I’m glad that Booman did not follow the mob and join in the anti-Caroline hysteria, neatly disguised (however thinly) as anti-dynasty hysteria.
Dynasties can be good and bad. Would Jane and Markos have also opposed the ascension of President Franklin Delano Roosevelt because he was a cousin of former President Teddy Roosevelt? Should we not have had John Adams’ son as president, since his father had already taken that role?
Competence, interests, and histories are shared in families. When you have something good going, it’s natural to want to repeat it. When you have something bad going on, like the ongoing crimes of the Bush family (Bush Sr. got us into the first Gulf War based in part on false evidence of troops massing at the border of Kuwait – a photo later proved to be a forgery).
Historian Jim DiEugenio wrote an open letter to Markos and Jane Hamsher explaining why they were on the wrong side of history in opposing Caroline. Here are some snippets:
One of the reasons I only lurk [on Daily Kos and FireDogLake] is that I find many of the posters to be very young. Therefore most seem to lack any sense of history and perspective. This includes both of you. Jane was about one year old when Caroline’s father, President Kennedy was elected. Markos was yet to be born when her uncle, Senator Robert Kennedy, was murdered at the Ambassador Hotel in 1968. And apparently, none of that matters to you, since you never mention any of what happened in between or afterward. Markos just says indiscriminately : I hate political dynasties! Sort of like saying: I hate three-piece suits!
The problem is that some of us were around back then. And further, some us have studied what happened in those intervening years–and afterwards. So lumping the Kennedys with say, families like the Rockefellers or Bushes in the dynasty category is, at best, indiscriminate. At worst, it is ignorant, insulting and irresponsible. (For all that it means, why not throw in the Colbys?) Yes, there are some political families that should be avoided. Since it has been proven that they have little interest in providing for the common good. But to lump the Kennedys in with them is utterly preposterous.
Jim then details some of the history Markos and Jane clearly know little about, such as Kennedy’s trip to Vietnam in the 50’s, and his subsequent warnings about trying to conquer them. Kennedy recognized that what John Foster Dulles and others tried to paint as “communism” was really just nationalism. But in our world, when one country tries to protect its own and causes our business class woes, we paint them as communists and use that as an excuse to overthrow them. Especially when they have precious resources – which are not limited to energy resources such as oil and gas.
Nowhere was this more true than in the Congo:
When Patrice Lumumba, nationalist leader of the Congo against the colonialist Belgians, was attempting to keep his country independent, then President Eisenhower sided with the Europeans. And Allen Dulles OK’d a CIA plot to help in his murder. The CIA hurried this plot in the interval between Kennedy’s election and his inauguration since they knew JFK would not back it . His sympathies were on Lumumba’s side. The plot succeeded. (Remember Markos, the CIA is the agency you wanted to join before you took up blogging. Maybe you missed this episode.) But Kennedy still supported the cause of independence for the Congo all the way until his assassination. Against Belgian advocates like William Buckley and Thomas Dodd. (This is Sen. Chris Dodd’s disgraced father. You two should read up on him.)
Jim also talks about Bobby Kennedy’s record. This is one we really wouldn’t wish continued?
In 1963, A. Philip Randolph was organizing the legendary 1963 March on Washington. (You two probably thought it was Martin Luther King.) The Southern Christian Leadership Conference, King’s group, signed on. But they could not get a white politician to endorse the demonstration. In July, about six weeks before it began, President Kennedy did so at a press conference. He then called in his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy. He essentially told him that he was entrusting the project to him and it had to come off very well, in fact, perfectly. If not, their enemies would use it to their detriment. It did come off perfectly.
Which leads us to Caroline’s uncle, Bobby Kennedy. A man who, as Attorney General, led what was probably the most unrelenting campaign against organized crime in American history. A campaign that once started, eventually brought the Mafia to its knees. And at this time, J. Edgar Hoover’s FBI would barely recognize that there even was such a thing. RFK also forced Hoover into recognizing the fact that the Klan operated a murderous terrorist group that killed civil rights workers. As Attorney General he sued the steel companies when they tried to conspiratorially rig prices to gouge the American consumer. He also actually placed the executives of electric companies in jail when they tried to cheat the government.
Aren’t we always crying about accountability? Bobby Kennedy and his brother pursued white collar criminals to an extent never seen before or sense, in government. But no, we wouldn’t want Caroline in there because heck, she’s just a Kennedy.
Never mind that another son of the JFK/RFK generation, Bobby Kennedy, Jr., has also proven successful fighting the corporations on behalf of the environment and the citizens who suffer the effects of pollution.
