The Princess Abdicates

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, January 23, 2009 10:02 AM

Caroline Kennedy's bid for the Senate ended the way it began -- badly.

The woman who had trouble articulating why she wanted to be a senator -- indeed, had trouble articulating anything at all -- folded her tent in a flurry of conflicting leaks and statements. The woman who was so wary of the press pulled the plug -- or had it pulled on her -- without bothering to explain herself to reporters, hiding instead behind a bland statement.

I don't mean to be too hard on Caroline. She is, by all accounts, an exemplary person who's led a productive life and graciously handled the burdens of being the daughter of a martyred president.

But she was a lousy politician. And the New York media, rather than being blinded by her celebrity aura, played the key role in exposing that fact. Unfortunately, there has also been some irresponsible reporting in the past 24 hours.

Kennedy gave the impression that she wanted to be knighted by David Paterson. I'll never forget that initial photo op upstate where she literally ran away from reporters shouting questions. Sorry, that's not how politics is practiced, especially for someone who has not held public office and long stayed out of the limelight. She had something to prove.

When Kennedy did a handful of interviews with journalists, she was, you know, widely mocked for saying "you know" a couple of hundred times. But I think the bigger problem was that she didn't seem comfortable and didn't have a message to define her candidacy.

Yes, it would have been unseemly to openly campaign for a gubernatorial appointment, but she had to conduct herself in a credible manner. When polls showed that New Yorkers favored Andrew Cuomo over Kennedy by a 2-1 margin, I suspected that Paterson (who has to worry about holding the seat when he runs for election in 2010) might look elsewhere. Everyone kept saying, no, you can't turn down a Kennedy. But apparently you can.

The upshot: "Gov. Paterson, defying the liberal wing of his Democratic Party, has chosen little-known, NRA-backed, upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton as New York's junior senator."

Before I get to the latest reporting on Caroline, this tick-tock by Time's Karen Tumulty nicely captures the chaos on the Swampland blog:

"8:40 p.m.: We hear that Kennedy's advisers have just finished a very chaotic conference call. One source says even Josh Isay, her top strategist (at this point, obviously, we are using that word very loosely), is claiming not to know anything about any decision of hers to drop out.

"8:59 p.m.: Swampland commenter rmrd tells us: Olbermann just said Kennedy did not bow out

"10:02 p.m.: Swampland commenter Pourmecoffee (yes, we've got the whole team working on this) informs us of this mystifying update to the NYT story:

"Just before 7 p.m. Wednesday, Errol Cockfield, Mr. Paterson's press secretary, said the governor had referred to the assertion that Ms. Kennedy was withdrawing as 'just the rumor of the day.' More than an hour later, Mr. Cockfield asked that that statement not be published, but neither he nor the governor's communications director, Risa B. Heller, would respond to questions about Ms. Kennedy.

"10:15 p.m.: I go to bed.

"10:56 p.m.: AP moves this:

"ALBANY, N.Y. (AP) Source: Caroline Kennedy remains in contest to fill Hillary Clinton's NY Senate seat. (Corrects APNewsAlert with source saying Kennedy had withdrawn.)

"11:30 p.m.: NYT reporters are told she is preparing a statement reasserting her interest in the job, and they are read a draft: I remain interested in the possibility of serving in the U.S. Senate.

"12:07 a.m.: This statement by Caroline Kennedy arrives by email:

" 'I informed Governor Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate.' "

Ug-ly. Bowing out after midnight -- for undisclosed "personal reasons" -- is like throwing a slab of meat before a pack of hungry dogs.

Yesterday afternoon, the New York Times reported that Kennedy appeared to have a Zoe Baird problem:

"Problems involving taxes and a household employee surfaced during the vetting of Caroline Kennedy and derailed her candidacy for the Senate, a person close to Gov. David A. Paterson said on Thursday, in an account at odds with Ms. Kennedy's own description of her reasons for withdrawing. . . .

"The person close to the governor said Mr. Paterson 'never had any intention of picking Kennedy' because he had come to consider her unready for the job. The person did not describe the exact nature or seriousness of the tax and household employee issues.

