Congress is out of session, president-elect Obama is getting a well-deserved rest in Hawaii and most politicians are on vacation.
If not for Caroline Kennedy, who gave six interviews to news organizations upstate and downstate during the second and third days of Christmas, political reporters and news junkies would have little to talk about.
I'll link to each of those interviews and cite key passages - five of the six reporter teams were able to shake new information from the opportunity (while a pair of NY Times reporters got deservedly pwned for their obsession with fluff over policy substance).
But first, I'll demonstrate how some of the earliest and loudest arguments thrown out against Kennedy's possible appointment to the US Senate have already proved false and have even backfired, solidifying the passion of her supporters...
That Kennedy's expressed interest in Governor David Paterson's upcoming appointment has eclipsed so many other political news stories and sucked the oxygen out of other contenders demonstrates what one of her strengths would be as a senator: Kennedy's convocational power to draw attention to progressive agendas and issues that would otherwise get left on the back burner, unattended.
Being a member of the Senate or the House brings an opportunity for the best of them to create a bully pulpit of advocacy around issues, yet only a handful of legislators have been able to do that with success. Most end up as back-benchers, whose own mediocre tenure and get along by going along nature contributes greatly to the lethargy and timidity of Congress.
Some opponents of a Kennedy appointment seem to believe that how she obtained that ability - born into that name, photographed at age five at her father's funeral, yet not pursuing political office until now that two of her children are adults and the youngest is sixteen - somehow ought to be more relevant to Governor David Paterson's appointment than the fact that she brings such a unique strength.
Most folks, though, really don't care how somebody gained an attribute, as long as it wasn't done underhandedly or immorally. When looking for somebody to do a job, we look for he or she that can do it best.
Here's a parallel from pro basketball: In 2003 the Denver Nuggets team was laughingstock. It drafted a Syracuse freshman, Carmelo Anthony, although that had him essentially cutting in line ahead of athletes that had "paid their dues" and had remained in college all four years and graduated. Anthony averaged 21 points a game in his first professional season, more than any other rookie, leading the Nuggets into the playoffs. By his third season, he had the eighth best scoring average in pro basketball. By last year he was an NBA All Star starting player.
Carmelo Anthony recently gave $3 million dollars to Syracuse, the alma mater that he ditched after one year to go pro, for an athletic center in his name. Should Syracuse have declined the funds for the "message" that accepting them sends about a supposed unfairness? Should the university refuse to name the center after him given that other players had finished their academic careers first while he cut in line? Nonsense. Many New Yorkers likewise can see an all-star in Caroline Kennedy who can do more for New York than any of the others being mentioned for that senate seat, even if she didn't rise up through conventional paths (which are, in the view of many of us, overrated and often corrupting anyway).
In the US Senate, like the House, there are leaders and there are back-benchers, and some of the most effective leaders didn't come up through lower offices or "farm team" systems: Paul Wellstone had never served in elected office (and had run only once, unsuccessfully, for state auditor), Bill Bradley had never run for office - he'd only been a basketball player - yet he proved to be a policy wonk extraordinaire of the Senate. Ted Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Daniel Patrick Moynihan are other examples of senators that achieved national weight without having been elected to any office before becoming senators.
And sorry to state the obvious, but each of the US House members from New York being floated as alternatives to Kennedy - decent people for the most part - have not carved out major roles for themselves. Looking at the US House, for example, we know that John Conyers has defended our civil liberties, that Henry Waxman has investigated big tobacco, that Jan Shakowsky and Mary Kaptur have worked to stop bad trade deals, that Barney Frank has taken on issues of liberty - from medical marijuana to defense of legal online gambling - that others fear to touch, that Jim Clyburn and John Lewis have been lions for civil rights and that Raul Grijalva has worked hard for National Parks and the environment... and most that follow politics know that about each of them, too. NY House members Jerrold Nadler, Brian Higgins, Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney would each like appointment to the senate seat, and are probably very nice people, but they have had relatively lackluster careers in Congress, certainly compared to the ones I've just mentioned. Each of them would likely end up being back-benchers in the Senate as well.
New York Senators, on the other hand, more often have been real players, either through preexisting national presence (Clinton), charisma (Kennedy), sheer chutzpah (Schumer) or intellectual mastery (Moynihan). Two recent Republican Senators from New York - from "Senator Pothole" (D'Amato) to that unlikely champion of labor and civil rights (Javits) - also achieved national presence and weight. A state as big as New York needs bright lights in that body to compete for the resources of the federal government and to address the kinds of issues that a big liberal state's senator can and should be able to more easily lead than those from less progressive electorates.
