Media Notes Archive   |   Live Q&As   |   RSS Feeds RSS   |  E-mail Kurtz  |  Style Section

Brand Name Politics

Discussion Policy
Comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions. You are fully responsible for the content that you post.
By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, December 17, 2008; 11:17 AM

How shocking, some folks are saying, that Caroline Kennedy might use her storied last name to land a Senate seat.

I don't recall hearing a whole lot of carping when George Walker Bush, son of George Herbert Walker Bush, became an instantly plausible presidential candidate because his dad had served in the Oval Office.

I heard some of it when Hillary Rodham Clinton, wife of William Jefferson Clinton, won a Senate seat in large measure because she was married to the president (who had publicly cheated on her).

Then there's Chris Dodd (son of Tom), Evan Bayh (son of Birch), Mitt Romney (son of George), Jeb Bush (son of George), Mary Bono (widow of Sonny), Lincoln Chafee (son of John), Nancy Pelosi (daughter of former congressman Thomas D'Alesandro Jr.), Jesse Jackson Jr. (son of Jesse), Andrew Cuomo (son of Mario), Richard Daley (son of Richard), Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan (daughter of Illinois House speaker Michael Madigan), to name but a few. And let's not forget Caroline's Uncle Ted, who won a Senate seat in 1962 with his brother in the White House, and would have been laughed off the field if he had a different last name.

What's more, elective politics isn't necessarily a prerequisite for high office, as proven by Arnold Schwarzenegger, Bill Bradley, Al Franken (if he can squeak through this recount) and even Jesse Ventura. (Okay, bad example.)

Still, I've got qualms. Kennedy (could she have had this in mind when she dropped the Schlossberg?) seems smart, dedicated and competent. But until she appeared with her uncle to endorse Obama, I doubt most New Yorkers, or most Americans, had heard her speak. She has operated in a hermetically sealed world. Can she work a rope line? Does she want to work a rope line?

I got to know John Kennedy Jr. a bit when he was editing George magazine, and he had the politician's natural touch. It was widely assumed that he would go into the family business. Caroline seemed more like her mother, keeping the public at a safe distance.

The media, quite frankly, want David Paterson to name Caroline because they love celebrities and are enamored of family dynasties. But even now, as the maneuvering is done by insiders, we haven't heard her speak.

If Kennedy wants to campaign for the job, she should act like a campaigner. She should give a speech or hold a news conference, mix it up with reporters and talk to some voters. Otherwise she furthers the impression that she wants the seat once held by her Uncle Bobby presented to her without having to get her hands dirty.

Joe Klein isn't jumping on the bandwagon:

"I've met Caroline Kennedy a few times and she seems like a good person. Compared to many children of the rich and famous, she has lived her life quietly, modestly, in exemplary fashion. She has worked hard for worthy causes; those who've worked with her say she is intelligent and self-effacing. Or was self-effacing. You can't really say that she is now, having thrust herself into the midst of the selection process for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. By doing so, she has displayed an eminently New York quality: chutzpah.

"Indeed, Kennedy's play seems very much of a moment recently passed -- the dynasty years of American politics, when Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes (and other, less obtrusive dynasties -- Udalls, Cuomos) cluttered our public life. There is nothing new about this. We've had our Adamses and Roosevelts in epochs past. But the combination of dynasty and celebrity in a too-hot media age has proved a diversion from good governance. That was part of the message sent by Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton in the primaries -- Clinton was, and is, a fine public servant, but she came attached to a moveable media carnival."


CONTINUED     1                 >


© 2008 The Washington Post Company