Now That Caroline has felt the sting of “Unqualified”
By NewHampster on January 27, 2009 at 2:40 PM in Current Affairs
Now That Caroline has felt the sting of “Unqualified” I must once again confess to taking two steps backward on my journey towards feminism.
We’ve just witnessed and been a part of another shining example of the double standard women face in the politics of the 21st century. Had the sadly dead publisher of “George” been the Camelot running, would we have screamed UNQUALIFIED?
A dear friend wrote me and mentioned the pattern that had unfolded in the New York papers.
- Hillary Clinton, unqualified! √
- Sarah Palin, unqualified! √
- Caroline Kennedy, unqualified! √
- Kirsten Gillibrand, unqualified! √
Do you see the pattern?
Now I’m as guilty as the rest but I am also honest in admitting that I was against her becasue of her support for his Oliness and the obvious trade talks that had to have happened with Uncle Teddy. But Unqualified? Her only lack of qualification was that she is really really shy and she’s a woman.
There are plenty of Senators and Congressmen who have zero, zilch public service experience before going to DC. Didn’t we have a surgeon in Bill Frist? How did being a surgeon qualify him to be one of the most powerful men on the planet for a few years? Did Michael Bloomberg serve on city council or the State Legislature before he bought the Mayor’s office?
The list is endless and I don’t have time for the research but would love it if people could add names in the comments of men who got to the Senate or House with no public service experience.
Yeah, I know. Hillary was not qualified to be President either because after all she was only First Lady, only lawyered on the Watergate committee and only reformed the Arkansas educational system and Chaired the Legal Services Corporation under President Jimmy Carter. No Hillary was not “qualified” because she is a woman. Caroline was not “qualified” because she is a woman.
My only hope to come out of this affair, and it is sort of childish, is that Caroline has a huge Aha! moment when it hits her. Maybe while relaxing in her hot tub with a glass of Pino it hits her like a Mack Truck. That’s what you and your friends just did to Hillary. How’s it feel Princess?
Cross posted with pleasure from my Partizane.com
(Release: November 13)
on sale for only $16.95.
has a spatula.)
8% Off at $11.95, with a rare five-star ranking by 294 customers: 
And check out these: 
("This crazy redhead is on to something. Her pink Rambler story alone is worth the price of the book," writes 
- “Richard Sale’s reportage on Washington, the CIA, the American armed forces, and foreign intrigue has created a perfect background for this account of the steady growth of President Clinton as a master of the game of nations.”--W. Patrick Lang, former head of Middle East Operations, DIA
"Anne C. Heller's stunning biography of Ayn Rand" uses a "plethora of newly unearthed research and fresh insight."
Whoa! I did it again by calling her Princess, but I know why I said it and I accept the flack I get for using that line for emphasis.
Funny bunch of commentators on this website. People spent weeks on No Quarter saying that Kennedy was unqualified and now you write a post critizing people for calling her unqualified. I guess you are just critizing the many posters on this website.
By the way who exactly said again, other than the people of this website, that she was unqualified. Did she withdrawl because she felt she was unqualified? Did Patterson say she was unqualified?
You really have no idea what was going on behind the scenes.
Try reading this:
http://nymag.com/news/politics/53618/
[See my response to Hampster further down the thread.]
For a smart and humorous assessment of Caroline K’s curious bid for HRC’s Senate seat, go to the website HILLARYis44.
Oh, and NY Mag is such a reliable source!
I’ll tell you who thought she was unqualified, the majority of New Yorkers who were polled. Her numbers went down, down, down. We did not want her, because she was clearly unprepared for the intensity and demands of the position.
Good post, New Hampster.
I think it was mostly the “entitlement” in her demeanor that was the most unattrative to me. I think I will feel the same about Beau Biden, no matter who else he is.
But, of course, you make a good point.
We thought (still do) that Obama does not have enough experience to run this land but that doesn’t seem to count with plenty of voters. So, you have indeed identfied a pattern.
BTW: He’s having trouble getting his stimulus package passed. He thinks politicians should put politics aside and give him what he wants. That’s the same old…
I have to add that I have this Homer Simpson D’Oh, slap upside the head image of Caroline when she realizes that she was the recipient of the same sort of sexist treatment given Hillary.
Let’s hope so.
Don’t forget she also gave that kind of treatment to Sarah Palin. Karma baby!
And who were the most vicious with their treatment of her? Right here. You criticise some young Democratic Party supporters (from New York) for calling Palin a C*nt, but the hatred shown here was disgraceful – as you admit simply because she supported the official candidate of her Party.
Um, “dude”, it’s NOT that she “supported the official candidate of her Party”. Caroline was supporting Barackster LONG BEFORE he became “the official candidate”. Caroline’s very vocal support of Barackster came even before Uncle Teddy expressed support of The One. It was Caroline’s support that was seen as “passing the torch of Camelot” to the (half-)Black candidate (whose candidacy was no more historic in nature than was Hillary’s–not that the MSM would ever provide that information).
