How do you compare and contrast Hillary Clinton's initial candidacy for senator for NY with Caroline Kennedy's?
Obvious comparisons are that both have famous-family star power, neither had held elected office before, and both doubled-down on X chromosomes.
Is the widespread razzing of Caroline's aptness for the role fair (by dint of her low public profile), but what Hillary encountered wasn't fair (by dint of her healthcare czar work, writing and other First Lady-related experiences, and the CDS that fueled many of the insults)?
Is the fact that Kennedy's making her move for a Governor's pick rather than an election germane to assessing her fitness for the job?
I haven't made my mind up about what I think of CK's candidacy, but I do see echoes of the diminution that Hillary was subjected to in her first Senate run and think the compare/contrast exercise might be worthwhile.
It may be that there are massive differences between the appropriateness of the two candidacies, or there may not. Please enlighten!
- vastleft's blog
- Login or register to post comments
- 1+[CSE]+#b94+
Front page
Comments
no "vs." -- that framing is just further trashing of Hillary --
Hillary had decades of work on issues-- from the 70s on. She was 2-for-the-price-of-1 with Bill, too.
she worked like a dog to win the trust of NYers, and actually started running not by hiring people or contacting movers and shakers, but by trudging all over upstate -- to listen and talk with actual voters.
the comparison itself is insulting to Hillary, and is intended to make it a psychodrama and to continue to keep her in the picture (and as the "evil" one to contrast the good, innocent Caroline against) -- it's disgusting.
here's a little chart tho, if you must continue this bs -- Let’s compare the two ladies individual qualifications, shall we?
Absolutely. There is no comparison...
between these two women except for what the main post laid out.
Does anyone else see a pay-for-play in Teddy's "offer" to the NY governor to look favorably on NY issues if Sweet Caroline is given (note: given) the job?
also an admission they haven't been doing what they
should for NY, too (which we knew all along here in NY)
Teddy putting his fat thumb on the scale is not as surprising tho, as that she wanted the UN job and that the Senate seat wasn't even her first choice or something she had wanted all along (or even for more than a few months).
Why do you think BO didn't give her...
the UN job?
I know he has a lot of favors to pay off, but her endorsement of him vs HRC should have generated a BIG payoff from him.
I do too
I see the similarities, too, VL. A lot of derision coming towards Kennedy is similiar, especially in relation to their family connections.
But, the big difference is that Clinton submitted herself to the will of the voters, whereas Kennedy isn't.
Here is Rolan Martin CEO of Dept of Missing the Point.
Even Clinton's rabid supporters are trying to scuttle Kennedy's bid, still angry because she endorsed then-Sen. Barack Obama over their candidate for president.
Um, no. But please, continue the "dumb bitchez" meme.
And this.
But when she[Clinton] made it clear that she was going to seek the job, the New York Democratic congressional delegation stepped aside,
How was Clinton seeking the position, though? By making the case to the voters.
I don't have a problem with politicians cashing in on familial connections to get elected. But that is the key difference. Elected
Now, Kennedy would face the voters in 2010, but at that point wouldn't she really be unbeatable?
I don't like the arguments that Kennedy is capitalizing on her family name, b/c they are eerily similiar to the arguments against Clinton, and are based in sexism. It is ignoring the fact that one of the few paths for women into political power, is through their family, and trying to delegitimize, which only limits women in power, something we desperately need.
I dislike the idea that Kennedy could get the post, without ever being subject to the voters. The seat should be awarded to someone who has been elected before.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Why is comparing/contrasting the current senator with...
... the prospective new one intrinsically unfair, especially when some of the jeers directed at them ring familiar?
I'm offering you the platform to prove "there's no comparison." Please don't begrudge me offering that platform to see how much difference an honest look at the two will indicate.
bec it's propagating a slanted narrative
that's wholly intended to help Caroline and hurt Hillary -- again.
if Caroline is not qualified, that has nothing to do with Hillary.
if Hillary was not qualified, that has nothing to do with Caroline.
and vice versa.
Comparing and contrasting them is intended to achieve what exactly, and more importantly, isn't it just a distraction and a way to avoid actually examining Caroline's qualifications?
The only relevant contrast -- esp if you give a shit about issues at all -- is bet Caroline and all the other contenders for the seat -- not bet Caroline and Hillary. Making it Caroline vs. Hillary avoids discussing issues and makes those secondary -- if not totally irrelevant. That's disgusting.
it's not at all that this hurts them both & is similar --
this is wholly intended to set Caroline up AGAINST Hillary -- just as they did with Obama.
but Caroline is not running against Hillary.
there's no VS. here at all.
