Get Brooklynian.com by Email! 
Grab the Feed (RSS)Brooklynian » Forum » The Lounge / Random Stuff »
-
I'm just curious as to what everyone's opinion is as to who should be the person to replace Senator Clinton. The name most spoken of, and by all accounts most likely to be appointed is Caroline Kennedy..thoughts? I will say that I can see no obvious reason why she could or ever would be seriously considered for the spot beyond her last name. I am still waiting for someone to make a case to me for her being senator that doesn't mention her father or her support for Obama and mentions the positions and experiences (beyond fundraising) that have prepared her for and elevated her to the level that warrants being appointed to be 1 of the 5 most powerful people in New York. If she wants to be senator, she should run and let the people decide if she is qualified and not use backroom political pressure and the power of her family to have herself appointed to a position of such authority and power as if it is her birthright.
-
I'm with you. She has no political experience and to pull the "Kennedy card" because she feels like she's now ready to throw her hat in the ring (at what, like 53 years old??) is an insult to all the politicians who have worked hard for so many years and deserve that seat. Plus, to give her the seat of Senator Clinton while she supported President-Elect Obama would be a travesty. Carolyn Maloney has worked hard for the people of NY and supports women's issues and would be a great choice.
-
danielle123 » Plus, to give her the seat of Senator Clinton while she supported President-Elect Obama would be a travesty.
That doesn't make any sense. -
Okay, if you say so.
-
danielle123 » Okay, if you say so.
No, it's not just because I say so. You're making the assertion. If you disagree with me, tell me how the second half of your statement follows from the first. -
i'm of two minds on this one. yes, her name is an unfair advantage. on the other hand, what (little) i've read makes it sound like she might well do a pretty good job. i don't think the hillary/obama thing should matter, though, especially given that the seat is open because hillary going off to work with obama.Bumping ancient threads with bot-like bullshit
-
sweet tea » i'm of two minds on this one. yes, her name is an unfair advantage. on the other hand, what (little) i've read makes it sound like she might well do a pretty good job. i don't think the hillary/obama thing should matter, though, especially given that the seat is open because hillary going off to work with obama.
Exactly. -
I don't have to do squat. You disagreed with ME, not the other way around.
-
danielle123 » I don't have to do squat. You disagreed with ME, not the other way around.
You made a nonsensical statement. If you don't want to defend it, fine. I wouldn't want to either. -
So you say.
-
I don't think the Obama thing is an issue - Hillary is going to be working closely with a whole bunch of Obama supporters pretty soon so she'll need to get used to the idea. But at this point I don't know anything about Caroline Kennedy beyond her name.When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be regarded as certain.
-Bertrand Russell -
danielle123 » So you say.
Yes I do, because I believe that implicit in your statement are the following: 1. Caroline Kennedy should not have endorsed Obama. 2. She should be punished for doing so. 3. The fact that the seat was held be Clinton (which she is leaving voluntarily to work with Obama) has some bearing on who should succeed her. All of these are incorrect. Is there another rationale behind your statement? None of this means that she's the best candidate, but Kennedy's support for Obama, if it has any bearing on this at all, speaks for her good judgment. -
Aren't you a moderator? I think you're looking for a fight and you're frustrated I won't give you one (are you looking to boot someone off or something?). You should stop assuming what you think people mean. It's ignorant.
-
danielle, i am not interested in fighting with anyone (right now -- give me time). but if what you meant is not what carnivore says above, then i don't understand what you did mean. would you explain?Bumping ancient threads with bot-like bullshit
-
danielle123 » Aren't you a moderator? I think you're looking for a fight and you're frustrated I won't give you one (are you looking to boot someone off or something?). You should stop assuming what you think people mean. It's ignorant.
I'm not looking for a fight. You should stop assuming what people's intentions are. It's ignorant. You made an inflammatory statement and refuse to back it up with any reasoning. I'm looking for a discussion with someone intelligent enough to back up what they say. The election and subsequent events have thoroughly discredited the ridiculous PUMA "movement" and your statement totally reeks of that. If I'm wrong, all you have to do is clarify what you said. -
Why not put someone who is not a politician in. A policy wonk on health care who hasn't had the time to be a politician. Its an opportunity to avoid the usual suspects. Maybe someone like that could get something rolling in New York. Kennedy mouths the obligatory platitudes but I don't think she has ever committed in a substantive way to anything.
