People have to earn a Senate seat, it just cannot be handed to them by birth right.
We elected a President that never achieved anything and only received by the fact the he came from the womb of a well-heeled, well married and well connected walrus in pearls. Look at the results.
I would urge that the cocktail circuit limousine liberal crowd dreaming of yesterday to give this one up.
naschkatzehussein
· 11 months ago
Caroline Kennedy has done many things in an unobtrusive way, e.g., for the public school system in NY. Many people wonder what the current junior senator from NY has done for the state. Oh yes, she brought 10 jobs to the city of Buffalo. One could argue that Mrs. Clinton had the junior senator seat handed to her both times also. She was a carpetbagger the first time around with no achievements in NY. Both times she had no significant Democratic challenge, and the second time she had no significant Rebuplican challenge because they wanted her to run for the presidency from her NY seat. Mrs. Clinton did not have the senate seat handed to her from birth right but she did from the position of whom she was married to. That too is dynastic.
tbhull
· 11 months ago
I agree that Hillary was a carpetbagger and she was not as worthy of some when she was selected Senator. Once the people of New York elected her the arguments thereafter end. However, the error in selecting Clinton cannot support the error in selecting Kennedy.
I am not belittling what Caroline Kennedy has done. Many other selfless folks in New York have done much more, for much less attention and are much more deserving. Political aristocracies must end.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
are these supposed people liberal and are shoe ins to get reelected?
tbhull
· 11 months ago
The NY dem party apparatus will select a liberal and an electable candidate, as electable as Caroline Kennedy.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
I'm sorry you are not going to find someone more electable than Caroline or someone with less skeletons in her closet. Unlike the other Kennedys Caroline is squeaky clean.
jsc
· 11 months ago
Good question. But might I ask, what did Obama do to prove he could handle being President?
tbhull
· 11 months ago
He rose from nothing. No birth rights for Barack. Nonetheless, he attended Harvard Law and was editor of the Law Review. He became an Illinois state Senator and then a U.S. Senator. What else do you need?
imjussayin
· 11 months ago
I believe tbhull is referring to the current Oval Office occupant. Not the President-Elect.
Steve_in_CNJ
· 11 months ago
she'd be a reliable liberal vote in the senate. she'd still have to run for re-nomination in 2010 based on her record in the 111th congress. I'd be surprised if she turned out to be a strong, outspoken senator, but i could be wrong and meanwhile not much damage will be done.
aquarius2
· 11 months ago
My thoughts on Caroline Kennedy is that she has been reared in a family that has maintained a position of social consciousness for decades. The Kennedy's are not perfect but they have a long history of fighting for the masses and the environment. Her self-imposed privacy is probably a trait given to her by her mother but does not mean she is not up to the job of being Senator. Actually, she would probably be "cleaner" than most the pols up for the job.
elizabethcostello
· 11 months ago
A small grammatical point: you do NOT need to add apostrophes to make plurals of any words in English. The plurals of family names require only an "s" or "es." Not an apostrophe followed by an "s." So: Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes, Roosevelts, Rockefellers, Frelinghuysens, Coolidges, Adamses. And so forth. NO APOSTROPHE needed for plurals in English. This also applies to years (1960s), acronyms (radars), brand names (Dumpsters, Coca-Colas), and everything else. Just repeat to yourself, apostrophe for possession, for plurals s or es. It's very simple.
Prodigal
· 11 months ago
Question: Are we spending far too much time focusing on politicians named Kennedy and Clinton and Bush?
Answer: Yes.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
Caroline Kennedy is an intelligent, elegant, and wonderful woman. Jane Hamsher on the otherhand is a whiny POS.
Let me enlighten your Jane: Being a junior senator and 100th in seniority (which is what she'll be), is not exactly the most important job on capital hill. It's not like she'll be heading up committees or anything.
The most important thing would be appointing a reliable liberal vote who can get reelected, which Caroline is. And like what John said, we don't know how she'll be in the public eye because she has chosen to have a more private life, so why is Jane criticizing her without knowing a damn thing.
Hamsher is the whiny armchair general of the liberal movement. Sometimes I wish she would just keep quiet, because half the things she says are idiotic.
naschkatzehussein
· 11 months ago
What's a POS?
tbhull
· 11 months ago
pos = piece of shit.
snowbird42
· 11 months ago
I was a devoted FDL blogger until the Primaries. FDL and Jane never got over Hillary losing. The blog which was great during the time of Plame is just whiny now. They dont like or support Obama. Carioline would be great. She would be a junior Senator and would learn fast. We could trust her immediately. I agree with Obama lover
naschkatzehussein
· 11 months ago
They were good on the Lieberman/Lamont race too, but I have had the same feeling as you about their attitude toward Obama. I remember that very early in the primaries, Bill Clinton just happen to throw a lunch for the big name bloggers. I think John was there too, but anyway I think Bill was very successful in schmoozing the FDL ladies. They were just beside themselves.
hawkseye
· 11 months ago
Agree with all you say. Jane, however, isn't THE armchair general, she is one of several purists who enjoy bitching.
Yoyogibear
· 11 months ago
Why are Democrats so compelled to support a political dynasty. Jane's post was great.
Can anyone honestly say that there are no better Dems in NY for this role?
I disagreed with Bush worship and I disagree with it on the side of the Dems. We can do better than this.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
I don't care one way or the other if she is part of a dynasty, it's an effing senate seat. As long as she votes liberal and can get reelected why should anyone care.
"We can do better than this." You are not half the person Caroline is.
Britisher
· 11 months ago
"As long as she votes liberal and can get reelected why should anyone care".
And those are the issues.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
yeah they are. She is a Senator; not governor, not President, Senator. She has no executory power. As long as she votes yes when she is supposed to and can get reelected then she fits the bill.
Lone Tree Fox
· 11 months ago
Camelot is over except for those of us around who remember it and our numbers are dwindling by the day. I think the idea of appointing Caroline Kennedy is horrible. Give it to an ordinary, good citizen, Democrat with charisma, and get off the band wagon of dynasty continuation. It's the main reason I opposed Hillary for President. Enough is enough.
caphillprof
· 11 months ago
There is something fundamentally wrong about a democratic republic of 305 million people in which only 1,000 to 10,000 people [0.0003% to 0.0033% of the population] are in the universe of people allegedly "qualified" for leadership roles. This aristocracy of Bushes, Clintons, Kennedys, etc. cannot be good for the country. See, e.g., Charles, Prince of Wales.
