« | »

Shocker: Caroline Is Rude To NY Times!

(And, wondrous to relate, vice versa.)

Buried in the NY/Region section of the New York Times:

As a Candidate, Kennedy Is Forceful but Elusive

Published: December 27, 2008

Caroline Kennedy, the woman who would be New York’s next senator, is sure of one thing. Among all the hopefuls seeking to succeed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, she said on Saturday, there is no better choice.

“I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think I would be the best,” Ms. Kennedy said, sitting in the back room of an Upper East Side diner around the corner from her home.

After weeks of criticism that she had not opened up to the public or the press, Ms. Kennedy has embarked on a series of interviews. But in an extensive sit-down discussion Saturday morning with The New York Times, she still seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: forceful but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way

She provided only the broadest of rationales for her candidacy for the Senate, saying her experience as a mother, author and school fund-raiser, her commitment to public service and her deep political connections had prepared her for the job.

Ms. Kennedy, 51, has had only a few weeks to think through a platform and a message, and she has already taken positions on issues like same-sex marriage, which she supports, and school vouchers, which she opposes

But in the interview on Saturday, she said she hoped to be a consensus-builder, and declined to describe her positions on some other pressing public issues — even in education, where she has some expertise. Ms. Kennedy would not say, for example, whether she supported proposals to abolish tenure for teachers and offer them merit pay instead…

With several weeks to go before Mr. Paterson makes his decision, she is doling out glimpses of her political beliefs and private life. But when asked Saturday morning to describe the moment she decided to seek the Senate seat, Ms. Kennedy seemed irritated by the question and said she couldn’t recall.

“Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman’s magazine or something?” she asked the reporters. “I thought you were the crack political team.”

Ms. Kennedy was all business and seemed in a more lawyerly frame of mind. At one point, she said that it might have been preferable to seek the seat in an election, noting that “it would give me a chance to explain exactly what I’m doing, why I would want to do this, and, you know, to get people to know me better and to understand exactly what my plans would be, how hard I would work.”

“I’m not a conventional choice,” Ms. Kennedy said. “I haven’t followed the traditional path, but I do think I’d bring a kind of a lifetime of experience that is relevant to this job.”

One of the main assets she could bring to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy suggested, was her celebrity itself. It would be useful, she said, in bringing attention to New York’s needs and fighting for a bigger share of federal stimulus money…

Ms. Kennedy said she had spent some time in the Catskills and the Adirondacks; when asked her favorite place in the state outside of the city and Long Island, she said, “I like visiting historical sites. I loved visiting the battlefields of Saratoga.”

Ms. Kennedy said her finances had been affected by the economic crisis, though “not as badly as a lot of people’s. I’m lucky that I’m not afraid of losing my home, and my husband still has a job.”

But she declined to discuss details. “If I’m chosen for this I’m going to comply with every kind of disclosure; if the governor has questions about my finances I’ll talk to him.”

She said she employed one household worker as well as a personal assistant — though she said she had far more experience managing people at the Department of Education. “Building a staff is something that I would have no trouble doing,” she said.

And she said she would have no trouble relating to New Yorkers of more modest means…

Though Ms. Kennedy’s own children have attended private schools, she said her experience working with city schools had given her ample understanding of what students and their parents are facing…

Asked to name an issue on which she would depart from Democratic Party orthodoxy, Ms. Kennedy seemed to have trouble identifying one.

“If we’re not comparing it to anybody specifically, it’s hard to say where I disagree,” she said.

But when asked how she might differ with Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg or with Governor Paterson, who has sole authority to make the Senate appointment, she demurred.

“I’m not going to talk about my disagreements with him,” she said. “You’ll find out over time.”

Indeed, Ms. Kennedy, like Barack Obama, the presidential candidate she endorsed, returned repeatedly to the idea of bipartisanship and unity.

“What I think people are really looking for is for people to work together,” she said finally. “It’s something that I take really seriously. We need Republicans and Democrats, all Democrats — people need to look at what we have in common…

As things wrapped up, a reporter tried to pose another question, but she interrupted him.

“I think we’re done,” she said.

Isn’t she magnificent in her condescension?

Still, it’s hard to not like Caroline for her several swipes at The Times reporters here.