Caroline vs. Cuomo.
Caroline vs. _______
Caroline vs. all the tons of others who want it -- that's the only relevant contrast -- esp for voters, and concerning the issues.
Naturally, your fantasy notions about my intentions are gospel
I'm hearing, in the lines of argument used against CK, loud echoes of what was said about HRC. I'm looking to shed light on whether (and why) we should consider those arguments differently re: this different candidacy.
When history rhymes, I look into why. So sue me.
As I stated, I have no dog in the NY Senate hunt. Just gimme some truth, not your unearned abuse.
the argument against CK is not the same --
most primarily because Caroline is getting the Obama treatment -- and the whole setup is not intended to slur her in any way shape or form -- but to set up a false contrast and to raise Caroline up and make it seem equal.
they are not being sexist, or saying "how dare she think she can represent us" (only very few very outshouted pols have done that)
they are not diminishing Caroline but in fact the opposite.
they are not portraying her in any way the same they did Hillary -- in fact it's the opposite.
i'm not impugning your intentions--it's that you're propagating a narrative that further prevents me and other New Yorkers getting a Senator who will help us -- on the issues.
The comparisons are inevitable
Outgoing senator compared to incoming, two famous-family women without prior elected experience seeking the same seat.
I suggest that, instead of shooting any Captain Obvious who admits that the comparison is inevitable, you illuminate the differences between the two.
What better way to show that the new candidate is unacceptable than to contrast her with her predecessor?
that you call questioning of Caroline "widespread razzing"
when it's absolutely NOT and has been entirely based on issues, NY needs, the role of Senator, and her experience and achievements (it's not razzing--not from the media, not from NYers, not from anyone), is simply one reason why illuminating the differences --which has been done, and has been done here too -- will not enlighten.
If you see the treatment of Caroline as the same as how Hillary was and is treated, you should provide proof of that maybe. If that was your point, then setting it up as a contrast and wanting us to provide proof of differences won't achieve it--in any way.
We've all "illuminated the differences" endlessly -- esp when it comes to Hillary.
You don't think HRC has been bashed...
as lacking experience (especially prior to her election as senator) and as someone who's riding on family coattails? Where ya been?
Many here have sung the praises of Hillary as a candidate for president, but mostly I've seen defensiveness when asked why what was bad for one goose is fine for another.
I'm not saying there is no reason -- in fact, in my post, I allude to some differences -- but I am struck by how similar the prevailing arguments against CK are to the ones that HRC faced, especially when she was vying for the Senate. 1,000 pardons for noticing that and for suggesting it was worth examining.
& Caroline has not been "bashed" in any way shape or form--
as has been explained.
there's no question of Hillary always having been bashed and continuing to be bashed.
Hillary's still being bashed-- and this VS shit does it as well.
& the arguments are not similar--precisely because Hillary has decades of experience fighting for issues.
"Where ya been?" indeed.
the arguments against Hillary back then actually fit Caroline now far far more--and are far far more apt -- they're not at all "bashing".
Shorter Amberglow:
"Harrumph!"
Defensiveness doth not an argument make. I have yet to hear a substantive argument here -- not that one can't be made -- that HRC was a vastly superior candidate for senator than CK is.
Mostly I'm hearing a lot of umbrage about my temerity in raising an incredibly obvious question.
UPDATE: I see that Iphie just posted a detailed response.
bec it's absurd to ask for one --
seriously.
you're talking about the most active and involved in policy/issues First Lady since Eleanor Roosevelt -- with a long record going back further -- of issues advocacy and work.
it's more "Teddy & DC threaten Patterson" --
and that was early on -- and Caroline didn't originally want the Senate seat anyway -- she wanted Ambassador to UN, if this is right (and Murdoch's longstanding ties to Caroline make it reliable) --
TEDDY WANTS CAROLINE --
That's pukeworthy. Ted's using the backchannels and his
position and influence to stack the deck. Nice. And as to the comparison of Caroline v Hillary - there is no comparison because they're not in the same league. Sharing a gender and famous last name doesn't cut it.
I love this job!
