seem to be
1. Be famous
2. Be wealthy and/or have connections to those who are

It's a long way from the government of the people and by the people, and for some unknown reason also ends up being far away from a government for the people.

[bigtree]

12. Ask her supporters. What you describe are valid impressions

. . . but you seem opposed to her.

It's just not credible to attribute whatever support is expressed to something the 'media' has concocted (it may not pan out that she get the support of a majority of those polled). If she does amass a measurable amount of support, it will deserve to be characterized as the individuals who make up that support describe, not merely dismissed as the product of some brainwashing or naivete.

I think that congressional positions are mostly local deals, but these Senators legislate and deliberate at a national level of concern. We should be interested and active in our advocacy, if we care about the result of the choice.

I think that her vocal bid for the seat is actually a shout out to the New York public as much as it's an appeal to the pols.

[EFerrari]

14. Heaven forbid a politician engage in self-promotion!

:)

[JackRiddler]

21. Yeah, right...

I can tell you, here on the street in New York, all anyone's talking about is how Caroline Kennedy was always their champion. They're doing the liberation dance, streaking, kissing each other at random in Times Square.

It was this totally unprompted popular groundswell that generated 1,000-plus corporate news stories yesterday (by Google News compiler) within a few hours of her public announcement (of what amounts to an unprecedented strong-arm campaign on the governor).

You know, I might support her on the politics, I hear nothing but good things (seriously). Let her run. Let her persuade the voters.

[bigtree]

23. Are the other New Yorker prospects sitting still with their hands in their laps?

I really doubt that.

You do know that there is no election planned for the seat, initially, just an appointment.

[JackRiddler]

32. Would an announcement by Carolyn Maloney get 1,000 corporate media stories...

within a few hours?

Tell me: What's the precedent for the PR campaign on behalf of Kennedy? In any other case until now, it would have resulted in immediate disqualification.

Anyway, enough. You'd go nuts if it was a Republican celebrity being manipulated into a Senate seat by corporate media referendum. Legitimate such a process, and it will come around to bite you all, repeatedly.

[bigtree]

36. I think that coverage is a reflection of Mrs. Kennedy's potential for attention

. . . a valuable commodity for national legislators.

No, I don't think that an announcement by the honorable and accomplished Carolyn Maloney would get 1,000 corporate media stories.

[JackRiddler]

40. Okay, so let's go all the way with it. Hollywood only. House of Lords.

[bigtree]

48. But, this is not Hollywood. Mrs. Kennedy is not from the House of Lords.

She's a well-known (well-liked)New Yorker with a demonstrated commitment to the public she intends to serve. The notoriety is a plus.

[pnwmom]

25. She will run, as soon as anyone can run, in the next general election.

In the meantime, I hope she's appointed to fill the gap.

[karynnj]

15. gossip-sheet celebrity? Not really

I don't know how old you are, but there is a very real long term connection to CK that is far from celebrity nonsense. She has been an excellent spokesperson for Democrats at many conventions, always adding idealism and purpose in always classy way. It may well be less so with college age kids. She has been there, off and on, for 48 years. That alone would not mean she should Senator - but she has the gravitas, the values and the intelligence to be a good one.

[pnwmom]

19. Are the Obamas just gossip-sheet celebrities?

Neither was John Kennedy, and neither is Caroline, to the people who were inspired by her father and watched her and her brother grow up.

[JackRiddler]

24. What a completely irrelevant observation.

Did I miss something, was Obama appointed to the presidency? No, that was George Bush, and as another legacy candidate he makes for the much closer example in the case of Kennedy.

Let Caroline Kennedy get into the trenches for a few years, like Obama, and earn her way into an office by the votes of the people. It's very likely I would vote for her. But not now, after this disgusting spectacle of watching the media, the Kennedy PR machinery and the out-of-state party-hack cheerleaders usurp the governor's role.

[pnwmom]

No, it's not irrelevant. I think forty years from now, if Malia and Sasha lead

lives as productive as Caroline's (and I'm sure they will), many people would be happy if one of them were appointed to a position as Senator, if such as position were open.

[JackRiddler]

33. Just go watch your daytime soaps, lady.

These hypothetical examples are beyond stupid.

[onenote]

60. the only relevant observation is whether one thinks CK or someone else would be a better senator

My support for CK is based on one simple consideration: I believe she will help New York and the Democratic party, more than any of the other prospective appointees. Why? Because she has already established how valuable her endorsement is with her endorsement of Obama. And members of the senate, who generally would not seek out a freshman senator for support or would lend their support to the agenda of a freshman senator, will be more inclined to do so with CK than the other prospective appointees. Maybe her "clout" is all traceable to her name and connections. So what. If you are a Democratic senator trying to excite your base of Democratic voters and expand your support among independents in 2010, who would you rather join you at a campaign event -- Caroline Kennedy or Carolyn Maloney? That's not a slap at Maloney, who is a very good member of Congress. Its just reality. Horse trading is how the Senate works and in order to horse trade you need political capital, and CK had more political capital (at least of the kind that would interest other senators) than any of the other prospective appointees.

