This site is closed to new comments and posts.

Notice: This site uses cookies to function.
If you are not comfortable with cookies then please don't browse this website.

Our next senator — Brooklynian

Our next senator

scottb2k
scottb2k
edited November -1 in The Lounge / Random Stuff
I'm just curious as to what everyone's opinion is as to who should be the person to replace Senator Clinton.

The name most spoken of, and by all accounts most likely to be appointed is Caroline Kennedy..thoughts?

I will say that I can see no obvious reason why she could or ever would be seriously considered for the spot beyond her last name.

I am still waiting for someone to make a case to me for her being senator that doesn't mention her father or her support for Obama and mentions the positions and experiences (beyond fundraising) that have prepared her for and elevated her to the level that warrants being appointed to be 1 of the 5 most powerful people in New York.

If she wants to be senator, she should run and let the people decide if she is qualified and not use backroom political pressure and the power of her family to have herself appointed to a position of such authority and power as if it is her birthright.
«134

Comments

  • danielle123
    danielle123
    I'm with you. She has no political experience and to pull the "Kennedy card" because she feels like she's now ready to throw her hat in the ring (at what, like 53 years old??) is an insult to all the politicians who have worked hard for so many years and deserve that seat.

    Plus, to give her the seat of Senator Clinton while she supported President-Elect Obama would be a travesty.

    Carolyn Maloney has worked hard for the people of NY and supports women's issues and would be a great choice.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    I'm with you. She has no political experience and to pull the "Kennedy card" because she feels like she's now ready to throw her hat in the ring (at what, like 53 years old??) is an insult to all the politicians who have worked hard for so many years and deserve that seat.

    Plus, to give her the seat of Senator Clinton while she supported President-Elect Obama would be a travesty.

    Carolyn Maloney has worked hard for the people of NY and supports women's issues and would be a great choice.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    danielle123 wrote: Plus, to give her the seat of Senator Clinton while she supported President-Elect Obama would be a travesty.
    That doesn't make any sense.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    danielle123 wrote: Plus, to give her the seat of Senator Clinton while she supported President-Elect Obama would be a travesty.
    That doesn't make any sense.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    Okay, if you say so.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    Okay, if you say so.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    danielle123 wrote: Okay, if you say so.
    No, it's not just because I say so. You're making the assertion. If you disagree with me, tell me how the second half of your statement follows from the first.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    danielle123 wrote: Okay, if you say so.
    No, it's not just because I say so. You're making the assertion. If you disagree with me, tell me how the second half of your statement follows from the first.
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    i'm of two minds on this one. yes, her name is an unfair advantage. on the other hand, what (little) i've read makes it sound like she might well do a pretty good job.

    i don't think the hillary/obama thing should matter, though, especially given that the seat is open because hillary going off to work with obama.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    sweet tea wrote: i'm of two minds on this one. yes, her name is an unfair advantage. on the other hand, what (little) i've read makes it sound like she might well do a pretty good job.

    i don't think the hillary/obama thing should matter, though, especially given that the seat is open because hillary going off to work with obama.
    Exactly.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    I don't have to do squat. You disagreed with ME, not the other way around.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    danielle123 wrote: I don't have to do squat. You disagreed with ME, not the other way around.
    You made a nonsensical statement. If you don't want to defend it, fine. I wouldn't want to either.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    So you say.
  • bigguy
    bigguy
    I don't think the Obama thing is an issue - Hillary is going to be working closely with a whole bunch of Obama supporters pretty soon so she'll need to get used to the idea. But at this point I don't know anything about Caroline Kennedy beyond her name.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    danielle123 wrote: So you say.
    Yes I do, because I believe that implicit in your statement are the following:

    1. Caroline Kennedy should not have endorsed Obama.
    2. She should be punished for doing so.
    3. The fact that the seat was held be Clinton (which she is leaving voluntarily to work with Obama) has some bearing on who should succeed her.

    All of these are incorrect. Is there another rationale behind your statement?

