For those who have been mystified by the sudden advancement of Caroline Kennedy from rich lady who does good works some of three days a week to leading candidate for the august role of Senator from New York State, there may be some enlightenment in this consideration of the Byzantine politics of New York City:
http://blogs.villagevoice.com/runninscared/archives/2008/12/okay_it_would_b.php

Samosamo

The length of your diatribe and the use of choice words like “goddamn” show that my short statement was bulls eye.

Try again if you can be rational and correct because you misuse my word “drafter” which has no connection with “Southern”.

Samosamo writes:

“..Certainly I have been fooled by just the fact that a convicted felon can continue to serve as a senator of the United States when I ASSUMED that convicted felons could not hold public office…”

~~~~

Samosamo,

Can I just say that this is a perfectly NORMAL ‘assumption’ for just about anyone of us 300 plus million citizens? I mean really, who in the hell would have ever thought that ANY public official could create a felony or a hundred of them - WHILE IN OFFICE, and simply continue to retain their position. WTF???

But Samosamo, we left that reality 8 years ago (at least) and as part of the neocon agenda and the reality created by them, (Karl Rove at the lead) ANYTHING GOES!!! They make the rules up (or break them routinely) as they go along. Laws? Constitution? Whatever could you be talking about?

So APPARENTLY, unless there is something very specific written into the state constitutions, these public officials simply continue to serve their own criminal agendas within public office, and it would SEEM like some of them figure they can do it from a jail cell. (that is for the few that are actually convicted, and don’t have their sentences commuted by the President Cheney.)

But yeah, that DOES seem pretty god damned incredible, seeing as how an unpaid parking ticket could prevent some from even being considered for a trash collecting job.

Anyway, you were NOT fooled. OK?

By dihey, December 11 at 2:15 pm

***
Samosamo and oldog: this is akin to the kinds of shenanigans of Southern voting laws which prevented millions of blacks to vote. Who will be the “drafter”?
****

I speak for anyone serving, that is being elected to public office, to know just what in the hell the laws are for a person serving in office. This usually being defined by a document such as the constitutions for both the national level and the state levels. You seem to think that any and everybody is not obliged to know one goddamn thing about an office when elected to a position by the people. While that does not guarantee one way or the other of the abuse of office one is elected to it should show what is expected and how they can be judged by those that elected them to that position even if that trust has turned to a treason for purposes of personal, financial and political gain. Certainly I have been fooled by just the fact that a convicted felon can continue to serve as a senator of the United States when I ASSUMED that convicted felons could not hold public office. And just running and demonstrating that one would want the position shows no knowledge of what they can or will do. That has ABSOULELY NO basis in your ‘souther drafter’ BS, all that is directed to people that would want to VOTE.
The most important thing about what I commented was the utter lack of knowledge of a bill an elected person was going to vote on and the only knowledge that person would have would be the amount of money some lobbyist put in his/her hand on how to vote. Your diatribe seems to support this so I would instantly know that I would not want you being elected to office at all, not even dog catcher. You may be willing to want to give the people in power a free pass and the people wanting into power no scrutiny and considering it is the press’s(msm) duty to ‘dig’ up the bona fides of these people serving and those wanting in and the msm’s verified trait of not covering people’s real qualifications for office but just their personality traits puts them out of the picture for accurate information that you and me and the rest of us need to make an informed decision. I will stand by this, a source of verifiable and truthful information and knowledge of all aspect of a position someone is elected to on all levels to be something the press(if they had the balls)but also any person/voter would ask that wannabe a question face to face and get an answer that is verifiable. But being in this democracy of ours today, for now that will not happen, at least not yet.
Also, where did I want the voter to be held to questions? The voter has a right to demand answers to his/her questions.

CORRECTION: 

It can NOT be stated any clearer…..

By Oceana, December 11 at 6:55 pm #

Dear Maria Burns:

It CAN NOT be stated any clearer!  Thus, I say no more and have provided a copy of your comment to ensure it continues to be read.

Thank you for posting your comment in response to this article.

