The Jackie Tapes: LBJ was behind the JFK assassination.

She spoke with historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. shortly after the assassination on tape recordings that Caroline Kennedy has decided to release early, supposedly "in exchange for ABC dropping its £10 million drama series about the family."

Also on the tapes: Jackie's belief that JFK was "having an affair with a 19-year-old White House intern," that she had affairs with movie star William Holden and Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli, and that "weeks before Mr Kennedy’s assassination, the couple had turned a corner in their relationship and were planning to have more children."

"Disappointment for Katie Holmes over axed Jackie Kennedy series."

1. First, of all: "axed." Should we be saying "axed"? There hasn't be a high-profile ax murder in a while, and now if there is one, The Daily Mail will have to answer for it.

2. Katie Holmes looks a little like Jackie in that get-up, but something's missing — something in the legs and arms proportionality. And that expression! Why is Katie always so sad?!

3. "JFK's niece Maria Shriver, and his daughter, Caroline Kennedy, are reported to have lobbied hard for the History Channel to pull the plug on the series." Katie and Tom less powerful than Maria and Caroline? Noooo!

4. A History Channel spokesperson said: "While the film is produced and acted with the highest quality, after viewing the final product in its totality we have concluded this dramatic interpretation is not fit for the History brand... We recognise historical fiction is an important medium for storytelling and commend all the hard work and passion that has gone into the making of the series, but ultimately deem this as the right programming decision for our network." Find the lies in that statement. Why'd they approve of the production in the first place if that sort of thing isn't "right" for them?

5. Sorry about the "Schwarzenegger" tag. I don't feel like making a separate tag for Maria Shriver.

Giving the finger from a car in the Kennedy funeral procession.

It "appears to be 21 year old Rose Schlossberg, the daughter of Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg and Edwin Schlossberg and granddaughter of former president John Fitzgerald Kennedy."



Obviously, someone in the crowd must have said something to her. What do you think it could have been? Is there anything that could have been said that, in your opinion, would justify her response? Your guesses will be more amusing if they're pro-Teddy.

Maybe she's just giving death the finger. You know, there's laughing at death. I'm thinking of giving death the finger.

The Vatican rejects Caroline Kennedy.

Obama picks Catholics as ambassador, but these are Catholics who support abortion, and the Vatican says no.

Caroline's real reason.

How can royalty have such a mundane failing?

Meanwhile, Ted didn't like being portrayed as semi-dead.

Caroline Kennedy withdraws??

She could have had the job if she'd wanted it, but Teddy's health has turned her against it? That doesn't seem believable.

UPDATE: ?????

6 reasons why nobody's making catty comments about the way Caroline Kennedy looks.

Just after midnight, I noted the question, asked here, with this photo:



This morning, I awoke with a list of answers:

1. Because we respect her sadness — her beautiful family, all gone.

2. Because we are awed by the grandeur expressed in the lack of need to doll herself up. Have you ever heard the expression "WASP makeup"? I read it, perhaps in Vogue, in the 1970s. Do you know what WASP makeup is? Lipstick. It is we lesser women who see a need for more than a swipe of dull pink lipstick.

3. Because her wrinkled skin means a life lived, and we don't know exactly how this enigma lived. Did she loll about in the sun? Did she chain-smoke? Did she take drugs? Did she anguish?

4. Because if that's what 51 looks like, then don't we look young? We have an interest in perceiving her as the norm.

5. Because she's so thin. Thinness immunizes you from all sorts of criticisms about wrinkly skin and absence of glamour.

6. Glamour? There is no greater glamour than to be Caroline Kennedy. You can't layer glamour on top of glamour.

Why aren't we talking about how Caroline Kennedy looks?

Noticing the absence of the usual catty talk.

What with all the time spent this year by women and journalists and everyone else obsessing over Sarah Palin's looks and lipsticks and wardrobe, it's hard to believe the absolute dearth of women journalists obsessing over Caroline Kennedy's physical appearance, makeup choices, and hairstyles. Why are her highlights not front-page news?...

.... Caroline was routinely compared to her famously svelte mother, and as a result her self-esteem plummeted. In a fit of pique that bordered on the bizarre, she shaved off one eyebrow. "My face," she offered by way of explanation, "is too symmetrical."

Bordered?

UPDATE: I have 6 answers to the question why we aren't talking about how Caroline Kennedy looks.

The Senate has the power to exclude Roland Burris, say lawprofs Akhil Reed Amar and Josh Chafetz.

They look at Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution — which makes each house of Congress "the Judge of the Elections, Returns, and Qualifications of its own members" — and find a power to judge the Blagojevich appointment:

At the founding, Senators were elected by state legislatures. If the Senate believed that legislators in a given state had been bribed into voting for a particular candidate, the Senate could refuse to seat him.