So, make the case about how there's no comparison
Many of the arguments against CK are about the horrors of dynastic nepotism. I didn't dignify that when Hillary was running, but am I supposed to now?
you are dignifying it -- by asking for differences --
as if you don't already know that -- which starts by putting them on exactly the same level -- don't you see that?
by presenting it as some kind of case that has to be made--when it's not--instead of the absurd premise it is to begin with, you affirm it all -- and validate that it's true of both.
If people have to "make the case" -- for the millionth time -- that Hillary has experience and qualifications -- then you've either been asleep or are playing with us.
and the only relevant question or case-making is "making the case" for all the current contenders' qualifications -- not for proving that Hillary isn't Caroline.
Two sets of versuses
There's the talking point versus, where you can compare the material used against Hillary and Paiin (so similar!) with the glowing reactions to CK (at least in the Village
)*.
And there's the electoral versus where you compare the other candidates for the seat with CK (as amberglow points out).
I think the key distinction is the "faced the voters" talking point, which CK has not done. I'm not big on the analytically featherweight dynasty talking point (who cares, if they're good on policy) but it does exist, and it's hard to escape the conclusion that dynasty and celebrity are all that's at work here.
I imagine Teddy's working the phones in the Senate for her, and that his requests must be very, very hard to refuse. And I imagine the Obama operation would love to have somebody they see as pliant, as well. I'm not sure why Paterson has to listen to any of them.
What's interesting is what position she'll take on health care. Obama and Teddy must care greatly about that. But we don't know! She is a piece on the board, but of unknown potential.
UPDATE No doubt, because Conservative
talking points are so virulent, there are some using the same talking points used against Hillary or Palin against CK, as VL points out. I get so tired of this "any stick to beat a dog" shit.
First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi
The comparison's been made. There no comparison. Done. Next.
n/t
I love this job!
If it's got to be a Kennedy, can't we pick a good one? Please.
Let's be honest, the chances of Ted surviving brain cancer are slim. Meaning, the US would be without a Kennedy in DC. I guess there's got to be a Kennedy in DC or the holigram disappears, so why can't we put a good Kennedy in New York? Kathleen Kennedy Townsend has been in politics quite a while and appears to have done some good. I mean she supported Hillary in '08 so she must have a brain. Let's change her address (it's been done before) and get her in the Senate.
I love this job!
Your headline poses an irrelevant question.
But to address the one toward the end of your post - 'I haven't made my mind up about what I think of CK's candidacy' - here's some thoughts on that.
I haven't heard anything in CK's resume that would indicate she has many, if any, qualifications for the job - other than personal acquaintance due to her family connections with some politicians currently in office.
However, I have read about several other men and women from NY who have good resumes and experience for the job. Why is Gov Paterson not more serious about considering candidates with better qualifications? That would to be the most relevant question, in my view.
That certainly is a relevant question
But I do think the nature of many of the popular arguments against CK begs some explication: dynastic nepotism, never-been-elected, etc.
I'd feel like a hypocrite if I slammed Kennedy's candidacy on those terms if I didn't at least explain why they're more relevant here than when identical critiques were leveled at HRC.
When those critiques were leveled at Hillary
they were easy to refute using her past work history. Kennedy, however, has only her family name as a reference. It's all pretty clear-cut when you look at this from an HR perspective.
Superficially similar but factually dissimilar
Two different types of arguments are being made about CK:
1. Anti-dynastic, anti-no-experience, etc. (put forth by CK opponents); and
2. CK has as much experience as Clinton when Clinton ran, so argument #1 is irrelevant (put forth by CK-proponents and, in some significant measure, by Obama-proponents).
Perhaps some of the heat throughout this thread is because by asking why it's not hypocritical to use similar arguments, the implication is that it is hypocritical and needs disproving. In other words, accept #2 as a valid presumption and put the burden on those who disagree to disprove it. To apply the same arguments is only hypocritical if the situations are in fact the same.
But #2 is prima facie problematic; even if it were true factually (it's not), it would not justify skipping CK to the head of the line. Two wrongs don't (or shouldn't have) made a right. It is only because Clinton has proven herself a more than competent politician who is committed to public service and has been effective that the essential falseness of the argument is hidden; #2 implies causation where there is none (ie, just because one inexperienced, untested famous woman turned out to be good at the job doesn't mean that a different inexperienced, untested famous woman would also turn out well).