-
SW - if your post had been the first one I received, I would have gladly explained what I meant, as an intelligent "back-and-forth, because you genuinely sound curious about what I meant (or at least you're trying to sound like you're genuinely curious), rather than like you are attacking me. At this point, please understand that, based on the previous posts before yours, I don't feel like I'm in an environment that wants to hear opposing viewpoints. I will say that I'm disappointed, though, because I'm new to this board and thought it was a little more open-minded and/or thoughtful. I do appreciate the fact, ST, that you tried to bring it down a notch, though. Thanks.
-
I don't have a dog in this fight. -
Me either, modsquad. And I don't disagree with any of the other stuff that's been said about Kennedy as a candidate. I just took issue with what I perceived to be a gratuitous anti-Obama comment when it was irrelevant to the discussion. Danielle123, I'm sorry if you perceived my questions as attacks, since they weren't intended that way. The internet is bad at conveying tone, which is why it's important to clarify what you say so people don't misunderstand.
-
It wasn't anti-Obama; it was anti-Caroline Kennedy. You "perceived" is right. Keep "perceiving" or as I like to say, "assuming"....there's an old saying about "assuming" - I'm sure you probably know it. Now everything you post will be suspect to me because you sound knee-jerk not intelligent.
-
danielle123 » It wasn't anti-Obama; it was anti-Caroline Kennedy. You "perceived" is right. Keep "perceiving" or as I like to say, "assuming"....there's an old saying about "assuming" - I'm sure you probably know it.
Since you refuse to clarify what you say, we have nothing to work with but our interpretations of it. My interpretation of your statement stands as the only explanation for it until you offer another one. And as far as this goes:danielle123 » Now everything you post will be suspect to me because you sound knee-jerk not intelligent.
Wikipedia » An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
-
Okay, I take back that last sentence. It's hard to read tone in email. I think you (Carnivore) may have just wanted a lively political discussion and although I normally relish a good political fight, tonight was not one of those times. I was just looking to post some offhand posts tonight to feel part of the community and wasn't expecting what I thought was "attack" responses (if I misinterpreted motive, I apologize). All I can say (again) is that I'm new to this board and am still getting used to the "give and take" so to speak. Have a nice night everyone. You, too, Carnivore.
-
Fair enough. Good night, danielle. Sorry again for any misunderstanding- my questions were intended in good faith. Maybe we can pick this up again fresh tomorrow.
-
After all the talk about "qualifications" during the presidential election, and given the fact that Senator Clinton had never held public office before she ran for the Senate, I find the harrumphing of the NY Democratic party hacks and flacks to be highly disingenuous. I think time spent anywhere near Albany should be an immediate disqualification for the position. Why not mention Caroline's last name and the fact that she has Obama's ear as ideal qualifications for this appointment? Influence matters and nondescript upstate and downstate Congressional representatives don't offer any for New Yorkers.your anger is delicious. - dieter
-
witch-king » After all the talk about "qualifications" during the presidential election, and given the fact that Senator Clinton had never held public office before she ran for the Senate,
Key point here being that she RAN for office. Many people did feel Clinton was was underqualified, as they did about Obama before he RAN for president. The difference is that they spent a fairly long period of time introducing themselves to the public and describing in detail where they stood on all of the important issues and allowing the public to judge whether or not they were qualified for their respective positions and then people VOTED. Mrs. Kennedy has done nothing of the sort. Based on press reports the only people she is speaking to are the backroom power brokers and bypassing and ignoring any public debate and using her family to pressure the governor into giving her the seat.I find the harrumphing of the NY Democratic party hacks and flacks to be highly disingenuous.
They are rightfully pissed off. Many of these people have spent a lifetime fighting for the party and the cause and the state and feel they have a legitimate reason to be considered for the seat. They now see someone who has shown no particular interest in politics on any level essentially being handed the seat while having done absolutely nothing to warrant it beyond being born into the right family.I think time spent anywhere near Albany should be an immediate disqualification for the position. Why not mention Caroline's last name and the fact that she has Obama's ear as ideal qualifications for this appointment?
That you for proving my point....you HAVE to mention her father, if you don't mention him the absurdity of her being appointed to the seat becomes immediately apparent. So being famous and having Obama's ear are qualifications to be in the senate? Who is next? Oprah? Jay Z? David geffen? Absurd? Prove to me that Caroline is any more qualified then those 3 individuals...Influence matters and nondescript upstate and downstate Congressional representatives don't offer any for New Yorkers.