No, the reality is that Caroline was NOT qualified to be APPOINTED as Hillary’s successor. There have been cases where unqualified people have been appointed to fill out an unexpired term, but, in virtually all the most significant cases, the “unqualified” person was the SPOUSE (see Mary Bono and Jean Carnahan as prime examples). This hasn’t meant that the person didn’t grow into the position (then again, very few of them were so gauche as to believe they were ENTITLED to the job). The fact that Caroline has NOT done ANYTHING to warrant being appointed to the Senate seat (especially when she would be replacing a person whom she had actively worked AGAINST–perhaps she should have moved to Chicago in June so she could have positioned herself as Obama’s Senate replacement) also played very strongly into the feelings of most people here. The majority of us felt that the MOST qualified Democrat was unfairly treated by HER own Party during the primary campaign, in favor of a far less qualified candidate, and now here was Caroline SCHLOSSBERG (remember, she’s a married woman, yet her husband’s name–which had, until last year, been treated as equally important to her social standing as her maiden name), a woman who’d done NOTHING of any real political importance for the people of New York, suddenly thinking/feeling she deserved to be New York’s new Senator.
No. JFK, Jr, had more real political involvement than Caroline (John-John, at least, had the wherewithal to start up a magazine which had a strong interest in politics) but he’d never really seemed interested in ever taking up the political mantel. He certainly had a great deal of opportunities to go into politics, but never did. Caroline, as it was learned, could barely find time to even vote, but she seemed to think SHE deserved to become Senator.
Sorry that you feel a need to remain deluded but had Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg shown some previous hint of being politically inclined at ANY point in the past 20 years, she should have ENTERED the political ring. Had she made some effort at running for political office (you know–where she actually had to campaign by meeting people and raising money), not necessarily winning or anything, just running for office, her “desire” to replace Hillary would have been met with far less hostility. As it was, this just smacked of Caroline’s being nothing more than a dilettante. We’ve already had to deal with a man whose whole political career has been little more than dilettantism being rewarded with the White House. Few of us wanted to see the Senate get ANOTHER dilettante. If Caroline REALLY wants that Senate seat, let her run for it in 2010–just like any other peon would have to do. Kirsten Gillibrand had to RUN for her House seat (and by all accounts, in a fairly conservative district that had been in GOP hands for years). She didn’t just have the Senate seat handed to her. She’s proved her worth and done a good job for her constituents. You CANNOT say the same about Caroline.
The issue isn’t so much that she and the others mentioned were “unqualified” it’s that she wanted it HANDED to her instead of running for it an winning an election.
That’s why I was against her but like others I also screamed that she was unqualified because she had no experience in public service and I know many others who fell into the same trap.
No matter who was ultimately picked, they would’ve had it “handed” to them and not have had to “run” for the office. Likewise, anyone chosen, no matter who, will run for the office very soon.
I disagree. The others who were in the running — and Rep. Gillibrand, who eventually got it, had earned it through their government service, not just crooking their little finger and simply saying: “Gee, I think I’d like to try being a Senator now.”
It’s a comparative thing — she was not nearly as qualified as say Gillibrand, or Rep. Carol Maloney or Andrew Cuomo. Just like President Obama was not nearly as qualified as SoS Clinton.
Yes but, that was NH’s point toward the end of the article. CK seems to have suffered the illusion that, just because ‘no history of qualifications for the job (Constitutional or otherwise) is no barrier to getting the job’ worked to propel BO into the Office of POTUS then, it would work for her. But that would have been as ridiculous for her to assume as, say, that, just because ‘a history of nanny and tax problems one attributes to ignorance rather than unlawful intent have no impact on one’s suitability for public office’ worked for Mr. Geithner, newly-confirmed as Secretary of the U.S. Treasury; then, this would surely work for someone who only aspired to be one of 100 U.S. Senators. Poor CK. She forgot to allow for the sex variable.
Yes, excellent point. It is known (forgive me, guys) as the male b.s. factor — unqualified men are always far more trustworthy than unqualified women — hell, they are more trustworthy than even qualified women — as we have seen.
Hi New Hampster. I pretty much always agree with you, but this time I must object. Caroline Kennedy’s name does not belong in the same league with the other women you mentioned: Hillary, Sarah, and Kirsten. Not only was Caroline less qualified than the women you group her with, she was also inarticulate. Her “credentials” as a Kennedy muddy the waters to the extent that other comparisons are hopelessly confused. Class and entitlement become the major considerations IMHO.
However, comparing her treatment to the treatment her brother would have received is a good and valid point.
Don’t you remember the headlines about John in NYC when he flunked the bar 3x? They called him (actually, I think it was Maureen Dowd of all people!) a HIMBO.
