wnyc.org / 93.9fm / am 820

Comments

• [1] Marc Naimark from Paris January 06, 2009 - 09:39AM

  I tried to read this piece, but the gag reflex was just too much for me.

  Let's start with a NY Times obsession, those "opt in" mommies, a group that in fact is quite small, but in the eyes of NY Times writers appears huge, since they are of the same class. While I don't want to deny the fact that such women exist, it is most unfair to try to categorize them as "mommies" when most mothers do not have the luxury of a high-earning job, nor the even greater luxury of being able to leave their job for years to raise their children. In fact, an awful lot of women don't have "careers": they have jobs.

  Now on top of that shaky foundation, Ms Belkin wants to build a monument to Ms Kennedy Schlossberg.

  "Take away the part about her father the president and her uncles the senators, ignore for the moment her Park Avenue address, peel away the talk of the dangers of dynasty and the power of privilege, don’t even touch the question of whether anyone would be picking apart her credentials if it were a male Kennedy who was under consideration — and what is at the core of all this shouting is what, nowadays, counts as experience."

  Let me use a similar strategy: "Look around the studio, Brian. Take away the walls, the floors, the electronics, the microphone, the guest, and what you're really talking about is a table and chair." The boldness of the BS is truly inspiring.

  Now on to: "Those who aspire to serve in Congress sometimes “pay their dues” by playing for the N.B.A. or the N.F.L. or starring on “The Love Boat,” which are all less relevant qualifications for the job than financing city schools." And all those people WON ELECTIONS.

  And please don't compare Ms KS with Hillary Clinton. I for one think that she was a lucky carpetbagger, but she at least WON AN ELECTION.

  But at least Ms KS got Ms Belkin a spot in the NYT Magazine...

  
  
• [2] jennifer from manhattan January 06, 2009 - 10:12AM

  As a working mom lawyer who "opted out" last spring to do some full-time mommying, I have to take issue with Lisa Belkin's perspective. I have three kids and I practised for 15 years before "opting out." In contrast, Caroline Kennedy has not practised at all and I simply cannot accept that doing volunteer work and directing a team of research students writing books on the Bill of Rights--however noble and interesting it might be--is remotely the same kind of "experience" as that of a working professional who has to show up to work every day and meet deadlines and expectations.

  Second, when I left my job I did so with the full understanding that it will be an incredibly difficult task for me to get back into the work force. Caroline Kennedy's bid to "re-enter" the work force is equivalent to my calling my old company and saying I'm ready to come back to work and take the top position of General Counsel.

  If she wants to re-enter the work force and become a Senator someday, why doesn't she start out running for a lower-level candidate position and work her way up from there, like so many other people have to do? Caroline Kennedy's bid smacks of hubris and the anaology does real working moms no good.

  
  
• [3] Hugh from Crown Heights January 06, 2009 - 10:50AM

  If Caroline Kennedy is going to cast herself as a stay-at-home mom, maybe she should tell us how many staff she had helping her. The Kennedy family has a net worth in the hundreds of millions.

  Kennedy is refusing to release her tax returns (which she would have to do if she were actually up for election).

  Has she had undocumented workers helping with kid-care?

  
  
• [4] Hugh from Crown Heights January 06, 2009 - 10:53AM

  Some of us have taken a Dad sabbatical and, frankly, we're getting the shortest end of the stick -- nobody even acknowledges we exist, and among many working women and men, there is thinly veiled contempt for men who stay at home for any period of time.

  
  
• [5] Evan from New York, NY January 06, 2009 - 10:54AM

  I agree with Mark Naimark. Caroline Kennedy seeks to be APPOINTED, not elected, to the Senate seat. Therefore, her complete lack of experience is the sole criterion by which she should judged. If she ran for office and won, fine. She would be subject to the judgment of the voters and whether she possessed the requisite qualifications of an appointee wouldn't matter. However, her lack of experience and her unwillingness to answer questions (see her NY Times interview) means she shouldn't get the job over Maloney, Gillibrand, etc.

  
  
• [6] josh January 06, 2009 - 10:54AM

  Having experience as a full time parent is so valuable, in terms of time management, setting boundaries, and getting the f out of the office on time, that there are now actually job agencies specializing in providing companies w candidates who are exclusively coming from that background.

  
  
• [7] Steve from Harlem January 06, 2009 - 10:54AM

  This whole conversation is silly. Your guest is right about the importance of what women do in the home. BUT this hardly qualifies someone to be a senator! Why not give every stay at home mom in the city a shot? I doubt Ms. Kennedy does much housework herself. This discussion does not change the fact that the one and only reason this woman is being considered for the job is the fact she is a Kennedy. And that rankles.

  
  
• [8] Marco from New York January 06, 2009 - 10:55AM

  This is ridiculous. Mrs. Schlossberg is only being considered for the Senate because of her maiden name. This smacks of the dynastic politics that have been so harmful to our democracy.

  
  
• [9] Lisa from Westchester County January 06, 2009 - 10:55AM

  Being Caroline Kennedy is no easy feat, and her experience as a stay-at-home-mom is nothing yours and mine would be.