Britisher
· 11 months ago
Prince of Wales doesn't set policy or legislate, for good or bad. The British Royal Family is highly constrained and is maintained by popular permission.
Your specific comparison is invalid.
caphillprof
· 11 months ago
The comparison is more than valid. HRH is a mess.
This has absolutely nothing to do with policy, legislation, constraint, permission and everything to do with declining DNA. After several generations the Vanderbilts turned to Hispanic Roman Catholic women and that got us Anderson Cooper.
Ba'al
· 11 months ago
Pretty much my thoughts, and Jane raised my concisiousness. While there are plenty of senators with less in the way of qualifications that one might point to, the vast majority at least ran a successful campaign to get there. Not so easy, it requires its own special talents. I eventually come to the point that she has done relatively few of the things one might expect to deserve consideration for this job other than to have the right parents. As a progressive, I really have to reject that. One could argue, well, what about the speech at the convention and her other advocacy efforts, and one again points out that the only reason she was given a forum to make those points was because she is a Kennedy.
This nation owes that family a debt of gratitude. But maybe not this way.
Having said that, there are things that would upset me a lot more than if she is named.
George
· 11 months ago
I just think she's smart and honorable and not that involved in politics, so I'd like her to be my Senator. I also want it to be a woman. I just do.
I see her as the best bet to keep Giuliani away from the Senate. Can you imagine that slimeball trying to smear Sweet Caroline?
Britisher
· 11 months ago
Ah yes the old dynasty issue.
The Kennedys: Grandad Joe, sons John, Robert, Ted. The Bushes: Grandad Prescott, son George H.W., grandsons Jeb, George W. The Clintons: Bill and Hillary ( not blood-related, just married contemporaries)
One of these is NOT a 'dynasty' and I really wish everyone would stop being so lazy about using the term.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
You guys act like being a Junior Senator who is 100th in seniority is the most important job next to being President. It's not.
Heck if Clinton went back to the Senate she would probably have no power, that is one of the main reason she took the SOS job. Half of the Senators have relatively little power.
Jane Hamsher is just making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is just another opportunity for her to complain.
Britisher
· 11 months ago
Fair comment ( about power, anyway). I think Hamsher is concerned about principle, really.
.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
Why didn't she express this principle when she supported the Clinton dynasty?
Britisher
· 11 months ago
The Clintons are NOT a 'dynasty' ( whereas the Bushes and the Kennedys ARE) so the comparison you've made is strictly speaking false.
However, there is an argument to be made that 'association' doesn't 'equal qualification' and that's a charge that was made against Hillary when she campaigned for Senate, and IMHO it wasn't an entirely unreasonable charge.
I don't actually have a dog in this hunt, and though it looked like I'm defending Hamsher's complaints, I was just offering a possible explanation .
A few comments up from here someone else calls Hamsher a "purity troll" , and that's rather what I meant by ''principle'.
The hell of it all is in finding the balance between principle and pragmatism in any given situation. I could take the position that Hamsher is 'wrong', and/or as you suggest. hypocritical ( based on the 'principle' cue I provided), OR I could argue that Caroline's 'qualification by association' is more important as a 'pragmatic' choice (even though it actually sounds like an emotional choice) .
But I really don't know. ( OMG! I'm suddenly an 'undecided' on this one! Dammit!).
I'm just arguing without having a position. :D
I agree with your above: "You guys act like being a Junior Senator who is 100th in seniority is the most important job next to being President. It's not.".
Is this issue a slippery slope, another nail in the coffin of Democracy ? I don;t think so but it seems Jane Hamsher thinks so ( as do some others). I don;t think that makes her a bad person or an idiot, it;s mpre a bee in the bonnet kind of thing.
Anyway that's all really. :D Just thinking out loud.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
Snowbird brought up an interesting point. Jane Hamsher supported Billary. Talk about supporting dynasties. But I guess a junior senator is more vital to the liberal movement than POTUS. Like I said before this is just another opportunity for her to whine, regardless of the fact that her piece is dripping with hypocrisy.
catdance
· 11 months ago
"Like I said before this is just another opportunity for her to whine"
This is just Hamsher's latest attempt to try and convince people she's got some relevance to ... anything. She carpetbagged her way into CT and managed to parlay volunteering for Lamont into a big fat 15 minutes of fame, when hundreds of people did more work in that campaign than she did.
kris
· 11 months ago
As a resident of NYS, more specifically the forgotten Western New York area, I have to say that I am so vehemently against this idea and cannot understand how it can even be an option. I also didn't really like Hillary carpetbagging her way in here either. WNY residents do not get equal representation anywhere in the state. Brian Higgins, please?
MnDem
· 11 months ago
Kris, thanks for posting this. Not being from New York, I've been wondering how average New Yorkers felt about this. It always seemed to me that the New York Democratic Party made the path pretty easy for Hillary Clinton so she could use the position of senator to eventually run for president. But where does that leave New York Dems who are working hard every day in your state legislature who might be really good in Washington but who'll never get the chance because they don't have the name or money?
I think part of the problem in Washington is we keep electing people who don't have any understanding of the legislative process, especially in the Senate. Caroline Kennedy may be a wonderful person, but I don't think she has any special knowledge of how to put together legislation and get it passed, nor do I think it comes through the family genes.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
"Not being from New York, I've been wondering how average New Yorkers felt about this."
You choose the one New yorker on this thread who doesn't like this selection to respond to.
Older_Wiser
· 11 months ago
"Camelot" has been dead a long time. Anyway, it was a media PR dream, and in spite of the sentimentality of having JFK's daughter in the Senate, what has she done in a public, political way? At 51, she hasn't even run for dogcatcher.
We really, really, shouldn't have an aristocracy in the US...
catdance
· 11 months ago
Not all politics are elective. As others have pointed out, Carolyn Kennedy has done much for NY and she's been a staunch supporter of Democratic candidates over the years. She knows her way around the political world with an insider's perspective -- she has the contacts and the networking skills, and she's schooled in campaigning and all it entails.