The arguments that somehow Caroline Kennedy could be controlled by Mayor Bloomberg or by a consulting firm are simply not credible (no more than the presidential campaign accusations that Obama would be controlled by the Rev. Wright). Those characters are in orbit around her, not vice versa. (Indeed, part of what is at play here may be a power struggle between the Governor and the Mayor over Kennedy's loyalties; a chess match in which Govenor Paterson, being the grand appointer, will naturally come out the victor: Paterson's recent statements of annoyance with the media over the senate appointment process can be fairly read as directed not at Kennedy, but more likely at Bloomberg).
Related is the accusation, first made by blogger Jane Hamsher, that because the Knickerbocker SDK consulting firm had been contracted by Senator Lieberman in 2006 and also works for Bloomberg that it says anything about Kennedy (who donated to Lieberman's opponent, Ned Lamont, that year).
Anybody who makes that accusation must also, if intellectually honest, likewise condemn Knickerbocker SDK's other paying clients, which have included two other aspirants to the senate seat - US Rep. Caroline Maloney and Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown - as well as the Howard Dean-launched Democracy for America, Jobs With Justice, the SEIU, AFSCME, City Council Speaker Christine Quinn, District Attorney Robert Morgenthau, Al Sharpton, NARAL Pro-Choice of New York and the Metropolitan Museum of Art. The selective indignation is foolish: If they're going to disqualify Kennedy over that, they've got to also make enemies out of all those people and organizations, too. That seems a high price to pay in exchange for ineffective bashing rights against Kennedy based on a specious argument.
Now, while the rest of our political leaders were resting this week, here's what Kennedy told the Associated Press in one of a series of interviews without conditions or restrictions over what reporters could ask her:
"I come into this thinking I have to work twice as hard as anybody else. Nobody's entitled to anything and certainly not me. And there are many qualified people in this and so, you know, I am an unconventional choice, I understand that. I haven't pursued the traditional path. But I think that in our public life today we're starting to see that there are many ways into public life and public service. And all our institutions are less hierarchical than they used to be. And so I think that I bring my life experience to this and that includes being a mother, I understand those choices women make. It includes being a lawyer, I've written seven bestselling books, two on the Constitution, anthologies about American history and values, political courage, and I've really tried to encourage people to go into public service."
She's not just talking about laboring twice as hard: when it comes to putting forward her case for the US Senate, she's demonstrably doing it at the very hour when everybody else is off duty.
One could observe that had any of the other contenders offered themselves to those six news organizations this weekend, few if any would have taken them up on it. Again, that points to Kennedy's convocational power and an ability that only she, among them, has.
She also sat down with NY1 reporter Dominic Carter for the full half hour of his program, and he reports that he was able to ask any question he wanted.
Here's an excerpt on education policy from the transcript:
Dominic Carter: Can you think off the top of your head what would be some of your top priorities, issues-wise, in the US Senate?
Caroline Kennedy: Well, the issue, obviously we have the economy, which is everybody's top issue. We have the broken health care system, which is everybody's -- and those two things are connected. Because the cost of health care is too high, people can't get insurance. We don't invest in prevention and public health, and we need to fix that. And I think that we have an opportunity right now with the President-elect coming in, with the team in the Senate. All the stakeholders are at the table and have been working on this. And so I would work as hard as I can. Because I think then you can start talking about wages, and talking about jobs, and talking about a middle class, you know, tax relief. The issue I personally know the most about and would want to work on is education, because I think we do need to invest in early childhood education. We need to help families who can't deal with the child care crisis that they're facing, and the federal government has a much bigger role to play in that. So, No Child Left Behind is going to be re-authorized. You know, I would like to take the experiences that I've had here in New York and the struggles that I see, you know, in education across the state, whether it's high school, middle school, which is really the critical time in kids' lives. You know, work to bring arts and music back into the schools.
Dominic Carter: Well, let's talk about No Child Left Behind for a second. Was that a failure or a success?
Caroline Kennedy: Well, it was never funded adequately, and, you know, I think what, the, to the extent that we want to make, we want to have all kids get a quality education, we need to set the standards by which schools can do that and we can measure that. We need to allow schools to try different ways to reach every kid. And we really need to work with teachers to attract people into the teaching profession, to pay them adequately to help make that, make their jobs better, easier to support them as they try to teach, you know, our most difficult kids, and all kinds of different kinds of learners. And so, there's a lot that needs to be done. And we do need to fund it adequately, and that hasn't been done. So I wouldn't say that it had gotten, really, a fair test, because we didn't do any of the things that we said we were going to do. But we need to do a better job with our schools. They are in crisis. You know, 30% of our kids are not finishing high school. We are not going to be able to compete as a nation, to maintain the kind of position that we have in the world if we don't fix our educational system.