  CK could have married any celeb guy, but she married a real person, who works and has a company. She herself does a lot of work - paid or not.

  Her life experience is not to be dismissed, nor are her contacts and insight.

  I only wish she was better spoken. We'd all feel better about her if she were more articulate

  
  
• [10] Karen from Manhattan January 06, 2009 - 10:55AM

  I took three years off to stay home with my son, who was five. I had been working f/t -- and more -- as an attorney at a major law firm. I have worked steadily for 11 years since returning to work, but have had my "Mom" time described to me by recruiters as a "hole" in my resume for which I must account. I am suspected, I guess, of being less than serious about my career because I was willing to "drop out" of a high-end job for so long.

  
  
• [11] jk January 06, 2009 - 10:56AM

  So who are the powerbrokers pushing for her appointment?

  That seems a bit important, no?

  
  
• [12] Brian from NJ January 06, 2009 - 10:56AM

  Agree with the second poster. What Caroline Kennedy is trying to do would be the attorney commenter leaving as a junior associate and thinking she deserves to come back as a senior partner. Kennedy has done NOTHING to deserve tis position. City Councilwoman? Maybe. Stepping back into working life as a US Senator? Don't think so.

  
  
• [13] Steve from Harlem January 06, 2009 - 10:57AM

  Was Bill Bradley, a Rhodes Scholar by the way, elected or appointed?

  
  
• [14] Cynthia from Brooklyn, NY January 06, 2009 - 10:57AM

  Many of the arguments against Caroline Kennedy were the same against Hillary Clinton - no experience, name association, never held elected office, etc.

  
  
• [15] Ray from Harlem January 06, 2009 - 10:58AM

  First off, can you please use "Stay-at-home parent" when talking in general terms? I am a stay_at-home parent that is a dad, and am tired of always hearing "stay-at-home mom"

  I have to echo some of the other comments. In my experience in NYC with 3 children, there are few parents that stay home to do the actual parenting. If they have the money, they have help. If they don't have the money, they are at a job trying to get by, and doing the best they can with the kids.

  
  
• [16] Ed from westchester January 06, 2009 - 10:59AM

  What qualifications did Bill Bradley or most others in the Senate have to be there? They got elected.

  
  
• [17] david from NYC January 06, 2009 - 10:59AM

  Because you have the family name Kennedy or Cuomo does not give you entitlement because you want to keep your family dynasty alive.

  
  
• [18] O from Forest Hills January 06, 2009 - 10:59AM

  Well said #2 Jennifer from Manhattan, I agree with Brian from NJ.

  She would only get this b/c of her connections and money. I don't think she is qualified. It is unfair, but in the real world of political corruption, money and connections talk and she may get the nomination. Even Obama is pushing Paterson to name her as Senator. It is not fair, but life is not fair and money talks.

  
  
• [19] Karen from Manhattan January 06, 2009 - 11:00AM

  Recall that Senators were originially selected by state legislatures and were chosen for their social and political ties as well as their "qualifications" as legislators. The idea was that the Senate would represent the social and economic aristocracy, not we hoi polloi. Maybe not a great idea, and it's certainly changed (by Constitutional amendment), but Caroline would be only being fulfilling the framers intention that Senators be chosen for reasons other than or in addition to their political and professional experience.

  
  
• [20] Niclas from stockholm January 06, 2009 - 11:03AM

  I'm sure that there are a lot of candidates that are just as qualified or even more so than CK to be senator, BUT, as the old adage goes: its not what you know its who you know...

  I'm not referring to her uncle and name getting her into the senate (that goes without saying) but the position of senator is all about networking and getting people to agree with you. So "Bob Smith" or whoever from Manhattan may be more qualified, technically speaking, but I'm assuming that CK can still get more done because other senators want to get in good with the Kennedys.

  CK is uniquely qualified simply because of the way our system works. She's now taking flack because we are ashamed that this is the way things work.

  
  
• [21] SuzanneNYC from Upper West Side January 06, 2009 - 11:03AM

  Caroline Kennedy is not the poster girl for the issue of women's work and family lives. She has a famous name and stayed out of the spotlight all these years. But mostly, she has money so she could take on pro bono work through her connections -- both family and political. By all accounts, she's smart and accomplished. Now she wants to be Senator. The issue is not is she qualified but who is she? Do we have any idea why she suddenly wants this. Anyone applying for a job would have to answer that basic question. So far, she hasn't said anything to enlighten us.

  
  
• [22] John Lobell from Mahnattan January 06, 2009 - 11:05AM

  I did not mind when Kennedy's name first came up -- why does one have to climb through the slime of electoral politics to be qualified. But once she started to speak -- hey, I would say that 90% of this shows listeners have more to say on policy issues than she does. Does she even read the newspaper? Remember the grilling of Sarah Palin -- let's see how Kennedy does under such questioning.

  
  
• [23] Tony from Downtown Brooklyn January 06, 2009 - 11:05AM

  This whole discussion is absurd. Carolyn Kennedy has lots of "qualifications" for senator. But being a stay at home mom isn't one of them. Her job will be to advocate on the behalf of the citizens of New York State. Will her relative ability to manage play dates or interact with nannies make her a better senator? It's ridiculous to suggest such a thing. Will the fact that the president of the United States return her phone calls make her a better senator? Of course!