We don't have an aristocracy in the U.S. -- Nancy Reagan aside. But we do have politically active families whose children grow up more knowledgeable and aware than the average. The kids grow up with politics as a fact of life. The guests at their dinner tables are mayors, governors and heads of state -- they learn a lot simply by being who they are. I'll bet Carolyn knew more about government and politics when she was a teenager than most adult Americans ever do, and she was raised with the idea that service to one's country through involvement with government is a noble calling. All in all, I suspect she might be able to hit the ground running in DC better than some folks who have been elected to state and local office multiple times.
She shouldn't be rejected out of hand because she was born into a politically connected family. It's actually quite a strength. Odds are, being the Senator from NY wouldn't go to her head.
scottinsf
· 11 months ago
Does anybody else find it kind of creepy that Neil Diamond now says he wrote 'Sweet Caroline' about Caroline Kennedy?
"And now I, I look at the night, whooo And it don't seem so lonely We fill it up with only two, oh And when I hurt Hurting runs off my shoulder How can I hurt when holding you
Oh, one, touching one, reaching out Touching me, touching you Oh, sweet Caroline Good times never seem so good Oh I've been inclined to believe it never would"
Um, she was 11 years old when he wrote it.
tommytoonz
· 11 months ago
There is no Camelot there no matter how many or which of the Kennedy's go in to public service. Camelot needs to go away because it doesn't serve the people well. Kennedy's do serve the people, it's in their blood and from everything I've seen that's what Caroline has done for most of her adult life. I tend to agree that I don't like the idea of a big name individual parachuting into a prime (and powerful) Senate seat based on his/her fame, but what I look for in a Senator is public service and Caroline has that both in her experienced path and by nature of her family name.
cmpnwtr
· 11 months ago
Jane Hamsher is a purity troll. The Kennedy family, Caroline included, have all been supreme public servants. What has Jane Hamsher done, besides be a mouthpiece for her own ideas?
Older_Wiser
· 11 months ago
Fitzgerald holding presser...he emphasizes nothing points to Obama being involved re gov. One charge relates to an $8 million contract going to someone who donated $100K. I did read that Rezko also sang a bit on the gov...gov's wife was once a business partner of his. Oh, and the gov's home phone was tapped, also.
RitornaVincitor
· 11 months ago
I keep forgetting that for a growing majority of Americans, having Caroline Kennedy in elected office would be "having someone to carry on Ted Kennedy's legacy." I guess one has to be of a certain age to automatically think of her as carrying on John Kennedy's legacy.
High Crimes & Misdemeanors
· 11 months ago
"Having said that, I don't want to knock the allure, and benefit, of Camelot. People need dreams"
-------------------
I think the American people have been dreaming way to much!!!
I'm not a New Yorker but had concerns about her experience. Ms. Kennedy has been very busy, just doing so in the background.
Give her a chance. Not from just a "dynasty" standpoint. She's got skills, professionally and politically.
Randy
· 11 months ago
I agree. She should be given a chance. So she can run for state senator first, and learn how to operate in the state. Or she can run for school board president, since she's so good with schools. Give her a chance to be a real politician, and if she survives, after a few years, she can go up the ranks to US senator.
But to kid yourself into thinking that she has any skills to be a senator is a laugh. And if she does, then so do many other people who have been working much harder then her to improve the state. So why not 'give them a chance?"
Oh, that's right -- chances should only be given to people star power. To hell with anyone else.
MyVoice
· 11 months ago
Why dismiss another voice from the left just because she is a Kennedy? Caroline has managed to have a personal life outside of the press which is amazing to think about. She is not jumping into the limelight claiming any rights. We already know the views and ideals of the Kennedy family, we can also expect that she has the same views. Does she have to be a "spotlight" senator to be effective? She could prove herself in the 2 years before the election. I would prefer to know that the replacement shares my views than get a little known replacement that may share my views.
RevDrBillyBob
· 11 months ago
Hello ? What has HILLARY CLINTON done to show that she's "up to the job" ? She became a Senator because of who she married, PERIOD. Otherwise, she's be just another rich "limousine liberal" lawyer. ... and what has she done for the last 7 years except whatever GWB has told her to do ? But ... gosh ... I forgot that americablog is IN LOVE WITH Hillary Clinton, ever since she endorsed Obama. She's a lickspittle, a Bush-enabler, and a collaborationist, and so are Hamsher and Americablog. How can you people stand to call yourselves "progressives" ? When have you people ever stood up for ANYTHING progressive ... for longer than five minutes ? But by all means, continue your "Hillary LoveFest". Disgusting.
hawkseye
· 11 months ago
As others below have said, Caroline is just as qualified as Hillary was.
larry
· 11 months ago
Kennedy would be a placeholder with the same profile as a long standing senator. She is after all Caroline Kennedy. That would be good for NY. It would allow other individuals to build a campaign from a level playing field without the leg up of a appointment now. Kennedy has good managment skills and would do well and a good job even for NY. She would do so in an apolitical way. I don't see the problem. And some of the writers are right...Kennedy has as much experience as Hillary and New Yorkers elected her in 2000.
larry
· 11 months ago
Jackson Jr met with the govenor Monday....either he was the person worrying about the $$ or he was there and later dropped a nickel on the gov..in either case anxious Jackson will be in the House for awhile or in legal trouble. DUCKWORTH for Senate...thats Barack choice and a damn good one.
Obamalover
· 11 months ago
I agree. If she becomes Senator then she really lucked out in losing that House race.
jebauer
· 11 months ago
Caroline is a poised, intelligent, compassionate woman. What the heck are you talking about? "Public Caroline" vs. "Private Caroline"... seriously? I hear Sarah Palin's really great in public.... wanna elect her to the Senate? These are JOBS... not movie roles. It's time to pull our heads outta our butts and hire people based on their business skills, common sense and intelligence. This is ridiculous. Will we be discussing her wardrobe next?
blueoysterjoe
· 11 months ago
I would personally like to see less nepotism, even from families I admire, like the Kennedys and Clintons.
I am a realist, so I understand that nepotism will always play a role in American politics, but I prefer to hold onto the dream that merit trumps family or celebrity. Maybe Ms. Kennedy would be an _awesome_ Senator, but I would rather make that determination based on experience rather than breeding.
dcredhead73
· 11 months ago
Um -- what had Hillary Clinton done to prove that she could do the job, other than be Bill Clinton's wife?
dcredhead73
· 11 months ago
Oh and to add -- Caroline Kennedy is actually FROM New York, and had lived there than the whopping five minutes that the carpetbagger, I mean, Mrs. Clinton lived there.