[surrealAmerican]

6. I'm sure the irony of that statement, coming from ...

... "the son of the speaker of the house", was not lost on the voters at the time.

[JackRiddler]

8. Let her run for the seat, then.

This is not an election - where I might support her - this is a political appointment as a replacement in an elected seat. That is a huge difference. And the seat is being secured for her by way of a media frenzy that does not in any way come because of her good qualities, but because she's a celebrity and therefore considered worthier as someone to show on TV all the time. You approve of this, and you give further legitimacy (this time from "the left") to the process of coronation-by-corporate-media that is increasingly supplanting the old backroom power politics (and is, by any measure, even more corrupt, since the corporate media do not need answer to the voters). Next time the same arbitrary process will give the "inevitability aura" to another Bush, or a Schwarzennegger, or some other cowboy star, and then you'll be decrying the overthrow of traditional constitutional process.

Furthermore, this:

"It should follow..."

(i.e., if one Kennedy turned out well, the next one should too)

is a spectacular logical fallacy. An embarrassing one, really.

[WI_DEM]

17. She will in 2010--anybody who is appointed is appointed so it really doesn't make any difference

and Caroline Kennedy is as qualified as many people who have been appointed or elected to office.

[JackRiddler]

28. Yes it does make a difference!

Appointments normally go to other elected officials - people who actually got votes.

If you're going to pretend it's ever been done on pure qualification, however, then there are about 10,000 other New Yorkers who are also qualified, but whose names would never be brought up. Ever.

You're ignoring that she's been crowned by and for the corporate media. They made the call. Otherwise her name wouldn't be in discussion.

[pnwmom]

57. There isn't any "normally" about it. Appointments go to whomever the

appointer thinks has the best chance of winning in the next election. (That is, unless the appointer is named Blagojevich.) Previous elected experience is one -- but not the only -- possible qualification.

I couldn't care less about the corporate media. I was hoping she'd get into politics for herself when I saw her campaign with Obama.

[bigtree]

18. no one is going to be running for that seat, initially

Gov. Patterson should chose the person that he believes is best suited for that public appeal, among other considerations.

I think Caroline Kennedy is pretty well liked in New York. There has been a demonstrated commitment to public service in New York by Mrs. Kennedy. That commitment is an extension and a reflection of her family's decades of public service.

Caroline Kennedy has expressed her support of Democratic values and initiatives with the publication of her 1991 book, 'In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action', and her 1996 book, 'The Right to Privacy'.

She is the vice chair of The Fund for Public Schools and a member of the national board of directors for the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund.

She helped raise over $65 million for the city’s public schools during her tenure (2002-2004) as the chief executive for the Office of Strategic Partnership for the New York City Department of Education.

Mrs. Kennedy also served as a member of the advisory committee vetting vice presidential nominees for Barack Obama's presidential campaign.

I'm not the least 'embarrassed' to promote these and other efforts of Mrs. Kennedy which amount to much more than the triviality you describe.

[pnwmom]

22. Sarah Palin is a celebrity but we wouldn't support her.

Many of us have spent decades observing Caroline, watching her grow up from the little girl who lost both her father and her favorite uncle, to the intelligent, caring, accomplished woman that she is today. I'll be watching Malia and Sasha with the same interest from now on.

But not Barbara and Jenna, or Willow, et al.

[cherokeeprogressive]

27. Let HER be the placeholder Senator.

Then in 2010 NY'ers can elect whomever they want.

[JackRiddler]

30. But you know she's not a placeholder...

A placeholder is really the only morally defensible option for an appointment to an otherwise elected office in a democracy. A placeholder would be the right thing, and the governor should therefore ask Nita Lowey to perform that function. Unfortunately, she's not being put in as a placeholder - she's being catapulted to an overwhelming position of incumbency, where the only realistic option against her will be a Republican.

[cherokeeprogressive]

39. Too True. n/t

[bigtree]

42. Is that future you describe a measure of her potential popularity?

If so, I really don't understand the objections, unless you believe the folks who would support her are all wet.

Should the 'placeholder' have absolutely no ambition for the seat in the future? Rep. Lowey might want to stick around too.

[JackRiddler]

46. Lowey supposedly doesn't want it...

and she's over 70. Using her as an example. It should be a placeholder.

By your comment, every incumbent in the two-party scam system is overwhelmingly popular (and this is a good thing) since 95 percent or more of incumbents are typically reelected -- and something more like 399 out of 400 incumbents get their party's nomination.

[pnwmom]

58. A Republican governor wouldn't appoint a placeholder, so a Democrat

would be an idiot to do that.

