Barack Obama Politics The Opinionsphere

Caroline Kennedy (cont. again)

Andrew Sullivan – who loyal readers of the blog will know is the reason I began to blog – is hyperventilating today. In a post titled “Less Qualified Than Palin,” Sullivan wants to convince his readers that Caroline Kennedy is like Sarah Palin. But his argument fails miserably to prove the point he wants to make:

In fact, Sarah Palin was more qualified to be vice-president than Caroline Kennedy is to be a Senator.

The problem with Sarah Palin that Sullivan more than anyone else made was that she was not a serious candidate in that she hadn’t seriously considered the issues that would be facing her as Vice President. This was the qualification she was lacking that Sullivan rightly harped on. As he wrote immediately after she was announced:

Yes, Obama is inexperienced in foreign policy. But at least he has thought seriously about it. Do you really believe that Sarah Palin understands the distinctions between Shia and Sunni, has an opinion about the future of Pakistan, has a view of how to exploit rifts within Tehran’s leadership, knows about the tricky task of securing loose nuclear weapons? [my emphasis]

These are issues that Palin would be faced with as Vice President – and based on her public comments, she hadn’t seriously dealt with the issues. And her lack of serious thought on the issue seemed to be the result of deliberate ignorance – or perhaps incuriousness – as Sullivan pointed out citing George Will:

Can you name a single newspaper or magazine you currently read? If you can, you are more qualified to be president than Sarah Palin.

And you can feel him stretching the facts to make his point fit in his recent piece claiming Caroline Kennedy – who can almost certainly name a few dozen newspapers and magazines she reads, as well as a few she has published serious pieces in. The worst example is how Sullivan takes this statement by Kennedy:

“I’ve written books on the Constitution and the importance of individual participation. And I’ve raised my family.”

And responds to that sentence with: “Good for you. But so have millions of others.” I presume he only means the latter part. He describes the above defense as “even more painful than Palin’s.”

Really? Remember this?

Look – I’m not saying Caroline Kennedy is the best possible candidate for the Senate seat. But the over-the-top criticism by Andrew Sullivan – as well as others – demonstrates a lack of perspective. Caroline Kennedy – with her involvement in constitutional law and education issues – can bring that experience with her to the Senate.

Kathleen Parker gets to the heart of the issue in a way that defuses Andrew Sullivan’s argument:

The real rub is that she hasn’t earned it. The sense of entitlement implicit in Kennedy’s plea for appointment mocks our national narrative. We honor rags-to-riches, but riches-to-riches animates our revolutionary spirit.

Palin paid her own passage unfreighted by privilege. But I and others opposed her spot on the Republican ticket for good reasons, some of which resemble concerns now aimed at Kennedy.

To wit: It isn’t enough to want the prize. One must be up to the job, in a league with one’s fellow actors.

In Kennedy’s case, those actors would be senators, not heads of other, potentially belligerent, nations. If appointed, she would be a single vote among 100 and otherwise a placeholder until 2010, when she would have to run for election as any other.

Which is to say there are three differences here that make all the difference:

  • Kennedy is “a relatively erudite person who has authored several books” including on legal issues while Palin had a “demonstrated lack of basic knowledge…intellectual incuriosity, and… inability to articulate ideas or even simple thoughts [which] all combined to create an impression of not-quite-there.”
  • Kennedy wants to be 1 of 100 senators; Palin wanted to be 1 old man’s heartbeat away from being Commander-in-Chief.
  • Kennedy would need to run in two years on her own to keep the seat.

These are significant differences – which makes this sentiment all the more jarring, especially from a normally astute observer like Sullivan.

Barack Obama Criticism Politics The Opinionsphere

A Defense of Indiscretion (cont.)

[digg-reddit-me]Kathleen Parker, who since breaking with Republican orthodoxy and criticizing Sarah Palin with her obvious flaws, has been a writer I pay attention to found time to comment on the mini-scandal of a former Holy Cross alum:

One day, Favreau was the golden boy of silken tongue. The next, he was just another dimwitted dude acting dumb…Feminists groups such as NOW and The New Agenda are outraged that Clinton – or at least her image – is being treated disrespectfully by the boys. Conservatives are outraged that there’s not enough outrage, as would be the case were the party boys Republicans…

Only Hillary Clinton has made light of the “incident,” hereinafter known as Night of BBB (Boys Being Boys). In an e-mail to The Washington Post’s Al Kamen, a Clinton adviser wrote: “Senator Clinton is pleased to learn of Jon’s obvious interest in the State Department, and is currently reviewing his application.”

Hear, hear. Nipping nonsense in the bud is an essential skill for a secretary of state and Clinton used her shears deftly. If anyone recognizes a little harmless male sport, it would be the bride of President “Is.” One thing is harmful; another thing isn’t…

Puritans and prohibitionists would adore our brave new world of shutterbug infamy. The fact is, no one’s having fun anymore, especially in the nation’s capital, where one can’t afford to let the tongue slip or risk being caught in the cross hairs of a cell camera.

Of course, Parker had the good sense to see Sarah Palin for what she was – a dazzling media phenomenon with little substance. People like Amy Siskind and Campbell Brown couldn’t see beyond Palin’s ovaries – defending her and blaming “the boys” in the McCain campaign for holding her back.

Robert Schlesinger of U.S. News & World Report manages to look beyond sexism to the more fundamental issues involved.

The trifecta of a lack of privacy, a disappearing sense of humor, and a zero-tolerance attitude regarding offenses real and perceived will leave us dysfunctional: We’re all human, after all, and make mistakes. Show me someone who has never in their life done something embarrassing, inappropriate, rude, or regrettable and I’ll show you someone either too inhuman to work in a position of power or someone who was fortunate that a camera phone wasn’t around when they erred.

Amen. That’s exactly the argument I made last week.

Election 2008 McCain Politics

An Obvious Omen

Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker called on Palin to step down from the ticket for personal reasons because she was out of her league, calling on her to put country first last week.

This week, she sees the backlash against her as an omen of suggesting “a bleak future if we do not soon correct ourselves.” She defends her previous column:

Some of my usual readers feel betrayed because I previously have written favorably of Palin. By changing my mind and saying so, I am viewed as a traitor to the Republican Party – not a “true” conservative.

Obviously, I’m not employed by the GOP. If I were, the party is seriously in arrears. But what is a true conservative? One who doesn’t think or question and who marches in lock step with The Party?

The emotional pitch of many comments suggests an overinvestment in Palin as “one of us.”

Zing! But she leavens this defense by rather implausibly saying that these attacks on her demonstrate that the Democrats are as bad as the Republicans and that she hopes Palin kicks butt in the debate.

I guess there is only so far that conservatives are willing to stray, and by pointing out the obvious, Parker had apparently over-stepped the line.