She has a degree from Harvard and a law degree from Columbia. She has amazing experience working with public schools, and will no doubt be an exemplary leader in education. As a woman who actually grew up in NY and has lived there her entire adult life, she knows the state well and would be a good representative.
hawkseye
· 11 months ago
Jane Hamsher needs to read some books on pragmatic politics. She doesn't seem to get it which undermines the authority she attempts to assume.
cage free brown
· 11 months ago
I see both sides of this. on the one hand she pretty much put aside public life before the Obama campaign. on the other hand - why not 'come together' over him?
the right is pretty messy right now but they will certainly re-gain their focus and pretty quick. I think having somebody famous suddenly entering politics because of the possibilities of new leadership could be very compelling.
sure, it would be easier if she'd been more public for longer but in a way it might be a strange kind of magic since she hasn't. me, I'm cool either way. I've seen her speak on C-SPAN enough to suspect her resolve and skin are already a little tougher than Jane imagines but god bless her for saying her bit..
ivan
· 11 months ago
John says:
"Having said that, I don't want to knock the allure, and benefit, of Camelot. People need dreams. And the Kennedy family, at least to those of us on the left, has carried the torch of the American dream for five decades."
John, too bad if this sounds like i'm being a prick, but I lived through the JFK administration, and much of this Camelot shit was hype for gullible starfuckers, and there was nothing "left" about it. It was elitist from the jump. Heaven help this country if after all these years, this is what we look up to.
sconset
· 11 months ago
Hamsher is entitled to her opinion about Caroline Kennedy but apparently she knows little of her work with tthe NY Public Schools project that she has been involved in for the last several years. This woman alone has raised over $75 million to better the schools in NYC--she also has received pledges for another $50 million--she may never have held political office, but she has written terrific books about the constitution.
Being involved in public school education in NYC is just as political as anything going on in DC. Hamsher had no objections to Obama being a community organizer which Caroline was in NY--why the sudden grievance now?
I used to read FDL all the time but I had my fill of that site after the Dark face incident during the Lamont campaign in Connecticut.
As far as Caroline is concerned, I'd be more than happy to see her in that seat--she has state-wide name appeal. she is known all over NY for her work with the schools and is highly respected. There are a lot of very private people who have gone into politics and have had success.
Lauren1959
· 11 months ago
Does it take more that intellect, an understanding of the issues and the process, and an appropriate education? I think your first instinct was the right one!
Rob Mule
· 11 months ago
As important as "what has she done" is America's increasingly generational and royalty-tinged political celebrity dynamic on the elite DC-NYC-LA-Nashville-Chicago circuit...
aquarius2
· 11 months ago
I discounted FDL a long time ago. Blog owners, as a group, appear to love Jane Hamsher, I don't. She pushed Hillary even after Obama won. Then there are the comments on her blog, most of whom are tiresome sycophants. It is sickening to read some of those comments.
balabanov11
· 11 months ago
Did it ever occur to you blogheads and politicos that maybe those of us ACTUALLY IN THE STATE OF NY might be inclined to have an appointee that would care about the basic job - THE WELFARE OF THE CITIZENS OF NY STATE? Kennedy legacy my ass - I want someone whose first concern would be representing me for friggin' sake....
Chit
· 11 months ago
Bad idea. End nepotism.
renegademom
· 11 months ago
co-sign.
cage free brown
· 11 months ago
I think what Al Giordano says about this on "The Field" is well worth a read.
look, I think everything is working the way it's supposed to. The Democrats have a big tent, right? that's why the mainstream people like to pretend we're all wearing pajamas and eating M&M's in our parent's basements - they know that the Internet is to the Left what Talk Radio was to the right.
before Jane Hamsher many people just instantly thought this was a good idea. Now, because of Jane and because of the variety of voices to be heard, I have a much better idea of WHY I think it's a good idea.
let's keep hobnobbing with our fellow wizards - nobody should expect everybody to be on the same page. this is a great issue! why is it bad? why is it good? then, we make up our OWN minds. we AREN"T laying around waiting for our marching orders. that's a GOOD thing!
renegademom
· 11 months ago
I co-sign aquarius 2's comment. I find Jane Hamsher somewhat of a smarty-pants.
Nice post, John.
I went to college with Maria Shriver (at Manhattanville college, where lots of the "Kennedy girls" went). A horde of Kennedy cousins would periodically blow through, and Caroline was the only one worth a damn, if you ask me. I like Andrew Cuomo too, though.
Randy
· 11 months ago
NO! Look, I like the Kennedy's as much as any one, but this is ridiculous. I come from Buffalo, a city rather hard hit economically. Lots of it is self inflicted, and lots is due to forces beyond its control. That's true for a lot of upstate NY, which has been in a recession for the last 20 years. Does Caroline know anything at all about this? What would she do to help? I expect nothing at all.
Hillary did nothing for upstate NY, despite running her whole campaign upon it.
Secondly, there are a lot of really able politicians who DO know what to do. Brian Higgins has been a marvelous congressman, really pushing for the Buffalo region. He deserves the slot much more than Caroline.
Furthermore, while we were here in the trenches supporting Obama, pushing the blogosphere, writting letters, getting people to vote, everything to help Obama and the Dems with success, what the hell did Caroline do? Not a damn thing that I can see.
So now that the waters are all clear, she steps in to save us! Thanks, but no thanks. We don't need that kind of help.
Finally, what exactly would she do as senator from NY? What's her plan? That she's a Kennedy, so she, like, is a superior politician? In the long run, we want people who can deliver, and usually that is people who have a record of delivering. What has Caroline EVER done for the democratic party? She shows up at the convention and gives a speech.
Whoopde do.
ProgressiveMom
· 11 months ago
Yes, Upstate NY has been in a recession for 20 years, but neither Clinton nor Schumer have been able or willing to assist much. My town of Rochester is about to lose millions of federal dollars for reconstruction carefully crafted by Schumer because Rochester and the surrounding county have been unable to agree on a damned building plan!! And some of what continues to hold us back is the glorious NY state legislature, our inability to deal with our rising public school costs, and our insistence on having a boro, township, burg and village every 20 yards each with its own infrastructure to support.
Our current senators haven't delivered us from all our long-standing up-state problems. And, as much as I like Brian Higgins, he'll be in a much less effective position to help our state than Caroline Kennedy will be. For a very junior senator, she'll come in with some very senior clout, staffers all over the hill that owe her uncle, and little need to pander to special interests in order to get election funds. She'll also have a close friend in the White House, which never hurts.
