Who Plays...Who Pays.

Unfortunately, we have a ruling aristocracy in our country. The need for massive amounts of money has made it impossible for very capable people to get elected. The basic requirements for a campaign make American elections the preserve to those with name recognition or the ability to arm wrestle funds out of sugar daddies and mummies. Merits: no place. Connections and connectivity is everything. I wish i could pick up the phone and tell a governor I wanted a Senate seat.

Make it interesting, appoint Spitzer.

My best contributions to the subject all come from other threads:
.
Here we face the classic chicken and egg problem. Do we write about 'celebrities' because people are interested in them or are people interested in them because they're written about? When you consider the compensation differential between stars and all the thousands of other people who are equally talented but haven't busted through the radar, you realize how utterly arbitrary the whole process is. MSM outlets like Time would do us all a valuable service if they actual took educating their readers about non-shiny objects seriously, but in today's world, that's probably too much to ask.
.
Jay's going to work for Biden reminds me that the actual battle lines in this country aren't between the right and the left. They are between the 'serious' and the 'unserious'
.
If you aren't part of the solution then you are part of the problem
.
In other words, it's nice of Joe to note that name recognition should not be the first and formost qualification for public office, but one single blog post is not going to begin to dent the culture than not only makes it possible but virtually insists on it.

"but (Senator Clinton) came attached to a moveable media carnival"
.
You are being far too modest Joe. You have the relationship reversed.
Some unserious writers even felt the need to write about her laugh. Hard to believe, I know.

I love how most of the press who spent months decrying political dynasties when it came to Clinton are falling all over Caroline. Good to see an alternate view from you.

The playing field will never be leveled because money and connections always help. But at least make the effort to run for office rather than demanding it be handed to you.

Well by definition Joe you are also not self-effacing - in fact, you would be hard pressed to say that anyone who runs for office is self-effacing. what's your point.
.
You think Paterson should pick "an honorary, non-political (but Democratic) appointee, a person of real, world-class, distinction who would never normally serve in the Senate," Until this week that would have included Kennedy. Hard to see why her actual interest in doing the job should take her out of contention.
.
If we're to have a meritocracy we can't exclude meritorious people just because they're related to people who have previously run for office.
.
I'm curious why we didn't see any of these stories when it was RFK Jr who was thinking about running for the office.

PaulD: Jay's going to work for Biden reminds me that the actual battle lines in this country aren't between the right and the left. They are between the 'serious' and the 'unserious.' And, of course, the 'serious' are, by-in-large, the utterly wrong on any issue they are deemed 'serious' about and are therefore the only ones the media consults. Drum has a very nice post on that particular issue today: Robert Samuelson's latest maunderings in the Washington Post.
.
And what james said on Monday, December 15, 2008 at 10:20 pm
.
Still waiting for that post on the bipartisan Senate report on torture.

To lump all the famous people together, as if they are all alike, is rather insulting, don't you think? Hillary has a famous name, Caroline has a famous name; they are alike, and they shouldn't be rewarded like other people should.
.
And the recommendation of Harold Varmus is bizarrely absurd. Isn't this the same guy who stood in the way of AIDS research?
.
As for all those others Klein has listed. Have any of them shown any interest in going into politics or wanting the Senate seat? It's not a medal for good service in another arena. It does require some affinity for the job.

How is nominating someone for "unserious" reasons as you define them less genuine than eliminating from consideration for reasons like "Era of Big Strange Political Families"
.
And bonus points for taking a shot at Jesse Jr for reasons we can all assume tie into your dishonest statements about Wright.

I know this is fighting a losing battle, but HRC helped build the Clinton "dynasty." Any reasonable person could see that without HRC, there may never have been a President Clinton. OTOH, Dubya and Caroline Kennedy are benefiting from being part of a dynasty they had no part in building. It's not even close to being equivalent. The people who opposed HRC for dynastic reasons - as opposed to change reasons, which is fair - were always basing their reasoning on a sexist and/or illogical double standard: It's fine for a President to build his career with the help of his wife (FDR, etc.) but it's wrong for his wife to then benefit in her own career from the work she did for her husband.
--
If Chealsea decides to run for the Senate in 10 years, then she's a cliche dynasty candidate. But not HRC.
--
If we're to have a meritocracy we can't exclude meritorious people just because they're related to people who have previously run for office.
--
Kathy, I can't tell you how many times I felt the same way during the primaries! Obviously Joe is not explicitly saying that people should be disqualified because of their family connections, but I do think it's fair to interpret his post that way. And yes, that is ridiculous.

