This day in music - November 19, 2007: Neil Diamond reveals that "Sweet Caroline" was written for Caroline Kennedy

By Richard K. Barry

Performing at Caroline Kennedy's 50th birthday party on this day in 2007, Neil Diamond let it be known that "Sweet Caroline" was actually written about her or, perhaps more accurately, she was the inspiration for it.

The song was officially released on September 16, 1969 as a single and eventually went as high as #4 on the Billboard charts.

It is a well-covered tune, having been recorded by Elvis Presley, Frank Sinatra, Jimmy Buffet, and the Dave Matthews Band, among many others.

Diamond said that he got the idea when he came upon an "innocent, wonderful" picture of Caroline in a magazine.

As for admitting the source of his inspiration, he said he was happy to have gotten it off his chest and to have expressed it to Caroline. "I thought she might be embarrassed, but she seemed to be struck by it and really, really happy."

There are many versions of the song on YouTube. This one is from The Shirley Bassey Show in the mid '70s. Check out the bright red jumpsuit on Neil. Some fashion statements really are better left in the past.

(Cross-posted at Lippmann's Ghost.)

Vatican rejects Caroline Kennedy as U.S. ambassador

By Michael J.W. Stickings

So the Vatican won't accept Caroline Kennedy as U.S. ambassador -- or anyone else who is pro-choice (and pro-stem-cell research)?

Tough, I say.

It won't happen -- not least because there are so many Catholic voters at home to placate -- but Obama ought simply to refuse to appoint an ambassador to the so-called Holy See. Why give in? Why appoint a pro-choicer just because that's what the Vatican wants? Why implicitly approve of the Roman Catholic Church's absolutist authoritarian positions on such issues -- that is, its moral extremism -- by appointing someone who approves of the Church's positions and of whom the Church approves? What message would that send? That the U.S., that the Obama Administration, is with the Church on those issues, or that it isn't willing to stand up in defence of its own positions.

So enough. Kennedy would be a fine person to represent America's interests at the Vatican. Perhaps she could even make the case for abortion rights and stem-cell research effectively enough to challenge the Church's long-standing oppression. Not that the Church, or its leaders at the Vatican, would ever be persuaded to abandon its moral extremism, but should it not be challenged, should it not be confronted with alternatives to its extremism?

**********

Such are my views this Easter Saturday. Not that I'm celebrating Easter, other than the secular version -- bunny and eggs for the kids, a nice dinner tomorrow -- but whatever you happen to be celebrating, and I'm celebrating a four-day weekend, quality time with my family, and some fairly nice weather here in Toronto, be safe out there, and be good to one another.

-- Michael

Gillibrand and gay marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

She may be a horrible, horrible pick, but at least she supports same-sex marriage -- which all Democrats should, not just civil unions.

So I suppose that makes the pick somewhat less horrible.

(Maybe in her ideal world you'd be able to buy semi-automatic rifles at wedding chapels.)

**********

For what it's worth, Kos thinks it's a win-win situation:

There are two alternatives:

1. Gillibrand was voting her districts, and will now tack hard to the left as she represents a much more liberal New York, or

2. She gets primaried and a more progressive Democrats -- one chosen by the voters! -- gets in. Heck, it could even be Caroline Kennedy, assuming she isn't afraid to face real voters!

Gillibrand is an accomplished politician who won in a brutally difficult House seat. But what made her successful in that district won't make her successful statewide. So she either adapts, or she dies. And in the end, it'll be the voters making that call.

As it should be.

Well, sure, but there's a third alternative: Gillibrand benefits from the power of incumbency and remains in the Senate after 2010 as a right-leaning Blue Dog with hard-right positions on gun control and other issues.

The point is, Paterson had the opportunity to appoint a solid liberal Democrat -- or (gasp!) a progressive -- to what is a fairly safe Senate seat. And he blew it.

And, yes, with Gillibrand headed to the Senate, I am wondering why I was so critical of Caroline Kennedy, who would have been the far better choice.

Caroline Kennedy, Kirsten Gillibrand, and the inane silliness of the Senate seat drama in New York

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Yes, how inane and how silly it is. And what the hell is taking so long?

It was supposed to be Caroline Kennedy, or so it was thought, given how hard she was campaigning for the job, and given her last name, but she suddenly withdrew from contention on Wednesday, reports conflicting, and since then it has been all about the spin.

