Hillary's In, Caroline's Out

As you may have heard by now, Hillary Clinton has been confirmed as secretary of state by the Senate. The vote was 94-2.

And, in a late-breaking development, Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her name from those New York Gov. David Paterson apparently has been considering for Clinton's replacement.

Kennedy, it is being said, has expressed her concerns about the health of her uncle, Sen. Edward Kennedy, who suffered a seizure during Tuesday's inaugural proceedings. Her uncle's health, it is said, is her top priority, and she apparently feels she could not give him the attention she wanted to provide if she took the Senate seat.

Dangling Senate Seats

The new Congress begins its business tomorrow, but there won't be a full house in the Senate. There are still a few vacancies to fill.

• In Minnesota, the state Canvassing Board certified comedian Al Franken as the winner of the hotly contested Senate race against incumbent Norm Coleman.
  
  But Coleman's attorneys pledged to challenge the certification in court.
  
  "Minnesota law prohibits the state from issuing a certificate of election until such a court case is resolved," report Pat Doyle and Patricia Lopez of the Minneapolis Star Tribune, "which ... leaves Minnesota with a single senator."
  
  Even so, writes Chris Cillizza in the Washington Post, the window is closing on Coleman.
  
  Several actors have been candidates for office in California, and some of them have gone on to win — including, notably, a future president.
  
  But Minnesota, which elected a wrestler as its governor a decade ago and currently has a former football player serving as its chief justice, may be the champion (per capita) at electing the most nontraditional candidates to high-profile positions.
  
  Franken's margin of victory was 225 votes.


• Roland Burris, who has been chosen by Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich to replace Barack Obama, continues to run into problems. The governor's acting chief of staff took Burris' nomination certificate to the Senate today, but it was rejected by the secretary of the Senate.
  
  Such a certificate is supposed to be signed by Illinois' governor and its secretary of state. But the Illinois secretary of state refused to sign it, apparently because he is among the growing number of Illinois politicians who contend that Blagojevich is unfit to serve.
  
  It appears that Burris and the governor must hope that the Illinois Supreme Court will force the secretary of state to sign the document.
  
  I've advocated giving Burris an opportunity to show what he can do, but things seem to be getting out of hand.
  
  "I feel I am the solution to the problem for the people of Illinois," Burris says.
  
  According to CBS News, "[T]he Lord put his hands on the governor and said, 'This is the person that has to go to Washington,' and that appointment is legal," Burris said to supporters at a Chicago church yesterday. "That is all there is."
  
  Dear Diary ...


• In New York, where Gov. David Paterson must nominate the successor for Hillary Clinton, Senate hopeful Caroline Kennedy seems to be criticized by everyone for her unfortunate, repeated use of the phrase "you know," which doesn't seem to strike many observers as dignified enough — or eloquent enough — for a Kennedy.
  
  The latest to contribute his two cents' worth is Ben McGrath of the New Yorker. He offers something of a defense for Kennedy and some suggestions for turning the situation to her advantage.
  
  You know?

Blogger Suggests 'Caretaker' for Clinton's Seat

---

Caroline Kennedy and her father
aboard the "Honey Fitz" in August 1963.

---

In recent days and weeks, some observers have been fretting about Caroline Kennedy's lack of experience that would serve as her qualification to serve in the U.S. Senate.

For some, the idea of appointing a "caretaker" to serve until a special election can be held in 2010 has merit. They believe the best short-term approach is to appoint someone who will promise not to run in two years and let the voters choose from the candidates who announce for the post — possibly including Kennedy.

Robert Stein of the Connecting.The.Dots blog thinks he has a solution.

New York Gov. David Paterson, he writes, should appoint a "caretaker" and Stein has a recommendation that, on the surface, seems reasonable — former Gov. Mario Cuomo.

I can't argue with Stein's characterization of Cuomo — "a wise, experienced, respected politician who knows New York State better than any other."

But, given the fact that Cuomo's son is frequently mentioned as a prospect for the seat, wouldn't the appointment of his father be considered almost the same kind of nepotism that is apparently being applied to the Senate vacancy in Delaware, where an aide to Vice President-elect Joe Biden is serving as the caretaker for Biden's seat until Biden's son completes his tour of duty in Iraq?

If Andrew Cuomo did, indeed, seek the seat in 2010, Mario Cuomo would hardly be a neutral observer.

Of course, it would be foolish to ignore the possibility that, in such a scenario, Paterson might be trying to aid his own political cause by, conceivably, making it easier for Andrew Cuomo to run for the Senate.

Andrew Cuomo has, as Stein observes, been mentioned as a possible challenger to Paterson for the Democratic gubernatorial nomination. He might be expected to re-direct his efforts if his father is appointed to the Senate seat.

