Okay, I have a dilemma

Back in 1980, when I was 9 years old, my parents were trying to decide whether to vote for Jimmy Carter or Ted Kennedy.  They really liked Carter, and his politics were close to their own, but they both ended up voting for Kennedy.  My parents are among the many people who absolutely adore the Kennedy name.  Although Carter was more their style (more moderate, a Southerner, and a Protestant), they selected Kennedy.

I have the same tug everytime a Kennedy name comes up.  At one time in my late 20's, I just knew that John F. Kennedy Jr. would one day be a force to be reckoned with in the world of politics, but again, I was wrong.

I love the name of Kennedy, but I've got to find a better way to select a candidate instead of their pedigree.  Should I support Kennedy, or should I support a more-rounded candidate like Madigan?  And no, Roland Burris is not an option for me.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 23:49:26 PM UTC

I understand

The Kennedys are secular saints to people of a certain age, my mom among them. She even has what she calls her "Kennedy collection" - a set of pins, commemorative plates, and other memorabilia (even a copy of "Profiles in Courage") celebrating Bobby and Jack Kennedy. But I think even she was opposed to the possibility of Caroline Kennedy getting the Senate nomination here... so I guess there's a time to move on for everyone.

---

by: DavidNYC @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 23:58:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Thanks

That's why I hope Lisa Madigan runs for the Senate.  I could support her very easily.  But that Kennedy name...

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 00:03:45 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

A little ironic

Because the Madigan's are the family dynasty of IL.

Kennedy seems to have a pretty solid background in most respects but his labor stances are a little troubling. I hope  Jan Schakowsky runs.

---

by: Populista @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:39:26 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

That is ironic

I didn't know about the Madigan dynasty of Illinois.  I think every state has a family dynasty, but few have it on a national level like the Kennedys.  The Kennedy dynasty can be found in MA, RI, NY, and MD.  

Great point you made...

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:43:29 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

IL has 2 dynasties

Madigans meet the Daleys.

26, Male, Democrat, TX-26

---

by: trowaman @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 19:55:59 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Forgot about the Daleys

Anyone from the Daley family a potential candidate for a state-elected office?

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 20:44:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

California, too

in a very mild way.  Some Shriver is on the Santa Monica City Council.  And the governor's married to one ;-).  More generally about dynasties, don't forget the Udalls in New Mexico, Colorado, Arizona, Utah, and Oregon.

---

by: Caspar @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 21:23:09 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

The Browns too.

With Governors Pat and Jerry, with the latter now Attorney General, plus ex-Treasurer Kathleen Brown, Jerry's sister.

My blog
Twitter
Scribd
28, New Democrat, Female, TX-03 (hometown CA-26)

---

by: californianintexas @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 22:35:08 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

My parents are the same way

Although they sound maybe a bit more liberal than yours, they also still are automatically drawn to the Kennedys (and living in Minnesota, the Humphrey name as well).  Too bad this generation of Kennedys haven't exactly lived up to John, Robert, and Ted.

And slightly off topic, anyone who has never seen/heard Ted Kennedy's 1980 Convention Address should find it on line immediately.  It still rings true today as one of the most stirring statements ever of what it means to be a progressive Democrat.  I might consider it the best political speach of my lifetime (and I'm two years older than you).

---

by: IndianaProgressive @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 00:14:58 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

I imagine you are right

I do not consider my parents liberal at all...they are what I consider as the FDR type Democrat.  Although they have liberal views regarding social issues, their focus are more in line with the economy as a whole.  They were inspired by JFK and LBJ regarding civil rights too, but I think FDR left a lasting impression on them because how FDR gave their parents "A New Deal", much like I really look up to JFK because he gave our country a new shot of vibrant growth.

When I was 9 years old I saw a tape recording of Ted Kennedy's speech.  I remember my parents tell me that if Ted had spoken like that during the Presidential primaries, he would have defeated Jimmy Carter.  What really hurt Ted in 1980 was when he was asked why he wanted to be President.  His answer was vague.  Kennedy would have made a great president too, and I always wondered how a Kennedy vs. Reagan election would go.  At first I thought that Kennedy would have done better than Carter, especially in the Northeast, but I don't believe he could have defeated Reagan.  Both Reagan and Kennedy had a lot of charisma, so who knows who would have won.

40, male, Democrat, NC-04

---

by: Tarheeman1993 @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:23:24 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Kennedy bad name in my house

I grew up with "Kennedy" being a bad name.  Mom is a lifelong Republican and dad was a southern yellow dog Democrat who switched to voting Republican around the time of Reagan.  Although I'm well left of center politically, I still have no intrinsic emotional attachment to the Kennedy name and if anything would probably support another Democrat in close cases just because I don't like political dynasties and maybe some subconscious bias against the Kennedy name.  Funny how things like that stick with you.

