Camelot on the Hudson?

If you read the article in today's Times on Caroline Kennedy, the most interesting part comes at the end:

Ms. Kennedy came to the interview with two aides, who had reserved the back room of the Lenox Hill Diner, on Lexington Avenue near 78th Street, for several interviews scheduled on Saturday.

As things wrapped up, a reporter tried to pose another question, but she interrupted him.
“I think we’re done,” she said.

That little colloquy (or lack of one) indicates nicely the tone-deafness and arrogance that has permeated Kennedy's pseudo-campaign since day one -- and also indicates why the backlash against her candidacy has been so thoroughly warranted.

There was a famous moment in Senator Ted Kennedy's first campaign for the Senate in 1962 where his opponent said of him in a debate that if his name had been Edward Moore, instead of Edward Moore Kennedy, that his candidacy would be a joke. But Ted Kennedy has turned out to be one of the greatest of all senators. Should we give the same leeway to his niece?

I'm not so sure.

I don't really have a dog in this race. There isn't any particular candidate I would rather see in the Senate than Kennedy. But like a lot of people I do mildly resent the idea that a person of wealth and privilege thinks that a seat in the United States Senate is just theirs for the asking. And I'm starting to get the feeling that Governor Paterson might just feel the same way.

Would she be able to raise money? Yes. But does that matter? The Barack Obama campaign has totally upset the old paradigm for political findraising, so it may be possible for a dark horse to go online with a strong message and raise enough money to be competitive that way.

Does she have name recognition? To people over 50, yes. But to younger voters, the Kennedy name is more associated with date rape and inept pilots (if at all) than with the magic of Camelot. Keep in mind that Arthur Schlesinger once famously stated that the Kennedy Administration was a "damn long time ago" -- and he wrote that in the early 80s.

Also keep in mind that whoever Paterson appoints, assuming that they're not a caretaker, will have to win not one but two elections in the next four years -- and Caroline Kennedy is the worst public speaker I have ever heard. Has she gotten better lately? Perhaps. Is she good enough to win an election on her own? I doubt it.

And just the way she has handled herself over the past few weeks has not inspired confidence -- to put it mildly. Ducking the press, avoiding tough questions, Kennedy's rationale for her candidacy seems to be "Vote for me, I'm a Kennedy." And I'm not sure that works anymore. It's not 1962, after all.

So I'm not at all sure that Senator Caroline Kennedy is a sure thing. Or even that it should be. Governor Paterson is starting to resent the strong-arm tactics being use to sway his decision, and I wouldn't be surprised if he chose someone else. And that might not be a bad thing.

Tom Moran