Never mind Ted Kennedy’s incredible record of fighting for those who have the least access to government, the poor, the dispossed.
Nope. It’s more important to keep someone out because they happened to be born into a dynasty than to 1) look at the individual’s qualifications and 2) realize that not all dynasties are equal, and some have been incredibly good for our country.
Shame on all in the blogosphere who joined this irrational bashing. And kudos to our fearless leader here who didn’t drink the Kool-Aid and made up his own mind.
Thanks for posting this.
I think Patterson got some revenge for the pressure he was under not to pick Caroline.
Could be wrong.
What you think of his choice of new NRA senator?
He is just conservative. Has nothing to do with Markos.
I didn’t see much “irrational bashing”. Actually, I think Markos and most other anti-Kennedy voices were agreeing with you completely.
We are looking at her qualifications and consider them thin. If this were Caroline Jones with the same resume, NOBODY would ever have suggested she was an appropriate choice. Nearly all of the “analysis” on the pro-Kennedy side boils down to “she’ll be a great progressive senator because Uncle Ted is”.
Comparing C Kennedy to FDR or JQ Adams is apples to oranges IMO. The “dynasty” argument WAS made against JQA, but he had spent his life in govt and was obviously qualified. C Kennedy hasn’t even been on a city council. FDR’s appointed post was Asst Sec of Navy, significant but hardly at the same level as US Senator.
I don’t have a problem with the Kennedy family RUNNING for office. I have a problem with someone being parachuted into high office because their name is Kennedy.
What experience did she lack?
Campaigning?
She had run businesses, written books, led fundraising efforts, organized coalitions.
What did she lack, that would have made a difference?
I can only guess that you are young, because those of us who grew up with Caroline are well aware of her biography and qualifications, which included:
She has been a lawyer for years, and a strong supporter of the arts. She has proven to be a savvy judge of people.
Does a Senator have to have legislative experience? If you answer that “yes” then you clearly don’t understand how the Senate and Congress work. Our members don’t write the bills. Their staffs do. Their staffs write, change, vet, approve, and negotiate. What the Senators do is more high level, and Caroline has all the experience she needs for that.
In addition, the Kennedy family ate and breathed politics the way most people follow American Idol or the NFL. She knows what is going on as well as anyone in the country, the nuances and details.
What I look for in a Senator is intelligence, competence, and compassion. She’s more than proven herself in those areas.
you’d think she’d have bothered to vote more often.
“… the anti-Caroline hysteria, neatly disguised (however thinly) as anti-dynasty hysteria.”
#1-I saw precious little, “anti-Kennedy” anything, just objections to the accession of an untalented amateur…which is precisely what she is…to a position that really needs a pro.
Which is precisely what she is not.
#2-Weren’t you one of the ones who opposed Hillary Clinton’s candidacy for the presidency in similar grounds??
Nice.
Good thing Obama knew better, eh?
So you seem to think that it is OK if Caroline Kennedy becomes Senator on the Kennedy coattails while it’s not so hot for Hillary Clinton to do the same?
Who was riding whose coattails in the Clinton presidency? That’s a legitimate question.
Lemme ask you…and kneejerk Hillary hater that you appear to be, I already know your answer but I’ll pose the question anyway…which of these two women is less qualified to be a major political figure in the United States today?
The one who worked all of her life in whatever capacity that she thought could be most effective…including taking a (short term, as it turned out) back seat to a man who was not nearly her equal in many respects other than possessing a sort of sleazy, populist charm…and took her lumps, her defeats and setbacks but kept on fighting?
Or the one who never entered the lists of politics for 40 years or so and then when she did deign to dirty her hands proved to be so above it all that she thought she could “Y’know” her way to the office without saying or doing a goddamned thing but royally acceding to the kind ministrations of the pekinese of the press? (Which turned out less than kind, actually.)
Noblesse n’oblige pas, it looked like to me.
Nobility does not obligate.
Not in her case.
Her entire platform?
It boiled down to this:
Nice.
Tax problems, illegal workers as help (Ill-paid, betcha…but…it’s hard to find good help these days, right?), an apparent affair with the second generation publisher of the (heavily CIA/Mossad influenced if not run) so-called newspaper of record?
Yeah.
What swetheart candidate she was proving out to be.
I think that you are too close to the Kennedy murders to be rational here, Lisa.
You bettah off with other things.
Bet on it.
AG
Arthur – you have it all wrong.
I opposed Hillary because of what I DID know about her.
People opposed Caroline because of what they DID NOT know about her.