"But other Democratic operatives and people who talked to the governor disputed that account, and said that he had all but decided to select Ms. Kennedy as senator."

And then, with rumors swirling online, came this New York Post report:

"In a stunning revelation, a source close to Gov. David Paterson insisted this afternoon that the governor 'had no intention' of picking Caroline Kennedy for New York's vacant senate seat -- because she was 'mired' in an issue over taxes, her nanny and possibly her marriage."

And possibly her marriage. Details?

"The source also said the state of her marriage may have presented a problem as well. . . . Kennedy denied any issue over her marriage in an interview with The Post last month."

Is it responsible to report that? (Paterson had marital issues, too, you may recall.) I wouldn't have, not without some kind of hard evidence. But Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity were repeating it last night on Fox, which like the Post is owned by Rupert Murdoch. Hannity talked about "skeletons in her closet."

I don't really care about her private life -- unless this is the issue that caused her to drop out. And Caroline has done nothing to clear that up.

The New York Daily News version: "The Kennedy camp blasted the mudslinging as 'demeaning,' and Kennedy insisted she quit because hubby Edward Schlossberg didn't want her to move to Washington. 'He basically said it would destroy the marriage,' said the source, who spoke to Kennedy and Schlossberg."

Uh -- didn't they talk about that before she threw her hat in the ring?

Before these reports surfaced, 538 blogger Nate Silver was suggesting Caroline had soured on the idea:

"You embark on a media campaign and 'officially' declare your interest, finding your powerful family and their powerful friends all too eager to help out. But when you're actually put on the spot, you come across as nervous, indifferent, and underprepared -- perhaps because you are nervous, indifferent, and underprepared. Your public image takes a hit. Some powerful figures in the media begin to criticize you, mocking everything from your resume to your speech patterns. You have even less privacy than you're used to. This is exactly what you were afraid of in the first place."

Emily Yoffe agrees in Slate: "It seems more likely that in her brief foray into retail politics Caroline discovered that the bubble she has been able to put around herself and her family all these years was going to be permanently popped, and that it's also no fun being mocked by the press and pawed by the public."

To Michelle Malkin, Caroline's crown shone too brightly:

"The halting media appearances certainly didn't help. But ultimately, it was the regal sense of entitlement that done her in."

Here's what happened when Obama swung by the White House pressroom yesterday:

"Asked how he could reconcile a strict ban on lobbyists in his administration with a Deputy Defense Secretary nominee who lobbied for Raytheon, Obama interrupted with a knowing smile on his face. 'Ahh, see,' he said, 'I came down here to visit. See this is what happens. I can't end up visiting with you guys and shaking hands if I'm going to get grilled every time I come down here.'

"Pressed further by the Politico reporter about his Pentagon nominee, William J. Lynn III, Obama turned more serious, putting his hand on the reporter's shoulder and staring him in the eye. 'Alright, come on' he said, with obvious irritation in his voice. 'We will be having a press conference at which time you can feel free to [ask] questions. Right now, I just wanted to say hello and introduce myself to you guys -- that's all I was trying to do.' "

I'm going to side with the president here. Every casual contact doesn't have to turn into an interrogation -- unless Obama turns out to be completely inaccessible and such encounters are the only chance to throw a question at him.

The latest Drudge-generated controversy: "NO BIBLE USED AT OBAMA RE-SWEAR."

Prompting this report from Salon:

"Breaking, vital news -- when Barack Obama took the oath of office for a second time, he and Chief Justice John Roberts didn't use a Bible. Obama still isn't president!

"No, just kidding. Legally, it doesn't matter -- the president can be sworn in on a copy of 'One Fish Two Fish Red Fish Blue Fish' and the oath would count. But not everyone knows that, and besides, legal or not, the lack of a Bible is just the sort of thing that makes some people worry. So if you're a conservative looking for something to be angry about -- or, if you're Matt Drudge, and you're looking for something your audience will be angry about -- this will do quite nicely."

