Our next 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.

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 wrote: [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.


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.

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.

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.

scottb2k wrote:

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.

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.

scottb2k wrote: [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.

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.

scottb2k wrote: 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.

scottb2k wrote: 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.

scottb2k wrote: 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!

scottb2k wrote: A backlash against governor Patterson in 2010, remember a guy named George Pataki? You sound like the state democrats in 1994 who thought some upsate hick from peekskill couldnt beat an icon like Mario Cuomo yet Pataki won 3 terms because of upstate voters. In all 3 elections Pataki failed to carry the city but still won the race easily because of his upstate support.

You say that donwstate is the economic engine of the satet and therefore the senator should come from down here...but whay stoip there? Manhattan is the engine of donwstate, perhaps we shoudl limit the senator to being from manhattan? AFAIK, the financial industry is still the largest indusrty in the state, why not limit the seat to someone from that industry?

The demographics of the state have been continually changing in favor of the Democrats, hence the inability of the Repugs to hold onto the State Senate despite massive incumbent advantage for decades.

As far as your second point, downstate is both the majority of the population of the state and the economic engine. The same cannot be said of any of the other groups you name.

I would still tap someone like Leticia James to be Senator.