Nonsense...Schumer was exactly that...a nondescript downstate congressman...yet he quickly rose to be one of the most powerful men in the senate. I'll say again...If she wants to be a senator she should run for it in the next election. It is my opinion that in order to be appointed to a seat that important one should have some sort of record that would indicate they are prepared and capable of such responsibility. I have heard or read nothing that indicates she has such a record. -
evidently she's written a couple of books on constitutional law. not saying the name thing isn't still most of this, but you could add that to the qualifications list. about fundraising -- fundraising at the level she's been doing it is quite a bit like politics. again, i'm not saying i disagree with your basic point, but i do think she deserves so credit there. she wasn't just running bake sales. i do think this case to some degree reflects on the difficulties facing women in politics, but i've gotta be more awake than this before i try to explain that -- just made several hashes of it and had to delete.Bumping ancient threads with bot-like bullshit
-
sweet tea » i'm of two minds on this one. yes, her name is an unfair advantage. on the other hand, what (little) i've read makes it sound like she might well do a pretty good job.
Kennedy vs Cuomo Kennedy has practically no experience in terms of the whole of the city. The major things she has done was to raise money for public schools and became an honorary director of a ballet thing... This city/state has a lot more going on then just ballet and schools. Check out Cuomo's resume. I feel he is better prepared then someone who was "politically shy" and all of a sudden wants to be senator. -
as far as i can tell, cuomo's resume is "what happens to boys from rich, powerful families" while kennedy's is "what happens to girls". yes, he has more jobs to list, but they basically all spring from his original social standing. i don't see a fundamental difference here. if kennedy were male, i bet her resume would look a lot like his. instead, she's been doing the traditionally appropriate things for women in her social position -- serving on boards, raising the kids...oh, and writing those books. i'm not convinced he'd automatically be a better senator. carolyn maloney, on the other hand, does seem pretty cool. would she be able to raise enough money to hang onto the seat at the next election? that's a big reason to go for star-power in an appointment like this.Bumping ancient threads with bot-like bullshit
-
so going by the logic you described, we can use the cancellation method. When 2 things match up, they cancel out. take out the schools money names then compare the achievements and positions. For arguments sake, lets all agree Cuomo became AG because of his name. That experience alone should top Kennedy's. But thats just my opinion.
-
sweet tea » as far as i can tell, cuomo's resume is "what happens to boys from rich, powerful families" while kennedy's is "what happens to girls". yes, he has more jobs to list, but they basically all spring from his original social standing. i don't see a fundamental difference here. if kennedy were male, i bet her resume would look a lot like his.
Right..because John John had a resume that was identical to Cuomo. With all due respect, reducing the argument of Clinton V Cuomo to "male heir of a rich powerful family" V "female heir of a rich powerful family" discounts Coumos experience significantly. -
edited...arguing a moot point.
-
Right..because John John had a resume that was identical to Cuomo.
okay, let me refine: cuomo and c.k.'s resumes look like the resumes of those girls and boys who are both born into that sort of family AND have an interest public service. i know things are changing, but the traditional definition of "public service" for women is exactly what c.k.'s resume looks like. the traditional definition for men looks more like cuomo's. i don't think all your points are wrong or anything, but i do think this is not unrelated to the familiar issues of women being unqualified for X because they've followed the rules. (see: clinton, hillary -- "only a candidate bc of her husband" and)Bumping ancient threads with bot-like bullshit -
sweet tea »
I think we are agreeing more then we are disagreeing...but I will reiterate my point that cuomos resume is more then that. For the record though, I don't think AC should get the seat either...I think it shoudl go to an elected female official from upstate.Right..because John John had a resume that was identical to Cuomo.
okay, let me refine: cuomo and c.k.'s resumes look like the resumes of those girls and boys who are both born into that sort of family AND have an interest public service. i know things are changing, but the traditional definition of "public service" for women is exactly what c.k.'s resume looks like. the traditional definition for men looks more like cuomo's. i don't think all your points are wrong or anything, but i do think this is not unrelated to the familiar issues of women being unqualified for X because they've followed the rules. (see: clinton, hillary -- "only a candidate bc of her husband" and) -
scottb2k » [quote="sweet tea"] about fundraising -- fundraising at the level she's been doing it is quite a bit like politics. again, i'm not saying i disagree with your basic point, but i do think she deserves so credit there. she wasn't just running bake sales.
While I agree that she wasn't running bake sales...the idea that raising money for public cahirites compares with the political life os a US senator seems somewhat silly to me. [/quote] how much do you know about high-end development work? i find it very much like politics -- involves lots of similar deal-making, balancing of personalities, getting people to see why the thing you're asking for is something they should support too, etc. all the stuff that people frequently cite as important skills in the senate, as distinct from campaign skills.[quote] i do think this case to some degree reflects on the difficulties facing women in politics, but i've gotta be more awake than this before i try to explain that -- just made several hashes of it and had to delete.