  She's far more "qualified" than Al Franken or Jesse Ventura or even Arnold Schwarzeneger are for their jobs. But her likelihood for success is more dependent up the access she brings to the position just because of who she is. That's the way life is. Deal with it. And stop trying to make pushing an overpriced baby stroller down the street the equivalent of commanding the army in war time. That was your choice, and you knew you weren't a Kennedy when you made that choice. So no...you're not qualified to be senator

  
  
• [24] Sara from nyc January 06, 2009 - 11:06AM

  Not only is Caroline Kennedy a "singular" example of "stay at home moms," a US Senator is a singular example of a "job." Add the other singularities of class, wealth, family history/connections, appointment versus election, etc. and you have a singularly poor example with which to open a discussion about the very real problems these women may face when attempting to reenter the workforce. Was this just a cheeky attempt to rouse our interest in something other than the global economic or Gaza meltdowns?

  
  
• [25] CSZ from NYC January 06, 2009 - 11:10AM

  Folks--let's get real, please!

  This is an insult to all women; mothers or not.

  Let's judge Ms. Caroline Kennedy on her abilities and talents that she can bring to the Senate but not by adding, "stay at home mom" to her resume.

  I am sure she had some practice running her staff at her homes. BUT-- my question is-- with all that staff

  why didn't she get to the polls to cast her ballot?

  
  
• [26] Kaj from Edison January 06, 2009 - 11:16AM

  The comments about Caroline Kennedy (Schlossberg?) qualifications are ludicrous. Of course she is quailified.

  The prime qualifications to be in the Senate are to have, and to able to, raise large amounts of money.

  On both these counts, she is supremely qualified.

  Most of the rest of the work of the average senator are performed by staffers and lobbyists, so she need not overly concern herself there either.

  Unfortunately our democracy is on the ropes, and the creation of political aristocracies like the Clintons, Daleys, Bayhs, Bushes, Gores and Kennedys only serve to weaken rather than strengthen our government.

  Unfortunately it seems most of the electorate could care less. Chinese democracy, indeed.

  
  
• [27] Rachel from Sunnyside January 06, 2009 - 11:37AM

  What I find most absurd is this idea that all stay at home moms opt out because they want to--has anyone here paid for childcare in NYC?

  It is actually CHEAPER for me to stay at home and watch my two kids then to pay childcare costs. I would prefer to work, but we can't afford to have me work.

  Instead, I get lumped in with these moms who have the luxury of opting out. Caroline Kennedy had this luxury, I do not.

  
  
• [28] Marc Naimark from Paris January 06, 2009 - 12:07PM

  Those were legitimate arguments against Hillary Clinton. And the VOTERS had the opportunity to evaluate those arguments and ELECT her.

  
  
• [29] jennifer from manhattan January 06, 2009 - 12:51PM

  Why is this segment not available in the archives? The other segments from today are.

  
  
• [30] seth from Long Island January 06, 2009 - 01:09PM

  Gov Patterson,

  Just say no to dynastic politics and the cult of celebrity. Do the right thing and appoint someone other than Caroline Kennedy.

  
  
• [31] Marc Naimark from Paris January 06, 2009 - 02:11PM

  @Jennifer (29): It takes time to load the segments. It's now available.

  
  
• [32] Teresa from Long Island, NY January 06, 2009 - 10:02PM

  Gov Patterson knows Ms. Caroline Kennedy will be able to raise lots of money. Ms. Kennedy obviously uses the term "working Mom" very lightly. In my world, a "working Mom" is someone who works to help pay the mortgage and car payment. I don’t have the luxury of having nannies, cleaning ladies and personal chefs. Often I’ll spend Sundays cooking entire meals for the coming week. Somehow we manage to work 40 hours, clean the house, make dinner, do laundry, food shopping, help out with homework, drive our children to track, dance, basketball, etc. And then squeeze in some exercise and community service. Ms. Caroline Kennedy’s version of a stay at home mom is probably my version of a vacation. If Ms. Kennedy managed half of what a typical middle class working mom does, she would probably be too tired to “re-enter” the workforce and be a senator.

  Please view my blog at http://wifenmom.blogspot.com/

  
  
• [33] sher from ny ny January 07, 2009 - 04:45PM

  Jennifer from Manhattan, kudos to you. I couldn't agree with you more.

  Caroline Kennedy's bloodlines and money don't qualify her to be in the Senate. Her past experience doesn't qualify her, either. So what's left? She's so famous and has such an important name that it's okay to give her the job and hope she knows what she's doing?

  Sorry. Not buying it.

  
  
• [34] Helen Morik from Bronx, NY January 07, 2009 - 05:03PM

  Lighten up folks. Caroline Kennedy cannot be elected to this position because there's no election. Does that mean she shouldn't put her hat in the ring? I believe Ms. Kennedy is as qualified as others who have sought office and she will prove herself over the coming less than two years. She may surprise us. Her name recognition, stature and connections immediately elevate her to more than junior senator status. New York needs someone with these qualities to help us through these next few years. I hope the Governor agrees.