And in the end, although the same words may be used, the cases are factually dissimilar. Clinton is famous yes, in part because of Bill, but Clinton has also largely created her own fame through her own accomplishments, and has actively and aggressively leveraged the unearned part of her fame to change the lives of us non-Villagers. CK, unlike Clinton and unlike her relatives already in public service, has little in the way of earned fame.
By asking the question about the comparison in a neutral way is to accept a superficially true but factually false premise, one which bolsters the false-narrative spinning that generally repulses most of us, and asks others to disprove it. (note, I am not saying that anyone here is NOT repulsed by false narratives; just that the question(s) as worded are putting the burden of proof in the wrong place; what seems like neutral questions really are not neutral at all). GQ said this all much more clearly than I am here.
I'd flip the whole question around and ask why is it not hypocritical that many of the same people who attacked Clinton for her lack of experience, etc. are now defending Caroline's? That's how I've seen the MSM narrative is shaping up, at least on my local news circuit (Boston).
Argument #1 is a somewhat different matter. An argument against inexperience, or against grabbing fame-derived spoils, really IS a neutral argument until one considers who is making the argument and what the motivations are. Experience comes up in every political race or appointment, and is a perfectly legitimate factor to consider. How the argument is applied is what would make it similar (or not) to the Clinton situation. Just because it was misused against Clinton, though, does not mean it is misused against anyone. Would we be having the same discussion if it were Fran Drescher (who has also expressed an interest in the seat) at issue? Did folks make a strong experienced-based argument against Arnold Schwarzenegger for governor? Against Jesse Ventura?
Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen
I have yet to see anyone
Especially here, make argument #2. That might be part of the problem with why this thread has been all over the place, but I don't think anyone is claiming that Kennedy is in any way, shape, or form equal to Clinton, nor have the attacks she has suffered equal to what Clinton has suffered. No one here is arguing that.
There are plenty of valid arguments to make against Kennedy's appointment, the problem I have, and VL as well, I think, is that not many people are using the valid arguments.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
Gov. Paterson is doing what's expected, bowing to pressure. n/t
n/t
I love this job!
Hillary v Condeleezza. Now there's a postworthy thread.
So how will Hillary's experience match up to that of current Secretary of State, Condeleezza Rice? Here's a thumbnail. There's no question Condi has some serious chops but does that translate into effective leadership for our country? I'll let you be the judge. I'll get working on that...
I love this job!
Knock yourself out!
It might be interesting to compare what the previous and prospective SoSes brought to the table.
In a sane world, Rice's epic fail as National Security Advisor would been deemed enough evidence of her unsuitability for the job. But that tiny quibble aside, how do they stack up?
I'll play.
An obvious point (which others have noted here, but has been largely ignored otherwise) is that Hillary was elected. Hillary was criticized as a carpetbagger with no relevant experience to the people of NY; so she faced the criticism, made her case, and was then elected. To me this is huge, perhaps the most important distinction.
Something else, though, that really galls me, is that not only has CK not faced the public and made her case to us, she has spent her entire life working to avoid us. Even when she was raising money for the public schools, her position was designed in such a way as to shield her from the public, the City Council and of any questions of possible conflict, etc. HRC has made public service her life's work.
HRC made her own case to NYers, she didn't rely on out-of-state third parties to do it for her. I'm not interested in hearing a second-hand defense of CK's political positions. She needs to prove that she is capable, prepared and knowledgeable enough to be our senator by herself. The same was true for HRC -- but she recognized the fact and made an effort to speak to as many New Yorkers as she possibly could. She visited every single county in the state (a feat that many homegrown politicians have not completed), and was able to demonstrate her mastery of the issues important the people. I need to be able to assess CK's qualifications, I need to see her make her case, just as I did with HRC.
I'm not interested in what Harry Reid and Ted Kennedy think about the situation -- they don't represent me and they should stop mucking around in our state politics. Their continued interference is creating increased resentment of CK -- she needs to defuse it, and a really good way to do it would be to embrace the HRC comparisons and follow HRC's lead -- she should start holding public forums where people who have never heard her speak are able to question her directly.
HRC's entire life was an open book. Other than very basic biographical info that is more about her family than about her, we know nothing about CK. We don't know what her policy positions are -- and just being a member of Team Democrat isn't good enough -- we don't know about her work history and business experience, we know she was a lawyer, though we don't know what kind of law she practiced, if she ever did. (She allowed her law license to lapse, generally considered a big no-no for elected officials, I'd like to know why.) We don't know what corporate boards she's sat on, if any, we have no inkling of who she is, really. Not only did we have this info about HRC, she was frequently asked to defend it.
