The word in the media lately is that Caroline Kennedy is being seriously considered by the governor of New York State to replace Hillary Clinton when the latter assumes her duties as President-elect Obama's Secretary of State.
Despite my general admiration for the Kennedys in politics, I think this would send a bad signal to the country and the rest of the world if Governor David Paterson makes this appointment. As far as I can see Caroline's chief qualification to this high office would be her last name. That's not enough. I am also concerned because, until recently, the last of John and Jacqueline Kennedy's living children has been a virtual recluse from public life. In her speeches she always appears ill at ease. Her major qualification for public office has been in giving out the JFK "Profile in Courage" Award once a year. Oh, she also has written one book--about privacy in public life. Kind of a thin resume really.
As a person and as a mother and a professional at whatever philanthropic foundations she chairs I'm sure she is up to the tasks at hand. But a shy and retiring type is not what the Senate needs right now. Frankly, the whole business to me reeks of a type of nobility and privileged preference that is odious to a republic.
Where Ms. Kennedy to a actually run for the office and "canvas the hustings" (as her dad used to say) for votes, then I would likely change my mind were she "up to snuff" in the public arena of speeches, interviews and debates. As it is, she is more like her mother than her father and probably should stay mainly in private life. There are surely more qualified people among the 17 million of souls who reside in The Empire State.
If she were about to be appointed a US Senator from my state I would have to write to the governor to strongly disagree. And, lest you think I'm being sexist, I'm not. Were John Kennedy Junior still alive--with the possibility of his being promoted from private to public life looming up in the future, I would be set against it as well. Let an already seasoned elected official replace Senator Clinton I say. And forget the anointing of quasi-royal families into positions of power and circumstance.
But think of all the times we can break out our Neil Diamond albums and play this wonderful song and sway in unison
ReplyDeleteThanks Fred. I thought about including this song to include on my original post here, but leave it to you to add the finishing touch!
ReplyDeleteSing it Neil, my lad, sing it! Maybe someday Caroline could be appointed President, too, and this could be our National Anthem!
ReplyDeleteThanks doug I think you agree with me, too considering her brother, was murdered, according to some cons-theo people, due to his knowledge of who got rid of his dad and others, MLK, RFK, he was to tell the world, we know what happened... No, it is best she stay out of it. For her safety. if nothing more.
ReplyDelete"Frankly, the whole business to me reeks of a type of nobility and privileged preference that is odious to a republic. "
ReplyDeletePerfectly said.
Personally I am tired of the Bush's, the Clinton's, the Kennedy's, the Dole's ect.
Let her buy ...ummm EARN her seat, just like any other Senator has to do.
As you say Doug, a coronation. Brown was an example of this sort of patronage in the UK, although his elevation was not dynastic as in Ms Kennedy's case. This sort of celebrity elitism is a hallmark of of a failed democracy, recently Peter Mandelson (a Blairite superstar) was insinuated into office in the same way here.
ReplyDeleteIt appears the more things 'change' the more they stay the same with the Kennedy's and Clinton's taking up their allotted places in the pecking order. Given the magnitude of corruption and nepotism it appears that the only answer is a democratic revolution. As ever Greece leads the way.
That's certainly another strong consideration, Christine. Thanks.
ReplyDeleteIt does seem to be a bad sign when elected Representatives turn to members of the same old-guard families as a way to reassure people that somehow the past can be the future again, and destiny is genetic.
ReplyDeleteIt's hard to say what will come of the democratic process over here, AA, as we have not yet hit bottom in the economy.
LOL! By all means let's see some campaigning or some cash under the table! ;-)
ReplyDeletei hope we don't doug, hit the basement, as to the economy, but things do not set well, as to the passing of the Global Poverty Act. Senate s110-2234 passed on 12-7-08, by legislature, and awaiting the vote by senate. This was written by obama, and has these lovely tenets as it's claim to fame:
ReplyDelete1. UN controls sovereignty over US citizens, govt. (NWO hint, hint...)
2. US taxpayer pays 65B over 13 years, 845B total. More financial enslavement, we were never asked, either... then again they 'own' us, so why ask us...
3. UN dumps 2d amendment, no small arms, or weapons owned by civilians.
4. US military owned, controlled by UN DOD influence used to R&D projects only?
5. UN uses tax supposedly to decrease world population of those with less than $1.00 per day,
Sounds sinister, supposedly the moolah, comes from here? Why are we hit yet again, with more to bail out? And they in my opinion guarantee the use of the money in this fashion? I would not trust them for all the tea in China. And we know how trillions are missing from US coffers, that are not appropriated, let alone accounted for?
(seems like a way to DECREASE the populations, with eugenics, pandemics, war and more war, etc.)
6. The Constitution will be tanked as far as a citizen's right to NOT be held without just cause. The Posse Comitatus Act of the 1870's has been thrown out, here.
7. People whom are "enemy Combatants" be included in this scenario as well. They will have the same zero rights, as American citizens.
8. So, what is left then for us as a decent scenario for us, and our supposed "freedoms," of which if any are left for us, once this takes place?
think about this. This is positively Orwellian. it begins on Obama's oath taking day, in January. 2009.
Indeed. I certainly hope this none of this litany of horrors actually come to pass.
ReplyDeletelet's hope the senator's are too blind to pass this... contact your own senators and demand they not do so, to prevent the UN from gaining ground here, in this way.
ReplyDelete(Doug) Perhaps the voters would reach similar conclusions, as you, on "sweet Caroline" and for that reason she won`t be nominated. Great video clip Crabby. Neil Diamond looks so young. We saw him on TV over here recently from the Glastonbury festival and he looked positively aged.
ReplyDeleteI think if it was up to the voters you'd be right, Jeff. But as it stands the governor of New York can simply appoint someone to take Senator Clinton's place, and she could hold the seat until an election in 2010. Anyway, there has been some backlash to the idea of Caroline Kennedy's appointment, so we shall see.
ReplyDeleteAh, now I understand your concern.
ReplyDelete