Caroline Kennedy 'dismayed' by her own voting record...

I don’t have any particular problem with Caroline Kennedy vs. any other Democratic candidate, but this Hillaryesque/Chelseaesque comment really set my eyes rolling:

*Caroline Kennedy said she was “surprised and dismayed” by her own voting record, after failing to cast her pick for the very Senate seat she now hopes to take over.

Kennedy offered no excuses for why she failed to vote in a number of elections since registering in New York City in 1988, including in 1994 when Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan was up for re-election as the state’s senior senator.

"I was really surprised and dismayed by my voting record," she told the Associated Press. “I’m glad it’s been brought to my attention.” * :rolleyes:

[bolding mine]


Anybody remember Chelsea Clinton’s response when asked about her mother’s lies about her Bosnia lies: “Well, I stand by what she said…I mean, I was there, and I was just so honored to have been there!”

Is this what passes for political dialog these days: just ejaculate a string of words having some vague, upbeat tone – whether they make sense or not and whether they address the issue or not – and then just count on it all to blow over?

And do the citizens of New York really want a Senator who views her own voting record with surprise (and dismay)?

The answer to both, apparently, is yes.

It won’t surprise you that the first reply to this mentions Sarah Palin. And yes, this is what passes for political dialog these days, and at least one political party eats it up with a spoon.

Oh, come now! Did Caroline Kennedy protect the Alaskan coast from an invading horde of ravening Cossacks? She did not!

The dismay is understandable, but the expression of surprise over her own voting record betrays an IQ level on par with her brother’s bar exam efforts and ultimate (but predictable) graveyard spiral.

Maybe this is a dumb question, but is there a database that keeps track of whether or not I vote?

Jeez, I hope not.

I’m surprised and dismayed people are already turning this into a partisan piss fight involving Sarah Palin, who is now approximately an hour past her fifteen minutes. C-Kennedy’s been caught doing something a little bit unpalatable for someone angling for a Senate appointment (not voting) and she responded with a really, really retarded statement (surprise at the fact she didn’t vote, as if she hadn’t known that.) That’s worth criticism by itself, irrespective of party affiliation, is it not?

Yes, this is what apparently passes for political dialog these days, and the sad thing is that it does eventually blow over, when someone of the other party says something equally stupid. (I’m still scratching my head about Hillary’s Bosnia comment, wondering what the hell she was thinking.) It seems that neither party has a monopoly on idiocy.

So what’s the debate?

Not so much a debate, but an opportunity to get in yet another Clinton dig.

Yeah, while there are certainly debates one could have about Caroline Kennedy’s qualifications (or about what qualifications one needs to be a Senator), about the method of appointing Senators to fill empty seats, and the way the media shapes our political discourse, this appears simply to be an equal opportunity shot at women in politics on both sides of the aisle.

I think so.

It’s public information, after all. Not who you voted for, or even which contests you voted in, but just that you voted that day. On election day, they post lists from time to time of who has voted already that day.

There is not “a” database that’s publicly available, but the information is public in most states, and can be collated by interested parties willing to do so (and willing to pay any applicable fees).

For instance,

“Who Voted lets you see who among registered voters is recorded as having cast a ballot in recent elections. It does not say who they voted for.”

Here is their site for four states:

You’ll find some information there as well on your general question, including this comment:

"*Election information, including lists of registered voters, is technically public record in all but a handful of U.S. states. However, we have found that it’s extremely difficult to acquire.

Sometimes, the difficulty comes in laws that protect the privacy of citizens. For instance, Pennsylvania and Arizona will provide the records on paper or CD, but have laws preventing posting voter data on the Internet.

But the vast majority of the state and county Departments of Elections charge large fees—up to $12,500 per region—for voter histories. Presumably, voter lists are quite valuable to political candidates and lobbying committees; the Commonwealth of Virginia, for example, provides the lists only to those two groups.

Due to these restrictions, the data available through the Who Voted website is limited to the states of Florida, Idaho, Ohio, and Washington."*

That’s what politicians think passes for discourse, yes.

I don’t see any evidence for either contention, because I think it partly explains why people think so little of most politicians. I also think the polls show people don’t really prefer Kennedy to Cuomo.

I have been waiting for an actual debate topic to show up in this thread, since none was presented in the OP, and I don’t see one.

It’s off to IMHO, where, if it turns into a pissing contest instead of a debate, they can send it to the Pit.

I just asked the question in ATMB so as to get the answer in the proper way, but the reason the OP posed no debate is because I thought GD was the go to forum for political topics outside the Pit.

She is “dismayed” that someone noticed it and made it public, rather than being “embarrased” of the fact she did what she did.

Okay, as a voting woman, I am “dismayed” by all of this pissing and ejaculation.

Do I have to learn to stand up, you know, during?

Are you saying that you find the intercourse here objectionable?


I’m a New Yorker. As of the 1st I’m unemployed.
Maybe I should rerplace Hilary.
Senator Zebra has a nice ring to it.

Whe is with me?

I, for one, would enjoy hearing about a certain Senator Zebra on the evening news.

Caroline has now taken umbrage at two NY Times reporters for asking when she decided to seek the Senatorship, and suggested they go to work for women’s magazines instead:

"But Kennedy appeared to insult women’s magazines when she responded to a question by one of the reporters to recall, for the sake of storytelling, the moment she decided that wanted to be the senator from New York.

**“Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman’s magazine or something?” **she asked, to which the reporter countered by asking what she has against women’s magazines?

"Nothing at all, but I thought you were the crack political team here," she answered.

The unscripted response was followed by Kennedy saying she wishes she could draw on a moment and will think about it a little more. (Perhaps once she’s recovered suffieciently from her glee at having been reminded of her voting record, she will at last be able to recall the moment when she decided to try to become U.S. Senator from the State of New York.)

She also appeared defiant and never gave a straight answer as to whether she’d entertain actually running for office if she weren’t appointed first.


Her huffiness and ready aggression toward these reporters recalls an episode I remember reading about years ago when she was around college age. She and her brother John had gone to a bank in NYC, and, given that she was in a hurry, she tried to cut to the front of the line at a teller’s window. This predictably led to vocal objections by the other people already patiently standing in line waiting their turn. Caroline became loud and arrogant, and, showing the sense of entitlement that she apparently carries to this day, became so lippy and argumentative with the people insisting she wait her turn that her brother finally put his hand over her mouth and forcibly drug her away (it was suggested that he was concerned about public embarrassment to their mother, IIRC, and the context of the article was to show what a fine young man John, Jr. had become. (A sentiment I agree with, btw.)

Anyway, given that most of what I’ve seen of her the last couple of decade (or what the media has elected to show) has indicated that she has become a mature, pleasant, homebody and family woman, and it comes as something of a surprise to see that she’s apparently little removed from the spoiled, arrogant and entitled little brat she was in the late seventies.

But apart from that, you would also think that at the very least she would want to be encouraging the support, rather than the ire, of the NY Times and its reporters…unless of course she already feels sufficiently entitled and that the nomination depend upon the good graces of the NY Times and its readership anyway.

The woman appears far from ready for primetime.