Caroline Kennedy, Obama's choice to become the U.S. Ambassador to the Vatican, has been rejected by the Pope. Kennedy was rejected because she is a pro-choice Roman Catholic.
This is an interesting conundrum.
We, obviously, cannot allow foreign governments to reject ambassadorships based on political stances they do not like. No Communist nation would have had a U.S. Ambassador during the Cold War. And yet, James Joyner at OTB makes this salient point: The Vatican is not really a country at all.
...despite the legal fiction to the contrary, the Vatican isn't really a country; it's a church with a big yard.
A very big yard, indeed. Nevertheless, we did not send an ambassador to Vatican City at all until 1980.
What Obama has done is chose a practicing pro- choice Roman Catholic to be the nation's representative to her church which is pro-life. It is an odd and thoughtless choice. Vatican City is a theocracy - but it isn't really a nation in the usual sense. If a "pro life" government in Mexico or Brazil had rejected Kennedy for the same reason it would be unacceptable. However, this choice is tone deaf - and, once again, puts Caroline Kennedy on the short end of the "job" stick. Obama's attempts to pay off Kennedy for her early support have been a farce.
The Vatican is not clean here. They most certainly would have accepted a pro-choice Protestant. Obama can't be forced to dig around for pro-life Democrats to fill the seat. I suspect the Holy See is as concerned with P.R. than "life." Kennedy is a member of the quintessential Catholic family in America. Accepting THIS pro-choice Catholic would raise the profile of pro-choice Catholics everywhere. She had to be rejected.
She belongs in Ireland. This is the obvious choice. Or has head of the National Endowment for the Humanities.
Cinie explains it all for you - and me here.John Kass, ironically of the same Chicago Tribune Blags is accused of trying to manipulate, points out that the Democrats pretty much brought this current mess upon themselves: Of course, Tuesday's fiasco could have been avoided. Democrats in the state legislature could have stripped Blagojevich of his appointment powers and imposed a special election. Obama also could have demanded it. But as he has done so often in his career, Obama avoided a confrontation and looked the other way.
In fact, the power women are on it tonight. Here Uppity chimes on the possibility that Burris may be met with Senate goons and turned away. No kidding. I didn't make this up. If Roland Burris tries to enter the rarefied airspace of the Senate chambers, he will be stopped by armed guards.
So the Obama era will probably begin with an exceptionally qualified black man being turned away from the Senate while a questionably qualified white women, and Obama sycophant, from a powerful family will be seated. After a year of sexist Hillary bashing from those opposing Burris one can only sit back and snicker with disgust. Once again Obama has the opportunity here to heal wounds - but, being a parasitic coward, he won't. Provided there is nothing unknown and disqualifying about Burris, BHO could signal he approves or, at least, is no longer opposed to his appointment. It's not Burris's fault Blag is almost certainly a crook.
And don't be fooled by the media - Blag's appointment of Burris was perfectly legal. There is no reason for the Senate's belligerence. It is a naked, extra-legal powerplay with the assent of PEBO.
Harry Reid and the Obamanation are opposing Burris for one reason only: They want someone else. Of course, this is an absurd reason and a disastrous precedent.
Sadly for Burris, based on the behaviour of the Obama pods and the Obama media this past year, I suspect Mr. Burris is a few newscycles from being personally trashed.
So much enjoying the comments from the regulars lately. (and you lurkers - dive in! The water is....uh...wet??)
A comment from reader Marie on last night's post that is precisely on point when it comes to the increasingly loathsome Obama: Obama is not a coward - he is a passive-aggressive careerist who can't find a bus large enough to throw us all under. But here - on this site - many of us - and you,JSOM - saw what this man was and what he was selling and rejected it. Well, well, this is what slavish devotion will get you. A free ticket to the Capitol steps to hear yourself humiliated by a preacher thug who is BFF with the new Prez.Obama is a man as dangerous as W - in that he is no less driven by his ego pathologies.
A women after my own heart...
Also - after the "despicable quotes" Rappy nominations were announced reader Kara reminded me of a big oversight - the "cling to guns and religion" arrogant riff by Obama in San Francisco. There will be a special award created for easy going arrogance combined with elegant snottiness: TheArianna - sponsored by John-Roger. Guess who wins this year??!!??!!
And a comment on Caroline K. that nails it for me: The Caroline situation really feels like dropping another sexist shoe. I don't know if anyone has worked really hard for a promotion only to have the boss decide to appoint his girlfriend to the position? Anyway, that's what it feels like. yttik | 12.17.08 - 6:53 am | #
I wrote a piece about Obama and the economy - but forget it. I can't get my mind around "21". One reporter is saying that Rahm The Man in on tape 21 times talking with Blag. No wonder Obama is stalling. Chatty Cathy's string got stuck.
And I have stood back from the Caroline Senate Seat Grab. It is all so disheartening. Why her? There is no reason except, of course, her name. If the seat was in Idaho (The CLAN must have a ski lodge there. Or a ranch, or a 7-11, to justify an appointment.) I wouldn't be so bothered. But New York is overloaded with qualified people - esp women. That seat in particular is becoming a national joke. It's like an ambassadorship - handed out as a reward. Hillary, at least, worked her tail off once she'd decided to go for it. Besides, I think Caroline is a bad choice for Democrats. Clinton had six years of experience, and gravitas when she had to run again. In 2010, Caroline will have neither. And 2010 is already shaping up as a GOP year.
A definition from sedition.com: Socialism 1. emotional vampirism elevated to the level of state doctrine. 2. a form of government based on the collective ownership of goods; e.g., the student council when your mother was "treasurer".