Now, this is from Friday's New York Daily News interview:
A defiant Caroline Kennedy says she "wouldn't be beholden to anybody" - including Mayor Bloomberg - if she's picked to become New York's next U.S. senator.
"I'm really coming into this as somebody who isn't, you know, part of the system, who obviously, you know, stands for the values of, you know, the Democratic Party," Kennedy told the Daily News Saturday during a wide-ranging interview.
"I know how important it is to, you know, to be my own person. And, you know, and that would be obviously true with my relationship with the mayor."
She's got a pretty good sense of humor, too:
She also says she realizes campaigning means making sure not to offend locals, by things like rejecting a sausage sandwich at a state fair, the way Republican Rick Lazio, who lost to Clinton in 2000, famously did.
When asked if she would eat the sausage sandwich, she laughed, smiled and said, "I'm starving."
And from Kennedy's interview with The Buffalo News:
Kennedy said she would also push to get Clinton's seat on the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, the panel that likely will be considering how to divvy up hundreds of billions of dollars in federal bailout money among the states next year.
"That committee is going to be absolutely critical right now," she said.
And this, from the same interview:
She said she would push for more federal aid for public-private partnerships, such as the emerging Buffalo medical corridor, and seek to halt government aid to companies that ship jobs overseas.
Last week, in response to questions from The Buffalo News, Kennedy said the North American Free Trade Agreement, for example, has had "unintended consequences in some regions of New York," and agrees with Obama that there needs to be a "careful look at the agreement and pay particular attention to its impact on jobs and wages in American manufacturing communities."
She also did an interview with Gannett News Service (which serves an archipelago of newspapers throughout suburban and upstate NY):
When asked about the future of the Indian Point nuclear power plant in Westchester County-which Schumer and her environmental activist cousin Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has wanted closed-Kennedy said she also thinks it should be shut down.
"We have an opportunity now," she said, "to really invest in alterative energy ... I think we need to develop alternatives to Indian Point in particular."
Another interview was with the New York Times.
The reporters, Nicholas Confessore and David M. Halbfinger, didn't succeed - as the Daily News, AP and even little ol' NY1 local cable news - in crafting questions that would similarly have made news. And so they blamed the interviewee for the mediocre performance of the interviewers:
she still seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: forceful but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way.
Finally getting their shot at the big interview they didn't ask about Iraq withdrawal timelines or financial stimulus packages or how she'd be independent from other politicians in the state or the Bill of Rights. Instead, the Timesmen went with fluffy and meaningless questions, for which Kennedy, with humor, put them in their deserved place:
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."
I don't know about the rest of you, but I'd like to see more politicians that wouldn't cower in fear of arrogant and often clueless NY Times reporters.
If you read the entire interview, it's a textbook case in big media botching a story. The reporters began the interview by asking her to criticize her former brother in law! The next question asks her to criticize other Democrats. (Kennedy didn't take the bait, and in fact praised US Reps John Hall and Carolyn McCarthy for having, like her, "unconventional backgrounds.")
Here's a doozy from early in the Times interview ("DH" is David Halbfinger):
DH: Do you think you would be the best for the job of the people who are out there?
CK: Well, I wouldn't be here if I didn't think I would be the best. (Laughter) Do you think you're the best for your job? I assume you do. Uh, yeah.
Soonafter that, Halbfinger went all "PUMA" on her, asking another stupid question that is of zero interest to 99 percent of New Yorkers because it's not about the issues or how a senator can help them:
DH: Why is it that you apparently did not give Senator Clinton any kind of advance warning that you'd be coming out for Senator Obama?
CK: Um, I'm not going to talk about that particular process, but -
DH: Why's that?
CK: Because those conversations that I have had and had during that time are not something that I think is relevant right now.
NC: How come it isn't relevant? It kind of goes to your relationship with the person that you're trying to succeed in the Senate.
CK: I think this is about the future, and, um, you know, that's what I want to talk about, which is, what's going on in our state, you know, why I would be the best person to help deliver for New York. We're facing, you know, an economic crisis, the paper this morning said there's, you know, five billion dollars of construction projects which just stopped, you know, that's, you know - conversations a year ago, that's - beside that, I don't, as I said, I have conversations with a lot of people, and those are confidential.