The reason was Uncle Ted's health, but that wasn't really a valid reason, given that Uncle Ted has been unwell for some time and that Caroline isn't exactly his only caregiver (and it's an excuse that has apparently aroused Uncle Ted's fury), and yesterday, according to the Times, "one person close to the governor" -- such a vague source, no? -- "said that her candidacy had been derailed by problems involving taxes and a household employee." No details were provided, and there may not be many, but, if nothing else, the (intentional) leak suggests that Governor Paterson's office, with or without the approval of the governor himself, is trying to unload the blame on Kennedy, perhaps to distract attention away from the governor, who seems to have "lost control of the selection process." Neither Kennedy nor Paterson will come away from this whole ridiculous episode looking good, but while Kennedy will at least be able to go back to her private life, Paterson has proven himself to be a weak and ineffectual figure, unable to take charge of the situation. Seriously, all he had to do was pick someone, a Democrat to replace a Democrat in an overwhelmingly Democratic state. What's the problem?

Paterson supposedly decided on Kennedy "weeks ago." Fine. But then why the need for "a little misdirection to keep the suspense up," as one "Democratic operative with ties" put it? Why the need for so much stupid drama, for so much prolonged pointlessness? Well, who knows what motivates the governor? And who knows what to believe? Now that Kennedy has pulled out, that leaky person close to the governor, spinning wildly, is claiming that Paterson "never had any intention of picking Kennedy," given her lack of experience. Right. Sure. Paterson, or his office, is saying all the right things" -- namely that "the governor considers Caroline a friend and knows she will continue to serve New York well inside or outside of government" -- and Kennedy, through a spokesman, is still citing unspecified "personal reasons," but there just has to be more to this story, no?

Anyway, a choice has been made, at long last, and it's not New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo but, if WPIX-TV is to be believed, U.S. Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand of the state's 20th Congressional District -- a largely rural district that stretches along the part of the state, bordering Vermont, Massachusetts, and Connecticut, and includes Glen Falls and Saratoga Springs.

Is Gillibrand a good choice? Sure, if you want a Blue Dog Democrat who's almost a Republican, a supporter of the NRA (and hence an opponent of gun control), and who has already bitterly antagonized her own party, with one of her fellow House Democrats, Long Island's Carolyn McCarthy, threatening to run against her in 2010.

Sorry, but that's not a choice I can believe in.

So... well done, Governor Paterson. You screwed up the entire process, delaying and delyaing, fooling around, spinning this way and that, and now you or those close to you are blaming Kennedy, who deserves some of the blame but hardly all of it, and, to make it all so much worse, you've apparently chosen a questionable Democrat with close ties to the GOP. If only your distinguished predecessor, the unquenchable Eliot Spitzer, had been able to keep his urges to himself. Surely he would have handled this process more professionally and chosen a more worthy replacement for Hillary.

Well, we'll see. It's not Gillibrand yet. Paterson will announce his pick today at noon. Stay tuned.

(Photos: Kennedy with Obama, Gillibrand with Clinton.)

The next junior senator from New York will be... not Caroline Kennedy

By Michael J.W. Stickings

It is being reported that Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her name from consideration to replace Hillary Clinton as the junior senator from New York. She supposedly informed Governor David Paterson of her decision earlier today.

As I wrote last month, I didn't think she was the right person for the job, and I objected to her ongoing efforts to be appointed. It's not that I don't like her -- I suppose she's a fine philanthropist and a decent enough person, not least if judged according to the dismal standards of the U.S. Senate -- it's that she has no political experience and that she thought she was somehow entitled to be appointed simply by virtue of her own celebrity status, if not her famous last name -- or so it seemed.

It's like she decided, after getting her feet wet working for Obama, that she wanted the job, threw her name into the ring by letting anyone and everyone know, in not-so-subtle fashion, that she wanted it, and then launched a self-promotional campaign, including a whirlwind tour of the state she lives in but doesn't seem to know all that well, to overwhelm the competition, including Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, a campaign that did not mean having to answer any questions or engaging with the competition or otherwise being subjected to the rigors of an actual political campaign. And, fine, it wasn't an actual campaign -- it's Paterson's decision to make, and he can appoint whomever he likes -- but the playing field was never even, and Caroline Kennedy had the upper hand simply because she's Caroline Kennedy.