Hmmm…kind of a reverse sexism there (because he was pretty but dumb)?
Something I’ve been trying to figure out…what exactly are the qualifications for senator? Are they different from being POTUS or congressperson, for example? And are there any official job descriptions anywhere for these positions?
Cal:
I think that there is a guide book or text on the subject, “So you want to be a U.S. Senator”, by Emil Jones.
ROTFLMAO – good one, Rob!
I agree with oowawa, too – Caroline Kennedy had nowhere near the same political qualifications as the other three women, all who successfully ran for office, and have actual accomplishments from those positions. All Caroline had was her name, and supporting Obama. There is absolutely no comparison there.
Palin: governor of largest state in the country
Clinton: two term US Senator
Gillibrand: two term US Rep
Kennedy: ????
That doesn’t even go into the vast amt of experience these women have in other political sectors (Clinton the most, of course, but Gillibrand has a fair amt, too. And Palin was a mayor, so there’s that.).
So, yeah – she does not belong in that other group, which Paterson clearly recognized.
cal,
http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/senrequire.htm
EXCERPT
P.S This is a pretty neat site for general/broad info about the structure of our gov.
I’m with you 100 percent, oowawa. I live in NYC, and the truth is that Caroline would have never been taken seriously by the media and the political establishment if she WASN’T a woman. Aside from being a Kennedy, that was all she brought to the table in this era of identity-politics-come-hell-or-high-water. She and her crew of advisors and certain politicians were banking on the fact that a large percentage of voters would accept her on the grounds that “at least she’s a woman.” The trouble was, there were several other women available that actually had the credentials to serve. I don’t know of anyone who opposed her on the basis of her gender, but plenty of people supported her because of it. They should have known better.
I’m also tired of hearing people say, “Oh, there are sitting senators just as challenged as she is in various ways.” Maybe so. But not from New York, not in a good long while. You can’t separate the senator from the context. She absolutely was unfit to represent this state. And I honestly believe that if a male candidate provided the same answers she gave in the full 20 page transcript of the NYT interview, he would have been pilloried for it.
I’m also tired of hearing people say, “Oh, there are sitting senators just as challenged as she is in various ways.”
I’m also tired of that argument. So what are we reduced to saying now: “Well, these other people sucked too, so let’s just elect another unqualified candidate?”
That’s the problem with continuously lowering the bar.
I agree. I bet if she had been able to give a great SPEECH, and had an Axelrod driving her campaign, she would have been a shoe in. It was the hard-nosed New Yorkers (mostly Upstate) who mounted a vigorous protest campaign. We’ll never know what Paterson would have done, but I think her ambivalence and lack of political instincts clearly showed.
Hi New Hampster. The other three ran for office so it’s not the same comparison but I agree that if the equally unqualified John Jr were alive he’d be getting the same unexamined Rock Star treatment as the unqualified Obama. After all see how glamorous they both look in photos? Qualifications? That’s so last century.
I agree with oowawa – Caroline’s only common denominator amoung the other women listed is that she is a woman. As a feminist – I would never say a woman is qualified just because she is a woman. That is demeaning to any woman who has worked hard for her job and deserves a promotion. Yes, men are giving chances just because they are men – and that is sexist. Does not mean women can and should play that same game. We, instead, should point out it’s errors.
I agree with Dino and oowawa.
I said all along, if Caroline wants to run, that is a different story.
She came out of no where, and wanted the appointment. And didn’t want to do any interviews, and the one she did do was terrible!
But, I totally agree, had John John thrown his hat into the ring, I’m sure no one would have stopped him. But, he was much more in the public eye than Caroline.
This is why I commented last week that I think Caroline Kennedy is/was qualified for the Senate Seat – writing books on the Bill of Rights, raising millions of dollars for different causes, and being genetically linked to a political family for generations. She simply under estimated the necessity of being able to speak well publicly. She probably can even do that, but she would have to work on it.
My problem with her was that I simply could not support her since she helped defeat a woman for president in a direct, unmistakable blow and then to add insult to injury, went after that woman’s senate seat. There is nothing that says we need to support a woman no matter what. But saying she is unqualified is below the belt usually.
There have always been men running for political office that if they had been a woman, it would have been said she was unqualified, but not if he was a man. The standards have always been higher for women.
Therefore, for women in particular, it is a slippery slope to call a woman unqualified. We have always had this obstacle and many times a woman was branded ‘unqualified’ simply for being female. This was what was so infuriating about Sarah Palin’s plight. She had been elected three times to political office. It was particularly painful to watch women denigrate her when she was a sitting governor of a state with an enormous popularity rating. How many of them could have gotten themselves elected governor, even from a ’small’ state – including Katie Couric?
I don’t recall that the Kennedys called Hillary unqualified. Apparently it was a personal vendetta. They had surely socialized together on yachts and at political events in years past. Perhaps Teddy didn’t like the fact Hillary had claimed health care in the 90’s and then in 2008 health care was Hillary’s deal when he had played the biggest role in congress in that arena.
