You know?
January 4, 2009, 1:02 pm
Posted by Joseph A. Komonchak
Both in the transcript of its reporters’ interview with Caroline Kennedy and in the front-page story that described it on December 28th, the NY Times reproduced the verbal tic she used many times: the familiar “You know” that many people use in place of a comma in their speech. In today’s “Week in Review” section, Peter Baker’s piece makes fun of her when he writes: “Caroline Kennedy, you know, may get there on the strength, you know, of her last name.”
I don’t recall the Times including such speech-mannerisms in its reporting before, except perhaps on the sports pages. Has their policy changed? Why would they do it in the case of Ms. Kennedy?
I had the same reaction, Fr. Komonchak. Caroline K. does say “you know” an awful lot, but she can’t be the only one guilty of that offense. To me it seemed like a way of demonstrating contempt for her after she proved a difficult interview subject. (“‘Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman’s magazine or something?’ she asked the reporters.” Obviously she didn’t win any fans with that one.) But it’s far more prominent in the transcript than in the article — do they normally produce entire transcripts of interviews?
There is only one “you know” in the news article itself, but my browser’s search function counts 100 in the transcript. I think if a transcript is provided, rather than an edited version of the an interview, it should be verbatim. I do think Peter Baker is being a little snide. Paul Krugman also comments on the issue, a little more kindly it seems to me. Other papers have commented on Caroline Kennedy’s “not ready for prime time” extemporaneous speaking abilities. I think the Times is fair to her.
As a New Yorker, I have many reservations about Patterson appointing her as Hillary Clinton’s replacement. I can’t imagine that with a modest amount of coaching, she could improve dramatically, but I wonder why she didn’t have the foresight to work on this obvious and glaring problem sooner. So far she hasn’t presented herself well either in what she has said or how she has said it.
I don’t think this can be understood apart from the case of Sarah Palin–demonstration of equal opportunity scrutiny.
And like Sarah Palin – not prepared for the job.
I still do not get why she is being considered. To say that there is no one in NY with commitments similar to hers but with more actual political experience, no one who had paid her or his political dues the old fashioned way, is just plain weird.
The first thing any political party will ask someone contemplating running for office is can they raise money to run. Caroline K fits that primary requirement. Further, few would choose to alienate her since she would be a natural route for those seeking money to run. No one runs without substantial money. If you have enough you can literally buy the position. Ask Mayor Bloomberg……….
Joe, you say “I still do not get why she is being considered. To say that there is no one in NY with commitments similar to hers but with more actual political experience, no one who had paid her or his political dues the old fashioned way, is just plain weird.”
I am sure we poor residents of New York would love to know who you think best meets your standards. Really.
It is an excellent result of Bush and Palin that newspapers are now more likely to scrutinize politicians’ treatment of the English language. A lack of articulacy is not a charming foible any more, it is a liability.
Frankly, I don’t know why Caroline Kennedy wants to the job. Her privacy and security were jealously guarded after her father was assassinated, and she has never sought the public spotlight.
Moreover, despite her family’s history of legislative service, Caroline Kennedy has made exactly two forays into politics–at the Democratic National Convention, where she was largely a morale booster, reminding Democrats and liberals of their glory days in the 1960s with the election of her father, and on the stump for Obama with her uncle, Edward Kennedy. She struck me as rather ill-at-ease in both venues.
Where a potential candidate fails to show substance, they’ll get skewered on style–Palin’s Fargo-speak, Bush’s non-sequiturs, Quayle’s inability to spell “potato”–and I think Kennedy runs that risk as well.
In addition, the fact that Edward Kennedy is elderly and suffers from inoperable cancer invites commentators to speculate that Caroline is being groomed as the best heir apparent if the family wish to continue it’s political dynasty. Unlike other Kennedys of her generation who tried for political careers, her scandal sheet is clean. No drinkin’, runnin’ round with men or goin’ wild.
Let New York decide, by all means, but it’s politics. Don’t expect it to be a fair fight.
