The XX Factor: What women really think.

Caroline's Law?

I'm glad to see Caroline Kennedy out of the running as well. But what mainly strikes me about the travails of this season's Senate vacancies is a point Slate's Bruce Reed made weeks ago: They illustrate what a bad idea it is to give governors the power to fill them. The voters of New York chose David Paterson for one office, not two. Thirty-nine states fill vacancies this way, as the 17th Amendment ostensibly allows. Tom Geoghegan argued recently that the amendment should, in fact, be read otherwise, because the relevant passage starts by saying that when there is an open Senate mid-election in their state, governors "shall issue writs of elections to fill such vacancies." The amendment then goes on to allow a state legislature to "empower the executive thereof to make temporary appointments until the people fill the vacancies by election as the legislature may direct," but Geoghegan's point is that this subsidiary clause has eaten the main directive. He also points out that the Supreme Court has never really weighed in: Instead of interpreting the 17th for themselves, the justices merely summarily affirmed a lower-court decision in 1969 upholding a governor's choosing of a senator. (It was Gov. Nelson Rockefeller's appointment of Robert F. Kennedy's replacement, in lieu of a special election.) 

That doesn't mean the Supreme Court would tackle the question now. Courts are notoriously reluctant to poke their noses into this kind of exercise of power by another branch of government. But the 39 states with automatic handoffs to the governor could take the ball away and give it back to the voters via special election. Call it the Thank You Caroline Act.
 

Good Choice by Caroline

Political Nepotism

Emily Y., Emily B., and Melinda, you all make very important and good points about Caroline Kennedy's possible anointment/appointment to Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. The level of nepotism in Congress is unseemly and does send a negative message to those young people—heck, to adults, too—who are not from rich or famous families and are not politically connected, that they should not even consider going into politics because they have little chance of breaching that increasingly elite wall that separates members of Congress from Average Joe peasants. But I beg to differ a bit with Emily B, who liked the idea of a woman taking over Clinton's seat but wondered if it was right to "overlook Kennedy's lack of most of the usual qualifications, like holding public office?"

Kennedy would not be the first member of Congress to lack that particular qualification. Hillary Clinton had not held public office before becoming a senator either. Even though during the presidential primaries she counted her time as first lady of Arkansas and of the United States as political experience, no one actually elected her to those positions. Using Clinton's logic, if her stints as first lady are to be considered as political experience, then why shouldn't Caroline's membership in a political dynasty be counted, too? After all, she did live for a time in the White House, albeit as a little girl. Other political wives have been similarly appointed to Congress (to fill the seats of their dead spouses) and then went on to win, or lose, re-election. (U.S. Rep. Mary Bono, widow of Sony Bono, and former Sen. Jean Carnahan, wife of the late Sen. Mel Carnahan, come to mind.) Wouldn't it be nice, though, if more members of Congress were like U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and got there by dint of their own hard work?

She's Not Palin

Caroline, Meet Sarah

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.

Not Caroline

So, Caroline Kennedy has apparently decided she would like her Uncle Robert's Senate seat  (about to evacuated by Hillary Clinton). One of the refreshing things about Caroline supporting the presidential race of Barack Obama over Clinton was that it signaled a rejection of dynastic politics. Yes, that was ironic coming from the Kennedys, but, fool that I am, I thought it meant that they, somehow, were recognizing the end of their own dynastic ambitions. Shortly afterward Ted Kennedy was diagnosed with brain cancer, and I read that said upon his death, he wanted his wife, Victoria, to get his seat. And now Caroline Kennedy, who has famously led a very private life, has deigned to allow that she will accept an appointment to the Senate. This depresses me. One wonderful thing about Obama's election is that is says in America if you have the drive, the smarts, the will you can come from nowhere and get to the top. The appointment of Caroline Kennedy just says what we all know—if you want to get to the top, the trip is a lot easier and shorter if you're born there.