Randy
· 11 months ago
You really think that she is going to work hard to help out Rochester? Has she ever even BEEN to your city? Can she find it on a map? You really think that she just has to waltz into meeting rooms and people will shower her with whatever she asks for? Gee, I bet none of the other 99 senators ever thought of that!
Another poster just said that she doesn't even need to know anything about Rochester or other parts of NY state. She can just 'delegate' those matters somehow, while she works on world peace and other Important Global Issues. She hasn't been proven in any poltiical arena -- heck,we don't even know what she stands for! But people are lining up to support her. Why? What will she actually DO for NY state? And I mean the state, not just Park Ave.
ProgressiveMom
· 11 months ago
I understand your point. Mine is: I'm not expecting her to help Rochester any more than our current senators have. The only time Clinton came here after she got elected was to fund-raise for herself or for other Democratic candidates. Not a bad reason to come, but not exactly "working hard to help out Rochester." Did you object to Clinton? Did you vote for her? Why? What did she do for Buffalo?
I can't respond to your questions about another poster's comments..
If you don't like Caroline Kennedy, that's fine with me; but don't expect whomever is selected to wave a magic wand at "upstate" NY to solve its problems. Many of those problems lie outside the control of the U.S. Senate regardless of who holds the seat.
Randy
· 11 months ago
Reading the comments, the most that anyone can say about Caroline is that she helped the public schools in NYC and raised money.
That's really terrific. I'm very glad. But what does that have to do with being a Senator from NY? She doesn't know squat about the rest of the state, which is, like, you know, the remaining 90%. You can damn well be sure she will spend all her time in NY and DC, and not a moment in the rest of it. When she spell Skaneateles and pronounce it correctly (or not laugh at the cities of Tonawanda and Cheektowaga), then she might be ready to represent the region.
Until then, this is just a vanity project for her. Sure, being a senator means knowing about international treaties and having a world stage, but its the people of the state that you are supposed to represent as well.
elizabethcostello
· 11 months ago
Are you kidding? "Being a senator means knowing about international treaties...." Do you seriously believe that all the US Senators have this grasp of politics? I mean, look at some of the buffoons who are currently installed there! Look at someone like Tom Coburn. Or Jim DeMint. Or that intellectual titan Mike Enzi! Please. Caroline Kennedy would run rings around these folks intellectually--and she would represent the people of New York State alongside her senior Senator, Chuck Schumer, who works diligently for New York, the Democratic Party, and himself, but will never command the platform that either Hillary Clinton, or any member of the Kennedy family, could.
Indigo
· 11 months ago
As a gentleman I rise in Caroline's defense.
As a politican, she doesn't need to know about the ins-and-outs of upstate New York. She needs to know the movers and shakers and the backstage makers who know those ins-and-outs and know what to do to make them run smoothly. That's how the Clan Kennedy operated all along and Caroline's at that table with the rest of them. I prefer that she remain aloof like her grandmother Rose did, but let's not kid outselves . . . she knows which ropes to pull and when to pull them.
Randy
· 11 months ago
And what evidence do you have that she knows even that little bit? Or are you just assuming that she does? She knows which ropes to pull and when to pull them? Please -- give us at least one or two examples where she actually did that in the past in New York. I'd love to hear about how experienced she really is.
Caroline Kennedy is very accomplished. She is a lawyer (with the New York and DC bars) and a published author, has been a longtime champion and advocate of public education and educational reform, has worked closely with the John F. Kennedy Library and Foundation, and founded the Profiles in Courage award, among her other achievements. Unlike some other dynastic types, she would bring quite a bit of star power, along with intellectual heft, to her seat, which New York needs. She is also close to the President Elect, so that would help the state as well. My main concern would be that she would not be vocal enough, but New York had for many years as its senior senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who was quite softspoken but a real force, intellectually and politically. Caroline Kennedy could match that. My question is, would she want to hold onto seat, and also campaign all over New York state?
Shawn
· 11 months ago
It's funny that you mention the end of Camelot and the Clinton/Bush era, as well. Here in NY it's a great guessing game as to who Gov. Paterson will appoint, but he is very lukewarm to Caroline. He doesn't feel that she will be aggressive enough to fight for NY's best interests in the Senate. It's also funny because a name that is bubbling right now to replace Clinto(much to the chagrin of the SR. Senator from NY, Chuck Schumer) is none other than Clinton-----BILL!! Many feel he's go the kind of clout to wield a strong sword and it's not unprecedented in history. John Adams served as a very successful Senator after his term as President.
sisterfaith
· 11 months ago
It's really none of my business.....not being a New Yorker....but I like Andrew Cuomo !
TampaZeke
· 11 months ago
How many years was it again that Hillary had in elected office before she ran for NY Senator? She was a Presidents wife. Caroline was a Senator/President's daughter and another couple of Senators' neice and a First Lady of California's cousin. Sounds like she is every bit as qualified to be NY Senator as Hillary was and I think Hillary's been a hell of a good Senator.
Bostonian_Queer_in_Dallas
· 11 months ago
Caroline Kennedy may not have much experience but she sure is a helluva lot better than anything the Bush Family could ever breed.
elizabethcostello
· 11 months ago
John Adams was not a "Senator" after serving as president! His son, John Quincy Adams, served as a Representative after losing the election to Andrew Jackson. And yes, John Quincy Adams was far better as a Congressman than as a President.
Randy
· 11 months ago
Wow! Caroline is a lawyer! She wrote a book! She even founded an award!
Well, with credentials like that, there simply is no competition. And heck, now she DOESN'T need to know anything about the state, certainly not those upstate hicks. As long as she knows how to smooze, then that's all we need as a senator.
Good message to send to aspiring young politicians -- don't even try! You can be really terrific, but what matters is star power -- and the image of hope!
Tell me again WHY she wants to be a senator? Has she even articulated what she hopes to accomplish or do? Here's a better suggestion -- run for School Board President of the NYC schools. That's seems to be her strength, as her suppoters contend, so let he run the schools.
Unless, of course, that's beneath her highness' dignity.
sweetie
· 11 months ago
Isn't there anyone in New York qualified to be a Senator besides a Kennedy or a Cuomo? Enough with the family dynasties already!! And that whole Camelot thing was a nice fantasy while it lasted, but that was 40-plus years ago--two generations!!! Come on, let's move beyond this ruling family stuff.