After the election, Teddy used his seniority to make sure Hillary would have nothing to do with Health Care if she had stayed in the senate. That was pretty dirty for a dying man who had played a big part in her defeat as president.
While I think you are definitely not taking into account some highly relevant facts, such as that the other unqualified politicians who achieved office all had to win the vote (and the voice of the people trumps being unqualified), and the fact that there was simply nothing distinguished about her contributions before she tossed her hat in the ring, I think you are right on one crucial point: if her brother John — just about equally undistinguished in his contributions, and certainly intellectually her inferior — had tossed his hat into the ring in a like situation, he would have been accorded far greater respect than she.
I’m sure that Caroline must be mulling this over. And I wonder what it makes her think about sexism in our culture, and about what happened to Hillary in the primaries.
Comment by frankly0 | 2009-01-27 15:03:45
“I’m sure that Caroline must be mulling this over. And I wonder what it makes her think about sexism in our culture, and about what happened to Hillary in the primaries.”
I very much doubt that, if she had the nerve to
think she was qualified, she thought of herself
as good, or better than Hillary. After all, SHE
was/is ‘that one’s CONSIGLIERE and, certainly
(in her mind) with a BIG edge over anyone else…..
….and, JFK’s only surviving child and Uncle Ted’s
favourite etc. etc.
I’m sure she feels victimized for whatever reasons
and is probably off somewhere ’sulking’…..
It was probably a factor–because men clearly have an advantage in this society–but it was only one factor with Caroline. She did not encounter the frontal assault that Hillary and Palin received, clearly intended to stop them. It’s not an absolutist issue; it’s a more complex range of variables.
And her role in it.
“I wonder what it makes her think about sexism in our culture and what happened to Hillary in the primaries”.
And her role in that sexism toward Hillary (is what I was trying to say).
I opposed her because I couldn’t figure out why they arrested Blago for trying to sell a Senate seat, but Caroline and Uncle Teddy tried to buy one right out in the open with campaign cash and pork barrel projects. I didn’t think one tactic was any more unethical than the other. That was what made her “unqualified” to me, the implication that she was “entitled” to buy herself a Senate seat. When she made the statement that she wouldn’t run for it in 2010 if she was not appointed now, that told me that she wasn’t interested in public service. She just wanted a title handed to her to hang on the family legacy tree.
oh my god, excellent point. I don’t know why that never occured to me.
May I be sexist for just one itsy, bitsy moment? Show of hands…Who here would not have loved to watch JFK, Jr out campaigning, then governing, kissing babies… Mmmmhmmm, ladies…. eye candy!
Ok Sorry for the degression….. I needed that!
Okay Athena, since you’re a goddess and you authorized it, let’s be sexist for just an itsy bitsy moment. Let’s stand the 4 ladies in New Hampster’s list side by side and have a vote based on physical appearance. Who loses?
There. I needed that. Sorry ladies, it’s Athena’s fault!
Hey, it just occurred to me: nobody can ever accuse Governor Paterson of being influenced by how these women looked!
Oh no you didn’t. Why am I laughing? I’ll save your seat next to me in hell, oowawa. We both just earned an extra five minutes.
Let’s not. That’s offensive. I’ve read several comments comparing Gillibrand’s looks to Hillary’s (always by men). I do not vote for a candidate based on their looks, thank you. Hillary’s brilliance is beautiful enough, IMO. It’s dangerously close to Limbaugh’s critique of her “cankles.” We’ve had more than enough of that this year–it’s not funny.
Limbaugh should be careful about criticizing anyone’s looks, since he has gained a lot of weight lately, so much so that his neck–we’ll let’s just say there appears to be no neck. I guess we can call him No-Neck Limbaugh from now on.
Where did that guy get his looks anyway? Nothing like Mom & Pop.
Oh he looked just like his mom…the Bouviers were were an extremely attractive family. Go look at Jackie’s father “Black Jack” Bouvier in his younger days. I always thought that Jackie was beautiful. Caroline’s oldest daughter Rose is a clone of Jackie.
Comment by athena | 2009-01-27 15:13:03
May I be sexist for just one itsy, bitsy moment? Show of hands…Who here would not have loved to watch JFK, Jr out campaigning, then governing, kissing babies… Mmmmhmmm, ladies…. eye candy!
—————————————————
Athena,
Some of us are old enough to have been his mother or
father and we’ll forever carry the picture of that little boy’s saluting his father’s coffin….even now, I can’t help but cry just thinking of it….
Some of us ‘adopted’ that little boy in our hearts
and were so very proud to watch him grow up so fine
and, yes, so very handsome too….
