Saturday, January 03, 2009

Write off Caroline’s chances? I vote “No.”

Former Reagan speech-writer and WSJ columnist Peggy Noonan today speaks in the past tense of Ms. Caroline Kennedy’s changes of being appointed to fill Sen. Hillary Clinton’s seat - - -

The difficulty of Caroline Kennedy’s hopes for appointment to the U.S. Senate is that she was in, or put herself in, a position demanding of more finesse and sophistication than most political veterans have. To succeed as a candidate for appointment, she needed the talents of an extremely gifted natural, which she’s not. . . .

Also today CBS reports - - -

New York Gov. David Paterson says the search is ongoing, but two people close to him tell The Associated Press they believe Caroline Kennedy will be appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate. . .

Neither aides for the governor nor Kennedy have commented on Friday. …

Kennedy's less than stellar public performance appeared to be on his mind because he cautioned that just because he selects someone it doesn't mean they will win the election outright.

"The public does not regard my selection as an incumbent. The public regards this as a place holder for two years and then will make their own choice," Paterson said. "And that takes the pressure off me."

The good news for Kennedy is that, as Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver told CBS 2 HD exclusively on Wednesday, he's changed his mind and is now willing to support her. Silver had been the biggest thorn in Kennedy's side, constantly criticizing her credentials for the Senate position. But now, he's singing a different tune.

"She's obviously very bright and has been around politics her whole life," Silver said.

Sources told CBS 2 HD that Silver's support came after arm twisting by Paterson's staff. …

Noonan’s column’s here; the CBS story’s here.



If I had to bet today, I’d bet Kennedy gets the nod.

When “power hitters" like Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver do a 180 turn, it tells you which way the wind’s blowing.

More on the CBS story later today.

I’d love to hear your thoughts on this.

Hat tips: cks, Drudge


Anonymous said...

Kennedy will fit right in with the other lightweights that have recently emerged in the U.S. Senate. We recently got rid of an empty pantsuit here in North Carolina, but her replacement doesn't look much brighter.
Senate watchers commenting on New York's other Senator, say the most dangerous place in the world to be is between Schumer and a TV camera.
With ideological gutter-fighters like Reid and Durban running the show, Kennedy won't have much trouble fitting right in as long as she gets in lockstep from day one.
Tarheel Hawkeye

Anonymous said...

My guess is that it is a done deal - though since Hillary has not yet resigned her seat (following my father's advice, it is always easier to get a job when you have one so don't give up the one you have until you have signed on the dotted line for the next one) she will not be in the Senate until at least the beginning of February. I suppose that gives her time to take some elocution lessons, learn about local NY politics, and develop policies that she can clearly articulate.

Anonymous said...

Just remember that Princess Caroline is the Anti-Palin and you'll all be OK.

Anonymous said...

Pay no attention to what Peggy Noonan writes or says. She's been infected, terminally I'm afraid, with a virus that all who live and work in Washington, DC eventually succumb to - Potomac Fever.

Walter Abbott

Anonymous said...

There is an interesting piece in the Magazine section of the NY Times today - in effect praising Ms. Kennedy as an example of many (?) {read this to mean upper level income women of a certain demographic who could afford to}who chose the "mommy track" and are now ready and able to enter the work force with their PTA credit and volunteer work as credentials. I have a number of issues with this. For one thing, while I laud those who were either able financially to stay at home and raise their children (I just wonder how much raising on her own Caroline did - without nannies, au pairs, etc) or who decided that staying at home was best for their families - all financial considerations aside, what does that say about those of us, who for whatever reason, worked and raised their own children? As a mother of four who has worked her entire life as a teacher (long hours, little pay) I still found the time to be involved in volunteer activities, and managed to eat nightly dinner and breakfast (both home-cooked) with my children and spouse and keep a spotless house - all without live-in help or hired help. Yes, my children were in daycare while I worked but they do not seemed to have suffered (two college graduates from prestigious universities, two currently in prestigious universities. Unlike Ms. Kennedy, I managed to remember when all elections were held and have voted in every one. I also manage to read several newspapers a day (not that difficult given the current state of the press) as well as journals (professional) and magazines if various sorts. All this in addition to my professional duties and an insatiable desire to read keep me busy. However, given all that, I do not think that it would necessarily qualify me to be the senator for my state. I do not consider myself a super-woman - many of my friends are engaged in the same activities and have the same set of values - larger families whose interests come first, a demanding yet interesting profession, a keen desire to be informed, and a curiousity about life in general. What we are not involved in are society functions with no purpose, maintenance of several homes, and a dependence upon a family name to open doors for us. Much as I disagree with Hillary Clinton, I give her credit for having a job (she was, after all an active partner in the Rose law firm), a lifelong commitment to children's issues and a willingness (ok, she got the senate nomination in part because of her connections)to work hard to get that seat - listening to others, willing to answer media questions, and having an articulated stand on the issues of the day. Perhaps she would not have gotten the senate seat if she had not been Bill Clinton's wife - but I would argue that from the beginning, it was Hillary who showed the most political promise in terms of focus and dedication - her problem was that she was not the natural campaigner that her husband was - which hurt her enormously in her run for the White House. Kennedy comes across as nothing more than a dilettante - the issues facing this country deserve people in office who are serious about the issues. Since it looks as if the people of Minnesota have chosen a clown for their senator, this country can ill-afford someone else of such light-weight credentials.