While I understand and appreciate her concern for Uncle Ted, whose health is not good, I have to wonder about that self-promotional tour, about her campaign to be appointed. Was she ever really committed to it, did she ever really want the job, or did she just think she did, or was she just trying to convince us that she was? After all, it's not like Ted just became ill this week.

So what is the real reason for her sudden withdrawal? Why did she back out at the last minute? Maybe it really is her uncle's health, but it seems to me that there must be more to it than that.

Or maybe it was all just a big joke. And a big waste of time.

**********

UPDATE: Or maybe she will be after all. Both the AP and NBC are reporting that she hasn't withdrawn (via PoliBlog).

Gerry bashes Caroline

By Creature

Now that Geraldine Ferraro has come out against the appointment of Caroline Kennedy to NY's junior senate seat I am doing a compete about face and will now wholeheartedly support Kennedy's bid. If her appointment pisses Ferraro off, then I'm in. Yes, I'm shallow like that.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)

Headline of the Day (Caroline Kennedy edition)

By Michael J.W. Stickings

Speaking of Caroline Kennedy -- which I did earlier today -- this headline from the Rochester Democrat and Chronicle is hilarious:

Kennedy visits Rochester as part of effort to learn about upstate New York

And this is the problem, you see. She's never actually run for anything, never had to campaign in or around the state, never had to go directly to the people to ask for their support. Even Hillary had to campaign state-wide, after all, however much of a carpetbagger she may have been. Hillary may or may not have known much about, say, anything north of Westchester County, but the campaign forced her to get close with her adopted state in a hurry.

As for Kennedy, she's campaigning, sort of, unofficially, trying to secure an appointment, and while I credit her for making an effort, however transparently opportunistic, there's a big difference between spending some time being shuttled from Syracuse to Rochester to Buffalo for meetings with local officials and hitting the pavement, knocking on doors, and flipping pancakes. She says she'll run for election if appointed, and maybe she will, but her self-promotional tour doesn't exactly inspire confidence that she's the right person for the job.

Caroline Kennedy for Queen of the World

By Michael J.W. Stickings

I must admit -- and contrary to Carl -- I'm not terribly enthused about the prospect of Caroline Kennedy being appointed to fill Hillary's Senate seat.

It's not that I don't like Kennedy -- hell, she's better than Fran Drescher, who was on Larry King the other night talking about her supposed qualifications for the job, which apparently including having been to Washington and enjoying talking to people (the interview was one of the lower points of Larry King's career of low points) -- it's that I think a more seasoned political figure would be a better choice. I don't dispute that she's done an awful lot with her life, as Carl points out, but, let's face it, she's topping the list of candidate right now largely because she's a Kennedy. Surely there are many other New Yorkers who have similarly hefty resumés.

Over at The Plank, Michelle Cottle makes much the same argument Carl does: America has dynasties, like it or not. Yet, like me, she's cool to the Kennedy-for-Senate movement: "Not because she's unqualified or entitled or a nepotistic threat to democracy or any of that. I'm simply weary of the entire Kennedy myth (and, by extension, the family) -- as I suspect are most people under the age of 50. For all their glamour and mystique, the Kennedys embody the past. Which is fine, but they tend to make the older generation get all mushy and misty-eyed and sentimental about a golden age that was never really all that golden. Time to move on, folks. The theme du jour is 'Change,' remember?"

I'm not as tired of the Kennedys mainly because I just don't pay them that much attention. Besides, other than the present patriarch himself, Ted, it's not like the Kennedys have been political A-listers dominating the Democratic Party.

Among other things, though, what bothers me is what The Stump's Noam Scheiber calls Kennedy's "Palin-esque stiffing of the press." It's not enough just for her to want the job. As she's running her de facto campaign, she needs to answer the questions being lobbed her way, not ducking and running and generally avoiding any engagement with the press. And she needs to explain to New Yorkers just why she wants the job, why she thinks she's the right choice, what she'd do in the job (what are her political positions and policy priorities?), and what her political future would be (she'd be required to run for re-election in two years). After all, although the decision is New York Governor David Paterson's alone, the appointment is obviously a public issue, and the public deserves to know more about the person who may soon represent them in the U.S. Senate. In a democracy, lest we forget, appointments to democratic institutions are, by definition, undemocratic. Kennedy would be a senator, with the advantage of incumbency when running for re-election, without ever having been elected. It seems to me that the burden is on Kennedy to prove herself worthy of the position and to do so in an honest and open fashion, just as it is on Patterson to ensure that the process is as open and honest as possible.