Randy
· 11 months ago
Kathleen Townsend Kennedy was governor of the state of Maryland for one term. She brought hope, Camelot, was socially progressive. She was elegant, smart and well connected.
After one term, the citizens threw her out. She was a pretty medicre governor, and a Republican beat her.
so please don't give me this crap that Caroline will somehow -- without any track record whatsosever in politics -- is going to do better. That's as bad as republicans hoping that Iraq is going to get better any day now.
I'll ask AGAIN -- what is her plan for New York State? Why does she want the job? It's so surprising that people will put her in the space without knowing even basic facts. Are we really that desparate that we need a Kennedy to save us? And that NO one out there will do at least as good a job, if not better? You really are so sure of that? Please....
Skepticat
· 11 months ago
As a compromise candidate (for those who don't like dynasties), how about Caroline Schlossberg?
bellesouth
· 11 months ago
Give Caroline a break. Hell, she could probably do it, but maybe she wasn't ready yet and is now. Just the fact that Ruth Marcus agrees with her shows that it is nitpicking. Caroline could be good. I say why not? OBTW, I love Jane, but we don't have to be cynical all the time, do we?
Randy
· 11 months ago
You're right. We should give Sarah Palin a break. No doubt she could be a vice-president. She could be good. I say why not? Do we have to by cynical all the time? Sarah is elegant, tall, and wears nice clothes too, afterall. And look how she cleaned up Alaska!
Sheesh -- is that all it takes to get votes in America? Just shrug your shoulders, know nothing at all about a person's ideas or platform, and just 'trust' them to do the right thing? Isn't that how we got Bush in the first place?
Tyke
· 11 months ago
There is so very much ignoble about American politics that one tiny ray of nobility would only begin to balance it out.
SoCali
· 11 months ago
John, a few years back was a Ted Stevens/Ronald Reagan right-winger. He worked for and admires Stevens. To write that entry that seemingly glosses over his gymnastical poliical transformation borders on hilarious. Here is John pretending his political views have consistency, "And the Kennedy family, at least to those of us on the left, has carried the torch of the American dream for five decades." What a deeb.
Bubbles
· 11 months ago
The Kennedy people are rich people who consistently advocate smart policies on behalf of the poor.
Until she proves that she is otherwise, I'll back her.
I am poor, and she is my advocate.
DougStamate
· 11 months ago
I have not seen anywhere that Caroline Kennedy has stated that she feels that the seat currently held by Sen. Clinton is "rightfully" hers once it becomes vacant. Since I also don't believe blog posting endows one with the ability to read minds, let's just look at this with a pragmatic eye: If Gov. Paterson is considering Caroline Kennedy for the seat currently held by Sen. Clinton, the first question that should be asked is: Why Caroline Kennedy? Why not someone else? Because it's her right to have the seat if she wants it? No. Because he can't think of anyone better qualified? Probably also a no. Because he wants to p*ss off Jane Hamsher? Definitely not that! More than likely It's simply because Caroline Kennedy would be a safe (and popular) choice; both for the governor and for the NY state Democratic Party. She would be the most junior Senator in that assemblage and a reliable vote for the Democratic caucus. If she does well, there would be no problem in her running for election in 2010 - who's going to oppose her? Either in the primary or the general election? One less seat to worry about in 2010; that's something not to be lightly dismissed. Should she decide to only serve for two years, then the Democratic Party in NY state has two years to find a suitable candidate. And remember, two years also gives the Republicans plenty of time find someone to run. And there may be enough dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration by then to help fuel such a run. The arguement that she hasn't been "tested" by campaigning for the job also applies to anyone else; unless Gov. Paterson appoints someone who has run for the Senate - and lost.
doggril
· 11 months ago
Hamsher is dead wrong. She thinks Kennedy has lived a private life? By what standards? No, Kennedy doesn't show up on Hamsher's teevee on Entertainment Tonight; but, geez, all you have to do is look at her Wiki entry to see that the woman has a great background to take over Hillary's seat. I would dare anyone to just read that entry and ignore the name "Kennedy" and try to argue that someone with her background would not be qualified. I hope she gets it.
kit
· 11 months ago
I'm not a fan of dynasties either. But I'm surprised at how few note the irony. Caroline Kennedy is the niece of Senator Edward Moore Kennedy. When he first ran for elected office at the age of 29 in 1962, his pimrary opponent indignantly remarked that "If your name was Edward Moore, you wouldn't be here" (or words to that effect).
How'd that work out?
Just sayin'...
Extra irony points for the fact that the indignant opponent was Edward McCormack, nephew of the the then Speaker of the House, John W. McCormack and that Edward McCormack, of course, owed his own position as Massachusetts attorney general to his relationship with his famous uncle.
All Comments
We elected a President that never achieved anything and only received by the fact the he came from the womb of a well-heeled, well married and well connected walrus in pearls. Look at the results.
I would urge that the cocktail circuit limousine liberal crowd dreaming of yesterday to give this one up.
I am not belittling what Caroline Kennedy has done. Many other selfless folks in New York have done much more, for much less attention and are much more deserving. Political aristocracies must end.
Answer: Yes.
Let me enlighten your Jane: Being a junior senator and 100th in seniority (which is what she'll be), is not exactly the most important job on capital hill. It's not like she'll be heading up committees or anything.
The most important thing would be appointing a reliable liberal vote who can get reelected, which Caroline is. And like what John said, we don't know how she'll be in the public eye because she has chosen to have a more private life, so why is Jane criticizing her without knowing a damn thing.
Hamsher is the whiny armchair general of the liberal movement. Sometimes I wish she would just keep quiet, because half the things she says are idiotic.
Carioline would be great. She would be a junior Senator and would learn fast. We could trust her immediately.
I agree with Obama lover
Can anyone honestly say that there are no better Dems in NY for this role?
I disagreed with Bush worship and I disagree with it on the side of the Dems. We can do better than this.
"We can do better than this." You are not half the person Caroline is.
And those are the issues.
The British Royal Family is highly constrained and is maintained by popular permission.
Your specific comparison is invalid.
This has absolutely nothing to do with policy, legislation, constraint, permission and everything to do with declining DNA. After several generations the Vanderbilts turned to Hispanic Roman Catholic women and that got us Anderson Cooper.