There’s no legitimate comparison there. I lived through the Clinton years and followed Hillary’s massive bungling of the health care plan. She had a difficult task, to be sure, but being president would present a bunch of difficult tasks, and she failed quite spectacularly at it.
Name me anything Caroline has failed at that she was given time to do.
What has Caroline Kennedy done that is on the same level as dealing with the pack of predators that we laughingly call “The Senate” here in the Unlisted States of Omertica?
In fact, judging from her act in this matter, it will have to be proven to me that she has ever done anything except sit in an office and function as a figurehead. Betcha she isn’t even aware of her real position. Her name has protected her from that reality. She thinks everyone’s life works that way.
Her books? Almost all have a co-writer. Do you really think that the “You know” artist that we saw in her diner interview is actually an author?
Please.
She could have a sub-100 IQ, be strung out on anti-ADD drugs and with her name and family connections she’d still be in exactly the same position she occupies right now.
And you? Hip as you are to so much of the hustle and yet gullible enough to fall for the Kennedy mystique in thiis instance?
Sorry, Lisa.
I don’t buy it.
She’s just a slightly above average…if even that…soccer mom who is heir to a political dynasty.
And Hillary Clinton co-founded a political dynasty through about 40 years of hard work.
There is no choice as far as I am concerned.
None whatsoever.
AG
Later…
AG
.
Can you name anyone since WWII who was qualified to be POTUS? Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, Bush. Clinton, Bush and Obama … In real life you do see persons qualified and up to the job to make a difference. In politics … hardly ever and certainly not the group of conceited and self-centered persons housing in US Congress. What a pity. Caroline Kennedy, I was willing to give her a chance and have her voice heard. Of course she would not be as capable to provide New Yorkers with sufficient pork.
"But I will not let myself be reduced to silence."
Yes.
Harry Truman
Dwight Eisenhower
Adlai Stevenson
(possibly) John Kennedy-He didn’t live long enough for us to know for sure how his policies would have worked out, and that means…in his case, anyway, because his death most likely resulted from those policies…said policies had some fatal flaws. And I do mean fatal. If one does not survive one’s choices, then the choices were not very good. Not good enough, anyway. The chooser has to be there to be able to see them through.
Robert Kennedy
Mario Cuomo
(probably) Bill Clinton-Had his own “fatal flaw” not been in large part sexual (or at least evinced in a sexual manner)…who knows?
Howard Dean
Hillary Clinton
Barack Obama
And that’s the short list. The ones who at least got in serious sniffing distance of the presidency.
President Martin Luther King Jr.?
President John Conyers?
President Malcolm X? (How would history have handled THAT move!!!???)
Hmmmm….
President Bill Bradley?
President Morris Udall?
President Ramsey Clark?
There have been others.
AG
It did, just 3 years prior to the election, and in the same way that it handled John and Bobby…
Yeah, I guess.
Malcolm would have been in his 80s now.
He was some kinda man. And that was some kinda trip he took, from son of an activist preacher who had trouble with the KKK and others of that ilk all of his life to becoming a small-time gangster under the name of Detroit Red to prison to becoming Malcolm X and a leader of the Nation of Islam to breaking with Elijah Muhammad and becoming a political and spiritual leader of a generation of strong American black people to being assassinated
He certainly did live, didn’t he?
He did keep trying.
History cut him off in his prime.
History just wasn’t ready for him.
Is it ready now?
We shall soon see.
AG
Pork?
She would have offered quiche and soy products.
Look at her!!!
Dried to near perfection at 50!
Even Oprah Winfrey had no use for her. And Oprah will hype almost anybody who fits her lib profile.
Caroline has written numerous articles by herself. I don’t begrudge her a co-writer on a complex subject. But there’s no point in talking to you – you have Kennedy hate in your gut, and I’m not going to waste any time trying to show you how silly you are. Besides – those who know history already understand, and those who don’t know history will never understand.
RealHistoryLisa,
I am with you. I regret not seeing this diary sooner.
Here is what no Caroline Kennedy critic has been willing to do: compare her to other Senators. Surely, if Kennedy is so deficient, doing so should easily prove that she was not qualified.
But, let’s take a closer good look at 2004 Democratic VP Candidate John Edwards shall we? John Edwards was a successful trial lawyer before becoming Senator. But that was all. What “experience” did this give John Edwards? It gave him courtroom experience and a big bank account. That’s it. Where were the torches and pitchforks in that North Carolina Senate race in 98? No where.