If the state wants to change things to force an immediate special election, fine. Otherwise, we shouldn't tie Patterson's hands behind his back.

[onenote]

62. a placeholder would be a waste

A placeholder would be ignored on Capitol Hill. THey'd be totally ineffectual. No one would feel the slightest need to develop a relationship with them, deal with them, support anything that they wanted because the placeholder would be gone in two years never to be heard of again. And it would be a waste of money. You'd end up having to staff up an office for two years just to have them, for the most part, be replaced. You wouldn't end up getting very good people for such a deadend job.

[pnwmom]

59. How many good people would want to rip up their lives

and be a placeholder for some months or even a year? No one takes this job to be a placeholder.

[onenote]

61. uhh, in 2010 NYers can elect whomever they want, whether CK is appointed or not

Try again.

[JackRiddler]

70. You know that is opportunistic bullshit rhetoric of the worst kind.

In the system as it exists in the real world, the incumbent is near-certain to go without a primary challenge. As though an experienced political observer like yourself would need me to tell you that. So please don't insult our intelligence.

Over and over, we see some people think that all that counts is capital-D Democratic, and fuck democracy.

[onenote]

71. a history lesson for you -- not opportunistic bullshit

In the system as it exists in the real world (not the world you imagine), appointed senators are extremely vulnerable. There have been 30 appointed US Senators since 1970. More than half did not end up being elected to a full term. 11 were defeated, either in the primary or the GE; 7 didn't bother to run, in some cases because they could read the writing on the wall. More than half of those who defeated lost at the primary stage. Of the twelve (out of 30) appointed senators that got elected upon the expiration of their appointed term, four only served one full term before losing re-election or deciding not to run again and four have not yet stood for re-election. So when you want to accuse someone of insulting your intelligence because primary challenges are virtually certain not to happen to an appointed incumbent, you might want to think twice.



Does that mean CK won't win in 2010? Of course not. But it means that its not the lock you imagine it is, unless of course she's as good as some of us think she'll be (in which case her reelection will have been earned, not handed to her).

[JackRiddler]

73. Your numbers are appreciated. Thanks.

Believe it or not, I had just read those figures in Newsday before you posted, and wondered if I'd see them from you. Good work, oh worthy adversary. ;)

Okay, but don't pretend incumbency confers no advantage, especially in the primary. No one with a chance is going to run against Caroline Kennedy in a primary, given the name, the money she'll have at her disposal, and the weight of high party backers. (What happens with the Republicans is a different question.)

This will have nothing to do with whether she's popular or "earns" that status in the two years of the term. On the contrary, she gets an instant huge initial advantage (within the party) without earning it, and the question is rather if she will lose it. This is unlikely, it would require a big scandal or the like, which I give her enough credit to avoid.

The more I think about it, the more ridiculous it strikes me that New York (and every place else) doesn't have a provision for special elections within a couple of months (with easier ballot qualification than in a regular election). This would be the only halfway democratic provision.

That being said, a gubernatorial appointment is still constitutional -- whereas the campaign now being waged for Kennedy is almost purely a function of the corporate media (presumably plus Kennedy influence, plus favors from out-of-state party officialdom). Whether you can deal with it or not. Selection by media -- strong-arming of the governor, to be sure -- may be legal, but I don't have to like it, or think it is in any way just or democratic.

[onenote]

74. I agree that special elections make sense and that NY's system isn't the best

I like the idea of having a special election unless there is a regularly scheduled election in the relatively near future. NY's system apparently calls for a special election as part of the next regularly scheduled election, which is two years from now. That produces a particularly ludicrous result. Two years as appointed. Run. If elected serve two more years. And the run again. Having a more immediate special election outside the normal cycle would be costly, but at least you wouldn't have this 2 run 2 run situation.

As I've made clear in other posts, I'd like to see Caroline K get the spot because I think she has the potential for being a more signficant member of the Senate than either a caretaker or any other individual who has been mentioned as a possible appointee. Not because some of those other potential appointees might not make fine senators, just that because of the culture of the US Senate, a figure such as CK, like HRC before her, will wield more clout immediately because her endorsement and support will be viewed as worthy of cultivating by other senators.

Finally...I'm going to have to look for that Newsday article. I don't read newsday and the information I reported was all culled from my own research. I guess someone else was doing the same thing!!

[Political Heretic]

29. How exactly "should it follow?"

um... there's not reason it "should follow" at all. Maybe she will be fantastic. Maybe she won't. But it doesn't "follow" that she will be great just because Ted was under similar criticisms....

[bigtree]

31. It should follow that she would exceed the expectations of her critics

. . .because of hers and her family's repeated demonstrated commitment to Democratic principles and public service. For some of us, Mrs. Kennedy didn't just drop out of the clouds.

