Hey it worked for the current speaker. Pelosi did have the advantage of the death bed designation as successor however.

Who are some of the more deserving politicians in Washington -- the ones who really know "what it's like to lack for child care, to see your paycheck fall short of the bills, to worry about health care, to walk among the grassroots, to be treated by politicians as alternately expendable and insignificant?"

Who are some of the more deserving politicians in Washington -- the ones who really know "what it's like to lack for child care, to see your paycheck fall short of the bills, to worry about health care, to walk among the grassroots, to be treated by politicians as alternately expendable and insignificant?"

Rep. Donna Edwards would be a great example of such a person, actually.

THE PROBLEM WITH CAROLINE KENNEDY

The problem is that she has no experience at all and her appointment smacks of the Democrat "Good ol' Boy" network.

The sad truth is the powerful political bosses of the Democratic party chose her not for her governing abilities, but for her MONEY RAISING abilites.

It's a soft form of selling the American people out.

Who's the senior senator from Alaska?

Who's the governor of Missouri?

etc.

Oh, and what experience made the current governor of California so qualified for the job?

Caroline Kennedy--a much richer, better connected, more brittle, less eloquent version of Sarah Palin. An utterly cynical move by the Dem Establishment.

What would Seeger and Guthrie have to say about this one? I mean after all the four-letter words....

LOL. The complaint was that Mrs. Schlossberg doesn't qualify for the Senate on the basis of being "just like us." So what? What Kennedy is "just like us"? And what senator, for that matter?

I almost feel for Biden, because at least he was once a single parent.

What's turning public opinion against her so harshly is that she seems to lack Hillary Clinton's insight into the value of demonstrating hard work to win the job.

There was something very humble about Hillary's willingness to do the grunt work involved in campaigning.

Caroline Kennedy is trying to coast in on the wings of entitlement -- and that doesn't go over well in America. Not after George W. Bush.

It's also selling your own experience pretty short. Surely she's got some interesting and rare experiences and expertise some of which might be really valuable in a Senator. That she doesn't think well enough of her own experience to argue for herself on her own merits give some indication of what sort of Senator she'd be, I think.

Who are some of the more deserving politicians in Washington -- the ones who really know "what it's like to lack for child care, to see your paycheck fall short of the bills, to worry about health care, to walk among the grassroots, to be treated by politicians as alternately expendable and insignificant?"

Lynn Woolsey (D-CA) was a single mom on welfare for a while (in the 1970s, IIRC).

Here's what a really great American, Eugene V. Debs, said about this topic in the 1918 anti-war speech that got him thrown in prison:

"If you go to the city of Washington, and you examine the pages of the Congressional Directory, you will find that almost all of those corporation lawyers and cowardly politicians, members of Congress, and misrepresentatives of the masses — you will find that almost all of them claim, in glowing terms, that they have risen from the ranks to places of eminence and distinction. I am very glad I cannot make that claim for myself. I would be ashamed to admit that I had risen from the ranks. When I rise it will be with the ranks, and not from the ranks."

Cry me a river, a bunch of elite scumbags who didn't even have the courage to subject themselves to the public are complaining about the only person who did.

There was never going to be an election here, but at least Kennedy is campaigning. The others are mostly all too chicken shit and hope to win by having her fail.

I find, to my discomfort, I agree with El V here (except for the use of 'Democrat') totally.
One thing that is really, really wrong with the country is nepotism and old-boyism. The Wall Street Collapse and the sort of failures of local government I see here in my little town are in some part due to the well connected trying to leverage power, and keep it "in the family', valuing loyalty over competence.
The Periwigged Men who founded the US had experienced an Aristocracy, and felt strong Inheritance Taxes were necessary to combat the old Order.
They are being proved right.
And Mrs. Schlossberg just doesn't pass the "if her name weren't Kennedy" test.
I've come to think the fascination of academic Historians for dynastic politics (even in nonaristocratic countries) is that it's so dang easy to write and do comparisons. And I guess even they succumb to branding.

Paterson hasn't announced his decision and people are already arguing about his choice. I would prefer that he chose a working politician for a promotion but it is his decision. I suspect that he will surprise everybody.

I don't actually think that ability to fundraise is the stunning attack against Caroline Kennedy that people seem to think it is.

Campaigns run on money and similar forms of organizational support. Plenty of politicians win normal, everyday elections because they're good at fundraising and have great political connections with the political establishment, as Kennedy does.

Simply because she hasn't proven herself to be good at winning over the public doesn't mean that the rest of her resume is somehow anomalous.

Does Caroline actually "lay claim to the experiences of an ordinary working mom or a ground-level volunteer"? Since her actual mothering and volunteering experiences have not been "ordinary" and "ground-level," does that mean they provide no basis for empathy and understanding of the experiences of more mundane mothers and volunteers, or that her friends and supporters are out of line for suggesting any similarities?

I consider myself a skeptic of Kennedy's bid for the senate seat, but it never occurred to me that she was laying an illegitimate claim to the "crucible" of having politicians refuse to shake your hand.

By portraying grass-roots volunteerism solely in terms of the travails of being "treated by politicians as alternately expendable and insignificant," your post suggests that volunteering is all about self-aggrandizement and seeking validation on politicians' coattails, rather than a communal drive to join together and work for the common good of society, with the resulting thrill that can come from being a part of something greater than one's self.