Joseph Gannon: I can’t quite tell if you found my post annoying. It was not intended to be. I know next to nothing about New York politics, but I assume there are some bright bulb in Albany, or some NY member of the House of Representatives, who is 1) smart, 2) well connected, 3) on the right side of many important issues, 4) with political experience, 5) should probably be recognized for her or his political efforts on behalf of the Democratic Party. Now, if there is no one in NY who fits this description, then I withdraw my criticism of the movement to seat Ms. Kennedy.
Joe
There may be some member of the House who fits your description, perhaps several, but with the Democrats in control a senior member of the House may be unwilling move to the Senate with all seniority lost. Of the more junior people, if one had state wide recogniton, she/he would be by now much promoted if only as the unKennedy. No one comes to mind. Peter King is one House member who might make a good senator. He is an experienced East Coast Republican. I don’t see him being chosen. As for the Albany crowd, the name that comes to mind is Andrew Cuomo, son of the the former governor Mario Cuomo and former Kennedy in-law. He has done an excellent job as Attorney General. He is said to be interested. But if he goes to Washington, he will not return to the zoo of NYState politics. He would make an excellent governor. We could use an excellent governor. He currently has the distinction of the only one of the four officials elected state-wide to state government who holds the office to which he was elected. Two resigned under pressure. The present governor was elected to be lieutenant-governor, a job for which discreet silence is the chief requirement. Caroline Kennedy for Lieutenant-Governor?
More generallly I wonder what you make of the idea of a governor appointing a senator. It is rather like the power to grant clemency. It is absolute. We know what absolute powers do. (I could give other instances but I will observe a discreet silence.) There should be a better way. Governor appoints with the advice and consent of the state legislative body?
Joseph: I yield without hesitation to your analysis of NY politics. As for the power to appoint a Senator, I like your idea of the state legislative body having to approve the appointment in the same way important federal appointments must be approved by the Senate.
Jus thought I’d mention the Sunday Times magazine had a piece on Ms Kennedy as well -and, at the end, asks whether the traditional qauls discussed here need to be expanded (particulalry in the case of a woman and mother.)
About the need to elect an experienced politician –
What the pols don’t seem to realize is that experienced pols are exactly what most of us don’t want at this point. My own district just elected a Republican for the first time in 160 years, a man barely known at all. Not to mention Barack Obama whose mantra of change helped to get him elected against all odds.
If you want to objet to Caroline Kennedy do so on the basis of suspicion of dynasties.
(Sometimes I think that people really WANT monarchs. It has something to do with celebrity lust. But that’s another thread.)
Joseph Gannon and others may be interested in these poll numbers showing an almost complete reversal in poll numbers between Kennedy and Cuomo, with Cuomo now well ahead in public opinion.
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/01/poll_caroline_kennedys_support_collapses.php
Why is Caroline K. Schlossberg referred to as Caroline Kennedy?
She does resemble her brother astonishingly. But then he was not the brightest bulb on the tree.
Her legal name is Caroline Kennedy; she didn’t change it after she got married, but she is sometimes incorrectly referred to as Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg.
If you can believe Wikipedia.
Thanks, Bob Nunz, for the reference to the Times Sunday Magazine piece on Caroline Kennedy. I thought Lisa Belkin provided a very different frame for looking at the question.
“But let’s stop with this talk of inexperience when we mean a range of experiences, many shaped by motherhood. The only way work will become more flexible for everyone, for all of us, is if the untraditional begins to count. Kennedys may not need that. But the rest of us certainly do.”
It’s interesting to look at the range of comments on Belkin’s Motherlode blog.
I wouldn’t be too upset with the Times for this. Baker’s “Week in Review” is more a column than straight reportage, so he has some room for wit. Besides, Ms. Kennedy’s problems with verbal communication go well beyond the occasional tic — she managed to stuff four ‘you know’s in her first extended sentence alone. We don’t have a very good record with leaders who have trouble speaking.