HRC was forced to open her personal finances to public scrutiny. Other than CK's inherited wealth, what are her sources of income? What charities does she support, and how (and how much) does she support them?
We know nothing about CK's marriage, her husband and any of his connections or conflicts. And just as it was (is) for HRC, we need some basic information.
Currently, the comparisons being made between HRC and CK are superficial; they are both women interested in representing NY in the senate, and both are given at least initial consideration because of their famous political names. If CK's supporters want to offer HRC as a comparison, and she is going to be held to the HRC standard, let her be held to all of it. It is a high standard; she wants to be our senator, she needs to be able to meet it.
Department of Bingo
If she is going to be held to the HRC standard, let her be held to all of it. It is a high standard; she wants to be our senator, she needs to be able to meet it.
A question for you: do you think Hillary's experience would have been sufficient for an appointment to senator, or was the crucible of an election campaign necessary for her to prove her credibility? If you think it wasn't, that's a pretty disarming argument, that Hillary wouldn't or shouldn't have been an appropriate appointee, but she was necessarily vetted and battle-hardened during her senate campaign.
I would be skeptical
of appointing anyone to such an important position who has not made the case directly to the people. It is so incredibly presumptuous and paternalistic of anyone to think that we should just take the word of Mike Bloomberg, or Harry Reid or Teddy Kennedy about who would best represent us. Does Harry Reid really think that his estimation of a person as "wonderful" is enough? It is a giant, "Now, now dear, don't you worry your pretty little head. You may not realize it now, but this is really the best thing for you. In time, you'll come around to my way of thinking."
When Valerie Jarrett was being mentioned as a serious contender for Obama's senate replacement, I thought the same thing. A senate seat must be earned, it is not a reward for private support of another powerful person. That's what ambassadorships are for (and even those require confirmation hearings).
I can't speak for Iphie,
but might I venture an answer? Looking at her qualifications, I'd say that Clinton would have merited a special appointment to the Senate (let's face it, not all Senators are the brightest bulbs in the chandelier, if you know what I mean), but I also think that it would have been a politically stupid move. The point of appointing someone who's already a proven winner and vote-getter is not just that campaigns are good experience and they make people better candidates, it's also just politically smarter to honor to the voters and suggest that their opinions mean something.
Believe me, if Kennedy gets the appointment, her R challenger will make the argument that Gov. Patterson and Kennedy are royalists committed to dynastic succession over democracy who have disrespected the founding principle of the republic: that government is just only when it rests on the consent of the governed. And that's a damn good argument.
Let's close our eyes and pretend that a Republican President-elect is raiding the Senate for cabinet appointees, and he steals a senator from a state with a Republican governor. Neil or Dorothy Bush as a Senate special appointment, anyone? The same arguments that are made on Kennedy's behalf could be made for either of them. Are you comfy with that?
By the way, we're facing a similar situation in Colorado now, and I've thrown my hat in the ring for the special Senate appointment. I realize that my arguments here against special appointments for people who have never faced the voters may seem to be at odds with my own stealth campaign, but what good is a pol who can't turn on a dime? (For details, go to Historiann.)
Appointments should be elected officials
I think HRC had a rather unique experience in that people knew of her policy positions and she had more than proven herself as battle-hardened, but I still would not have appreciated the precedent of just handing over the Senate seat to her. True, she's not an inheritor of a dynasty the way so many Kennedys are but instead is a partner on a high-octane team (Chelsea, not her mother, would be the inheritor of the Clinton dynasty since her parents were the ones that built it up), but it's better to safeguard the public interest by ensuring democratic representation involved somehow, that the public know what they're getting, especially in a Senator.
I agree with Iphie: there's really no comparison between Caroline and Hillary. And I'll stress again: Caroline inherited her power while Hillary earned it by not only campaigning but also by working on behalf of the public for several decades and partnering with Bill to create a dynamic team.
I don't think Caroline Kennedy will be a good Senator at all. She obviously doesn't like interacting with the unwashed masses or she wouldn't have led such an intensely cloistered life. And I don't buy that Kennedy magic bullshit. How long can Caroline hold onto that when she's in the public eye on a regular basis, especially since she comes across boring as hell and we're in the midst of a financial clusterfuck? The people of New York need a brawler, a proven winner. How I wish Spitzer could be the one chosen! Hell, I'd even take Cuomo.