By Marie Burns, December 11 at 1:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

It would be WONDERFUL to have one Senator in a hundred who hadn’t got up every day of her life, looked in the mirror and said, “Oh boy, another day that’s ALL ABOUT ME.”

An article that starts with the ludicrous premise that the intelligent, competent, thoughtful Caroline Kennedy can be compared to the mindless, self-indulgent Sarah Palin can only go downhill, as this one does.

“A long-time admirer of Ted Kennedy”?  If he weren’t ill, I’d have something to say about that.

Clinton’s “listening tour” was PR crapola designed to make up for the fact that she’d never lived in New York.  Kennedy has lived in New York most of her life.  She doesn’t need to go on a magical listening tour.  She’s been listening.

Would you argue that, say, Saxby Chambliss, makes a better Senator because he’s so good at the rough-&-tumble of politics; i.e., implying his opponent, who left two legs and an arm in Viet Nam was a pal of Osama bin Laden?

Frankly, I wish we had a hundred Senators more like Caroline Kennedy & less like the me-generation Saxby Chamblisses and Hillary Clintons we got instead.  I’m sure we’d have a better, more responsive government.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

Dear Maria Burns:

It could be stated any clearer!  Thus, I say no more and have provided a copy your comment to ensure it continues to be read.

Thank you for posting your comment in response to this article.

By Marie Burns, December 11 at 1:01 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)

It would be WONDERFUL to have one Senator in a hundred who hadn’t got up every day of her life, looked in the mirror and said, “Oh boy, another day that’s ALL ABOUT ME.”

An article that starts with the ludicrous premise that the intelligent, competent, thoughtful Caroline Kennedy can be compared to the mindless, self-indulgent Sarah Palin can only go downhill, as this one does.

“A long-time admirer of Ted Kennedy”?  If he weren’t ill, I’d have something to say about that.

Clinton’s “listening tour” was PR crapola designed to make up for the fact that she’d never lived in New York.  Kennedy has lived in New York most of her life.  She doesn’t need to go on a magical listening tour.  She’s been listening.

Would you argue that, say, Saxby Chambliss, makes a better Senator because he’s so good at the rough-&-tumble of politics; i.e., implying his opponent, who left two legs and an arm in Viet Nam was a pal of Osama bin Laden?

Frankly, I wish we had a hundred Senators more like Caroline Kennedy & less like the me-generation Saxby Chamblisses and Hillary Clintons we got instead.  I’m sure we’d have a better, more responsive government.

The Constant Weader at http://www.RealityChex.com

Caroline Kennedy

I think not being one of the nations band of psychopathic-criminals-serving-in-public-office is one of her better points indeed.  This ridiculous point that only people who have served in public office are qualified for any post is wrong on the face of it. She is an outstandingly brilliant and insightful person.  I would be quite overjoyed to know she has decided to serve the country in such an important way because I know very well that if she does decide thusly then she will indeed be ready and able to serve.

Besides she has fantastic legs. I was a not more than a boy at the Bobby Kennedy memorial service, some years ago, and I got to see them very close up as she alighted from her car.  I nearly fell over. 

OK, I’m being utterly silly and ungentlemanly disgraceful regarding the legs part.  But whatever your position on her external beauty she does have the right stuff inside where it counts, in great supply, I assure you.

Alejandro: evidently without research you have blindly and stupidly managed to insult US Representatives Louise Slaughter, Nydia Velazquez, and Nita Lowey who are actually among the 10% of politicians that are not “lops”. Shame on you, you discriminator!

Samosamo and oldog: this is akin to the kinds of shenanigans of Southern voting laws which prevented millions of blacks to vote. Who will be the “drafter”? Who will verify and how that a candidate “understands” our Constitution? By what criteria? Even Supreme Court Judges have problems (viz. 2000 Presidential elections!!!!) If a candidate for Congress must “understand” the Constitution should one not demand that voters “understand” the Constitution too? “Here we go again” would candidate Reagan say!
Full Democracy is, alas and unavoidably, a rather messy affair. What you propose is a return to a dangerous elitism similar to that of our Founding Papas.