This nation owes that family a debt of gratitude. But maybe not this way.
Having said that, there are things that would upset me a lot more than if she is named.
I see her as the best bet to keep Giuliani away from the Senate. Can you imagine that slimeball trying to smear Sweet Caroline?
The Kennedys: Grandad Joe, sons John, Robert, Ted.
The Bushes: Grandad Prescott, son George H.W., grandsons Jeb, George W.
The Clintons: Bill and Hillary ( not blood-related, just married contemporaries)
One of these is NOT a 'dynasty' and I really wish everyone would stop being so lazy about using the term.
Heck if Clinton went back to the Senate she would probably have no power, that is one of the main reason she took the SOS job. Half of the Senators have relatively little power.
Jane Hamsher is just making a mountain out of a mole hill. This is just another opportunity for her to complain.
.
However, there is an argument to be made that 'association' doesn't 'equal qualification' and that's a charge that was made against Hillary when she campaigned for Senate, and IMHO it wasn't an entirely unreasonable charge.
I don't actually have a dog in this hunt, and though it looked like I'm defending Hamsher's complaints, I was just offering a possible explanation .
A few comments up from here someone else calls Hamsher a "purity troll" , and that's rather what I meant by ''principle'.
The hell of it all is in finding the balance between principle and pragmatism in any given situation. I could take the position that Hamsher is 'wrong', and/or as you suggest. hypocritical ( based on the 'principle' cue I provided), OR I could argue that Caroline's 'qualification by association' is more important as a 'pragmatic' choice (even though it actually sounds like an emotional choice) .
But I really don't know. ( OMG! I'm suddenly an 'undecided' on this one! Dammit!).
I'm just arguing without having a position. :D
I agree with your above:
"You guys act like being a Junior Senator who is 100th in seniority is the most important job next to being President. It's not.".
Is this issue a slippery slope, another nail in the coffin of Democracy ? I don;t think so but it seems Jane Hamsher thinks so ( as do some others). I don;t think that makes her a bad person or an idiot, it;s mpre a bee in the bonnet kind of thing.
Anyway that's all really. :D Just thinking out loud.
This is just Hamsher's latest attempt to try and convince people she's got some relevance to ... anything. She carpetbagged her way into CT and managed to parlay volunteering for Lamont into a big fat 15 minutes of fame, when hundreds of people did more work in that campaign than she did.
Brian Higgins, please?
I think part of the problem in Washington is we keep electing people who don't have any understanding of the legislative process, especially in the Senate. Caroline Kennedy may be a wonderful person, but I don't think she has any special knowledge of how to put together legislation and get it passed, nor do I think it comes through the family genes.
You choose the one New yorker on this thread who doesn't like this selection to respond to.
We really, really, shouldn't have an aristocracy in the US...
We don't have an aristocracy in the U.S. -- Nancy Reagan aside. But we do have politically active families whose children grow up more knowledgeable and aware than the average. The kids grow up with politics as a fact of life. The guests at their dinner tables are mayors, governors and heads of state -- they learn a lot simply by being who they are. I'll bet Carolyn knew more about government and politics when she was a teenager than most adult Americans ever do, and she was raised with the idea that service to one's country through involvement with government is a noble calling. All in all, I suspect she might be able to hit the ground running in DC better than some folks who have been elected to state and local office multiple times.
She shouldn't be rejected out of hand because she was born into a politically connected family. It's actually quite a strength. Odds are, being the Senator from NY wouldn't go to her head.
"And now I, I look at the night, whooo
And it don't seem so lonely
We fill it up with only two, oh
And when I hurt
Hurting runs off my shoulder
How can I hurt when holding you
Oh, one, touching one, reaching out
Touching me, touching you
Oh, sweet Caroline
Good times never seem so good
Oh I've been inclined to believe it never would"
Um, she was 11 years old when he wrote it.
-------------------
I think the American people have been dreaming way to much!!!
I'm not a New Yorker but had concerns about her experience. Ms. Kennedy has been very busy, just doing so in the background.
Give her a chance. Not from just a "dynasty" standpoint. She's got skills, professionally and politically.
But to kid yourself into thinking that she has any skills to be a senator is a laugh. And if she does, then so do many other people who have been working much harder then her to improve the state. So why not 'give them a chance?"
Oh, that's right -- chances should only be given to people star power. To hell with anyone else.
I am a realist, so I understand that nepotism will always play a role in American politics, but I prefer to hold onto the dream that merit trumps family or celebrity. Maybe Ms. Kennedy would be an _awesome_ Senator, but I would rather make that determination based on experience rather than breeding.
She has a degree from Harvard and a law degree from Columbia. She has amazing experience working with public schools, and will no doubt be an exemplary leader in education. As a woman who actually grew up in NY and has lived there her entire adult life, she knows the state well and would be a good representative.
the right is pretty messy right now but they will certainly re-gain their focus and pretty quick. I think having somebody famous suddenly entering politics because of the possibilities of new leadership could be very compelling.
sure, it would be easier if she'd been more public for longer but in a way it might be a strange kind of magic since she hasn't. me, I'm cool either way. I've seen her speak on C-SPAN enough to suspect her resolve and skin are already a little tougher than Jane imagines but god bless her for saying her bit..
"Having said that, I don't want to knock the allure, and benefit, of Camelot. People need dreams. And the Kennedy family, at least to those of us on the left, has carried the torch of the American dream for five decades."
John, too bad if this sounds like i'm being a prick, but I lived through the JFK administration, and much of this Camelot shit was hype for gullible starfuckers, and there was nothing "left" about it. It was elitist from the jump. Heaven help this country if after all these years, this is what we look up to.
Being involved in public school education in NYC is just as political as anything going on in DC. Hamsher had no objections to Obama being a community organizer which Caroline was in NY--why the sudden grievance now?
I used to read FDL all the time but I had my fill of that site after the Dark face incident during the Lamont campaign in Connecticut.
As far as Caroline is concerned, I'd be more than happy to see her in that seat--she has state-wide name appeal. she is known all over NY for her work with the schools and is highly respected. There are a lot of very private people who have gone into politics and have had success.