Because of the word "returns" in Section 5, what is true of elected Senators is equally true of appointed Senators. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, a "Return" in the time of the framers involved a report of an appointment made by a sheriff or other official. If the Senate may refuse to seat a person picked in a corrupt election, it likewise may refuse to seat a person picked in a corrupt appointment process.

Amar and Chafetz need to deal with Powell v. McCormack, in which the Supreme Court said that the House did not have the power under Article I, Section 5 to refuse to seat Adam Clayton Powell. That case focuses on judging "qualifications," and the Court said that only relates to the qualifications specified in the Constitution — age, citizenship, and residency. Beyond those 3 qualifications, the people had the power to choose the representative they wanted. But Powell was clearly the people's choice, so what do you do with Powell when the governor appoints the new member? For an accurate analogy for the Burris appointment, imagine if the problem with Powell hadn't been that the members of Congress thought he was corrupt, but that they thought there had been a fraud in the election.

Now, the Powell case was about whether Powell could use the courts to override the decision to exclude him. The argument on the other side was that the House had the final call about the scope of the power to judge the qualifications of their own members. In that view, which the Court rejected, a vote to exclude already embodied the constitutional interpretation that they had the power. Our current discussion of the question of the scope of the power to exclude Burris will affect how the Senators think about the scope of their power, and articles like Amar and Chafetz's should embolden the Senators, and they may vote to exclude him. If that happens, Burris may sue in federal court, and then the court will have to decide whether the Senators' assessment of their own power is the final answer about the meaning of the Constitution.

But doubts about the scope of the Senate's power to look into the circumstances of the appointment may give the Senators pause. The vote to exclude Burris may fail — because of these constitutional doubts and for other reasons. If that happens, Burris will be seated and there will be no occasion for a court to discuss the scope of the exclusion power.

To be sure, there are plenty of other reasons to seat Burris. For one thing, if we rely on the theory that the Senators have the power to exclude him because the appointment process was corrupt, they will need to go through some sort of factfinding process. Blagojevich faces his criminal trial, but he is the duly elected governor of Illinois, with the power to appoint the Senator. What sort of parallel process in the Senate will be needed to make the exclusion legitimate?

In this context, the Senate itself is a judge, in the words of the Constitution, and can decide facts for itself. It need not follow the rules of criminal courts. That means it need not find Blagojevich guilty beyond reasonable doubt, as a court would if his liberty were in jeopardy. It is enough for the Senate to reject Blagojevich's appointee if a majority of senators are firmly convinced that Blagojevich is corrupt and that any nomination he might make is inherently tainted by such corruption.

If the Senators exclude Burris because they simply feel quite certain the appointment is tainted and not because they've gone through some impressive and fair factfinding, when — if — Burris goes to court to override their decision, Burris's argument about the scope of the power to exclude will look much more appealing. The Senate will need to argue that the court should defer, but the court will think less of this notion of deference if the process to be deferred to is not very impressive. Amar and Chafetz recognize this reality of litigation:

To make sure its ruling sticks, the Senate should follow its own procedures with due deliberation. Burris' case can be referred to a committee for careful review. He need not be seated while this committee does its work, and it will be very hard for Burris to persuade any federal judge to interfere in the meantime, especially if Senate Democrats and Republicans unite. With any luck, Blagojevich will be out of office soon enough and a new appointments process (or a special election) can begin that would supersede the attempted Burris appointment.

The delay itself is effective, but it does mire the Senate in an investigation of the Democratic governor. The argument will be made that the effort to exclude is more of a power grab than the governor's attempt to fulfill what is, after all, a duty of his office. Should the Senate Democrats want that? What a nasty preoccupation for Congress at what should be the fresh beginning of a new administration!

Amar and Chafetz make a good argument about the power to exclude but in doing so, they expose the political disaster it would be to vote to exclude.

ADDED: Lawprof Sandy Levinson puts it well:

I don't see how one can mount a good-faith argument against seating Burris unless one is willing to open each and every gubernatorial appointment to some kind of "good-government" scrutiny....

Should the motives of Gov. Patterson [sic] be subjected to relentless scrutiny if he bows to pressure to name Caroline Kennedy as a tribute to a dying senator and, in addition, to get access to the Bloomberg and Kennedy donor list that presumably comes with that appointment?

Should Governor Paterson choose a caretaker Senator?

There's a new election for the Hillary Clinton Senate seat in 2010 (and then again in 2012), so why not let that field of candidates develop in a naturally competitive fashion by putting someone there now who will perform the function in a dignified, statesmanlike way?