As we have experienced for eight years it is far more dangerous when a President does not understand or else ignores our Constitution and laws. A good President can stop unconstitutional legislation with his/her veto.

By oldog, December 11 at 5:02 am #

Personally, I think we should just select representatives by draft the way we select jurors. Higher offices should require a basic minimum educational capability and understanding of the constitution. (Something we don’t have now)

The most important job requirement for a public servant in a democracy is the willingness to execute the wishes of the majority. It has been a long time since anyone like that came out of the trenches.
******************************

Sounds like a good idea for the U.S. but since it is a good idea, it will not be implemented. The issue of understanding the constitution is pretty much the heart or the lack of heart in the congress and should be a requirement by knowing the whole constitution, the bill of rights and the declaration of independence. But, and here is where there should be an article put into the constitution and be required of any congresstional and that is to have read AND understood any bills being voted on and being tested to see if each one comprehends and understands the bill. I am really tired of a lobbyist handing out a fist full of dollars or a suitcase full to some huckster of an elected criminal and told to vote this way or that on a bill. I wish there was more than a phone call or an email to contact a representative or senator about what they may or may not know about a bill. Hell, they all have websites I would think; they could post their interpretation of a bill on their site and have a regular comment section for the constituent’s view/reaction. But again, it makes sense and that will not fly in d. c.

I am not a “vengeful Hillary supporter”, whatever that is. It would be a gigantic scandal in my opinion if the Governor appoints Carolyn Kennedy to the US Senate instead of one of the following US Representatives Louise Slaughter, Nydia Velazquez, and Nita Lowey. Check their qualifications to find that each of these women is infinitely, yes infinitely more qualified than Carolyne.

Every one has to START somewhere.I AGREE WITH THAT STATEMENT-BUT…..Putting Kennedy in a high position with NO EXPERIENCE is no different than putting “ms.mooseturd from the great state of Alaska” up for the #2 seat in America….This is a case of apples/oranges…..and this is a no-brainer!

I don’t know what kind of senator Caroline Kennedy would make. Her speaking presence, administrative skills, and the mere fact of her survival of a lifetime under intense public scrutiny without scandal, speak volumes for her integrity and competence.

My question is: What are we looking for here? Has the traditional model of career politicians, grown suitably obdurate and corrupt by a lifetime ‘in the trenches’ really the best person for the job? I mean, it has worked soooooo well so far, that trying something (or someone) new, is much too dangerous, right?

Personally, I think we should just select representatives by draft the way we select jurors. Higher offices should require a basic minimum educational capability and understanding of the constitution. (Something we don’t have now)

The most important job requirement for a public servant in a democracy is the willingness to execute the wishes of the majority. It has been a long time since anyone like that came out of the trenches.

Does not this whole matter reveal the celebrity driven obsessions of our pageant government? Perhaps the liberals will have to admit that “Camelot” is just as silly a fantasy as “hockey mom” or “Joe the plumber”. The superficiality that is accepted as critical thinking is amazing. Appointments do matter. President-elect Obama has made some wise and not-so-wise picks to his cabinet. Greg Palast worries about some possible choices: http://www.alternet.org/story/111806/
And it appears now that someone’s name brand, if it has enough cache, is sufficient to meet the rigors of public office. Was not there a fellow named Bush who did exactly that?

