by Geraldine Baum and Mark Z. Barabak
Caroline Kennedy, the daughter of America's most fabled Democratic dynasty, abruptly dropped her bid for a U.S. Senate seat early today, standing aside even though she was widely considered the front-runner to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Her move came despite speculation -- and some published reports -- that New York Gov. David Paterson was about to give her the job. Kennedy, 51, has never run for office but enjoyed the support of powerful allies in New York and Washington. Her uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy of Massachusetts, was among her chief patrons.
Caroline Kennedy released a one-sentence statement hours after the New York Post broke the story: "I informed Governor Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate."
Her statement followed several hours of rumor-filled intrigue in which competing news organizations alternately reported that she was -- or was not -- abandoning her candidacy.
The reports changed hour by hour, from source to source, unfolding at virtually the same time that Clinton resigned her seat after being sworn in as Secretary of State. The contradictions made an already prolonged selection process seem all the more chaotic.
Even without Kennedy in the running, there remains no shortage of candidates interested in replacing Clinton. The best known is state Atty. Gen. Andrew Cuomo, who was once married to Kerry Kennedy, Caroline Kennedy's cousin. Paterson, who has sole responsibility for filling the vacancy, was expected to announce his choice in the next few days.
Photo of Caroline Kennedy above by Win McNamee/Getty Images. For more on Kennedy, see the Los Angeles Times report and see it here in the Swamp:
Kennedy surprised many by expressing an interest in the Senate seat. She generally steered clear of electoral politics after living in the White House as a little girl, then growing up in seclusion after the 1963 assassination of her father, President Kennedy. She was inspired to assume a more public role, she said, by the candidacy of Barack Obama, who drew timely endorsements from Caroline Kennedy and her uncle during the contentious Democratic primaries.
After contacting Paterson and asking to be considered, Kennedy emerged as the front-runner for the appointment -- at least in the eyes of the media. She hired a team of experienced political professionals to promote her candidacy with a campaign-style blitz. Among key backers were aides to New York Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg and some of New York's powerful labor leaders. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada also spoke favorably of Kennedy's bid.
But a tour of Upstate New York and a series of media interviews in December did little to enhance her prospects. Kennedy was vague in some of her answers, peevish toward reporters and was widely mocked for her repeated use of "um" and "you know."
A recent poll by Quinnipiac University showed slipping support for Kennedy, with a plurality favoring Cuomo, son of the state's former governor, Mario Cuomo, to fill the seat. Only 37% of those surveyed said they believed Kennedy would make a good senator.
"A lot of political insiders in New York thought maybe she could get appointed, but within two years she couldn't get elected," said Bill Lynch, a longtime Democratic operative who has been advising Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney in her bid succeed Clinton.
Under state law, Paterson's appointee must stand for reelection in 2010, when the governor will also seek election for the first time. Paterson assumed the job last year after Eliot Spitzer stepped down amid a sex scandal.
Despite speculation he had settled on Kennedy, Paterson consistently denied he was leaning any particular direction. Speaking to reporters Monday, the governor said he had narrowed his selection to a handful of finalists, but declined to offer a number or any names.
Paterson made the case for appointing a woman to replace Clinton, but said that would not be the sole criteria. Lately, the governor said, he had given greater weight to concerns about the economy and how New York's next senator would address the issue.
People who know Paterson say he may have been irked by the aggressive politicking by Kennedy and her backers, and the presumption in some quarters that she was a shoo-in for the job.
"This governor doesn't want to be told what to do," said Hank Sheinkopf, a Democratic strategist who has watched the Senate maneuvering from the sidelines. "What he should do, he does the opposite. Why? He's tired of being treated like he's an accidental governor. He's doing what he wants to do, what he thinks is right for the state, for his party and, yes, for him."
Other Senate prospects include U.S. Reps. Steve Israel and Kirsten Gillibrand, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown and Randi Weingarten, New York-based president of the 1.4-million member American Federation of Teachers.
Comments
The actual text of the message was:
"I you know...informed Governor Paterson today that you know for personal reasons I am you know... withdrawing my name from consideration for the you know... United States Senate."
Posted by: crobb | January 22, 2009 8:19 AM
I think her heart wasn't really in it to begin with; that she must have known she'd be in WAY over her head if she got the appointment; plus there are indications that Patterson was balking. She did the right thing.
Posted by: MJ | January 22, 2009 8:21 AM
Bungled to the end.