I think I understand what you are getting at there but my response would be to say that there are plenty of women who want/wanted the seat that have boatloads more experience then she has and that are eminently more qualified then she is.[/quote] i'm happy to agree with you here. i'm not sure c.k. would be my top choice, but i'm also not sure i'm prepared to be unhappy if she is named. she does seem to me like she might be good at it, and if she's not, there's always the ol' electoral process.Bumping ancient threads with bot-like bullshit -
sweet tea » there's always the ol' electoral process.
If she gets appointed...the way the political system in NY works she will have the seat for life... -
scottb2k » I think we are agreeing more then we are disagreeing.
curses! i will have to try harder. umm.... mets AND yankees suck! also the teams on staten island and coney island. they are also terrible teams. and the knicks.Bumping ancient threads with bot-like bullshit -
sweet tea » [quote="scottb2k"] I think we are agreeing more then we are disagreeing.
curses! i will have to try harder. umm.... mets AND yankees suck! also the teams on staten island and coney island. they are also terrible teams. and the knicks.[/quote] Agree with all that too...sorry... -
okay.... your avatar has totally wack neighborhood boundaries. ...unfortunately, since i know that because the same poster is hanging in my house, that's probably not fuel for a good fight, either.Bumping ancient threads with bot-like bullshit
-
I've tried hard to care about Caroline Kennedy getting handed the seat but I just can't bring myself to care. And I'm a pretty passionate political person. People who think she's begging her way into office need to deal with our state law as its written. She or Patterson isn't doing anything illegal. If we don't want the Governor to have the right to appoint replacements, we shouldn't give that right to him/her. But it exists for now. So...Spend a buck, light a number for one the 400,000 victims in Darfur: darfurwall.org
-
scottb2k » [quote="witch-king"]After all the talk about "qualifications" during the presidential election, and given the fact that Senator Clinton had never held public office before she ran for the Senate,
Key point here being that she RAN for office. Many people did feel Clinton was was underqualified, as they did about Obama before he RAN for president. The difference is that they spent a fairly long period of time introducing themselves to the public and describing in detail where they stood on all of the important issues and allowing the public to judge whether or not they were qualified for their respective positions and then people VOTED. Mrs. Kennedy has done nothing of the sort. Based on press reports the only people she is speaking to are the backroom power brokers and bypassing and ignoring any public debate and using her family to pressure the governor into giving her the seat.I find the harrumphing of the NY Democratic party hacks and flacks to be highly disingenuous.
They are rightfully pissed off. Many of these people have spent a lifetime fighting for the party and the cause and the state and feel they have a legitimate reason to be considered for the seat. They now see someone who has shown no particular interest in politics on any level essentially being handed the seat while having done absolutely nothing to warrant it beyond being born into the right family.I think time spent anywhere near Albany should be an immediate disqualification for the position. Why not mention Caroline's last name and the fact that she has Obama's ear as ideal qualifications for this appointment?
That you for proving my point....you HAVE to mention her father, if you don't mention him the absurdity of her being appointed to the seat becomes immediately apparent. So being famous and having Obama's ear are qualifications to be in the senate? Who is next? Oprah? Jay Z? David geffen? Absurd? Prove to me that Caroline is any more qualified then those 3 individuals...Influence matters and nondescript upstate and downstate Congressional representatives don't offer any for New Yorkers.
Nonsense...Schumer was exactly that...a nondescript downstate congressman...yet he quickly rose to be one of the most powerful men in the senate. I'll say again...If she wants to be a senator she should run for it in the next election. It is my opinion that in order to be appointed to a seat that important one should have some sort of record that would indicate they are prepared and capable of such responsibility. I have heard or read nothing that indicates she has such a record.[/quote] Regarding the silly argument that Caroline Kennedy should "run" for this seat: please note that this will be an appointment (and the party hacks you prefer will also be appointed). In 2010 and 2012 Kennedy will have to run for re-election. Most of your reply is hyperbolic and can't be taken seriously.your anger is delicious. - dieter -
witch-king » Regarding the silly argument that Caroline Kennedy should "run" for this seat: please note that this will be an appointment (and the party hacks you prefer will also be appointed).
I prefer someone who is already an elected official who has a documented history of positions and fighting for their constituents.In 2010 and 2012 Kennedy will have to run for re-election.