Some are suggesting Bill Clinton or Mario Cuomo, but — even if one of them would do it – there's an obvious problem: Shouldn't a woman replace Hillary? There are some senior, statesmanlike women in New York, and I don't mean Caroline Kennedy.

The caretaker option was exercised last month by Delaware Gov. Ruth Ann Minner, who picked a former aide to Vice President-elect Joe Biden to succeed him in the Senate until a new senator is elected in 2010. By then, Biden's son, state Attorney General Beau Biden, will have returned from a tour in Iraq with the National Guard — just in time to run for his father's seat.

Caroline Kennedy is in the Beau Biden category. I know he's delayed by his trip to Iraq, but aside from that, he wouldn't be properly respected if he didn't run for office. Let Caroline prove her stuff in a real competition for office. Perhaps she won't even try, if she's put that test. Deciding whether to run in a real competition is itself a test, and perhaps Princess Caroline would decline. I think the people of New York deserve to see if she would subject her royal self to the ordeal and, if she did, how she'd do debating scrappy politicians who haven't lived their lives swathed in adoration, wealth, and deference.

You know.

You know.

"We French can only see a dynastic move of the vanishing Kennedy clan in the very country of the Bill of Rights. It is both surprising and appalling."

Wrote Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë in a letter published today by the New York Times on the subject of the impending possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the U.S. Senate.

Except it wasn't Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoë.

We French have been consistently admiring of the American Constitution, but it seems that recently both Republicans and Democrats are drifting away from a truly democratic model. The Kennedy era is long gone, and I guess that New York has plenty of more qualified candidates to fill the shoes of Hillary Clinton. Can we speak of American decline?

Now, why did the Times fall for this? The correction says they didn't follow their own procedures, but why didn't they follow their own procedures? Were they just a little too delighted that he was saying what they hoped to hear? American decline. The French think America is in decline...

Hey, remember that time Sarah Palin thought she was talking on the phone with Nicolas Sarkozy? The NYT presented that mistake as "one of the last straws" that convinced McCain advisors that Palin didn't have what it takes:

Ms. Palin appeared to believe that she was talking to President Nicolas Sarkozy of France, even though the prankster had a flamboyant French accent and spoke to her in a more personal way than would be protocol in such a call. At one point, he told Ms. Palin that she would make a good president some day. “Maybe in eight years,” she replied.

Fake French -- it's so obvious. Except when it isn't.

"She hails her own cabs!"

"This is what passes for a common touch these days?"

The dynastic struggle.

Ooh, this is just so frustrating for Andrew Cuomo.

From 1990 to 2003, Cuomo the Younger was married, Montague-and-Capulet style, to Robert F. Kennedy's daughter Kerry-and was close friends with Caroline's brother John Jr., from 1988 to his 1999 death. The marriage ended in a bitter divorce after Cuomo reportedly discovered his wife had an affair with a polo player....

"Incestuous, intermarrying with one another to take over the crown and consolidate power," is how one Nassau pol described the Kennedy-Cuomo relationship....

I didn't follow the divorce hijinx, but if it's true that Kerry cheated on Andy, then it's only fair that Andy should be Senator.

Who's the superior dynastic offspring?
	Andy
	Caroline
pollcode.com free polls

"In a carefully controlled strategy reminiscent of the vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, aides to Caroline Kennedy interrupted her..."

"... and whisked her away when she was asked what her qualifications are to be a United States senator."

How to strike at the heart of a Democrat: Invoke Palin. Nice move, NYT.

Caroline was making an appearance in Syracuse -- had she ever been there before? -- and she spoke for a mere 30 seconds to say:

"As some of you may have heard, I told Governor Paterson I’d be honored to be considered for the position of United States senator. There’s a lot of good people in this community that the governor is considering. He’s laid out a process and I’m proud to be part of that process."

I'm waiting to hear what Governor Paterson will do, and I'm proud to be waiting to hear what it will be. By the way, why isn't it "and I'm humbled to be part of that process"? People are always saying they're proud of things and humbled by things. Bizarrely, there doesn't seem to be any difference these days.

Anyway, so the NYT has 2 reporters on the story. Did they both go to Syracuse to hear Caroline speak 30 seconds of nothing?

When one reporter asked what she would tell New Yorkers who question whether she has the qualifications for the job, Ms. Kennedy, 51, started to respond. But then an aide stopped her from saying more, and led her to the waiting vehicle.

“Hopefully I can come back and answer all those questions,” she called out as she got into the S.U.V.

It was the first stop in an orchestrated tour of upstate New York. Ms. Kennedy has plans to visit with officials in Rochester and, possibly, Buffalo, a first stab at getting skeptical upstate voters used to the idea of being represented in Washington by yet another down-stater.