IT WOULD N O T HAVE BEEN A FAIR VOTE……
I actually thought he was the classiest and most gracious of the CLAN. My son now 12 looked just like John Jr as a toddler. When he died in the plane crash, the news flasehd that image of him saluting his dad’s coffin over and over. Many friends called to say how much my son resembled him. My son is interested in politics. He is smart, inquisitive, intelligent, confident and kind hearted. I know I AM HIS MOTHER but he really is all those things.
I still get sad when I think about that families loss that day, not only JFK, Jr. but his wife and her sister. Truly tragic. He would have gone far in today’ politics however simply because of his looks…… his appeal…. his marketability…. and his name.
Don’t romanticize John. He was not the perfect man as depicted in the tabloids. He was gawky, sloppy (in person), and not that bright. Nice guy, but not the idealized version that was promoted in the media. Big surprise. In this celebrity culture, however, it wouldn’t have mattered.
Being a feminist means judging someone on factors other than gender. Using that standard, Caroline Kennedy comes up short.
The other three, including New York’s new senator, I find pretty impressive.
My personal hypothesis is that there an inverse relationship between Caroline Kennedy’s & Grey Gardens’ popularity. PBS ran a documentary on GG:
http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/greygardens/film.html
about the time Caroline’s popularity started falling. I suspect that NYers felt that if Caroline’s mom was mean to her own kinfolk, that her daughter might be mean to nonkinfolk.
OT
This is for Larry Johnson
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=322_1233073285
The fault with this line of reasoning is that HRH Caroline REALLY WAS UNQUALIFIED.
The others, ESPECIALLY my girl Hilary, could definitely do the jobs they asprire/aspired to. No doubt.
I found this quote by Maureen Dowd particularly dismaying (but typical of its author.)
“The 42-year-old Gillibrand, who has been in the House for only two years, is known as opportunistic and sharp- elbowed. Tracy Flick is her nickname among colleagues in the New York delegation, many of whom were M.I.A. at her Albany announcement.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25dowd.html
I am very sure that MoDo has never criticized Obama for his ambition nor would she ever use the word “only” to describe the two years he spent in the US Senate before announcing his candidacy. No, indeed HIS short stint made him more than ready to be PRESIDENT!
By the way, does Election’s Tracy Flick even have a male counterpart? No. Because determined ambition is considered an attractive quality in men.
What is this woman’s problem? Oh, yah, she’s drunk the Kool-Aid.
As I mentioned on another thread, I for one love the Tracy Flick character (Reese Witherspoon played her in the movie Election). She’s hard-working, intelligent, articulate, a bundle of energy, and she doesn’t take crap off anyone. Yeah, she’s got her faults, but she learns from her mistakes. If Gillibrand is anything like Tracy, she’s a winner. Caroline, on the other hand, is nothing like Tracy. Dowd thinks she is making a clever snarky point, but it works totally against her.
awesome movie.
And it completely ignores Gillibrand’s political experience. She didn’t just get into politics when she ran for office, she’s been working in politics for YEARS, including working as a Special Counsel to Andrew Cuomo at HUD. She didn’t just fall off the turnip truck, she’s been on a political path for some time now.
MoDo drank the koolaid long ago.
According to her, a woman is not allowed to be ambitious, capable or to get the job done without derision.
Maureen is really a pathetic product of her own wish to be considered attractive to men.
If she beats down other successful women, she thinks the guys will ask her out on Saturday night and not notice that she is successful, too.
Furthermore. MoDo is full of it that her colleagues have nbamed her Tracy Flick — this is her creation — they would not even know who that character was — I promise you that. She is hopeless. And struggling to remain relevant and cool.
Furthermore. MoDo is full of it that her colleagues have named Gillibrand ‘Tracy Flick’ — this is Mo’s creation — they would not even know who that character was — I promise you that. She is hopeless. And struggling to remain relevant and cool.
Maybe she will call up Sarah Palin and apologize. For her and her family’s part in what happened there. It could be an eye-opening moment for her.
Don’t hold your breadth.
I believe she was unqualified. She was another stooge like Obie. The woman can’t even speak in public, how could she hold public office? It was just uncle Ed trying to build the Kennedy legacy. I have no doubt he thought he’d push her into the Senate and then after Obie gets done, Caroline could be president! It’s about how he thinks.
Nothing against the Kennedys, but I would have objected as strongly to John, Jr. and I think the Kennedy clan should sit back and stay out of Washington. I like RFK, Jr. until I read of his role in the Caroline farce.
For me, it is more important that Senators have experience.
House legislators come from all stations in life, and that is really important.
Their numbers are large enough to allow them time to learn their job.
Going into the Senate “cold-turkey” would be difficult.
Also, most of the successful candidates have years in their states’ political organizations, and have started to learn the ropes and garner backing along the way.
I’m not sure that women will ever be viewed as the best person for the job…even when they are.