What impertinent questions. Caroline Kennedy would provide the Senate with additional much needed ‘diversity’. Instead of simply being a rich man’s club as originally envisioned by many of the Founding Fathers, it’s time the Senate became a rich woman’s club too, in the interest of ‘equality’.  Caroline will be following “doggedly” in the pioneering footsteps of another superrich, well-connected carpetbagger like Clinton, the first female multimillionare Senator from NY.  Caroline, like Hillary, has gotten where she is today on merit - the great merit of her family connections. She started at the top and is working her way across. Caroline has impeccable credentials for the Senate. She’s fabulously wealthy - even richer than Hillary - and could personally fund much of a future electoral campaign on her own - not to mention the “rolodex” piggy bank of the Kennedy bootlegger-heirs. She’s an experienced socialite (not to be confused with socialist), and would fit right in at Georgetown townhouse cocktail parties - as well, as hosting many exclusive Washington galas of her own, no doubt. She also brings all of her vast political experience as a member of the Obama Copacabana campaign’s vice presidential selection committee to bear in deciding the weighty matters of high political office. An ideal preparation for becoming one of the new administration’s reliable henchwomen in the Senate. Kennedy’s name is sufficiently prominent and publicized so as to provide a ready made pre-fabricated ‘narrative’, just about all a 21st century pol really needs anymore.  And her political views on the pressing issues of the day are sufficiently obscure and unknown so as to pose no great obstacle to widespread acceptance. If her deliberations on the VP search committee are any indication she may well share the hawkish foreign policy tendencies and corporate slavishness of Joe Biden, who has her personal seal of approval. There’s probably also a little of playboy Uncle Teddy’s tepid reformism mixed in too, and a large dose of Hillary’s crass opportunism. And like all three, Caroline will doubtless be a loyal AIPAC servant. All in all, a product of her class who can be expected to ably defend their interests. What more could anyone expect from a Democrat in the newly ‘inclusive’, but still oldly exclusive, Senate rich person’s club. “How, indeed, can the same “progressives” who opposed Clinton’s election as president because they were repelled by”...her ruthless ambition, unbridled egotism and nasty class politics not be likewise aghast at another such “monster” in the Senate?

As a New Yorker—- I see the reasons why they would crown her with the seat.

Politics is all about the cultish fad of personality, and perception, created by the advertising engineers…we the people… have become sheep for the powers that be.

Just look at Obama, probably, the greatest cult leader of all time.

Sit back… relax…. as we watch a badly produced Class C movie… be a good American… accept the collective mind… with regards to political speak.

It’s amusing how everyone’s up in arms about this when it’s nothing but an unattributed rumor.  Paterson’s way too smart to do this, and we have no indication that he’s considering it at all, much less seriously.  Calm down, folks—the election is over, find something to do with all that excess energy.

My take is that caroline kennedy is an elite, just exactly what is NOT needed in congress. I don’t doubt she could be vastly more educated and smarter than that other woman but I thought the main idea of electing people was to somehow crush the hold the rich have on congress, the presidency or any positions in government. Everyone seems to think the rich elite are the only people to serve in an elected position and I would have thought that the current situation favoring the rich/elite was evidence enough to break that trend. I don’t want people that are protecting their golden geese making decisions for me about how they will keep their addiction to money up at my expense by allowing me to have a little ‘trickle down’ effect.
Even the election of anybody needs to be held to that awful part of a democracy no body likes to do and that is keep an eternal vigilance to protect what creates and insures a strong middle class; and not to single out caroline who could be one of the most caring, honest and fair people in the world, but the kennedy’s are supposedly supposed to have amassed their fortune by smuggling contraband into this country, mostly liquor, but who knows what else. Is this the family we want to keep calling the shots in our government? We supposedly have a change in party for president on the idea of change, I hold to that in change also in who serves elsewhere and not by retaining the old family ties.

Here , let me try to answer that . While I’m not certain about putting Kennedy in the senate , I can explain the difference between the two . OK , here goes , Caroline Kennedy is well educated , extremely intellegent , has devoted her life to public service is honest , unassuming, thoughtful , has a first class mind and has always shown concern for those less fortunate , not to mention good judgement . Sarah Palin on the other hand is an opportunistic bimbo with at best a mediocre intellect who is driven by power lust and the delusion that she’s qualified for any office higher than the local PTA , if that .

Marie has a point, whether y’all want to acknowledge it or not (and it isn’t payback for Clinton losing the primary). Pointing to Palin was bound to meet with ridicule here, and it did - in spades. I’m sure Marie would agree with many of the points made, too. But to the wider world, the world outside this highly partisan domain, where Palin may not have been voted for but she wasn’t so despised, the world where traditional media writers like Marie are read, the Palin comparison would seem fair. Not perfect, but fair. Her opponents made a big deal of the fact that she was basically plucked from Mayor of a small town to a heartbeat away from the presidency with only the briefest stop-off at at the governor’s mansion. Ignorance of international politics aside, she hadn’t proved herself, through natural ascent in the political sphere, as she should have for her to be selected as a VP running mate. With that critique in mind, what is our defense for plucking Kennedy from academia to the hallowed halls of the US Senate? Celebrity appeal? Liberal bona fides? That was Palin’s proponents’ defense. It may look to a lot of America that both women were skipping a few steps. And Marie has a point, with the Dynasty issue. Didn’t we all bitch and moan about Bush and Clinton dynasties. All she’s asking for is a little reflection: are we being consistent?

Personally, I’m not worried about Kennedy assuming the Senate seat. In fact, I have a feeling she’ll be a spectacular senator. A seat in the Senate doesn’t present anything like the risks of being the commander in chief (or even next in line to be him/her). Patterson could do a lot worse than appointing Ms. Kennedy. But then I’m prepared to take some heat from my friends on the right for holding that opinion.

Dissing people who don’t have elected office experience is just silly -  there are people who have better resumes than Ms. Kennedy (Mr. Cuomo, for one)to be one of two Senators from NY, but she is bright and well-informed. 

And dissing Sarah Palin .... people have it wrong that she isn’t bright, that is misguided.  Don’t judge her intelligence by where she graduated college - smart people do attend and graduate from the Idaho States of the world, in spite of coastal snobbery about what colleges matter - look how quickly she adapted to the national political scene -she stayed the story throughout, when she should have been a short footnote

Governor Palin is willfully ignorant, selfish, and right-wing-foolish, but she isn’t a dummy.

At least the NY governor isn’t selling the seat .... is he?!?!? 

Here’s a Minnesotan (born in Amityville NY) who would love to see Senator Cuomo take office representing NY in the Senate - but Ms. Kennedy would do the job and do it better than many long-term senators imho

redwhiteblue, December 10 at 10:03 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

I was surprised to read this.
December 5th, 2008 1:24 pm ET
Caroline Kennedy’s resume (from wikipedia):
B.A. from Harvard University
J.D. from Columbia Law School
Wrote two books with Ellen Alderman:
* In Our Defense: The Bill of Rights In Action (1990)
* The Right to Privacy (1995)
She has also edited several books and written one on the Kennedy family.
She is currently President of the Kennedy Library Foundation, a director of both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, and Honorary Chairman of the American Ballet Theatre. She is also an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics, a living memorial to her father.
Does this sound like Paris Hilton or Sarah Palin?
****************************************************

I sure hope that’s not an “either/or” question!

(But of the two I think PH is a helluva lot brighter and more worldly than SP—Remember her spoof campaign ad “instead of that old wrinkly guy”—McCain? ‘Course that’s like saying she’s the smartest bear in the zoo.)

Mr. Stivers: Hillary Clinton was not given the Senate seat of New York. She had to run for it and won handily.

I understand that special elections for the Senate are expensive (so what, financial bailouts are expensive too)but I have never understood why empty seats can still be filled by Governors. My hunch is that the powerful of the past (read Founding Papas)did not trust “the rabble” to elect one of theirs. After all, Senators represent the people of their states and not their Governors. The system also throws monkey wrenches into political appointments. I am quite sure that Obama did not tap John Kerry for his Cabinet or for the White House because JK would be replaced with a Republican senator and I am sure that JK agreed.

Because Marie Cocco compares Carolyne Kennedy with Sarah Palin that is not a valid reason for thoughtlessly accepting a possible free-of-charge gift of the seat of New York Senator to CD.

I suspect that there are numerous good other candidates for the NY Senate seat with the same ultra-thin political experience of Carolyne.

Lastly, when Hillary Clinton declared herself a candidate the blogosphere reverberated with “Oh no, not another Clinton in the White House”. Come on, you great heroes, where is your “Oh no, not another Kennedy in the Senate”? Remember Bobby? He worked for…..Joe McCarthy. Remember John? A notorious womanizer, worse than President Bill. Remember Chappaquiddick? The flip-flopping Kennedy’s are loaded with problems. When they discovered that the Republican Party did not offer them much chances for political advancement they fled to the Democrats. Papa was a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who hated F. D.Roosevelt. Their “leftism” is paper-thin if it exists at all.

For here talent and embracing the agenda of Obama, she would be a wonderful ambassador anywhere

It is not about kennedy or Palin ? With the disgusting news from Illinois no senator should be named by any body but the voters. Governors can name an interim person to run the duties for a 2-3 month period but a special election should be the way to go

There are a few problems regarding the logic that you used in this article.  First comparing Kennedy to Palin is comparing apples to oranges.  Kennedy is intelligent, and she has worked behind the scenes in private foundations for the public good!  And although she has not worked in politics, she has been around politics and has probably absorbed and has the intellect to understand the issues.  Not only that but she will not be next in line behind a 70+ year old cancer survivor(this is no slur against cancer survivors)  for the the highest office in this Nation!  Ms Palin doesn’t have the intellect of a tsetse fly.  While she may be cute - she has the attitude of a mean cheerleader!  We need no more incompetence in the White House - 8 years is more than enough, thank you.  Ms. Palin’s lack of exposure to the world is comparable with that of the current Imperial One, and how is that working out for the nation?!

As this nation has been voting for “people of/with experience (aka Ideologues with ideologies that we the people are now paying dearly for!)” - that obviously isn’t working out too well!  What is needed for the office of the Presidency are people with an intellect!  I for one would welcome an amendment to the Constitution that requires a person have a working intelligence in order to seek the office of the Presidency!  This nation has been dumbed down to the point that having an intellect is often made fun of, as opposed to people in public office that can’t/don’t speak English properly, can’t pronounce words, don’t pronounce the endings of words - that is the anathma!  It tells the world, much about the caliber of the people of that nation that such a one would be voted into office! 

So while Ms. Kennedy would be picked to serve out the remainder of Ms. Clinton’s time as Senator, that doesn’t rule out her running in 2010!  It also doesn’t make her unqualified for the job!  Whereas in the case of Ms. Palin - she will require much work if she should choose to run for the Presidency in 2012!!!!

The big complaint against Sarah Palin was not her lack of experience but rather her demonstrated ignorance and that coupled with her lying was enough to disqualify he for the office. Caroline Kennedy does not have those problems. She has proven that she is knowledgeable and intelligent.
That’s enough for me. Experience is overrated because the fact is some people never learn.

How can you make a comparison between Caroline Kennedy and Sarah Palin? There is no comparison! You betcha!

It is a SENATE seat.  What did Hillary do before SHE was Senator?

If the Republicans can go ga ga over Palen, I think Caroline Kennedy would run circles around Palen if you asked the same questions of them about world affairs. 

I think Caroline Kennedy is more honest than Hillary.  Hillary talks out of the side of her mouth.  She voted to give an idiot the power to go to war.

And I’m a Republican.  But after the last eight years I don’t know what I am.  Seems all politicians are corrupt.

Caroline Kennedy for NY senator, who has never held any elected state office, is bald-face nepotism and an affront to meritocracy. If Americans want to honor Caroline, give her an award but don’t put a rank amateur in the US senate.

The Janitor, December 10 at 7:57 am #
(Unregistered commenter)

Iowans put Obama on the high road to the White House with his victory in the Iowa Caucuses.  Don’t blame us for anything Palin, please.
********************************************

Whoops! Sorry about that. It was Idaho, not Iowa (They spell almost the same, you know….)

6 year 5 college, 6 year 4 college—It’s hard to keep track of all the no-where schools this non-entity went.  I half expected to see she was at the University of Southern North Dakota at Hoople, too. (Fans of PDQ Bach will remember that!)  Love that classy t-shirt she was photoed in—“I may be broke but I’m not flat-busted!”  Real class, that!