Posted by: Kenny Bunkport ✌ | January 22, 2009 8:27 AM
Kudos to Caroline Kennedy! I'm very proud of her for waking up and realizing just how bad of a senator she would become.
Posted by: Bill G | January 22, 2009 8:35 AM
Thank goodness the Sarah Palin of the East Coast social elite has decided that she would not be the best-qualified person for the job and withdrew her name from consideration. That is good news for the Nation and even better news for New York.
Posted by: Mark | January 22, 2009 8:51 AM
Hey, the NY governor should be given credit for the fact that he recognized that she was woefully lacking in any meaningful experience, media hype notwithstanding.
Posted by: Bob | January 22, 2009 9:21 AM
I think Ms Kennedy-Schlossberg would have made a great Senator from New York. There is no doubt about her commitment to America, nor of her being corrupted by the system. She is a mother, a wife and the daughter of a fallen President.
I think any state, in their right mind, would be proud to have an individual of that caliber, representing their state, in our Senate.
I hope she will reconsider, in the future, when her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy, recovers from his health problems, may the good Lord willing !!
SUPPORT OUR TROOPS, BRING THEM HOME, ALIVE AND WHOLE. NOW.
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | January 22, 2009 9:29 AM
Let's see--Gov. David Paterson (who was launched into politics by his famous father) won't appoint Caroline Kennedy (only known for her father) but is instead considering Andrew Cuomo (launched into politics because of his famous father) to be senator alongside Hillary Clinton (wife of you-know-who).
Aren't there any Democrats in New York who earn their position on their own?
Posted by: Dissent is Patriotic | January 22, 2009 9:30 AM
"I informed Governor Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate."
I think that's edited text. I truly believe it went something a little like this:
"I, ya know, informed Governor Paterson today that for, ya know, personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from, um, consideration for the United States Senate, ya know?."
Posted by: JayKo | January 22, 2009 9:40 AM
No great loss, at least there was public discourse. We got stuck with three time reject, pay for play, race card Burris thanks to the Democratic crooks in Il. The "si se puede" crowd may be disappointed, but maybe NY and the country will get a qualified individual.
Posted by: Bubba Porter | January 22, 2009 9:48 AM
wow, I'm well, you know, I'm crushed, you know, she quit so, well you know, so easy!!
Man, you know, that is a , you know, shame since she ' you know, thought she was entitled, and, Uncle Teddy, you know, didn't get his, you know, groove on!!!!
Posted by: frank | January 22, 2009 9:51 AM
I believe this a wise choice. Name alone isn't enough to serve the people.
Posted by: bill r. | January 22, 2009 9:51 AM
Hooray! Caroline awakens and finds even doing a job that takes 32 days a year is too much. She is inarticulate[you know], she is not very well-read and has done nothing with her life a typical Kennedy.
Carefully watch where the democrats take this country and remember it began began in 2006 when they retook both the House and the Senate. [and the Dow was at 13,000].
Posted by: Florida Jim | January 22, 2009 9:55 AM
"Paterson made the case for appointing a woman to replace Clinton, but said that would not be the sole criteria."
Where's your editor?? Sole criteriON, two or more criteriA.
Posted by: Grammar Cop | January 22, 2009 9:56 AM
Thank God. This eliteist belongs on 5th Avenue shopping for purses and dedicating homeless shelters.
Posted by: Barney Frank | January 22, 2009 10:22 AM
I, you know, am glad she, you know, dropped out. You know.
Posted by: Jeff | January 22, 2009 10:39 AM
Thank goodness. A senate seat is such a silly sinecure. After all, there is champagne to drink, horses to ride, and galas to attend.
Posted by: Homer | January 22, 2009 10:44 AM
The Swamp commenters showing their maturity this morning. When do the grown ups get here??
Posted by: mort | January 22, 2009 11:20 AM
The criticism of Kennedy is laughable coming from people who think Dubya was a good president. If he wasn't born into the family he was, you'd have met him screwing up your happy meal in a drive through.
Posted by: Doug Zook | January 22, 2009 11:38 AM
Don Fitzgerald, Chgo.
Caroline has yet to follow in any Kennedy family traditions, she's not qualified until she swims away from a submerged Oldsmobile and starts having affairs with movie stars.
Then and only then will the left support her.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | January 22, 2009 11:50 AM
Gov. Patterson might have learned someting from Illinois Senator mess..