And bonus points for taking a shot at Jesse Jr for reasons we can all assume tie into your dishonest statements about Wright.
--
He may have been referring to the infamous "tears and Katrina" HRC attack, which did suggest an astonishing level of arrogance. There are many reasons to dislike Jesse Jackson Jr.

Jaysus, I hope Klein was squawking about celebrity politicians when Scwarzenegger went from 'acting' to Governator back in the day. Talk about an unserious previous career.
.
I find a lot of these objections to Caroline rather disingenuous.
.
BTW, when can we look forward to Klein's expose on dynastic nepotism in journalism? The husband/wife, father/son, mother/daughter infiltration of our fourth estate should alarm us all! Why isn't Klein out protesting Luke Russert and his floppy unprofessional hair?

I doubt it Rose as he added that after "Era of Big Strange Political Families"
But I do admire your ability to never disappoint.

rose - and my reasons for preferring Obama over Clinton were not anti-dynastic, or even that being first lady wasn't a "qualification," which was a bizarre argument, since she'd been a senator longer than Obama.
.
I think Caroline is qualified to be senator. This is quite aside from the question of whether there are others who, for any number of reasons, would be better suited to be New York's next senator. My points here (and on the last thread)are to argue against the idea that she shouldn't be senator for reasons of qualifications or dynasty
.
.
It's also true that I'd be happy to see Caroline in the senate being a champion of education and my privacy rights.

nibblybits - good point.

rose: I'm supportive Caroline for senator from my state, but if she tries to run for president based on her current resume, or even Hillary's, I would be against it. She's not qualified and neither was Hillary IMO. My double standard would be based on the office, not their gender.

Interesting post. All of these people are more accomplished than Caroline Kennedy.

.

I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention the precedent here of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who hadn't held office when he first won his senate seat, but had a remarkable career, both in and out of the Senate.

I just don't see what qualifies her for a Senate seat. It's pretty obvious that if not for her last name and political connections no one would even be considering her. And I do think that for at least the time being, Americans are by and large souring on these political dynasties. However, it would not surprise me if she were to get the appointment. This seems to be the way of the world. My X relative was famous once, therefore I should get to be famous too!

Interesting post. All of these people are more accomplished than Caroline Kennedy.

.

I'm a bit surprised you didn't mention the precedent here of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, who hadn't held office when he first won his senate seat, but had a remarkable career, both in and out of the Senate.

I doubt it Rose as he added that after "Era of Big Strange Political Families"
But I do admire your ability to never disappoint.
--
Did I wrong you in some way in another lifetime?? Anyway, you're probably right. But Jesse Jackson Jr. is not the best person to rest a "dynasties are not necessarily problematic" argument on. Defending him from bad journalism is like defending Geraldine Ferraro from bad journalism: I know it should be done, but I find it difficult to defend people I hate so much.

Are we done flogging this horse? I think you can view this in two different ways:

1. What's best for Obama in the next two years? who is going to support his agenda in the Senate and vote with him?

2. What is the best situation for the Patterson and the Democratic party in NY state for retaining this seat over the long term? Who has the ability to attract the upstate vote, has name recognition, is politically savvy and the ability to raise large amounts of cash?

You might not be able to find the same person (i.e., Kennedy) who will address both scenarios.

I leave the dynasty stuff to the historians. I am not, and probably will never be in that sphere of influence.

Now I have a REAL reason to oppose the appointment of Caroline Kennedy

queencersei: Yes, how astute to point out that if Caroline Kennedy was a whole 'nother person, we would not think of her as Caroline Kennedy.

SG: our minimum daily of requirement Joe Lieberman hate has been met for today.

rose83
.
Just for the sake of curiosity, why DO you hate Jesse Jackson Jr?