joxur wrote:
I didn't have a problem with Kennedy, but I didn't really love him, either. While you're right that we don't have very many dealmakers left, that is more of an indictment against our current state of cult-of-personality-politics than it is about whether Kennedy was a great senator or not.
Perhaps the fact that people are talking about his wife as his replacement might give you an idea why I 'm not particularly fond of dynastic politics. You also have to realize that I'm an independent, so the passing of a liberal icon doesn't mean all that much to me.
I'm not entirely sure you're correct there, Jox. I believe that the reason Kennedy became a senator was because of dynastic politics (orchestrated almost solely by Joe) and that later, as he grew in gravitas in the Senate (because he wasn't that effective early) he used the name Kennedy to enable himself to tap into that dynastic past to great effect. Certainly better than Rockefeller has.
I agree about Mrs. Kennedy, except that it would be for a very limited time and she couldn't run for the seat in the special election. Now, if she were to use her status as widow to browbeat other Democrats into falling in line on healthcare; THAT I would have serious issues with.
I expect to see a Kennedy on the ballot in the special election to fill the seat but I don't think it will be Vicki.