Adds Steve Benen in the Washington Monthly: "This isn't historically unique. Teddy Roosevelt didn't use a Bible, John Quincy Adams swore with his hand on a book of constitutional law, and Franklin Pierce did the same. . . . Who cares?"

I thought yesterday's Washington Post headline on the holdup on the Holder nomination was unfair the minute I saw it, and Byron York offers a history lesson:

"In 2001, during the confirmation of John Ashcroft to be attorney general, Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee forced a one-week delay in the committee's vote on Ashcroft, saying there had not been enough time to answer all the questions about the nomination. On January 24, 2001, the Washington Post reported the story under the following headline:

"Vote On Ashcroft Is Delayed A Week; Democrats Cite Need for More Review."

When Republicans on the Senate Judiciary Committee did the same thing for Eric Holder's nomination, The Post headline was:

"Republicans Obstruct Holder's Path to Justice Department."

Here's some breaking news from Illinois -- Blago's lawyer says he will be toast: "As far as I know, the people in the Senate are more likely than not to convict him, and he will be removed from office."

Why, then, doesn't he resign?

Reviewing the inaguruation coverage in Slate, Jack Shafer plays hardball:

"Nobody in TV news stir-fries his ideas and serves them to the audience faster than MSNBC's Chris Matthews. Drawing from a larder filled with old anecdotes, unreliable metaphors, wacky intuition, and superficial observations, the always-animated Matthews steers whatever's handy into the hot wok that is his brain. The sizzling free-associations skitter through his limbic system, leap out his mouth, and look for a resting spot in the national conversation, where they steam like fresh lava in untouchable heaps . . .

"They spotted Muhammad Ali in the gallery. After Olbermann had his say, Matthews butted in.

"Well, and can I point out something else about him? He beat Sonny Liston . . .

"Later, Matthews ejected a more recent memory when the topic turned to Chief Justice John Roberts. Matthews, from the transcript:

"You know, Keith, this country is not as monarchical as it sometimes seems to the outsiders. I was at the shoe store the other day to get my shoes fixed, and sitting next to me -- standing next to me at the cobbler was Jane Roberts, the wife of the Supreme Court justice. I was at a Georgetown game the other day, watching them beat Providence, and sitting next to me is the chief justice. I keep saying to myself, That's the chief justice of the United States sitting there next to me. He's a sports fan. There is some measure of democracy that comes to mind here.

"Imagine that -- the chief justice of the United State has a wife who ferries worn shoes to the cobbler for repair, just like you and me, and the chief justice enjoys college basketball like a normal person. Take that, you hoops-hating monarchists!"

And this: "I gave Val Kilmer a ride home last night. I met -- let's go through the names of who I met, John Cusack. I love -- I always wanted to meet him. He said he always wanted to meet me. That's kind of cool. And Ed Harris. And Robert De Niro, I met him last night."

The NYT's marketing department throws an inaugural party, as New York magazine reports:

"An attendant instructed me to wear a red, white, and blue pin showing an illustration of Obama in profile with the date 01/20/09 stenciled in white, all floating above the Times' logo. The gift bag contained a twelve-inch by twelve-inch poster of the same image. The marriage of the Times' flag and Obama's silhouette was jarring."

I know that's the business side of the paper, but still. It reeks.

Say it ain't so Yo-Yo: The inaugural number performed by Yo-Yo Ma and Yitzhak Perlman was actually pre-recorded even as their fingers moved! Wasn't this a scandal when Milli Vanilli did it?

Finally, I won't link to Gawker because the item has some pretty raw stuff (believe me, you can find it), but it seems some of those 1.8 million people who came to D.C. this week were not solely motivated by patriotic fervor. From a couple of Craigslist ads:

"I want to make this great weekend even better by hanging out, and getting kinky, with a girl, (or two, or three) in my hotel room jacuzzi!"

And: "26 swm despondent McCain supporter looking for a little payback on inauguration night with a deliriously happy Obama voter. All the intensity of post-fight sex without having to go through any of that messy relationship nonsense?!"

I like the note of bipartisanship.