[Orsino]

35. Her family isn't getting the appointment.

It doesn't follow at all that Caroline Kennedy must exceed expectations.

Tell me about her commitment, if you want to sell me.

[bigtree]

37. .

I laid out a few in post #18. Have you really not read any of her history?

[Orsino]

47. That was rhetorical.

I like her, too. I just hate to see the anointing of a Kennedy just for being born.

What she doesn't have is any experience in elected office, and in the absence of such we are left hunting for good things about her--such as those you previously listed.

I think we could do better, though the sort of "experience" most senators arrive in office with is the corrupting kind. Perhaps Kennedy could be a Mr. Smith despite her hereditary wealth.

[bigtree]

51. It's an interesting contradiction in the notions that seasoned pols are corrupted

. . . and that newbies lack something important and necessary in the discredited tenure of others 'in Washington.'

[Political Heretic]

41. It shouldn't "follow" at all.

There's not logical chain you can construct for this to make sense.

Her family history would be reason to assume that her political principles and positions would be similar in suit. That's for sure. That's not the same thing as saying it should follow that she will be a good senator because other members of her extended family were good public servants.

Warped logic like this is how we get Bush dynasties.

[JackRiddler]

43. Also, it should follow...

that the smart children of every dedicated political activist and public servant should also get consideration for the seat.

[EFerrari]

50. The habit of service is what should be considered, not the celebrity

but, in some families, they go together. From Amy Carter's wiki page:

Activism

Amy Carter later became known for her political activism, participating in a number of sit-ins and protests during the 1980s and early 1990s, aimed at changing U.S. foreign policy towards South African apartheid and Central America.<6> Along with activist Abbie Hoffman and 13 others, she was arrested during a 1987 demonstration at the University of Massachusetts for protesting CIA recruitment there. She was acquitted of all charges in a well-publicized trial in Northampton, Massachusetts. Attorney Leonard Weinglass, who defended Abbie Hoffman in the Chicago Seven trial in the 1960s, utilized the necessity defense, successfully arguing that CIA involvement in Central America and other hotspots were equivalent to trespassing in a burning building.<8> This occurred during Carter's sophomore year at Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. She was eventually dismissed from Brown for academic reasons and declined an opportunity to return.<9>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amy_Carter#Activism

[EFerrari]

44. We got a Bush dynasty via dirty elections. Bush didn't run as

some version of his father, that I recall, anyway.

[JackRiddler]

53. Also via an appointment.

And CK isn't "running" (staging a media campaign, whatever the right term is) as a version of her father, either, but in both cases the father may be ever-so slightly relevant as a reason for why you even know either.

[EFerrari]

54. Imo, you are using celebrity as the common denominator here

and in a sense, doing exactly what you're objecting to above. Yes, both families have some celebrity and the patriarch held high office, but that's about all they have in common.

/oops

[Orsino]

49. Heh. Bad example...

...though your point stands. :rofl:

[bigtree]

56. I don't view the Kennedy 'legacy' as 'warped'

I think American politics has benefited from the Kennedy family's commitment, support, and advocacy of Democratic principles and public service.

I think your characterization isn't at all a reflection of the Kennedy family's efforts and achievements.

Mrs. Kennedy's own initiatives and efforts in public service in New York and elsewhere are a direct reflection of her family's commitment to those important values and actions on behalf of our party.

I think that legacy is significant in evaluating Mrs. Kennedy's potential, just as the Bush's own actions define their affinity and disposition to republican corporatism and reflexive militarism.

It 'follows' that Mrs. Kennedy would continue her family's legacy because of her own demonstrated commitment to those values which define that legacy.

[Cha]

52. I hope Caroline Kennedy gets appointed

to be the interim Senator to take Hillary's vacated seat!

Caroline has 22 years on young Teddy, too..all those years experiencing life on the outside of Washington DC(good thing)..making good judgment calls.

I think she's more than qualified to be a U.S. Senator and I hope she gets the position. We need more Senators who are cognizant and respectful of our constitutional rights. She'll be great for education and funding for the arts.

She's outside the Washington power grid but knows how it works. Her celebrity will bring increased attention to the progressive bills she introduces, co-sponsors and supports. I think she's exactly the kind of change we need to bring to Washington
http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/

[victoryparty]

65. Great picture, great president, great future NY senator

Caroline Kennedy and her pony Macaroni all the way!

[gmudem]

68. This is absurd celebrity worship.

I'm getting more pissed off every day by this crap. New York should have a chance at a real senator, I'm tired of this one senate seat constantly going to famous names. What is wrong with Jerrold Nadler? Kirsten Gillibrand? Carolyn Maloney? Nydia Velazquez? These people actually have experience at legislating, and have already served their New York constituents.

I am just so goddamn angry about this. But it's clearly going to happen. What a joke.

[Fearless]

69. Agreed.