I can not say that I am all that amazed, but more annoyed that the current governor of New York, David Patterson, is even considering appointing Caroline Kennedy to fill the soon to be departed Hillary Clinton senate seat.
Even more disturbing is the New York Post endorsing such a move.
Look, even Sen. Clinton had to run for the seat that she is to give up to become the secretary of state in the incoming Obama administration. And she had a tough first campaign.
But, for Gov. Patterson to appoint someone who simply has the name Kennedy is certainly not change we can believe in.
For many a Democrat, for some inexplicable reason, they can not let go of the era that gave the United States President John F. Kennedy. Yet, it was not all that rosy a period in American history.
Firstly, Sen. John F. Kennedy all but stole the election of 1960 thanks to the power of his running mate, the corrupt Sen. Lyndon Baines Johnson from Texas and a little more help from the infamous Chicago political machine that gave the election to Sen. Kennedy. And while he squeaked by in that race, he had a lot of problems. Does any one realize why President Kennedy was in Texas that fateful day in November, 1963? Because he was in political trouble in Texas and he was trying to shore up support.
From the assassination of President Kennedy to today, there is this myth that the two and a half Kennedy years were "Camelot". They were treacherous years and not made any better by the succession of Vice-President Johnson.
Then in 1968, in an attempt to relive that time, the Democrats were about to nominate Sen. Bobby Kennedy when he was assassinated also, this time by a deranged Syrian named Sirhan Sirhan.
And let us not forget Sen. Edward "Teddy" Kennedy making a run for the Democrat presidential nomination in 1980 against the incumbent President Jimmah Carter.
Now, with no real reason but a name, a new chapter is trying to be written by the daughter of the first slain Kennedy, Caroline.
This paragraph from the Post' editorial endorsement of Gov. Patterson appointing Mrs. Kennedy is a howler:
Moreover, Kennedy's selection would be a welcome sign of Paterson's willingness to reject the politics of pander and special-interest pressures merely to satisfy some ethnic or geographic quota.
What?! Reject the politics of pander?! Is there any compelling reason to appoint Mrs. Kennedy other than her last name? Pander?! It would be nothing but a move of pander.
But, there are other reasons according to the Post.
In her two years heading the school system's Office of Strategic Partnerships, she raised more than $65 million in private-sector funds for the city's schools. She also serves as vice chairman of the Fund of Public Schools and is a board member of New Visions for Public Schools, which for two decades has worked to bring about systemic public-education reform.
As a member of Barack Obama's vice presidential selection committee - and a key early endorser of his candidacy - she remains close to the president-elect. That kind of access and influence surely would prove critical for New York.
Firstly, the New Visions for Public Schools has not been doing a bang-up job in public education reform if it has taken two decades. And, why did not this editorial give the reader the results of this reform? It would have actually either made or broke a fundamental reason to support Mrs. Kennedy's appointment to the senate.
And on being on President-elect Obama's vice-presidential selection committee, big deal. Did she make the difference in helping Mr. Obama choose Vice-President elect Joe Biden? We do not know. But, according to the Post, it is a close relationship to President-elect Obama that would somehow benefit New York state.
And really, is there not another person in the whole state of New York that can not be considered for this job? Really? I mean, there is the attorney general, Andrew Cuomo. At least he has had to run for office. The perception is that Mrs. Kennedy is being handed a gift rather than at least doing what Sen. Clinton did. And, that is not change I believe in.
I have no problem in Mrs. Kennedy actually running for the Clinton seat in 2010. So, she may face a fellow Democrat in a primary. Big deal. It would toughen her up for a general election.
What I think Gov. Patterson should do is appoint a caretaker type to hold the seat and let the voters decide in 2010.
Giving a member of a prominent family a seat that he or she does not have to run for is not exactly, well democratic.