In short, in your post it is you, rather than Caroline Kennedy, who comes across as "terribly cynical."

It's not just a matter of how her experience stacks up against that of someone else. It's the issue of all the other possible nominees, like Andrew Cuomo, who actually WORKED for this opportunity. In her college years, it was rumored that she would push ahead in a line, asking those who objected, "Do you know who I am?" How is this different? It's not.

In her college years, it was rumored that she would push ahead in a line, asking those who objected, "Do you know who I am?"

Is there a prominent Democrat that right-wingers haven't told this made-up story about? Please spare us the BS from the insult-o-matic fact-challenged Republican peanut gallery.

My own personal choice for NY senator (who will undoubtedly represent me better than my GA ones) is Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who seems to have two strikes against him, from the leftish point of view:1) some Israel Hawkishness and 2)he's a big somewhat neckless guy (not unlike me).
He has done the good work in the Bush Unpleasantness, and and fat guys everywhere need a hero besides Jack Black or Andrew Zimmer.

It's preposterous, yes, but also offensive.... It's a statement of perspective. It's a promise that the candidate knows what it's like to lack for child care, to see your paycheck fall short of the bills

Look, it's not like everyone in America is poor and struggling. No one's saying she has first hand experience struggling. But she is a mother; that's a common human experience.

How can you know that the college story is a myth? Even if it were, is this not the same behavior? There are other people who worked for this job, who have actual legislative experience. Those who think "being a mom" is a qualification have been spending too many hours watching lifetime tv. what about being a girlfriend? Is that a qualification? What about having gone through the all too human struggle to lose weight? A qualification? What about having had cancer? Not every life experience is the immediate relevant experience, which is legislative.

You guys need to get off Caroline's back. She'd be an excellent choice. The senate works from a seniority standpoint so literally Caroline is behind Roland Burris in seniority... but being Caroline Kennedy means that you're not Senator #100... she'd be able to get attention for issues that no one else could. Who cares what Wyden is saying or Klobauchar? Or what Thomas Carper has to say? People would care about what Caroline Kennedy has to say. She also has Obama's ear. Talk about influence.

"...promise that the candidate knows what it's like to lack for child care, to see your paycheck fall short of the bills, to worry about health care, to walk among the grassroots, to be treated by politicians as alternately expendable and insignificant."

Many, many people, perhaps most, have been through none of those things, and can still be regular folks. What it takes is compassion and empathy, not actual experience in those things.

I've always thought of you as a regular guy Ezra; but I can't imagine you've been through any of those things either.

If you don't think she should be the NY Senator, that's fine. But "offended"? Really guys.

Look, I don't recall Carolyn has slid across life on her Kennedy name. I think you should chill.

I haven't actually heard anyone say that Caroline Kennedy literally or figuratively shares the experiences of working class New Yorkers. What I see here are quotes of people who say (without supporting it) that this is a common theme among Kennedy supporters.

Certainly, there have been patricians who have gained powers of empathy through their own personal adversities. FDR is an excellent example.

Beyond this, no one has convincingly and specifically argued for a better appointment. Andrew Cuomo is of course a scion of another political family and there are certainly things to question in his political history. His stewardship of HUD was not impeccable and he had quite a nasty temperament in at least his early political career.

Who, then, is a better appointee than Carolyn?

In her college years, it was rumored that she would push ahead in a line, asking those who objected, "Do you know who I am?"

When would Caroline Kennedy ever have had to wait in line?

And you know all that? Or you surmise it from the fact that her family is famous?

Because only one of those would be journalism.

My own personal choice for NY senator (who will undoubtedly represent me better than my GA ones) is Rep. Jerrold Nadler, who seems to have two strikes against him, from the leftish point of view:1) some Israel Hawkishness

Nadler's my Congressman, I respect him enormously, and like you, I'd be thrilled to see him get the Senate seat. This despite the fact that I disagree with him completely on Israel. The hard truth is that whoever gets Hillary's seat will be an "Israel hawk," or will learn how to sound like one very quickly.

I'm always amazed how the Democratic party loves to feed on itself, even when things are looking on the up. Caroline Kennedy naysayers should hold off for a moment or two and let the process work itself out. See good article...

http://globalinvestmentwatch.com/2008/12/20/caroline-kennedy-i-can-see-new-jersey-from-my-kitchen/

I don't think the point is that she doesn't have working class credibility and that that's desperately needed. I don't believe that's what's offensive about the way she's being portrayed or sold to us as the best person for the Senate. As Ezra notes, it's the manner in which she's been sold by others: that she connects to people because she's an ordinary working Mom just like you, or that she started off in politics from the ground floor. She's neither of those things. It's utterly preposterous to claim either one. She's decidedly not an ordinary Mom and she did not start her career in politics as an anonymous lowest-rung volunteer. That these are two of the arguments being pushed for her being appointed to the Senate is what is offensive. It's not only not true, it's absurd to even contend so. And the problem there is not that she's from privilege, or that she somehow can't relate to people who don't share her station, but rather that the people making this argument in favor of her *aren't* making any argument that isn't absurd on its face. Presumably there are plenty of reasons to respect Caroline Kennedy and feel that she would make a wonderful senator. These, however, are not those arguments.