New Hampster, the press and the DC Dems thought Caroline was eminently qualified because she had lots of money–and she knew people who had lots of money. Only the voters suggested that bringing in money for the Dem Party wasn’t at the top of their list in terms of what they were looking for in a Senator.
I complained about the Princess’s qualifications often. In thinking about it it was not about her lack of public service but judgment. I don’t want someone representing me who thought the Big O Liar is like her father; who used her money and family conections to get him elected. I can’t imagine worse judgement to be in a legislative body. The media lie is that Caroline is truly incompetant but Clinton, Palin andr Gillibrand are all successful achieving women.
Princess Caroline didn’t give two sh*ts about “unqualified” when she was busy helping elect the man who used “unqualified” against his two female rivals.
She never spoke out once against Obama’s sexist attacks on Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, but instead played a great part in the misogynist Obama’s political successes.
Live by the sword, die by the sword.
Reap, sow.
What comes around, goes around.
Any more fitting cliches I could throw in?
If Hillary and Sarah Palin were unqualified in the Obama fanatic’s eyes, then certainly Princess Caroline was woefully unqualified. Poetic justice.
The one thing you can take away from this past election is that the American media and the enlightened Liberals think they can sh*t all over women with impunity.
The fact that she couldn’t even stay in for the bidding to the end and face rejection also says to me she’s not ready and/or qualified for the Senate. She should have stayed in, been rejected, and then faced it like a woman. No, she couldn’t do that. As it now appears the spin (no doubt, Kennedy-induced and backed) is to trash Paterson & blame him. MG, Caroline, grow up! I think he made the right decision. He apparently picked a very qualified (female) candidate.
I don’t consider CK a feminist and I do not like back-stabbing women.
Neither Caroline Kennedy or David Paterson have shown their best side in this fracas. But, Gillibrand is qualified, and she was a good choice, in my opinion. Caroline Kennedy was not a good choice, ever, in my view. Why she tossed her hat into the ring, when she was obviously ambivalent about politics, is a mystery to me. She really displayed a petulance that surprised me, however, when she withdrew for “personal reasons” when she discovered she was not likely to be selected.
I don’t know the full story, just the tit-for-tat back and forth between the Kennedy’s and the Hatfields, oops Paterson’s office. But, I’m getting really sick and tired of hearing about it.
As you correctly note CK was “really really shy”. Her reclusive nature and inability to connect with strangers are huge liabilities to an aspiring politician. How can one engage in an election campaign if one is unwilling to press the flesh and pretend to relate to the proles?
I am glad a more suitable candidate was appointed. Besides the Camelot fairy tale was always just a fairy tail and I’m old enough to remember.
Once the ever despicable Teddy dies we should be mercifully free of the Kennedy Clan in politics for the foreseeable future.
these 4 women have one thing in common…they have no penis.
Oh, but they could have as many penises as they want.
just kidding
True that!
As someone mentioned above, I, too, have been saying I don’t get what the difference was between what the Kennedys were doing with the NY Seat, and what Blago allegedly did. There is no doubt in my mind that the Kennedys were making promises left and right for that seat. So, why isn’t Teddy being looked at like Blago was? Hell, it wasn’t even his STATE to be messing in (Harry Reid’s either).
Heck, the “Pay-to-play” is done all the TIME for ambassadorships, and no one freaks out abt that (though it really should change so qualified people can be in those positions).
Still, interesting to see when they decide it is a problem, and when it is not…
There’s a huge difference in being appointed to a senate seat than being elected. appointees are expected to have excellent qualifications and be well prepared to step in immediately. a person who is running has time to do a lot of studying, time to glean from other colleagues while also getting a lot of experience talking to constituents while campaigning.
Sorry, but Hillary was not the victim of “sexism”. The only one on the list who had her lifestyle used against her was Palin. The problem is that women increasingly demand to be considered supremely qualified for, well, anything, just because they are women, and any opposition is conveniently framed as “sexism”. You know what? All “feminists” can get together with homosexuals, and blacks, and form a super, colossal, victim party – the SCV party! Anyone who wanted Hillary for president because she would have been the first woman president!!!!!, is as vapid and anti-American as anyone who voted for their new over-his-head-so-far-that-this country-is-screwed-more-than-any-of-you-realize-but-you-will-when-it’s-too-late-in-chief, simply because he’s black.
“Feminists” are pointless, and part of the big problem with this country. The truly great women in this country waste precious little time reminding everyone that they are women. They let others bask in that BS, while they simply go about their business…
I think you’re right to a certain extent JS. Hillary is not a victim. However, every available demeaning, abusive, and nasty tool was used against her and Sarah Palin. Any bit of propaganda that would appeal to the sick and weak minded Obots was unleashed.
Most of us didn’t want Hillary simply because she is a woman. We wanted Hillary because she is smart, compassionate, and a hard-worker.
Get over yourself.