I agree with the things Stein says about Mario Cuomo. But, if Paterson is going to pick someone to be a caretaker until 2010, it should be someone with no ties to any of the people who have been mentioned as candidates in the special election.

Meanwhile, the Boston Globe is reporting that another survey, this one conducted by CNN/Opinion Research, finds that a majority of Americans believe Kennedy is qualified to be a senator.

During the weekend, I reported here that Rasmussen Reports found that 40% of respondents in a national survey felt Kennedy was qualified.

Again, I have to say the same thing I said during the weekend.

This is an issue for people in New York. It is their Senate seat. It is not the business of anyone else.

Throughout American history, voters in various states have been given the option of choosing someone for the Senate who took an unconventional path to that office. Most senators have been lawyers — like Kennedy — but others have arrived in the Senate with different occupational backgrounds. Most, though, have had more political experience than Kennedy.

But I think it would be a mistake to disqualify her simply because she has never held political office before. If Paterson thinks she is the best person to be senator at this time, he should appoint her.

Members of both the House and Senate have come from all walks of life — doctors, priests, teachers, businessmen, farmers, athletes and entertainers. The main thing that is necessary is for the voters to be confident in the advocacy skills of that person.

We've even seen that on the presidential level.

In the last century alone, we've had the following presidents who were not lawyers:

• George W. Bush was a businessman.
• George H.W. Bush was a businessman.
• Ronald Reagan was an actor.
• Jimmy Carter was a farmer.
• Lyndon Johnson was a teacher.
• Dwight Eisenhower was a soldier.
• Harry Truman was a businessman.
• Herbert Hoover was an engineer.
• Warren Harding was a newspaper publisher.
• Woodrow Wilson was a teacher.

If Caroline Kennedy is appointed to replace Hillary Clinton, the decision will be in the voters' hands soon enough.

Just as it was up to the voters of California in 1964 — and again in 1970 — to decide whether they wanted to be represented in the Senate by a song-and-dance man (George Murphy).

Just as it was up to the voters of Minnesota this year whether they wanted to be represented in the Senate by a comedian (that race remains unresolved at this point, but the comedian, Al Franken, holds a narrow lead in the recount).

Caroline's Commitment

---

Caroline and John F. Kennedy Jr. dance
in the Oval Office while President Kennedy claps.

---

Yesterday, Ben Smith reported, at Politico.com, that Caroline Kennedy doesn't plan to seek the Senate seat from New York in 2010 if she is not appointed to replace Hillary Clinton.

Kennedy, who acknowledged (to no one's surprise) that she is a lifelong Democrat, said that, if she is not appointed, "I would support the person that [Gov. David Paterson] does select."

The unspoken assumptions are, of course, that

• a Democrat will be appointed to replace Clinton — which is a reasonable assumption, since both Paterson and Clinton are Democrats — and


• if Kennedy is not appointed to replace Clinton, the person who is appointed will not do something that will offend Democrats and/or the public at large — like, for example, the previous governor of New York did — before the special election in 2010.

In other words, Kennedy is saying she would be loyal to her party if she is not appointed to the Senate.

But the Daily Kos dismisses her comment by saying "So much for her commitment to democracy." Kennedy, suggests the Daily Kos, doesn't want the seat if she has to work for it, and politics in New York is run by a political machine. Thus, "if Kennedy does get that appointment," writes the Daily Kos, "it's ludicrous to think that she can be primaried out of it in 2010 if New York Democrats aren't happy with the selection."

Then, indulging in some fantasy, the Daily Kos elaborates by expressing a desire to see Kennedy, Andrew Cuomo "and a dark horse candidate or two" running in 2010 for a seat that, apparently, has been filled by a caretaker who has pledged not to run in the special election.

I'm disappointed in the Daily Kos, which, in my experience, frequently posts articles that are reasonable and logical.

Not this time.

Of course, Kennedy is a Democrat — like everyone else in her famous family. As her statement suggests, she is a loyal Democrat. And, since she has no reason to assume that anyone who would be appointed to replace Clinton in the Senate will do anything to offend the members of her party or cast many votes that are at odds with her party's philosophy, she has no reason to challenge that incumbent in 2010.

She was not asked what she would do if the appointee turned out to be a disappointment to the governor and many of New York's Democrats. (That's an entirely different question — and a hypothetical one, at that.)

Nor was she asked if she would run for the office in 2010 if, as has been speculated, the governor will appoint a temporary caretaker and let the voters make the decision in the next election cycle.

If, at this stage, she suggested that she might run against the person who was appointed (thereby sowing the seeds of discontent before the appointee has even been named), that — to me — would be evidence of an absence of respect for either the office or the voters — and an indication that she is self-centered, not selfless.

Instead, she generously said that she will support the governor's choice. She trusts him to choose someone who can do more than keep the seat warm for a couple of years. She will not divide the electorate to further her own political ambitions — if she has any.

