You’re absolutely right. I’ve changed my thoughts on this. IF she is appointed, she will have to run in 2010, and if she goes out there and busts her butt, like Hillary did, she will get elected for the right reasons. It’s really up to New Yorkers to decide, and they seem to know her better than us.
Caroline Kennedy doesn’t need the money. She’s not wanting for political influence. And she doesn’t need the ego stroke. This alone qualifies her more for the position of Senator than most of those currently in the Senate.
It’s true, Caroline Kennedy has had a public life that most can’t begin to imagine. Yet not once in her public life has she embarrased herself or her family. She is a person of character and integrity. And more than most, she understands the value and responsibility of public service.
Caroline Kennedy is smart and articulate and compassionate. She is an attorney, writer, editor and serves on the boards of numerous non-profit organizations. She is a member of the New York and Washington, D.C. bar associations. She is also a member of the board of directors of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund.
She has spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools. As director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the New York City Department of Education, Kennedy helped raise more than $70 million for the city’s public schools, while being paid a $1 salary. How many people currently in politics would do such a thing?
There are many qualified people, but this should not be an appointment. This should be an election and she should go through the election process to get the job. This “appointment” process bypasses all that our country stands for. She has name recognition, probably will be good in the position, is anxious to get into politics, but so are many others….perhaps others who are just as, if not more, qualified.
Susan, This is why I made the short, sweet and to the point I did. The senator is representing the people of that state and it is the people of that state, that are the one’s intitled to choose who they best see fit in the representing of them. It is not, and should not be up for someone other than the people of that state, to elect their candidate to this appointment. I had no difficulty in understanding either of your post’s. :)
New York law says the governor is entitled to appoint someone to the seat if the elected official resigns—so, no, “the people” are not “entitled to choose” in this case.
I know the law, I don’t agree with it. Anymore than I think Blago should appoint the seat in IL. Again, The people are the ones that should have the say, by vote, as to who represents them.
That’s not what you said the first time though..
Your original comment was, “It’s the people of the state” who are “entitled to choose”.
That’s not true.
It’s the governor that’s entitled, by law, to choose.
Now that you added “should”—the people “should” appoint the seat—it’s an opinion.
I personally think Blago should stay in his position as Governor & not resign.
The only reason I say that is because Republican Bush was not forced to resign nor impeached over all his crimes against the People which were much worse than just taking money in exchange for a senate seat—so why should Blago?
Hillary Clinton had been active on political issues in the past, had shown her competence in the healthcare reform attempt (failed and quite telling about her style) and had made her positions on issues known. Caroline Kennedy is often quoted as “famously private.” I don’t know her position on anything. Why should a rich woman, as well educated and connected as she might be, be able to just whisper, “I’d like that job,” and have it handed to her? At the least she owes it to New Yorkers to come out and tell where she stands, what she would do for constituents, what’s in it for them, not just for her.
I said “It’s not black or white”, true she has not served in an elected office but as others have mentioned above, people fill in seats all of the time who have not served before. I’ve read that she intends to make a tour of the state letting everyone get to know her, much the way Hillary did. It would not be for a full term so the people would have the opportunity to decide if they wanted to keep her. But there are others who the Governor may feel more positive selecting for the spot and if that is the case she should make a run for it next time and show she is able to handle a campaign.
I would just as soon see Chelsea be appointed to her mother’s seat in the Senate, until there is an election in 2010…….. At which time, by the way, Chelsea will be old enough to run, and get elected……
I think she would fill the seat and she will have the time to show us what she is able to do. I am just thinking that she is not a political “fighter”
I may be wrong.
40 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment