It's good to be rich

[Elduardo]

Seems as though it's all but a formality that Caroline Kennedy will take over Hillary Clinton's NY Senate seat.

The message here is that it's good to be rich and famous in the US. Suddenly, the democrats don't care about qualifications for public office, I guess that only applies to women who are pro-life.

I'm not sure who's less qualified, Caroline Kennedy or Al Franken, but at least Franken ran for the seat in a public election.

[Luris Blear]

Hillary's politics aside, Secretary of State Clinton (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=atZsg81KoRmU&refer=home) strikes me as a conflict of interests. So does Senator Clinton.

But I'm sure all of it is for the working man's benefit. :dsp:

A name and a great big checkbook? It's not just for Republicans any more.

[JerkyPuck]

You're just pissed off because she's a Dem. Had that happened to a random Bush nephew, you'd be all about it. And how is she not qualified? She helped raise $65 mill for New York City schools. She is on the board for the NAACP Education Defense Committee and she's a Kennedy for Christ's sake. Politics is all she's ever known. She has just as much right to throw her hat in as anyone else.

[Luris Blear]

It's not just "She's a Democrat." Nor would I really appreciate it if a McCain victory meant Jenna Bush became governor of Alaska.

I want ethics to transcend party politics. I'm trying very hard as of late to put that aside.

Hillary's campaign stretched plausible deniability to its limits with the constant unfounded smear attacks placed by staffers and husbands about Obama. The man is already showing how spineless he is by answering those smears with this job. He is giving this position -- third in line to the Presidency -- to someone this close to all of those financial ties. Married couples do tend to file their taxes together for a reason.

I'm not going to buy the "inexperienced" issue any more against Kennedy than I will against Obama. To me, that's a word the elder aristocrats use to mean "not yet a career politician." I have no issue with Caroline Kennedy. I have a lot of issues with that seat potentially being open for this reason.

[Elduardo]

I beg to differ as to whether qualifications are important. Being in the Senate isn't just about having ideological views and showing up to vote. It's about writing and supporting legislation to solve complex issues.

She's free to run for public office like anyone else but there is no possible way she is qualified to be appointed above all other candidates.

[Grendel]

She's free to run for public office like anyone else but there is no possible way she is qualified to be appointed above all other candidates."Qualified to be appointed?"

In practice, that standard means nothing. Essentially, anyone is "qualified to be appointed."

As it stands, by law, the only qualification is the preference of the governor.

Frankly, I, too, think that's a pretty shoddy system, but it's the one we have in place. As witnessed by the Blagojevich debacle, it gives rise to any number of problems. A special election is the best way to go, but until that is in place any candidate will be, if not the direct result of, the object of accusations of inappropriate consideration.

[Elduardo]

I don't agree that anyone is qualified to be appointed as you say. It's hard to argue if someone unqualified wins an election fair and square. You blame the voters.

But if an elected official selects someone who has no political resume over others who do then you have to question it and say that her fame gave her the nod.

[Grendel]

I don't agree that anyone is qualified to be appointed as you say. It's hard to argue if someone unqualified wins an election fair and square. You blame the voters.I suppose we're essentially arguing semantics.

I concur that not everyone is qualified to do the job, however, the system that's in place (unfortunately) has nothing to with ability, instead resting on one individual's personal preference.

That's the only reason I say anyone is qualified to be appointed.

[Elduardo]

Whole thing is odd considering the Democratic response to Sarah Palin and her qualifications.

Arguement could be made that the NY Senate seat is as important or more so than the VP.

[lunatic]

One thing for sure - the democrats were very good in creating a Kennedy's myth. In reality - not very sympathetic portrait of uber-liberals. True, by today's standards JFK would be considered a centrist but those who came after him...

[RIP]

Kennedy is more than qualified to be a member of the senate. There is zero comparison between her accomplishments/qualifications (as they relate to the job) and Sarah Palin's (as they related to hers). A quick bit of research online should be sufficient to clear up any misconceptions about her qualifications.

Yeah...it's good to be rich, but Kennedy has made the most of her opportunities. She is a fine appointee. Bottom line is, the system is in place and if the people of New York don't approve, they'll get rid of her.

[Elduardo]

I agree that that there is zero comparison between the experience of service in public office and executive leadership of Palin and Caroline Kennedy.


The Democratic party elites were critical of a lack of experience in one case but not the other. Liberal elites seem to be confused between actual qualifications and experience and attending Ivy league schools, being rich, and holding approved ideological positions.

[JerkyPuck]

Dems didn't judge Palin poorly until she opened her mouth. Then we were like, "Who the fuck is this clown?" We wanted not to like her...and then she gave us plenty of reasons to perpetuate that bias.

[Elduardo]

Dems disliked Palin because she was a successful woman who not only was pro-life but actually practiced what she preached by not having an abortion and not encouraging her pregnant teenage daughter to have one.

[H78]

Dems disliked Palin because she was a successful woman who not only was pro-life but actually practiced what she preached by not having an abortion and not encouraging her pregnant teenage daughter to have one.

Or they disliked her because of her "flip-flopping" (there's a conservative term for ya!) on the Bridge to Nowhere nonsense, the fact that she had less public service experience than Obama (who was being hammered by the McCain camp for his "lack of experience"), and that she had not a single leadership quality whatsoever. She couldn't even give coherent answers to cupcakes from Katie Couric.

When people see Obama, McCain and Biden, they see solid leaders. When they saw Palin, they saw a woman desperate for a quick ride up the ladder. Unfortunately for McCain, while he definitely had the qualities to be a solid leader (IMO, though I didn't vote for him), he make a huge mistake in stapling Palin to his side.

[Elduardo]

I think Palin clearly had more executive experience than Obama, being a 2 term mayor and a Govenor.

Doesn't mean that Obama cannot be successful without experience but it is a valid point.

As for flip flopping, all politicians do it and I think it's probably pointless to even discuss. Obama was opposed to the NSA eavesdropping program but then voted for it. Said he would accept public financing money but then didn't. We could go on all day about politicians changing their positions.

[Grendel]

Dems disliked Palin because she was a successful woman who not only was pro-life but actually practiced what she preached by not having an abortion and not encouraging her pregnant teenage daughter to have one.This election--and the feelings for or against a given candidate--was far bigger than the single issue of abortion. Further, the strong support Hillary received throughout the campaign indicates that being a successful woman has nothing to do with Democratic antipathy towards Palin.

People were against her because she revealed what a poor candidate she was with her thoroughly embarrassing appearances and interviews. Further, she was probably the victim of outrage more rightfully directed at McCain for his impulsive and pandering pick in the wake of Clinton's primary defeat. She further alienated crossover voters by making comments about Clinton's "perceived whining."

[Elduardo]

I'm waiting for the questions asked to Palin to be asked to Caroline Kennedy.

[JerkyPuck]

Well at least Caroline Kennedy knows that Africa is a continent. Palin's a tool.

[RIP]

She has a law degree and she's written two books about the constitution. My guess is that she can answer the Palin softballs.

It's an apples to oranges comparison. If you want to argue that Kennedy isn't fit, or that she's only being looked at because she's rich, then by all means make the case. Arguing that she's basically no different than Palin misses the mark entirely. That argument would only hold water if Kennedy was running as VP.

[Elduardo]

Premise of the post was Caroline Kennedy. Palin comparision was secondary.

She can handle the Palin softballs????????

Check this from the NY Times:



Perhaps most damaging of all was her repeated use of the phrase "you know", which she uttered 142 times and was left in the transcript when it appeared in print.

Explaining why she would be a good Senator, she said: "So I think in many ways, you know, we want to have all kinds of different voices, you know, representing us, and I think what I bring to it is, you know, my experience as a mother, as a woman, as a lawyer, you know, I've been an education activist for the last six years here, and, you know, I've written seven books – two on the Constitution, two on American politics.

"So obviously, you know, we have different strengths and weaknesses."



The whole problem facing our government is that we need better people in there than what we have today. Caroline Kennedy is an ideologue who can't even articluate why she would be a good Senator.

If her last name wasn't Kennedy she wouldn't even be in the conversation.

[RIP]

The New York Times said "she seemed less like a candidate than an idea of one: eloquent but vague, largely undefined and seemingly determined to remain that way."

From what I've seen from her in the past, I'm a little surprised she's acting this way. However, if she is...then she deserves the criticism.

[Grendel]

Just saw the "y'know" story. Ridiculous (and pathetic) stuff. As noted in The Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/4015918/Caroline-Kennedy-repeats-you-know-142-times-in-interview.html):
At one point Miss Kennedy, being asked to describe the moment she decided she wanted the Senate seat, asked the reporters: "Have you guys ever thought about writing for, like, a woman's magazine or something?" One of them responded: "What do you have against women's magazines?" Miss Kennedy shot back: "Nothing at all, but I thought you were the crack political team here."

Another reporter asked "Would you have sought this if there hadn't been an appointment open, if it had been an election?", Miss Kennedy said: "I think we covered that." The reporter pressed: "What's the answer, then, if we covered it?" When Miss Kennedy was asked in what ways she would be a better Senator than Mrs Clinton, she responded that "when I get in there, then I can really tell you exactly how I would improve on it". It's Palin/Couric II.

The NY Guv desperately needs to look elsewhere...

[Luris Blear]

Miss Kennedy just won a warm spot in my heart.

"I'll tell you when I get there" was shifty, but the women's magazine line was awesome.