    None of this means that she's the best candidate, but Kennedy's support for Obama, if it has any bearing on this at all, speaks for her good judgment.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    Aren't you a moderator? I think you're looking for a fight and you're frustrated I won't give you one (are you looking to boot someone off or something?).

    You should stop assuming what you think people mean. It's ignorant.
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    danielle, i am not interested in fighting with anyone (right now -- give me time).

    but if what you meant is not what carnivore says above, then i don't understand what you did mean.

    would you explain?
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    danielle123 wrote: Aren't you a moderator? I think you're looking for a fight and you're frustrated I won't give you one (are you looking to boot someone off or something?).

    You should stop assuming what you think people mean. It's ignorant.
    I'm not looking for a fight. You should stop assuming what people's intentions are. It's ignorant.

    You made an inflammatory statement and refuse to back it up with any reasoning. I'm looking for a discussion with someone intelligent enough to back up what they say.

    The election and subsequent events have thoroughly discredited the ridiculous PUMA "movement" and your statement totally reeks of that. If I'm wrong, all you have to do is clarify what you said.
  • modsquad
    modsquad
    Why not put someone who is not a politician in. A policy wonk on health care who hasn't had the time to be a politician. Its an opportunity to avoid the usual suspects. Maybe someone like that could get something rolling in New York. Kennedy mouths the obligatory platitudes but I don't think she has ever committed in a substantive way to anything.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    SW - if your post had been the first one I received, I would have gladly explained what I meant, as an intelligent "back-and-forth, because you genuinely sound curious about what I meant (or at least you're trying to sound like you're genuinely curious), rather than like you are attacking me.

    At this point, please understand that, based on the previous posts before yours, I don't feel like I'm in an environment that wants to hear opposing viewpoints. I will say that I'm disappointed, though, because I'm new to this board and thought it was a little more open-minded and/or thoughtful.

    I do appreciate the fact, ST, that you tried to bring it down a notch, though. Thanks.
  • modsquad
    modsquad
    image
    I don't have a dog in this fight.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Me either, modsquad. And I don't disagree with any of the other stuff that's been said about Kennedy as a candidate. I just took issue with what I perceived to be a gratuitous anti-Obama comment when it was irrelevant to the discussion.

    Danielle123, I'm sorry if you perceived my questions as attacks, since they weren't intended that way. The internet is bad at conveying tone, which is why it's important to clarify what you say so people don't misunderstand.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    It wasn't anti-Obama; it was anti-Caroline Kennedy. You "perceived" is right. Keep "perceiving" or as I like to say, "assuming"....there's an old saying about "assuming" - I'm sure you probably know it.

    Now everything you post will be suspect to me because you sound knee-jerk not intelligent.
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    danielle123 wrote: It wasn't anti-Obama; it was anti-Caroline Kennedy. You "perceived" is right. Keep "perceiving" or as I like to say, "assuming"....there's an old saying about "assuming" - I'm sure you probably know it.
    Since you refuse to clarify what you say, we have nothing to work with but our interpretations of it. My interpretation of your statement stands as the only explanation for it until you offer another one.

    And as far as this goes:
    danielle123 wrote: Now everything you post will be suspect to me because you sound knee-jerk not intelligent.
    Wikipedia wrote: An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin: "argument to the man", "argument against the man") consists of replying to an argument or factual claim by attacking or appealing to a characteristic or belief of the person making the argument or claim, rather than by addressing the substance of the argument or producing evidence against the claim. The process of proving or disproving the claim is thereby subverted, and the argumentum ad hominem works to change the subject.
  • danielle123
    danielle123
    Okay, I take back that last sentence. It's hard to read tone in email. I think you (Carnivore) may have just wanted a lively political discussion and although I normally relish a good political fight, tonight was not one of those times.

    I was just looking to post some offhand posts tonight to feel part of the community and wasn't expecting what I thought was "attack" responses (if I misinterpreted motive, I apologize). All I can say (again) is that I'm new to this board and am still getting used to the "give and take" so to speak.