If you think that an incumbent democrat(regardless of who it is) will be in any danger of losing a senate seat in 2010 or 2012 please let me know what the color of the sky is in your world. As I stated in an earlier post, this is a de facto appointment for life.Most of your reply is hyperbolic and can't be taken seriously.
As opposed to your original post that listed all of the reasons that she is qualified to be senator. I especially liked where you pointed out all the positions she has taken on issues pertaining to the welfare of the state. I also liked the quotes you had of the speech she gave last year about the revitalization of Rochester and Buffalo, where can I find more from that? Seriously though, when you can think of a reason other then her name and that she is friends with Obama that she she be appointed to be senator for life please let me know... -
here's the times latest update: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/18/nyregion/18upstate.html?_r=1&hp I love the opening paragraph: SYRACUSE — In a carefully controlled strategy reminiscent of the vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, aides to Caroline Kennedy interrupted her on Wednesday and whisked her away when she was asked what her qualifications are to be a United States senator.
-
It sucks because I imagine I'd agree with Kennedy on a lot of stuff. Just give me *some* kind of experience: small-town mayor, county commissioner...something. Otherwise isn't this just a celebrity appointment?When the experts are agreed, the opposite opinion cannot be regarded as certain.
-Bertrand Russell -
scottb2k » For the record though, I don't think AC should get the seat either...I think it shoudl go to an elected female official from upstate.
I totally disagree about that. The seat should definitely go to someone from the New York City metropolitan area, if not the city itself. New York City has over 8 million people, nearly half the population of the state, and the NYC metropolitan area (which in fairness, does include densely populated parts of New Jersey) has almost 20 million, about equivalent to the entire population of New York State. Buffalo, the next biggest city in New York State, has only about a quarter million, just a few times larger than Co-Op City, and it's shrinking. Barring major demographic changes in the future, both Senators for New York State should always be from the New York City metropolitan area, where most of the population they represent live. I think Cuomo or Maloney would be good. I'm reserving judgment on Kennedy until there's more information out about her, but I do think her experience fund-raising for the New York City schools, and sitting on committees for the debates and the NAACP legal defense and education fund, and her legal scholarship and publications are relevant to her ability to be an effective Senator. It's not like elected office is the only possible relevant qualification for future elected office. If it were to be someone from upstate, I'd hope for Carl McCall. -
Carnivore » [quote="scottb2k"]For the record though, I don't think AC should get the seat either...I think it shoudl go to an elected female official from upstate.
I totally disagree about that. The seat should definitely go to someone from the New York City metropolitan area, if not the city itself. New York City has over 8 million people, nearly half the population of the state, and the NYC metropolitan area (which in fairness, does include densely populated parts of New Jersey) has almost 20 million, about equivalent to the entire population of New York State. Buffalo, the next biggest city in New York State, has only about a quarter million, just a few times larger than Co-Op City, and it's shrinking. Barring major demographic changes in the future, both Senators for New York State should always be from the New York City metropolitan area, where most of the population they represent live. I think Cuomo or Maloney would be good. I'm reserving judgment on Kennedy until there's more information out about her, but I do think her experience fund-raising for the New York City schools, and sitting on committees for the debates and the NAACP legal defense and education fund, and her legal scholarship and publications are relevant to her ability to be an effective Senator. It's not like elected office is the only possible relevant qualification for future elected office. If it were to be someone from upstate, I'd hope for Carl McCall.[/quote] One of the main reasons this state is in the dire straights that it is in currently is that we have let New York state become a state where the entirity of the state leechs off of NYC. The decimation of the upstate economy is one of the great lesser known stories that has occured in the past 30 years in New York. Upstate needs someone on the senate level that understands what is going on up there and can dedicate themselves to bringing some sort of economic opportunity to the once great cities of northern New York using the power of the fedral government. A revitalization of areas upstate would mean that the burden placed on NYC by the rest of the state would decrease and that would be a very good thing for NYC. Schumer is trying, but I don't believe he truely gets what is going on upstate, and Hillary never really made an effort beyond the listening tour. -
scottb2k » One of the main reasons this state is in the dire straights that it is in currently is that we have let New York state become a state where the entirity of the state leechs off of NYC. The decimation of the upstate economy is one of the great lesser known stories that has occured in the past 30 years in New York. Upstate needs someone on the senate level that understands what is going on up there and can dedicate themselves to bringing some sort of economic opportunity to the once great cities of northern New York using the power of the fedral government. A revitalization of areas upstate would mean that the burden placed on NYC by the rest of the state would decrease and that would be a very good thing for NYC. Schumer is trying, but I don't believe he truely gets what is going on upstate, and Hillary never really made an effort beyond the listening tour.