Anyway, that's a long preface to some very funny Andy Borowitz (via The Plank's Chris Orr):

Caroline Kennedy would like to be considered Time magazine's Person of the Year for 2009 and has let the magazine's editor know of her interest in the honor, aides to Ms. Kennedy confirmed today. While some observers considered Ms. Kennedy's bid to be premature, especially since 2009 has not officially begun, aides to the New York senatorial aspirant said that it reflected her view that 2009 will be a very big year for her....

In addition to the Person of the Year honors, Kerry Kennedy said that Caroline had also expressed an interest in next year's Nobel Peace Prize. "That's a call she hasn't made yet," Ms. Kennedy said. "She has to figure out the time difference in Oslo."

Like I said, it's not enough just to announce that you want the job. Whether you're a Kennedy or a Drescher, you need to prove yourself worthy of such a high office. Drescher obviously isn't. Kennedy may very well be, but she has some convincing to do.

The dumbest liberal of the week

By Carl

Talk about idiotocracies:

As the last person on earth to write about Caroline Kennedy, I too am pretty strongly against handing her a Senate seat. Nothing personal -- but I'm anti-dynasty, and feel that a Senate appointment requires at least some minimum threshold of experience and engagement.

It's worth emphasizing though how unseemly the whole thing is, particularly in the age of Blago. The Blago pay-for-play raises some interesting line-drawing challenges. Legislators seek favors all the time -- that's a huge part of what legislating is. But where is the line?

The key I think is to focus one the purpose of the benefit sought. If it's for some plausibly public benefit, then fine. If it's for private benefit, then that's where things start getting smelly. If Blago, for instance, had said "I demand that you push for universal health care. If you do, I'll appoint your preferred candidate." That's pay-for-play in a sense -- it's demanding a "payment" of sorts -- but that's perfectly acceptable in our current system.

Apparently, Publius has decided that Caroline Kennedy is George Blagojevich in drag.

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmm...

Long-time readers of this blog know that I have a certain...affinity for the Kennedys. It comes from having been acquaintances, I suppose. People of the same age on the Upper East Side tended to gravitate to one another, especially in the clubs and boites that served us.

But even ignoring that for a moment, Publius, if I'm reading this semi-literate drivel correctly, is saying that a Kennedy, offering to serve out the two years mandated by state law of Hillary Clinton's term, is somehow the same thing as Jesse Jackson, Jr. being held up for ransom.

Unseemly? To say it's insulting is an understatement. Let's deconstruct this for a moment.

Caroline Kennedy has shown across the course of her life -- adult and child -- nothing but good judgement. She has served admirably in any number of compassionate, charitable roles and offices. Indeed, I often wondered why she allowed her brother John to serve as the political face of the JFK legacy. She was clearly the brains of the outfit.

Again, I can make that comment based on immediate observations, not Publius' sackcloth-and-ashes assumptions. Boots on the ground, as it were.

And it's not like Caroline was sitting at the kiddies' table for the past thirty Thanksgivings at Hyannisport. I wager she learned quite a bit about politics and legislating from Uncles Teddy and Sargent, and Cousins Ahnuld, Patrick, Bobby Jr, Andrew Cuomo... not to mention the assorted lieutenant governors and state legislators.

Caroline chose a path that saw her be a full-time mother and a part-time activist, and yet Publius, who I'm presuming is a man and perhaps has a certain bias towards the glass ceiling, holds her lack of notoriety and "achievement" against her.

This is much like claiming Hillary Clinton did nothing for children all her life, despite the fact that she served as an organizing advisor to the Children's Defense Fund and raised Chelsea.

Indeed, Caroline Kennedy has been what Barack Obama ran as and what Sarah Palin and John McCain and the other rapacious Republican reptiles mocked: a community organizer. After all, she serves on the NAACP Legal Defense and Education Fund, helped create the Profiles In Courage award, worked as director of the Office of Strategic Partnerships for the the New York City Department of Education, and is vice-chair of the board of directors of The Fund for Public Schools. Hell, she's got better education creds than the jackass Obama nominated at Secretary of Education!

Et tu, Publius? Es vos iunctio lacerta?