The work that must be done to repair the economy is urgent for New Yorkers and all Americans. Kennedy does not want to be represented in the Senate by a caretaker. She wants a senator who will be an advocate for her state. And she encourages unity in a common cause.

New York is indisputably linked to the national and global economies. It must have two senators who can speak on behalf of the tens of thousands of New Yorkers whose livelihoods are dependent upon the health of New York City's financial district.

Perhaps Kennedy's remarks were influenced, to a certain degree, by the recent Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey that indicated that two-thirds of U.S. voters have a favorable opinion of her, but less than 40% think she is qualified to be a senator.

Personally, I think a national survey on this subject is not appropriate.

The only people who should be questioned are New Yorkers. It is their Senate seat. And if Caroline Kennedy is appointed to fill it, New Yorkers will have the opportunity to keep her there or select a replacement soon enough.

But I think Kennedy's comments clearly demonstrate her commitment to freedom — as well as democracy.

A New Senator Kennedy?

After weeks of speculation, apparently Caroline Kennedy has told New York Gov. David Paterson that she is interested in the Senate seat that will be vacated by Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton.

It seems fitting that Kennedy should occupy the seat, even though she has never shown any interest in a political post before. Her efforts have leaned to the more artistic and more nurturing side. Now 51, Kennedy has been a writer, editor, mother, and she's been involved in a lot of community work.

She's also a lawyer, like her father and uncles, with degrees from Harvard and Columbia. She has expressed opinions that are in line with Clinton's. But she's never run for public office.

It is, however, the "family business," you might say.

For a long time, most people believed her brother John would be the one from her generation to continue the family's political presence in the Senate beyond the tenure of their Uncle Ted, but John died in a tragic plane crash nearly 10 years ago.

Some of her cousins may yet ascend to great political heights, but none have served in the exclusive Senate and only a few have reached the House.

Paterson seems to be under some pressure by women's groups to appoint a woman to replace Clinton. Such pressure implies that any woman will do as long as the appointee is a woman. To me, that seems like a rather odd way of looking at it. It suggests that gender representation is all that matters.

But, if that were the case, doesn't it follow that more women would have supported the McCain-Palin ticket in November? That didn't happen. Instead, Barack Obama received 56% of the women's vote nationally.

In New York, the percentage for Obama was even higher — 67% of New York's female voters picked the Democrats.

Clinton's supporters in the primaries, although disappointed, did not gravitate to the ticket that had a woman on it. They voted for the ticket that more closely reflected their own beliefs. Ideology trumped gender.

The voters in New York didn't elect Clinton to the Senate because she was a woman — although she got the opportunity to seek the job because her husband was president (not unlike Kennedy, who has qualifications she has earned on her own but is considered a prominent prospect for this post because her father was president).

They elected her because she reflects their beliefs. When given the chance to choose their senator in a special election in 2010, those voters again will pick the candidate they feel more closely reflects their beliefs. My guess is that ideology will be more important than gender.

Kennedy may be the most prominent woman mentioned in connection with the vacancy, but she isn't the only woman who is interested, as CNN's Kristi Keck reports.

Among the women who have expressed an interest are Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Kirsten Gillibrand, New York City teachers union president Randi Weingarten and actress Fran Drescher.

And apparently, Kennedy will have to wage an intense campaign in two years in a special election to keep the seat — if she gets this appointment. She may come from a political family, but she'll be a novice as a candidate and can be expected to stumble a few times.

Rep. Peter King, a Long Island Republican who is making noises about running in 2010, is not deterred by the Kennedy name — even though his probable opponent is the daughter of a president and the niece of a one-time occupant of the seat she now desires.

And other politicians — in both parties — may be waiting in the wings — preferring to make their cases to the voters of New York rather than a constituency of one.

"I strongly believe that I'm much more qualified, much more experienced, and have an independent record," King said. "Nothing against Caroline Kennedy, but I don't think anyone has a right to a seat."

I must admit that I agree with King on that point — no one has a right to a Senate seat. These aren't family heirlooms — even though many people believe that the aide who has been appointed to Joe Biden's seat is merely going to keep it warm for Biden's son to win in two years — when his deployment to Iraq presumably will be over.

But that's a choice the voters will make. There have been many times when voters have been given the opportunity to vote for the son or daughter of a prominent politician from the past. Whatever the outcome, it is in the voters' hands.

And these seats aren't property for governors to sell to the highest bidder, either.

The people of these states are entitled to be represented by senators who share the same beliefs as the senators being replaced. Nothing else matters — gender, race, religion, age, nothing.

It's appropriate — in an ironic sort of way — for nepotism to come up in regard to this particular Senate vacancy. After all, wasn't that one of the arguments against Clinton's candidacy for the presidential nomination?