Get over myself? Not sure what you are trying to say, other than I’m right. Nothing I said was inaccurate. Nothing “used” against Hillary (a woman who owes everything to the rapist husband she refused to walk away from, over and over, just so she would also have a political career-how on earth do “feminists” justify her doing what every “true” “feminist” despises:rely on, and stay with, a man who truly hates women?) compares to what Sarah got. Nothing. If you see it otherwise, you make my point all that much the more.
Sorry, but Sarah was attacked for being a woman. Not the others.
Whoa slow down cowboy, now Bill Clinton is a rapist?? I don’t recall any of his “victims” testifying that they said “No”. Hillary’s choice to stay with her husband is a complex choice and hers alone. I don’t see Bill as woman-hater, in fact, quite the opposite. Unfortunately, a lot of men think with their penis’ and some of us forgive them.
Where do you get off accusing Hillary Clinton of riding her husband’s coattails? She is an accomplished person in her own right. I think Hillary is what made Bill Clinton such a great President. He had the penis and the charm, but she had the smarts.
JS-nothing you said was inaccurate? That is your opinion and you are entitled to it. Personally, I don’t agree with anything you stated. Sexism, wasn’t a problem for Hillary in this past election? I’m not going to bother giving you all the examples where sexism played a big part of the election. However, I can tell by you unseemly reference of Bill Clinton, that you’ve got your head so far up you axx, you wouldn’t know the truth if it was tattooed on your forehead.
I was so happy to catch a late night rebroadcast of Patterson’s intro of Gillibrand as the new U.S. Senator from NY … and, even happier to watch it on C-Span. When Gillibrand was introduced she made a speech that was a little too long, the first half seemed to be a long “thank you” to many, many people who helped her in her career. After her “thank yous,” she went on to talk about many specific issues concerning various sections of the State of New York. She also went on to mention other elected officials who wanted the Senate seat, some who disagreed with her on specific issues (e.g. gun conrol) and she did a very professional and positive job of reaching out to them by name and promising to work with them. Gracious, respectful and smart. Then she went on to say she would be traveling around the state to meet with people and listen to their concerns. Yes, that’s how a certain First Lady got her senate ambitions rolling. I was impressed and proud that we in NY have someone like this as our Senator. She is a worthy replacement for Hillary in the Senate. She will do her homework and she has a command of specific issues concerning New York and she is articulate. By comparison, Caroline Kennedy is not qualified. She (Caroline) demonstrated a clear and very surprising ignorance of the profession of politics, one which her Uncle Robert called “an honorable profession.” If Caroline had simply contacted Gov. Patterson to state her desire for the seat and then kept her mouth shut, she would have had the seat. And she would have had the opportunity to learn the ropes from Chuck Schumer who would have surely found a way to capitalize on Caroline’s celebrity, and Patterson wold have happily done the same and that 2010 ticket would have been golden indeed and the campaign contributions would have flowed. It might have been a win (Caroline) win (Schumer) win (Patterson) situation, even if neither of those guys didn’t want Caroline. So now we have a new senator who clearly believes in doing the homework and who knew enough to give Patterson room in the selection process. And Caroline needs to build an image with substance if she wants to be the first woman President. Isn’t that what she really wants?
I don’t think she wants that either. I think she was swept up on the Obamamania, and thought, “That will be fun, to go to DC, and hang out and work on all this stuff.” Ted’s illness, and the encouragement from him, and the idea of working by his side also contributed. She didn’t even have the strength, enthusiasm, or passion to visit more than a couple upstate towns before she withdrew. She could never endure a presidential run.
One other thing. Why do people who have a chance to debate, throw in things like “get over yourself”? I simply gave my opinion of the victim thing. I bragged about… nothing, I claimed…nothing about me personally. I took credit for…nothing.
Get over myself? Cute. The equivalent of “racist!!” and “homophobe!!” You can’t dispute, so you insult…
It was your condescending tone.
sorry, “even if neither of those guys wanted Caroline….”
Caroline Kennedy was not a victim of “sexism”. She was a victim of poor advice (probably given to her by Uncle Ted) and her own ambivalence about a political career.
If Caroline had truly wanted to pursue a political career she could have easily pursued and campaigned for an “elected position”. She certainly has the financial resources. She also could have taken some public speaking courses or hired her own speech coach. Shyness is no excuse if in fact she is really shy. Shy people can and do learn to overcome their shyness. Many great performers and public speakers have been very shy people but learned to overcome the problem. But they were motivated. Caroline, on the other hand, did not seem to be highly motivated. If Caroline was a victim of anything, she was a victim of her own ambivalence toward what she said she wanted.
Caroline K was not only unqualified, but unsuited to be a public figure, let alone a political figure such as a US Senator. Her heart wasn’t in it anyway, since it appeared to be Ted Kennedy’s idea that she be seated as Senator. If I were her I would be very pissed at Uncle Teddy for pushing her to do this. And she is the closest thing we in this country have to a princess, so yes you can call her a princess.