Posted by: Inky | January 22, 2009 11:54 AM
Another affirmative action politically connected white woman bites the dust; Palin,Blago's potty mouth wife lost her 6 figure gig.None were remotely qualified for the positions requested. Caroline only had the name,she is a socialite stick with that. If she is interested in public service teach at a New York City Public High School. Caroline has aged beyond her years.
Posted by: Moony | January 22, 2009 11:56 AM
I did not realize that a requirement to becoming a Senator is to be well-spoken. I believe that Carolyn would have made a fine Senator because of her past public and political experiences. People should not be appointed or voted into these positions just because of who they are related to or who they know. We need more people, whether male or female, who are willing to listen to their constituents in their respective states. And vote according to the public wishes and not according to their own personal opinion on new laws or revising old laws which affect the public.
Posted by: Bonnie-Illinois | January 22, 2009 12:18 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Don Fitzgerald, Chicago | January 22, 2009 9:29 AM
.
Don,
.
You’re hysterically funny and you don’t even know it.
.
First off, you appear to be the only person who still believes Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg would have made a good senator. Aside from the obvious fact that she has ZERO political experience, she also has no support. Governor Patterson apparently didn’t believe she was the right person for the job. There are indications that he had already dismissed her from consideration because of her poor performance in the public’s eye. Most importantly, even Caroline Kennedy doesn’t believe she would be the right person for the job any more.
.
In the second place, Don, States don’t have minds. States have people, and people have minds (at least, I used to think so). So, while it might be true that “any state in their right mind would be proud to have an individual of that caliber (sic),” we can all rest easy knowing that no such state exists and that Caroline isn’t headed for the Senate.
Posted by: John W. | January 22, 2009 3:00 PM
Wrong John W. I too think she would have made a good senator; many senators were not lifetime politicians, if you want to do a little homework. At any rate, we've been arguing this subject for weeks and its all very redundant; and as you may have noticed (Paulo for example) infantile and malicious.
Posted by: Flo | January 22, 2009 3:18 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Flo | January 22, 2009 3:18 PM
.
Bully for you, Flo. In my view there isn’t a single good reason why she should have been a senator; not one. And that isn’t just because she hasn’t been a lifetime politician. In a deliberative body as important and serious as the Senate, one would expect the election or appointment of people who are both articulate and capable of thinking for themselves well enough to disagree with their partisan base from time to time. That’s why the framers of the Constitution specified that each state should have two senators instead of one. What we know is that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg is neither articulate nor an independent thinker. She would have been nothing more than an extra vote in her uncle’s pocket.
.
And, yes, her inexperience does count. Not only is she not a lifetime politician, she has no political experience whatsoever. The job of Senator is not an entry level position. Being an effective senator requires having enough experience with the mechanics of government to appreciate how it’s supposed to work. Her politically motivated activities, however laudable, simply do not equip her to do the job. She may have passed the bar (which is no small feat in NY), but, as far as anyone can tell, she didn’t pursue her legal career far enough to understand even the mechanics of the court systems. I have yet to find a single source that indicates she practiced law for even one day. Given that there are many other highly qualified men and women for the job (with vastly greater knowledge and experience), she wouldn’t have been the best choice or even an appropriate choice.
Posted by: John W. | January 22, 2009 4:19 PM
"Given that there are many other highly qualified men and women for the job..."
Funny, John W. how nobody ever mentions any of these other "qualified" people, because most of you just want to bash Caroline and don't even know anyone else in New York who is interested. I suspect you're not in that class, John W., but you haven't named anyone either.
Posted by: Flo | January 22, 2009 5:32 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Flo | January 22, 2009 5:32 PM
.
Excuse me? On January 3, 2009, in a different thread, I suggested that appointment of Andrew Cuomo, the current State Attorney General, Lorraine Cortés-Vázquez, the State Secretary of State, or any number of existing or past Representatives in the House of Representatives would be fit, suitable and a better choice than Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg. (One such Representative includes Carolyn B. Maloney, who actually wants the job.)
.
You have me totally wrong if you think I’m bashing her because of who she is, her family or for any reason other than her lack of qualifications. This country deserves better, more vigorous and intelligent representation than it has been getting. And, mind you, I don’t think she should be barred from politics completely. I just think she’s over her head in the Senate. Maybe she should run for the State legislature, a seat in the House, or some other elected job. Her father got into politics that way, and that’s how he learned his craft.
Posted by: John W. | January 22, 2009 7:46 PM