-
sponsorship
Emily B, great catch on Caroline Kennedy selling her mother's handbags as tag sale dreck. I also agree with you that however admirable her volunteer work is, it's ridiculous to say this qualifies her for appointment to the Senate (even while acknowledging it's hard to fathom what qualifies many senators for the Senate). But I disagree with your Palin analogy. However ill-prepared Palin was for the vice presidency, she was chosen to run because she got elected governor of Alaska. And she did that without money, connections, or a famous name. Melinda eloquently wrote about wanting to see Caroline take up the Kennedy flame. But I would rather to see it doused. This country is ever more becoming a nation of haves and have-nots. By "haves" I don't just mean the rich. If you are lucky to have caring parents who are good role models and nurture good habits in you, you have an advantage in life—but you still have to work to make something of yourself. But there are many kids who have nothing—some of them go to the New York public schools Caroline Kennedy raised money for—who think there's no point making an effort because everything is already wired for the haves. They think that when the haves want something, all they have to do is pick up the phone and life's opportunities are handed to them. So Caroline Kennedy picks up the phone and announces that for her first full-time job, she'd like to be senator from New York, and thus is annointed. That's a bad message to send.
-
sponsorship
Melinda, I see the appeal of framing whether Caroline Kennedy should get to be New York's senator in terms of whether she'd be good at it. But why should we take only her measure, as opposed to weigh her against other candidates? I'm with my fellow Emily, choking on dynasty fatigue. What especially irks me about this example is the wielding of Kennedy's fundraising potential as an argument for appointing her. (Thank you, Harry Reid.) It's bad enough that name recognition gives candidates a big money edge when they run for election. Can't the playing field at least be level when a candidate is getting appointed and doesn't actually need to run a single ad or print a single poster? Whomever Gov. Patterson chooses will have years to amass the war chest of an incumbent. He shouldn't make this appointment based on who starts with the biggest money edge. Especially since New York shouldn't be tough terrain for Democrats in this new blue era.
Nor do I see much in Kennedy's lovely public service record to demonstrate why she'd be a great senator, either. I'm glad she helped get the Gates Foundation to give $51 million to the New York public schools even though schools chancellor Joel Klein helped sue Microsoft as a Justice Department lawyer in the Clinton administration. But that's about rich and famous people courting other rich and famous people. It's not proof of a deep mastery of policy. Or even skill at handling constituents or fellow politicians. Obviously for some women (including me), it's exciting and somehow fitting to imagine a woman taking over Hillary Clinton's seat. But is that reason to overlook Kennedy's lack of most of the usual qualifications, like holding public office? Framed this way, how different would her ascension be, really, from the pole vault that Sarah Palin tried?
One more pressing question: The NYT reports that at a Central Park tag sale Kennedy put together for the schools, some bargain hunters, "unwittingly, walked away with evening bags that belonged to her mother, Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis." Does that mean that Caroline K. sold off her mother's things without saying whose heirlooms they were? And she's supposed to be a fundraising goddess? Think how much more those handbags would have sold for if they'd been auctioned off as a piece from Jackie O.
Join the Fray: our reader discussion forum
What did you think of this article?