    Have a nice night everyone. You, too, Carnivore. ;-)
  • carnivore
    carnivore
    Fair enough. Good night, danielle. Sorry again for any misunderstanding- my questions were intended in good faith. Maybe we can pick this up again fresh tomorrow.
  • witch-king
    witch-king
    After all the talk about "qualifications" during the presidential election, and given the fact that Senator Clinton had never held public office before she ran for the Senate, I find the harrumphing of the NY Democratic party hacks and flacks to be highly disingenuous. I think time spent anywhere near Albany should be an immediate disqualification for the position. Why not mention Caroline's last name and the fact that she has Obama's ear as ideal qualifications for this appointment? Influence matters and nondescript upstate and downstate Congressional representatives don't offer any for New Yorkers.
  • scottb2k
    scottb2k
    witch-king wrote: After all the talk about "qualifications" during the presidential election, and given the fact that Senator Clinton had never held public office before she ran for the Senate,
    Key point here being that she RAN for office. Many people did feel Clinton was was underqualified, as they did about Obama before he RAN for president. The difference is that they spent a fairly long period of time introducing themselves to the public and describing in detail where they stood on all of the important issues and allowing the public to judge whether or not they were qualified for their respective positions and then people VOTED. Mrs. Kennedy has done nothing of the sort. Based on press reports the only people she is speaking to are the backroom power brokers and bypassing and ignoring any public debate and using her family to pressure the governor into giving her the seat.
    I find the harrumphing of the NY Democratic party hacks and flacks to be highly disingenuous.
    They are rightfully pissed off. Many of these people have spent a lifetime fighting for the party and the cause and the state and feel they have a legitimate reason to be considered for the seat. They now see someone who has shown no particular interest in politics on any level essentially being handed the seat while having done absolutely nothing to warrant it beyond being born into the right family.
    I think time spent anywhere near Albany should be an immediate disqualification for the position. Why not mention Caroline's last name and the fact that she has Obama's ear as ideal qualifications for this appointment?
    That you for proving my point....you HAVE to mention her father, if you don't mention him the absurdity of her being appointed to the seat becomes immediately apparent.

    So being famous and having Obama's ear are qualifications to be in the senate? Who is next? Oprah? Jay Z? David geffen? Absurd? Prove to me that Caroline is any more qualified then those 3 individuals...
    Influence matters and nondescript upstate and downstate Congressional representatives don't offer any for New
    Yorkers.
    Nonsense...Schumer was exactly that...a nondescript downstate congressman...yet he quickly rose to be one of the most powerful men in the senate.

    I'll say again...If she wants to be a senator she should run for it in the next election. It is my opinion that in order to be appointed to a seat that important one should have some sort of record that would indicate they are prepared and capable of such responsibility. I have heard or read nothing that indicates she has such a record.
  • sweet tea
    sweet tea
    evidently she's written a couple of books on constitutional law. not saying the name thing isn't still most of this, but you could add that to the qualifications list.

    about fundraising -- fundraising at the level she's been doing it is quite a bit like politics. again, i'm not saying i disagree with your basic point, but i do think she deserves so credit there. she wasn't just running bake sales.

    i do think this case to some degree reflects on the difficulties facing women in politics, but i've gotta be more awake than this before i try to explain that -- just made several hashes of it and had to delete.
  • hitokiri
    hitokiri
    sweet tea wrote: i'm of two minds on this one. yes, her name is an unfair advantage. on the other hand, what (little) i've read makes it sound like she might well do a pretty good job.
    Kennedy vs Cuomo

    Kennedy has practically no experience in terms of the whole of the city.
    The major things she has done was to raise money for public schools and became an honorary director of a ballet thing...

    This city/state has a lot more going on then just ballet and schools.
    Check out Cuomo's resume.

    I feel he is better prepared then someone who was "politically shy" and all of a sudden wants to be senator.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Sign In

Categories