There's not much unique about the plight of upstate New York's urban areas. They're facing the same challenges that shitty little towns all over the U.S. face. The problem is the demise of American light industry. I don't think you have to come from upstate to understand this or to work to change it at the Federal level. -
I suspect some of the venom directed at Caroline Kennedy is fueled by Hillary Clinton's supporters, who cannot forgive the fact that Caroline made such a public endorsement of Obama which effectively passed the Kennedy mantel onto Obama. This is all very symbolic yet the Clintonistas recognized potency of this act -- after all, the Clintons had spent summer vacations schmoozing it up with the Kennedys. I imagine that these Clinton loyalists are a little worried that Caroline will make a big noise in the Senate, thereby rendering Hillary's rather short term as Senator forgettable (except, perhaps, for her vote on the Iraq war). Bill Clinton's personal political narrative began with JFK; now it appears Hillary Clinton's will end with another Kennedy as her unwanted replacement.your anger is delicious. - dieter
-
Carnivore » [quote="scottb2k"]One of the main reasons this state is in the dire straights that it is in currently is that we have let New York state become a state where the entirity of the state leechs off of NYC. The decimation of the upstate economy is one of the great lesser known stories that has occured in the past 30 years in New York. Upstate needs someone on the senate level that understands what is going on up there and can dedicate themselves to bringing some sort of economic opportunity to the once great cities of northern New York using the power of the fedral government. A revitalization of areas upstate would mean that the burden placed on NYC by the rest of the state would decrease and that would be a very good thing for NYC. Schumer is trying, but I don't believe he truely gets what is going on upstate, and Hillary never really made an effort beyond the listening tour.
There's not much unique about the plight of upstate New York's urban areas. They're facing the same challenges that shitty little towns all over the U.S. face. The problem is the demise of American light industry. I don't think you have to come from upstate to understand this or to work to change it at the Federal level.[/quote] While I do not come from upstate, I spent 6 years in college and graduate school there. As such I have many many friends still living across the state, from Plattsburgh to Buffalo, from a local cop in Alexandria Bay to the 2nd in charge of a multimillion dollar business on the St Lawrence. My opinions about whats going on upsate are greatly influenced by what they tell me and they have almost all told me that they want an upstate representative in the senate this time around and to expect a backlash if one isn't appointed. I get the sense that many of them bought into Hilary's listening tour and now that she basically did nothing for them, they are not going to be fooled again into thinking that a senator from downstate gives a shit about them. -
witch-king » I suspect some of the venom directed at Caroline Kennedy is fueled by Hillary Clinton's supporters, who cannot forgive the fact that Caroline made such a public endorsement of Obama which effectively passed the Kennedy mantel onto Obama. This is all very symbolic yet the Clintonistas recognized potency of this act -- after all, the Clintons had spent summer vacations schmoozing it up with the Kennedys. I imagine that these Clinton loyalists are a little worried that Caroline will make a big noise in the Senate, thereby rendering Hillary's rather short term as Senator forgettable (except, perhaps, for her vote on the Iraq war). Bill Clinton's personal political narrative began with JFK; now it appears Hillary Clinton's will end with another Kennedy as her unwanted replacement.
I can only speak for myself but one of the main reasons I supported Obama over Hillary was a feeling of disgust over the idea that somehow the nomination was hers and that she had a right to it without actually doing anything to deserve it...I feel those same feelings with regards to Caroline getting appointed to this seat. -
scottb2k » While I do not come from upstate, I spent 6 years in college and graduate school there. As such I have many many friends still living across the stae, from Plattsburgh to Buffalo. From a local cop to the 2nd in charge of a multimillion dollar business. My opinions are greatly influenced by what they tell me amd they have almost all told me that they want an upstae representative in the senate this time around and to expect a backlash if one isn't appointed. I get the sense that many of them bought into Hilary's listening tour and now that she basically did nothing for them, they are not going to be fooled again into thinking that someone from downstate gives a shit about them.
Of course they want a senator from upstate, but by rights it should be someone from downstate. We have the population and are the economic engine of the state. What kind of "backlash" could they possibly be talking about anyway? Their political power is dwindling (they don't even control the state Senate anymore). Talk about an idle threat!
Welcome! Please log in to post, or register a new account!