The area has already expressed wariness of her, with some officials and newspapers questioning her abilities.

"The area" -- I love that. Here's a map in case you need help visualizing "the area" Caroline needs to win over as she ventures off Manhattan Island:



"Upstate New York" is everything north of the NYC metropolitan area.

It's "Grande Conservative Blogress Diva" time again.

And once again I'm on the list. You may say, but how can Althouse be the Grande Conservative Blogress Diva when she voted for Barack Obama?

1. I voted for Barack Obama because John McCain was not conservative enough. If we are to have a liberal President, it's better for it to be Obama, for so many reasons.

2. The concept of "Grand Conservative Blogress Diva" is explicitly defined in a way that you know includes me: "She need not be conservative herself (at least three of the nominees below are not), but must by the the power of her prose, the eloquence of her expression and the intelligence of her ideas have earned them the enmity of the angry left and so endeared her to gay men like us who admire strong women who speak their mind, even at the expense of encomia from those in the entertainment industry and the MSM."

3. Since this is about being a diva, your quibbles mean nothing to me.

IN THE COMMENTS: Palladian said:

How many of the other nominees have gone perfume shopping at Barney's and Bergdorf Goodman with me, this blog's smartest, funniest and best homosexual?! That has to count for something!

AND: Peter Hoh says:

Hey, who anointed Palladian as "this blog's smartest, funniest and best homosexual"?

Oh yeah, Palladian.

Just like Caroline. I'll have none of it.

I'm calling for a special election.

Hmm. So just as Gay Patriot sets up a vote for "Grande Conservative Blogress Diva," you want a poll for "Smartest, Funniest and Best Homosexual of the Althouse Blog"? Really? Is this something that can work as a poll? Well, I don't think polling works in the "Grande Conservative Blogress Diva" process, since diva status is not susceptible to democracy. Anyone is allowed to vote! How is that a test of who's most "endeared... to gay men"? But it's not diva-like to seem to care. It's not diva-like to beg for votes, which is why it's not diva-like to win the contest. And yet you think we should have a democratic process for "Smartest, Funniest and Best Homosexual of the Althouse Blog"?

Still, I might do it. Nominees?

Caroline Kennedy.

Wants the HRC Senate seat.

Should she get it?
	Yes.
	No.
pollcode.com free polls

"Edward and Caroline Kennedy Share Tight Family Tie."

NYT headline. My thoughts, in order:

1. Loosen it up!



2. Today's not the best day to be throwing your weight around trying to get a governor to fill a vacant Senate seat.

So Caroline Kennedy wants the Hillary Clinton Senate seat?

Then step aside everyone.

ADDED: The odds.

The Democratic Convention.

7:??: I'll do a little live-blogging... as suits my mood.

7:58 Central Time: I'm just settling in to watch. I've got everything TiVo'd and I'm scrolling along. Has it started yet? This last hour seems to be very Nancy Pelosi-oriented. I don't think this part is supposed to count for much. I'm fast-forwarding like mad. Ehghgd! It's Jimmy Carter!

8:19: Caroline Kennedy is a terrible speaker, but her speech makes me cry nonetheless.

8:30: We've seen a film about Teddy Kennedy. It focused on his love for the sea. He encounters the sea on a beautiful yacht, with his elite family. But he's dying. I don't know what to think. It's supposed to be about Barack Obama and the future of the Democratic Party, but I'm hearing bathos about the sea... and then there is this terribly rich man with his yacht. But we are called to celebrate him. He's dying. We see that in the tear that Maria Shriver brushes off her razor-sharp cheek. Ah, woe beyond politics! But now he's speaking. He wants health care for everyone.

8:35: "Barack Obama will close the book on ... straight against gay." Now, why would that be? I wonder. Teddy imbues Barack with powers.

9:48: "And that is why I love this country," says Michelle Obama.

9:58: Those kids are cute! "I love you, Daddy!"

7:12, next morning: I barely watched the post-Teddy stuff. Just not in the mood. I should check out Michelle's speech on line today. I did see the parading of the cute kids. It seemed pretty clear to me that the younger girl had been coached to cry out "I love you, Daddy" when she saw her father on the video screen, because she did it repeatedly. I think a kid behaving naturally would be really intimidated to find herself on the stage and would cling to the mother, who is there on the flesh. A big head of your father on a video screen in front of a huge audience is a very weird thing. I don't think it would make a little kid call out "I love you, Daddy." If she'd say anything, it would be to the mother: "Why is Daddy on the screen?"

Anyway, I see there are a lot of comments on this post, and that some of the commenters got mad at each other sometime around midnight. It's not easy, dropping in this morning, to figure out why. Did you drink too much blog? I'll just say I hope you all kiss and make up.