Kennedy legacy my ass - I want someone whose first concern would be representing me for friggin' sake....
look, I think everything is working the way it's supposed to. The Democrats have a big tent, right? that's why the mainstream people like to pretend we're all wearing pajamas and eating M&M's in our parent's basements - they know that the Internet is to the Left what Talk Radio was to the right.
before Jane Hamsher many people just instantly thought this was a good idea. Now, because of Jane and because of the variety of voices to be heard, I have a much better idea of WHY I think it's a good idea.
let's keep hobnobbing with our fellow wizards - nobody should expect everybody to be on the same page. this is a great issue! why is it bad? why is it good? then, we make up our OWN minds. we AREN"T laying around waiting for our marching orders. that's a GOOD thing!
Nice post, John.
I went to college with Maria Shriver (at Manhattanville college, where lots of the "Kennedy girls" went). A horde of Kennedy cousins would periodically blow through, and Caroline was the only one worth a damn, if you ask me. I like Andrew Cuomo too, though.
Hillary did nothing for upstate NY, despite running her whole campaign upon it.
Secondly, there are a lot of really able politicians who DO know what to do. Brian Higgins has been a marvelous congressman, really pushing for the Buffalo region. He deserves the slot much more than Caroline.
Furthermore, while we were here in the trenches supporting Obama, pushing the blogosphere, writting letters, getting people to vote, everything to help Obama and the Dems with success, what the hell did Caroline do? Not a damn thing that I can see.
So now that the waters are all clear, she steps in to save us! Thanks, but no thanks. We don't need that kind of help.
Finally, what exactly would she do as senator from NY? What's her plan? That she's a Kennedy, so she, like, is a superior politician? In the long run, we want people who can deliver, and usually that is people who have a record of delivering. What has Caroline EVER done for the democratic party? She shows up at the convention and gives a speech.
Whoopde do.
Our current senators haven't delivered us from all our long-standing up-state problems. And, as much as I like Brian Higgins, he'll be in a much less effective position to help our state than Caroline Kennedy will be. For a very junior senator, she'll come in with some very senior clout, staffers all over the hill that owe her uncle, and little need to pander to special interests in order to get election funds. She'll also have a close friend in the White House, which never hurts.
Another poster just said that she doesn't even need to know anything about Rochester or other parts of NY state. She can just 'delegate' those matters somehow, while she works on world peace and other Important Global Issues. She hasn't been proven in any poltiical arena -- heck,we don't even know what she stands for! But people are lining up to support her. Why? What will she actually DO for NY state? And I mean the state, not just Park Ave.
I can't respond to your questions about another poster's comments..
If you don't like Caroline Kennedy, that's fine with me; but don't expect whomever is selected to wave a magic wand at "upstate" NY to solve its problems. Many of those problems lie outside the control of the U.S. Senate regardless of who holds the seat.
That's really terrific. I'm very glad. But what does that have to do with being a Senator from NY? She doesn't know squat about the rest of the state, which is, like, you know, the remaining 90%. You can damn well be sure she will spend all her time in NY and DC, and not a moment in the rest of it. When she spell Skaneateles and pronounce it correctly (or not laugh at the cities of Tonawanda and Cheektowaga), then she might be ready to represent the region.
Until then, this is just a vanity project for her. Sure, being a senator means knowing about international treaties and having a world stage, but its the people of the state that you are supposed to represent as well.
As a politican, she doesn't need to know about the ins-and-outs of upstate New York. She needs to know the movers and shakers and the backstage makers who know those ins-and-outs and know what to do to make them run smoothly. That's how the Clan Kennedy operated all along and Caroline's at that table with the rest of them. I prefer that she remain aloof like her grandmother Rose did, but let's not kid outselves . . . she knows which ropes to pull and when to pull them.
http://politicalwire.com/archives/2008/12/09/ke...
Well, with credentials like that, there simply is no competition. And heck, now she DOESN'T need to know anything about the state, certainly not those upstate hicks. As long as she knows how to smooze, then that's all we need as a senator.
Good message to send to aspiring young politicians -- don't even try! You can be really terrific, but what matters is star power -- and the image of hope!
Tell me again WHY she wants to be a senator? Has she even articulated what she hopes to accomplish or do? Here's a better suggestion -- run for School Board President of the NYC schools. That's seems to be her strength, as her suppoters contend, so let he run the schools.
Unless, of course, that's beneath her highness' dignity.
After one term, the citizens threw her out. She was a pretty medicre governor, and a Republican beat her.
so please don't give me this crap that Caroline will somehow -- without any track record whatsosever in politics -- is going to do better. That's as bad as republicans hoping that Iraq is going to get better any day now.
I'll ask AGAIN -- what is her plan for New York State? Why does she want the job? It's so surprising that people will put her in the space without knowing even basic facts. Are we really that desparate that we need a Kennedy to save us? And that NO one out there will do at least as good a job, if not better? You really are so sure of that? Please....
Sheesh -- is that all it takes to get votes in America? Just shrug your shoulders, know nothing at all about a person's ideas or platform, and just 'trust' them to do the right thing? Isn't that how we got Bush in the first place?
What a deeb.
Until she proves that she is otherwise, I'll back her.
I am poor, and she is my advocate.
If Gov. Paterson is considering Caroline Kennedy for the seat currently held by Sen. Clinton, the first question that should be asked is: Why Caroline Kennedy? Why not someone else?
Because it's her right to have the seat if she wants it? No.
Because he can't think of anyone better qualified? Probably also a no.
Because he wants to p*ss off Jane Hamsher? Definitely not that!
More than likely It's simply because Caroline Kennedy would be a safe (and popular) choice; both for the governor and for the NY state Democratic Party. She would be the most junior Senator in that assemblage and a reliable vote for the Democratic caucus. If she does well, there would be no problem in her running for election in 2010 - who's going to oppose her? Either in the primary or the general election? One less seat to worry about in 2010; that's something not to be lightly dismissed.
Should she decide to only serve for two years, then the Democratic Party in NY state has two years to find a suitable candidate. And remember, two years also gives the Republicans plenty of time find someone to run. And there may be enough dissatisfaction with the Obama Administration by then to help fuel such a run.
The arguement that she hasn't been "tested" by campaigning for the job also applies to anyone else; unless Gov. Paterson appoints someone who has run for the Senate - and lost.
I hope she gets it.
How'd that work out?
Just sayin'...
Extra irony points for the fact that the indignant opponent was Edward McCormack, nephew of the the then Speaker of the House, John W. McCormack and that Edward McCormack, of course, owed his own position as Massachusetts attorney general to his relationship with his famous uncle.