The bit that got under my skin, however, was the "dynasty" comment. How idiotic do you have to be to think that dynasties have not been, are not, and will not be the primary means of achieving political office in America for the future? Seriously!

Barack Obama and John McCain ALONE spent nearly $1 billion dollars to in this past election cycle, and all candidates in total spent nearly two billion. Two years ago, I had written that we might be looking at the first election cycle where candidates in total spent over a billion, primaries and general.

So, Pubby, you may not like it, but deal with it: You aren't going to get campaign finance reform that levels the playing field anytime soon and apart from Barack Obama, it's unlikely that enough people will coalesce around enough different candidates that the playing field will tilt away from dynasties.

In fact, how many years will it be before Michelle Obama runs for office? I'm surprised her name hasn't been touted for the open seat in Illinois! All Obama has done is add one more family to the aristocracy of this nation that began with Adamses, then Harrisons, then Roosevelts, then Bushes, Kennedys, Clintons, Bidens, Gores, et al.!

WAKE UP, PUBLIUS! THEY'RE HERE ALREADY!

So if we're going to have to allow for dynasties, and we have a perfectly useful dynasty in the Kennedys, one that has a track record of putting the people first, then why not slip one more into the Senate?

(Cross-posted at Simply Left Behind.)

Family jewels

By Mustang Bobby

Not to pick a fight with Jane Hamsher, for whom my respect knows no limit, but I don't think she's giving Caroline Kennedy a fair shake on her possible appointment to fill out Hillary Clinton's Senate term.

The woman has never run for office in her life. We have no idea how she'd fare on the campaign trail, or how well she could stand up to the electoral process. She simply picks up the phone and lets it be known that she just might be up for having one of the highest offices in the land handed to her because -- well, because why? Because her uncle once held the seat? Because she's a Kennedy? Because she took part as a child in the public's romantic dreams of Camelot? I'm not quite sure.

I recall that the same arguments were made in 2000 when Hillary Clinton decided to run for the Senate. True, Ms. Clinton is an attorney and she had worked in the Senate before becoming First Lady, but she had never run for office before, either, and she was basically anointed by Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan to take his seat. And if her name had been simply Hillary Rodham and she hadn't been married to the President of the United States, and had just bought a nice place in Westchester County and decided to pick up the phone and call people, what would her chances have been?

Caroline Kennedy does have one thing going for her that Hillary Clinton didn't have, and it's not just her name or her family connections. She has spent most of her life in New York and she has been involved in, among other things, education reform. She is also an attorney, and her resume is as impressive as anyone out there being seriously considered for the position. I think it's unfair to gloss over her accomplishments and disqualify her just because she is the daughter of a president and the niece of two senators. That may have opened some doors for her, but she's been the one who proved herself, and it's not her that is carrying the baggage of memories of Camelot. I also don't think she's naive enough to think that she will be above it all and not be able to take on the rough-and-tumble of electoral politics in New York or in the United States Senate.

As for the entitlement issue raised by having a slew of family connections in positions of power, I think that it sounds a lot worse than it actually is. After all, we've seen it throughout the history of the country and it pretty much balances out good versus bad (the Roosevelts vs. the Adamses; not to mention rafts of Tafts), and denigrating a potential candidate purely because of pedigree is, I think, a shallow argument. In some ways it can be a curse to be a member of a political family; for example, Jeb Bush's chances for winning the White House are pretty much shot to hell, even if he does become the next senator from Florida. On the whole we have found that family connections don't necessarily mean a lockstep continuation of policy or even political alignments; Theodore Roosevelt was a Republican and FDR was a Democrat.

I don't know if Caroline Kennedy is up to the job of Senator from New York. Then again, no one knows if anyone is, and certainly the names being bandied about (including -- are you ready -- Fran Drescher) are enough to make you wonder what the qualifications are. But she shouldn't be dismissed out of hand because of a pedigree she had no control over.

(Cross-posted from Bark Bark Woof Woof.)

Caroline Kennedy hearts Senate

By Creature

On first blush, I thought having Caroline Kennedy take over as my junior senator was a good idea. I've definitely been impressed by her as an Obama booster this election season. However, thanks to the Internets, my first blush is not my last. Now, I'm with Jane and Atrios. Fuck this legacy crap. Let's give the seat to someone who's been fighting for more than one year.

(Cross-posted at State of the Day.)