Make the case for Caroline Kennedy
By asking people to essentially "prove" that Kennedy is not comparable or that she's not an preferred candidate you are setting a frame--intentional or not is irrelevant--that makes any criticism look bad. Hillary made the case to voters against two tough GOP opponents. Rather than asking Kennedy or her supporters to make the affirmative case for that candidacy, your asking the opposite. I don't doubt your intentions, but don't you think demonstrating ones qualifications is a better way to go about this than asking folks to show so-and-so isn't qualified/desirable? That's the whole Obama campaign framework.
And, can you point to direct instances of people treating Kennedy like Clinton? Exact quotes? Or, can you point to locations where a "general mood" can be figured out? I don't go many places so I haven't really seen much on this, pro or con.
Here's my take on a difference in the "nepotism" argument (which is lame, generally): Bill advocated to the voters for Hillary, Ted is advocating to pols who will determine who gets appointed. Is the difference not immediately obvious? Wouldn't the argument (ignoring qualifications for a moment) be the same regardless of gender?
In Hillary's case, everything she did was reduced to her being Bill's spouse and said to be valueless. The denigartion of Hill's accomplishments were done in a very sexist way, like that tea with world leaders BS. Or she only has her cheating husband to run on rather than one of the keenest policy minds in government. Since I miss much of the commentary, can you show me similar such denigations of Kennedy? Saying someone is experienced is neither racist nor sexist if it happens to be true. While Hillary had a lifetime of advocacy on a number of issues, not having "elected" experience still doesn't mean she has no experience. As first lady of Ark and the US she was much involved in state and national affairs, also experience. Where is Kennedy's similar experience? If you think experience as an argument is "similar", show an equivalent level of interest and activity by Kennedy as I outlined for Hillary. And if she has similar qualifications please point where they are mocked (like the tea time comment).
Only tyrants rig elections.
Direct instances
I've been travelling around, and yes I've seen many reader comments on several PUMA leaning blogs, against Kennedy that are eerily similiar to arguments made against Clinton, like the whole "continue the Kennedy Dynasty" one. That argument was used alot against Clinton, saying she was only going to do what Bill wanted her to do, ignoring the fact that she is her own individual person with her own desires and goals.
Yes, Ted is advocating for her, but that doesn't necessarily mean she is going to march in lockstep with her uncle, any more than it meant Clinton was going to take marching orders from Bill.
He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond
what gq said
it's beyond odd that we're still required to justify Hillary's record in any way at all -- and no one else's.
We're not.
Or, at least, I'm not. I'm arguing the exact opposite. I'm acknowledging that superficial comparisons are being made, and basically challenging anyone who is making those comparisons in support of CK to make a much more thorough comparison. Let's follow this line of thinking all the way through.
I think HRC is an excellent standard by which to judge potential successors -- I can only hope that whoever does succeed her is only half as impressive. But in order to determine if someone meets or falls short of that standard, we do, by definition, need to review HRC's qualifications and experiences. That is in no way meant as an exercise in Clinton denigration, if anything, it will more likely illuminate the shortcomings of the other.
If I were CK, I would not want to be compared to HRC -- I really don't see how that can do anything other than diminish what accomplishments she does have (difficult to say for sure because I know nothing about her). Her supporters should never have opened that door on that comparison because it is only going to look bad for her.
I'm actually unsure of whether CK's supporters
have opened that door, but if you oppose her candidacy, it's smart business to know what to say if they try to come through it, and you seem well prepared for it.
I doubt that he
is supporting anything more than his own publicity, but Al Sharpton has made the comparison. Then again, he thought he was qualified to be president.
Tea in the Sahara
In Hillary's case, everything she did was reduced to her being Bill's spouse and said to be valueless. The denigartion of Hill's accomplishments were done in a very sexist way, like that tea with world leaders BS.
Yes, and it goes without saying that Hillary's experience on the international stage was much more valuable than Obama's and that's why it was belittled and reduced to tea in the Sahara. Has Caroline even done the belittled version of Hillary's international experience in preparation for her first choice as UN ambassador? If not, then there's no comparison here.
Saying someone is experienced is neither racist nor sexist if it happens to be true.
