Caroline Kennedy is withdrawing her name for consideration as Hillary Clinton’s replacement for the U.S. Senate seat from New York. New York Governor David Paterson was reportedly increasingly reluctant to appoint her, and she may have withdrawn in anticipation of someone else’s selection. I initially had supported her being a senator and didn’t go along with the assertions on the part of others that she was too inexperienced to assume the duties of the office.
Being a senator is quite different in nature from being a governor. A governor is the chief executive officer of a state, with the responsibility and authority to carry out that state’s laws and serve its people by signing bills into law, responding to emergencies, and delegating authority. A senator needs to be responsive to that state’s interests as well, but also needs to take into account the nation’s interests. A senator needs only to keep well informed about his/her constituency’s views on the issues, consistently attend the Senate when in session, be prepared to sponsor and debate various bills on the Senate floor, and faithfully vote in an informed manner in that body. So, as far as I can see, any reasonably educated and informed citizen should be qualified to serve in the Senate, assuming the age requirement is met.
The Kennedy name was naturally the big attraction leading a lot of people to support JFK’s famous daughter in her Senate bid. Caroline has always enjoyed a great deal of popularity and has a likable personality. That she seems a bit introverted only makes me identify with her more. She did step out publicly to endorse and campaign for Barack Obama last year, so I can see that she has the necessary constitution to get up in front of people and speak. It is true that, as is the case with others as well, that her speech suffers when chatting “off the cuff” with her far-too-numerous "you know"s (Obama’s extemporaneous speech problem is his omnipresent “uh-h-h”). But I see that she is intelligent, informed, and generally believes as I do on the important issues facing us. So what’s the problem with her?
New York is an enormous state with a very large complement of qualified Democratic public servants who could succeed Clinton quite well in the Senate. Chief among them is Andrew Cuomo. The idea that a Kennedy could bypass them all just for being a Kennedy (publicly supporting Obama didn’t hurt either) is the same kind of thinking, though, that gave us George W. Bush for the previous eight years. And may in turn bestow upon us Jeb Bush at some time in the future.
I don’t think that Caroline Kennedy would have done a bad job as senator. My chief objection to her was that it appeared over time, true or not, that she didn’t really have her heart in the job and that her decision to try for it was made impulsively. I believe that New York’s (and the country’s) interests would be better served by someone more committed to such an important position. Andrew Cuomo, of course, also fits the “hereditary politician” mold as well, being the beneficiary of his father’s (Mario Cuomo) political legacy in that state. But he may be in a better position to retain this seat as the 2010 election approaches.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
You're behind. Governor Paterson has picked Kirsten Gillibrand.
ReplyDeleteMore substantive comment:
ReplyDeleteI, as a New Yorker, objected (mildly) to the idea of selecting Ms Kennedy because
1. she would never have been in contention if her name were not Kennedy,
2. her name should be irrelevant, but it's not... and her name doesn't make her qualified (though I do actually think she would have done the job just fine),
3. in support of herself she noted that she had lots of relatives to call on for help, and I think that's inappropriate (she needs to be able to stand alone, and to give us confidence that she can), and
4. there are many good choices in New York who are in more appropriate positions for the job, and who have more appropriate experience.
That said, I'm partly happy with the choice of Rep. Gillibrand, and partly not. I think she will do a fine job. She's a relatively new politician, but has quickly emerged as an excellent one. She's young, energetic, hard-working... and she collaborates well, which is important.
On the other hand, she's more conservative than I'd like, and opposes same-sex marriage and abortion rights, which I think are two critically important issues.
In any case, she'll have to win the seat on her own in two years, so that will be the referendum on her work. Interestingly, this could well be more career-limiting than career-expanding. She could likely keep her House seat for years. But if she loses the Senate seat in 2010, that might be it for her.
Since Ms. Gillibrand is a Democrat, I expect to see her soon on C-Span2 up there with the gavel, presiding over the Senate body (a tradition with freshman senators). I guess I have to get up pretty early in the morning to get an edge on the news!
ReplyDelete