As for John Jr, he was more publicly active than Caroline, even ran a business ( George magazine) and worked at as a DA’s in NY for a short while. He was also more articulate and poised in public than she.
Had she been as active politically and more poised in public she would be the Senator today. As I said, she failed the interview miserably. Her name got her the interview though.
Any one as inarticulate as Caroline Kennedy would find it almost impossible to be elected. Aside from the question of her elegibility, the media tried to force her appointment based only on her last name. What happened to the reports from an unidentified Democrat claiming the Kennedy’s were furious with Patterson and “will make him pay”? What exactly was meant by this threat?
But Unqualified? Her only lack of qualification was that she is really really shy and she’s a woman.
I don’t agree with this at all. Bloomberg had built a billion dollar empire, and clearly had a firm grasp of management and economics. Caroline Kennedy has NEVER HAD A FULL-TIME JOB! In this case, she is clearly unqualified, and yes–temperament is a necessary qualification too. The protest was because she was chosen for her name and ability to bring in $$$.
I am a woman, and I was strongly opposed to her nepotistic candidacy. Kennedy’s “qualifications” are not even close to Gillibrand’s. The outcry, much of it from Dem women, was not because she is a woman, but because it was yet another cynical power play by the bullying new Dem party.
Yes, unqualified and inexperienced, professionally and politically. That’s why I argued in another post that at least John Jr had some experience in those areas.
But I was also against CK because she and her uncle stabbed HRC in the back, in the most vicious and misogynist way. I’m So glad to see CK get a little bit of her own medicine. Do you think she–or her Kool-Aid children–are now more sympathetic to Hillary or Sarah? One would hope so, but I doubt it.
I was not keen on CK because I thought the whole thing reeked of privelege and patronage. She had no experience in the public sector, but to be honest she did herself in with her inability to state why she wanted the position.
I’ll be honest. I was astonished. She’s 51 years old. She’s had every advantage–family, education, money. But in that one interview, she sounded like a Valley Girl. It was embarrassing. And, I’m sure, humiliating for her. It didn’t give me any pleasure to watch or hear that because I was kid when JFK was President. I remember that magic that the Kennedy’s exuded.
But if you’re a private person [which I understand Caroline Kennedy is] then the rough tumble world of politics probably isn’t a wise choice. And for me, the whole thing sank when she said she would not run in 2010 unless she received the appointment.
Well, excuse me!
And btw, NQ was “not” the only place where posters talked about CK not being a wise choice. I read alot of criticism of her possible appointment on the far-left blogs, including Daily Kos and Huffy-Po.
Caroline may end up in the Senate anyway, but representing MA instead of NY.
If the plan is to get CK in the Senate as a way to launch her presidential “aspirations,” then a Massachusetts appointment for Ted’s Senate seat would make sense. Would CK move to Massachusetts? The Obot Gov there would appoint CK, I’ll bet.
So – your excuse for supporting Caroline Schlossberg for Senate is…that she’s just as unqualified as lots of men who became Senators?
Crappy argument. And bad comparison. Miss Camelot ISN’T as qualified as HClinton, Palin, and Gillebrand.
You are supporting Kennedy just BECAUSE she’s a woman. Sorry, I don’t believe in affirmative action for women. I want qualified people in jobs they are qualified for – whatever their gender.
I agree with lizpolaris above. Caroline Kennedy was a terrible choice and wasn’t unqualified JUST because she’s a woman. She is unqualified because she (like Obama) hasn’t done anything of note to be able to just step into a Senate seat, was terrible at navigating press conferences, other representatives in the state felt that she wasn’t fully competent, and she didn’t know a DAMN thing about the state of New York. As a native New Yorker, I can at least vouch that Hillary tried to educate herself before running in the state. People felt that Clinton’s experience as a first lady and her connections within Congress as a result would help leverage New York and pump some money into the state, which she did. Kennedy simply tried to obtain the Senate seat based off of her name and I’m glad Patterson didn’t hand it to her. She didn’t earn it.
Kirsten Gillibrand has been a representative in the state and has more qualifications than Kennedy does. And why is she checked off as unqualified? She got the seat, didn’t she?
Sorry, I don’t agree with this post at all. We can’t just hand things to women just because they’re women. I think Hillary was given sexist treatment during the primary but she didn’t deserve the nomination based on her gender; she deserved it based on her qualifications. Was she the most qualified Democrat? No. But she was more qualified than Barack. And that’s what riles me up more than sexism.
But I do think sexism has reared its ugly head once again. After white males were allowed to own property, who was next? Black males. Racial suffrage preceded gender suffrage. This is what you’d expect from society. White males, black males (and males of all other races), and finally all women. This is history. Why would we expect anything different?
As Lennon said “Women are the nigger of the world.”