---

by: sicembears @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:45:55 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I asked my Dad once about the Kennedy's

since as a 22 year old, they dont really ring true to my heart.  My Dad has voted for one Democrat in all his life and that was Klobuchar and he had nothing but great things to say about the Kennedys.  He said they kind of got screwed out of attaining the power and the legacy they should have with so many dying.

He never would've voted for one but he still held them in extremely high regard and probably wouldve been okay with one of them being president

---

by: Andrew @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 02:23:00 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Guess your dad didn't like all the Kennedys

Mark Kennedy didn't make the cut, huh?

---

by: IHateBush @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 02:33:02 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Oy

---

by: andgarden @ Tue May 19, 2009 at 23:50:53 PM UTC

I dunno.

With heavyweights like Giannoulias, Schakowsky, and Madigan in or eyeing the race, how much traction does Kennedy think he can get?

---

by: mkpowers @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:21:01 AM UTC

I think he actually benefits from a multi-candidate field.

Kennedy vs Madigan vs Burris:  Kennedy loses.

Kennedy vs Schakowsky vs Burris:  Kennedy loses.

Kennedy vs Schakowsky vs Madigan vs Giannoulias vs Burris.  I think a guy named Kennedy could slip through that Democratic primary in the end.  

I wouldn't be shocked if a solid quarter of the Democratic primary electorate were just willing to vote for any real Kennedy on their ballot.  If he's a good campaigner with some money and can add another 5-8% to that quarter, he's got 32% of the vote and might could slip past even Madigan.  Especially because going negative on a Kennedy ain't that easy.  No one can blame any of them for choosing to remain in a low-profile private life, given the recurring tragedies of their family.  Nor is it very easy for a rival campaign to argue that Chris Kennedy is not suited or ready for office, given that he grew up in the very middle of American politics.

I never expected to hear myself arguing for this scenario, but I do think he could win a five-candidate primary, or a four-candidate primary without Madigan.  Kindof scary, but true I think.

28, gay guy, Democrat, CA-08

---

by: texas dem @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 11:12:05 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Where do each of them live/where did they grow up?

Schakowsky I know--north lakefront Chicago.  I'm assuming Burris's base is in South and West Chicago, but I don't know.  Madigan is Chicago, but where?  What about Giannoulis?  What I'm getting at is that we have a wealth of talent here (perhaps except Burris, but he's been a better Senator than I think many expected).  Is there any way somebody could take on a US House seat--Roskam or Kirk for a Chicagoan, the others if any are non-Chicago politicians?

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

---

by: Tiger in BlueDenver @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 00:41:56 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Ooh!

Burris is actually from Carbondale, but I'm not sure how hospitable Southern Illinois would be, in general, for an African American politician.

30, male, Democratic, CO-01

---

by: Tiger in BlueDenver @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 00:48:30 AM UTC

[ Parent ]

Meh

He's welcome to run of course, but I don't see him getting past the heavyweights that are running or likely to run.

---

by: skaje @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 01:53:12 AM UTC

while i don't hate dynasty candidates as some here do

i really don't see the need in IL or NY or CT.  there is some excellent homegrown talent with appropriate experience and a great chance of winning generals in these blue states.

if chris or caroline or any other kennedy wants to be a u.s. senator, then i suggest they move to a swing state (MN, FL, MO, NV) - or a red one (AZ, TX, OK, GA) that costs a lot of money to run in, and run there.  their names are still worth a lot even in these republican places (hell, every GOPer claims to emulate JFK), and their immense amounts of money and philanthropic record are "pure gold."  and maybe they could start by running for AG or something rather than acting like the Kennedy first rung is US Senate, because that's annoying.

---

by: st paul sage @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 15:53:25 PM UTC

Chris Kennedy

has lived his adult life in Chicago and made his career there.

---

by: SC @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 16:24:00 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I wonder how Chris Kennedy's joining the race

will affect Madigan's decision on whether or not to switch over to the Senate race from her original plans to run for Gov.

I'm thinking she might be more likely to stay in the Gov. race, rather than be just another in this slew of Senator candidates. Especially with a potential celebrity with such a famous and beloved father, one of RFK's sons.

---

by: homerun @ Wed May 20, 2009 at 21:19:17 PM UTC

Hmm

He has a pretty impressive resume.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C...

We'll see how good of a campaigner he is.  That's what it's really about.

---

by: Sean Fitzpatrick @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 10:14:34 AM UTC

first of all lisa madigan would not be "just another in a slew of candidates"

she is tha automatic frontrunner and heavyweight.

2nd i looked at chris kennedy's resume and i'm unimpressed.  he hasn't been elected to anything.  he hasn't served the US in a significant way (in the armed services or as an appointee in a key position) and the company that he is an executive for is his family's company.  i mean i'm only being mildly snarky when i ask: "how impressive is it to quickly advance through your grandad's company?"

the negative for him and for caroline is exactly the same.  they are nice people who've done some nice things, but they are political dilletentes who would not even consider running for the US senate without that last name.

---

by: st paul sage @ Thu May 21, 2009 at 20:53:23 PM UTC