Conversely, saying someone is inexperienced is some kind of -ist if it happens to be false, as with tea in the Sahara. My first question when seeing Caroline pushed for the Senate seat was 'what are her qualifications'? Does she have qualifications, and has someone belittled them in some fashion? Some linky goodness to the 'widespread razzing' and actual qualifications would go a long way since I too have not followed the discussion of her qualifications and general vetting. Or, it may be that Caroline is following the Obama playbook and fending off any sort of vetting by pre-emptively declaring it some form of -ism?
Since I'm not an advocate for CK
You'll have to look elsewhere for her qualifications.
As to the razzing, someone linked this summary upthread:
http://shakespearessister.blogspot.com/2...
Also, the good folks at OpenLeft have been making the elitism/nepotism/aristocracy/dynasty argument:
http://openleft.com/showDiary.do?diaryId...
Thanks, Iphie. I'm going to take some time later to try to put
more detail into this comparison. VL, I think there have been several posts summarizing HvC - Amberglow @ 10:06 a.m. I think you're request has been answered. 'Nuf said.
I love this job!
"I think there have been several posts summarizing HvC"
The Confluence link was mostly snarky. Other than Iphie's, where's the beef?
UPDATE: basement angel has just put forth a detailed post, as well.
Alright - after Clinton left law school,
she did a one year internship at the Children's Defense Fund, which resulted in her writing "Children Under The Law" - to this day, one of the most cited briefs on the subject. She joined the board of the CDF, not as a well-connected off-spring, but as one of the most brilliant young attorneys of her generation. She served on the panel of Watergate. Once she moved to Arkansas, she opened a legal aid clinic for lower income families dealing with family issues. She was asked to join the board of the Corporation Of Legal Services, which does similar work as her legal aid clinic, and was quickly made chair of the Board. During her time, the Reagan administration sought to cut the budget. Clinton went to DC, and not only prevented the cuts (again, not using a family name either), but actually sold them on expanding the budget. Back home, she discovered that rural Arkansan's didn't have access to healthcare because building clinics in isolated areas is not financially viable. She returned to DC, and rounded up money to build healthcare clinics in the countryside. Headstart was, as ever, overbooked, so she developed a home schooling program for parents who couldn''t get their kids into headstart. She took on the teacher's union - a job no Democrat wants to touch - and succeeded in getting new standards in place for teachers. On and on like that. The microloans, her work as First Lady of US - she was one of the foremost advocates for the administration in both development and execution of policy.
Clinton was constantly, aggressively, looking to create programs that changed the lives of ordinary people in tangible ways. She was familiar with DC in her own right because of the work she had done - not because she was born connected or married right. She was still the one in DC working with the Reagan administration on the budget cuts to the Board Of Legal Services. She was still the one who went to DC to find funding for health care clinics. Her paper on children's rights is authored by Hillary Rodham - it's her name that is there.
I disliked Kennedy's ostentatiously disrespectful endorsement of Obama, and I see a high-handedness here that i don''t care for. It's like she doesn't want to take the risk of running. Clinton didn't hire insiders to smooth the way for her. She went on the listening tour and won because she won voters statewide. With Kennedy, I see two books (one of which I have read), and not much more. I see no effort for her to create programs that make people's lives better. I'm not hearing the tales that I heard about Clinton, of Kennedy upstate figuring out how to work with the conservative farmers. It just seems like she wants it handed to her with out having done much except be her father's daughter. What makes anyone think she'd be a good senator?
"Someone needs to point out that elephants produce infinitely more shit than donkeys." Brad Mays
Ooh, substance!
A nice case for HRC, something one can put forth to challenge those who would argue that their qualifications are the same.
That -- and not the "how dare you compare" responses -- is what makes for good discourse. Thanks!
now you make a case for Caroline, since you don't ask for that
at all-- and in fact only for the opposite.
we know Hillary's substance and experience -- that's the whole point.
why don't you ask about Caroline's?
why is it that only Hillary's still needs to be endlessly endlessly repeated?
what does that show? what's the value? seriously.
Caroline is now being vetted... at least in
the court of public opinion.
She's going to be coronated as Senator or she isn't, and the case for her will be well-made or it won't.
The initial post is an invitation to show how much daylight there is between the two. I'm not suggesting that such a comparison is only about Hillary, as with a tango, a comparison takes two.
In these circles, the interesting question to me is "how superficial or meaningful are the similarities."
What part of "It may be that there are massive differences between the appropriateness of the two candidacies, or there may not. Please enlighten!" says that only Hillary should be studied, and Caroline should not?