Yeah, Sarah Palin really compares to Caroline Kennedy, doesn’t she.  Besides, how much experience did her cousin-in-law have before becoming the Governator of California?  Anyone here think she couldn’t do a better job than him? (and he’s no dummy).

“...if these are the sole qualifications…”

Ah, but they are not! Palin has a certain shrewdness and understanding of mob psychology, but Kennedy has ACTUAL INTELLIGENCE, for which there is no known substitute.

There is also the fact that Kennedy cares about others where Palin cares only for Palin.

One doesn’t need much to fit in with the members of the US Senate, particularly Inhofe, Sessions, McConnell, Hatch, Craig, and McCain, all of whom are severely dysfunctional mentally.

Kennedy would shine forth like an Einstein among retarded people.

In fact, ask yourself, “who are the best Senators in HISTORY?” It will be a short list, I trow.

If experience doesn’t matter, then maybe the Senate seat should be filled by lottery.  Let all legally qualified citizens who want the job put their name in a big hat, and the governor can pull one out….

I echo brandon/steele.  For those hung-up on experience - good, bad, indifferent, different - doesn’t seem to matter, I suggest starting a movement to amend the Constitution adding to the requirements for Senator to include ‘experience.’

Carter, Johnson, Nixon, Reagan, Bush I and II, Clinton - all men of ‘experience’ - were hardly advertisements that ‘experience’ predicts stellar performance in a job.

But she’s a Kennedy!  A Kennedy!!  It’s like having a “Get Into Political Office Free” card!  Have you no appreciation for Amerikan Reformed Royalism at all?

Dontcha see?

And moderate/liberal Democrats hate that tricksy monster “Calamity Sarah” Palin.  They hates her to pieces!!

How dare you even put Beauty and the Beast into the same article?

Comparing Kennedy’s appointment to a Senate seat to Palin’s potential election as Vice President behind a three time cancer survivor, who underwent severe trauma while a POW and is near his mid-70s, and saying they are the same is a non sequitor.  It simply doesn’t follow logically that they are the same.

Palin is Governor of Alaska and many see her as a potential candidate to challenge the Repub incumbent in 2010’s Senate race.  That’s fine.  She doesn’t need experience to be in the Senate, nor does she need experience to be Governor.  Arnold didn’t need experience in California.  But, it would be nice to have some experience, or, if you don’t like Obama, at least some intelligence to be for all intents and purposes Commander in Chief.  Palin doesn’t have either of these and that’s why the thought of her in the Oval Office scared many people.

Kennedy is not running for President, in fact she doesn’t appear to be running for much of anything; instead it seems to be her family that wants her to serve.  And so what?  Hillary Clinton herself had no prior elected experience, she merely had been around those who did (just as Kennedy has).  Ted Kennedy had no elected experience when he won his Senate seat.  John Corzine had not elected experience prior to winning his Senate seat and had only a few years in the Senate before being elected Governor of New Jersey.  What elected experience did Michael Bloomburg have before becoming the Mayor of NYC?  Al Franken had no elected experience before running for the MN Senate seat. 

Thus, experience is a very weak foundation to base this article on.  The questions really are: is she intelligent? can she act in an ethical manner? will she uphold the interests of New Yorkers?  will she surround herself with a solid staff?  can she negotiate compromise? If experience was the most important factor, everyone in the Senate would be Robert Byrd.

Yeah, but I’ll bet CK knows where Russia is, and who the President of France is, and can name more than one Supreme Court decision.  She can also string together a paragraph of coherent thoughts, and name the newspapers she read today.

She led the VP search for Obama, and was one of the FIRST prominent people to endorse him.  Her education includes a law degree, not a 6 year 5 college bullshit degree in “journalism” from an nowhere school in Bumfuck, Iowa (or was it North Dakota?)

Plus, CK knows how to put “G"s on the end of words when she’s speaking, not speakin’!

Besides, the Kennedy daughters almost always are brighter and more sensible than the Kennedy sons.  And they keep their clothing on when they are supposed to!

Somebody goofed. There’s no story/report uploaded here. Just the title, which isn’t a particularly good one, especially without a story.