You also have those with almost no experience like current Vice President JOE BIDEN. His professional career before becoming Senator? He was a lawyer for a year or two and was briefly on the New Castle County Council. That’s it. Wow.
So where’s the qualifications gap, huh? Nowhere. It’s bullshit emanating from people being overly sensitive about privilege. (When the real privilege in the Senate is exhibited not from family dynasties, but from people who have been there for 40 years, like Ted Stevens.)
And now the whiners are left wearing T-Shirts that read, “I opposed Caroline Kennedy, and all I got was this lousy Blue Dog.”
Where were the torches and pitchforks in that North Carolina Senate race in 98? No where.
Nowhere. Because Edwards was actually willing to run for the office and get it by being elected. Or not get it if he wasn’t elected.
Same story about Biden.
These are bad, bad comparisons. I’m sure there are better ones — ones more advantageous to your position. But it’s your job to look for them.
Actually being willing to run for the office — or at least SOME office — is one of the qualifications.
“Actually being willing to run for the office — or at least SOME office — is one of the qualifications.”
Do you apply that standard across the board? If you do, that means anyone who files to run for office is de facto qualified. I can see the interviews now:
Reporter: “Sir, what are your qualifications?”
Candidate: “Well, I’m running aren’t I madam?”
(Candidate walks away. Reporter jaw drops.)
It sounds like a Groucho Marx routine.
Now, if you’re NOT willing to apply that standard across the board, you made it up just for Caroline, which proves my point.
To say that a person possesses one qualification for something is not to say that that person is qualified for it. There might be several other qualifications that the person lacks, which the person would have to have in order to be qualified.
This is elementary logic (and I stress “elementary”) — the difference between necessary and sufficient conditions.
Knowing the basic rules of thought can be a great asset. I recommend you learn them.
I used the terms “qualified” and “qualifications” because both terms were used interchangeably by Kennedy critics. If the line in my response with “qualified” in it bothers you, simply omit that sentence and read my response over. As a master of the rules of thought, you should quickly realize attacking my singular use of “qualified” doesn’t help YOUR assertion that “being willing to run for office” is a “qualification” (Which is your central criticism of what I wrote). Again, my illustration:
Reporter: “Sir, what are your qualifications?”
Candidate: “Well, I’m running aren’t I madam?”
Who in their right mind would say, “oh yeah, that’s a qualification”?
Seriously, how long do you plan on continuing this charade?
Well, consider this:
Reporter: “Sir, what are your qualifications?”
Candidate: “Well, I can read.”
Here too it would seem odd to respond, “Yes, that’s a qualification.” That doesn’t mean that it isn’t one; it clearly is, insofar as someone who lacked it would for that reason be unqualified. It’s just a relatively trivial and commonplace one, one that we ordinarily take for granted. To point it out is to assert what should, as the saying goes, go without saying. I think “I’m running” sounds odd as an answer to that question for the same reason; we expect the speaker to tell us about the ones that aren’t so easy to come by.
I still maintain that willingness to engage in politics (of the electoral variety) — not to mention the ability to do so skillfully (something else we now know she utterly lacks) — is one of the traits we ought to expect in somebody aspiring to political office (of the electoral variety). There may be very unusual circumstances in which this expectation should be dropped, but I do not see these to be such.
The brief answer to your initial question is this: Edwards and Biden skipped some steps, to be sure. Kennedy tried to skip all of them.
I don’t accept that “willingness to run for office” is as fundamental as reading. It is simply your belief that it is so. You attempt to justify it, but I have to question the sincerity of your justification when you simultaneously shortchange her resume by saying she “tried to skip” “all the steps”, and more steps than Biden or Edwards. She has as much formal education as they do. Her familiarity with education and civil liberties issues has more direct relevance to being a Senator than what Edwards did. And Kennedy helped choose Biden as Vice President. Making such an easily refuted assertion evidences a certain level of irrationality.
Nothing that I wrote suggested that it was as fundamental as reading. Do you understand how analogies work?
You love to use the jargon of critical argumentation in the process of getting off what you clearly think are devastating ripostes, but really … you’re so hopelessly confused a reader/arguer that this truly has become, as you said, a charade. Bye.
You bailed this time around because you proved my point. By totally shortchanging her resume you’ve demonstrated, again, that Kennedy critics are not using a fair measuring stick. As for the jargon of critical argumentation, let’s not forget who began speaking of “rules of thought.”
Of course, it was very classy of you to leave with yet veiled insult of my intelligence. I, for one, will leave it up to others to measure yours.
Great comments. Thanks for all of this. Love the T-shirt line too.