After all, they swooned over Mr. Obama and yet question whether Mrs. Schlossberg is qualified to be a Senator?

[S]he still seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: forceful but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way…

Doesn’t that describe the Anointed One’s candidacy to a tee?

This article was posted by Steve on Saturday, December 27th, 2008. Comments are currently closed.

18 Responses to “Shocker: Caroline Is Rude To NY Times!”

  1. 1sttofight says:

    You have to admit, she is waaaay smarter than her uncle teddy.

  2. curvyred says:

    “I wouldn’t be here if I didn’t think I would be the best,” Ms. Kennedy said, sitting in the back room of an Upper East Side diner around the corner from her home.

    I guess the humility gene was not part of the Kennedy package.

  3. Kilmeny says:

    The Oughts will go down in history as the “forceful yet vague” years. Sarah Palin was unqualified? And Caroline Kennedy is?

    My head hurts…..

  4. cjokry says:

    I don’t know much about this Caroline Kennedy. Which is surprising, since she’s suddenly seeking a public office (without an election.)

  5. LewWaters says:

    Patty Murray first ran as “just a Mom in tennis shoes” and we are still stuck with her. She didn’t have the name recognition of Royalty granted Kennedy’s, either.

    Caroline Kennedy may not be campaigning for public votes, but she is campaigning for public support and playing it to the hilt.

  6. artboyusa says:

    A girlfriend of mine played field hockey against Caroline in college and reported that this spoiled child of fortune played like a true Kennedy -that is to say, dirty. Tripping, hacking, you name it – everything except asking “Do you know who I am?” before clubbing some hapless girl.

  7. The just so pathetic that the great state of NY can do no better than a socialite touting her do-gooder charity work as a resume for a Senate seat. It could be worse, they could be be getting a some corrupt cattle futures trader from Arkansas or a real scum bucket politician like Chuckie Schumer. Way to go New York!

    Cruel Cruel comparison –



  8. LewWaters says:

    America does not need another wealthy Millionare hoarding their fortune while telling us to sacrifice our meager earnings.

  9. Liberals Demise says:

    How long does America have to put up with the Kennedy Camelto…ah …. er….Camoloot…I mean Camelot? If you have NO credentials or a resume fitting to run for senate…..why would one think that they are good enough for appointment to said position? Well if your last name is Kennedy you have a Go past Go, collect $200.00 and the seat you want!! I just was listening to the mouth merchants of DC on “This Week” and “Meet the De Pressed” and It drove me crazy listening to the BS spewing out on all the topics (including Charity Kennedy) I wonder if the people of the United States can declare Martial Law on the Circus in DC? These people(?) clearly need to be rounded up and dismissed of the power they wield on us. They are nothing more than power monkeys throwing shi ite through the bars of their cage at us all.

    • U NO HOO says:

      “the mouth merchants of DC”

      I caught a couple of those panel discussions on C-SPAN over the weekend. The blow hards ummed and aahhed and acted like they mattered and had all the correct answers.

      I guess they matter but their answers lack “gravitas.”

  10. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    LD, that’s why our founding fathers gave us the Second Amendment. Because they knew that when all else failed, a corrupt government would listen or duck and cover when the armed masses gave them a few musket shots whistling their way. Keep your powder dry because these fawning idiots won’t stop until they achieve their objective.

    • Liberals Demise says:

      Oh….you mean that Bill of Rights thingy. Hmmmm…..wonder if it occured to them that they SWORE an OATH of OFFICE and it is suppose to mean something other than a procedure they have to do before running rough shod over the masses?

  11. proreason says:

    When will they investigate the sex life of her children? or whether the children are really hers?

  12. 12 Gauge Rage says:

    The Second Amendment puts teeth in the First. I don’t know why, but out of all the amendments its’ always the second that politicians (both parties are guilty of this) want to dick around with and put limitations on. It would be interesting to see how many laws have been passed regulating the second and almost none, if any, to the first. The First Amendment was created to protect unpopular speech. Not to parrot the popular party line as we now see with the MSM. By the way, just because one comes from an established, connected family doesn’t make them any better nor superior to the average person.

« Front Page | To Top
« | »