Here's another example of "Timesman Stupid" and how badly they blew the interview by focusing on gossip rather than substance:
NC: I guess another way of thinking about it is that Jennifer Aniston movie, where she tells her boyfriend, ‘I want you to want to do the dishes,' you know? And I wonder if Senator Kennedy wanted you to want to do it.
DH: "The Break-Up."
CK: (Laughter) I hope you're going to put this in the article, not just the answer. OK?
Smackdown!
Even the usually sensationalist New York Post was able to outgun the Timesmen in terms of getting some new questions answered during its interview with Kennedy. Reporter Maggie Haberman summarizes some of Kennedy's responses to her questions:
* Asked if she's ever done illegal drugs, she said, "I grew up in the '70s so I'd say I was a typical member of that generation."
* Beyond Obama's encouragement, he has not been involved in her effort.
* Despite reports that Bloomberg is pushing for her behind the scenes, she would not be "beholden to anyone" if appointed to the seat by Gov. Paterson.
* On a term-limits extension for Bloomberg, she said it "would have been better if it had been put to the voters."
* She likes the Yankees, but isn't a huge football fan.
* She opposes the death penalty, even in cases of cop killers.
* She voted for Democrat Fernando Ferrer over Bloomberg in the 2005 mayoral race.
So there were six interviews in two days, and only in one case did the reporters fail to break any news. That speaks more about the lack of preparedness by the NY Times reporters than about Kennedy, no doubt. And the six interviews, taken as a whole, probably cause you to know more about her stances and priorities than you know about any of the other politicians that would like appointment to that seat. All in a weekend's work!
Maura Moynihan, daughter of the late US Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, penned a column for the NY Daily News endorsing Kennedy for that seat that resonates with Kennedy's own op ed earlier this year endorsing Barack Obama for president:
Caroline has a unique prestige in the nation's capital. But she has earned the respect and friendship of many legislators on her own. The new junior senator from New York will be ranked 99th in seniority. We need an individual with unique talents and access to fight for New York.
The Senate is where laws are made. Caroline is a first-rate constitutional scholar. She has co-authored two books on the topic: "Our Defense: The Bill of Rights in Action" and "The Right to Privacy." I watched Pat Moynihan apply his scholarship and intellectual rigor to his work in the Senate. I am confident Caroline will do the same...
As an early supporter of President-elect Barack Obama, Caroline will have a special bond with the new administration. That is not to be taken lightly. Our state and our nation are in crisis. It's not going to be easy to clean up the wreckage left by the Bush years. New York is fortunate that Caroline Kennedy is willing to do the job.
In a news "analysis" AP points out the obvious, that Kennedy has already eclipsed any other aspirants to the senate seat:
"There aren't too many people who can command the attention she's getting," said Doug Muzzio, professor of politics at Baruch College.
Whether one is happy or not with the objective conditions that lead to her sun shining brighter than those of competitors, the fact remains that the gravity she pulls on other politicians and the media - placing them in her orbit, rather than the usual vice versa - is an immense tool that can be used on behalf of the citizens of New York and the liberal causes she'll champion. That star power, in politics, is akin to a super-weapon. She can deploy it to bring attention to any issue, legislation or mission in ways that none of the others can.
And so if you conclude that Kennedy brings a very reliably progressive voice and intellect, a weapon of that size in her hands would be considered as a great thing for many, many progressive priorities. (And it will correspondingly be bad news for the forces of reaction and ultra-conservatism.) It already has: Who else of nationwide pull has come out and said, during the Rick Warren miasma, that gay marriage ought to be legal and in doing so associates it with a long history of movements for equal and civil rights?
Former California House Speaker Willie Brown, in his San Francisco Chronicle column, notes that politics - particularly in New York - is rough and tumble, and concludes:
Kennedy will weather the storm, just like Barack Obama did throughout his media-blessed campaign.
And yes, it's clear that some colleagues that don't support the idea of Paterson appointing Kennedy have tried to disparage one statement or another from these interviews, but this weekend has pretty much killed off the "Kennedy-is-a-Sarah-Palin" meme or the suggestion that she is unable to hold her own with the press corps. It's clear that she's smart enough, tough enough, knowledgeable enough and has the political instincts to do the job with all the convocational power she brings to it and keep the seat in the D column in the 2010 and 2012 elections.
It will be interesting, even entertaining, to see what new arguments her detractors move onto next. But after the first round, even if it only began a few weeks ago, those arguments are stale and old.
Meanwhile, a new bona fide liberal leader is emerging, at midlife, before the state and country's eyes.
It may not interest everybody, but it's a great story for any political reporter.