Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 105

Thread: Caroline Kennedy reportedly interested in taking over Hillary Clinton's Senate seat

  1. #46
    Elite Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    2,540

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    ^^ Yes JFK jr would have been a shoo-in.

    But as a not so bright guy who failed the NY state bar exam numerous times he probably wouldn't have been the best choice.

    Incidentally, RFK was called a carpetbagger when he moved to NY to run for Senator in his day, just like Hillary.
    Too true. Incidentally their mother's take was that Caroline was smarter and more focused that her brother. Certainly she passed the bar in NY on the first try. I believe that she was also graduated with honors from Harvard.

  2. #47
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    ^^ Yes, she certainly is smart and well educated. I even think she will have a great political career. She could even become the first female president, continuing the tradition of Gandhi and Bhutto of a daughter following her father.

    She'll get the job. Shelly Silver will make sure of that- he's the real Gov of NY. She wants it, it's hers. The Clintons and Bush's are criticized for that type of hubris- rightfully so, but the Kennedys are lauded.

    We're outraged that Blago would sell a senate seat for cash, but at the same time this is a senate seat purchased with family influence as tender.

    We are also going to see Ted Kennedy's wife take his seat over when he steps down.

    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  3. #48
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    ^^Hillary's worked in the public eye and dealt with the media. Caroline grew up in the public eye and has been dealing with the media her entire life. So, if that's going to be a criteria, then Caroline has as much experience as Hillary did when she got into the Senate.
    Um, no, Caroline is known for not doing interviews and press as an adult. She rarely gives interviews 'n such. Just because she's photographed when she's out in public does not mean she has experience dealing with the media. When you don't give interviews, that means you don't have any practice answering reporters' questions and follow-up questions. Hillary, as first lady, gave tons of interviews and made hundreds of media appearances. Hillary and Caroline aren't even in the same ball park in this category.

  4. #49
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post
    I was waiting for you to bring Obama up to try and make your case. But just like with your Bush example, Obama and Caroline Kennedy are two different situations. And as far as Obama goes it wasn't as if he was running for president without any political experience under his belt, he had seven years in the Illinois state legislature and over three years in the U.S. Senate. And nobody ever said that being an attorney, or the first black president, of the Harvard Law Review qualified him for the presidency, like you tried to do with Hillary as a Senator being the first female partner in her law firm.

    Now, like I said earlier, I'm not saying that Caroline is the perfect choice. But you can't dismiss her outright as a potential Senator by saying that she lacks the qualifications, or is getting by on her name, when those same two things applied to Hillary when she went into the Senate. And your state was already the guinea pig with a former First Lady being a Senator and that worked out okay, didn't it?

    Of course I was going to bring up Obama to make 'my case'. I'm so glad you waited

    I haven't forgotten that during the election we were asked to overlook Obama's lack of executive experience based on things like the fact the he was the first black President of the Harvard Law review, because incredible acheivements like that showed that he was an intelligent and accomplished man. Just like Hillary becoming the first female partner in the Rose law firm shows her intelligence and ability.

    These accomplishments, like being a community organizer, were presented to show he was intelligent and would bring better ideas to the office that what we had been stuck with for the past 8 years. A case was presented for what he had accomplished, and how effectively he was able to run his campaign. There is no similar case to be made for Kenndy. She was born on third base.

    And yes, I can say that Kennedy is getting by on her name because it's a fact. Would they be appointing a woman to the US Senate with her background if her name was Smith? Not bloody likely.

    Hillary had to make her case when she ran. She had to present her positions, she ran against another candidate and won. And Hillary was a part of building the Clinton dynasty. Any person who follows politics can see that without HRC, there may never have been a President Clinton. She wasn't a typical political spouse.Kennedy is using inside connections to be appointed over far more qualified people including several long time members of congress and the former AG of NY.
    Last edited by witchcurlgirl; December 16th, 2008 at 03:38 PM.
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  5. #50
    Elite Member crumpet's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    If I was up your ass you'd know where I am!
    Posts
    7,751

    Default

    First of all I'm so over this damn Kennedy family Camelot myth bs I could just puke. They have been deified and their children reap the rewards whether they deserve it or not. JFK was not the best president ever and most of the Kennedy clan are a bunch of crooked assholes with more skeletons in their closet than Arlington Cemetary. This love affair America has with this family is embarrassing.

    Off topic, but most of these Kennedy bitches are ugly as homemade soap.
    Only the good die young.........................
    bitches like me live forever!!!!!!!!!!!!

  6. #51
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    Who Plays..... Who Pays.

    I've met Caroline Kennedy a few times and she seems like a good person. Compared to many children of the rich and famous, she has lived her life quietly, modestly, in exemplary fashion. She has worked hard for worthy causes; those who've worked with her say she is intelligent and self-effacing. Or was self-effacing. You can't really say that she is now, having thrust herself into the midst of the selection process for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat. By doing so, she has displayed an eminently New York quality: chutzpah.

    Indeed, Kennedy's play seems very much of a moment recently passed--the dynasty years of American politics, when Kennedys, Clintons, Bushes (and other, less obtrusive dynasties--Udalls, Cuomos) cluttered our public life. There is nothing new about this. We've had our Adamses and Roosevelts in epochs past. But the combination of dynasty and celebrity in a too-hot media age has proved a diversion from good governance. That was part of the message sent by Barack Obama's victory over Hillary Clinton in the primaries--Clinton was, and is, a fine public servant, but she came attached to a moveable media carnival. There was, I think, a gnawing, somewhat subconscious sense that in this difficult time we needed to turn the page from the carnival years. The Era of Big Strange Political Families was over. (That goes for you, too, Jesse Jackson Jr.)

    If nothing else, Barack Obama's transition demonstrates his intent to launch an era of Real Serious Governance. He has chosen well outside the standard political fast-food menu in some cases--James (OOPs: Steven) Chu, the Secretary of Energy comes to mind. And I'd hope that Governor David Paterson might consider a similar sort of selection--an honorary, non-political (but Democratic) appointee, a person of real, world-class, distinction who would never normally serve in the Senate, to grace the seat until the next election--if he hasn't already been bum-rushed into the Kennedy coronation. Certainly, New York State is filled with extraordinary people. Here are four:

    --Dr. Harold Varmus, former head of the National Institutes of Health, now director of the Memorial Sloan Kettering cancer hospital. He could add real value to the Senate's health insurance debate.

    --Geoffrey Canada has spent his life doing extraordinary work with the young people, especially the young men, of Harlem. He would be a strong, African-American voice for the poor.

    --Vishaka Desai, president of the Asia Society would be the first member of the Senate born in India. She would bring great knowledge about the world's hottest hot-spot to the Senate, plus great expertise in the areas of education and culture.

    --Judge Judith Kaye, the briliant chief justice of New York's highest court, soon to retire.

    There are dozens of others such. The point is, that the Blagojevich fiasco and now the Kennedy play have turned the selection of new Senators into a skeevy travesty. The best way to change the story would be go in the exact opposite direction--go completely high-minded.

    Meanwhile, in a related area, Morton Abramowitz makes the excellent argument that it's also time for Obama to move past the era of dispensing ambassadorships as baubles to high-rolling campaign contributors. That's an another semi-corrupt anachronism we can no longer afford.

    Swampland - TIME.com » Blog Archive Who Plays…Who Pays. «
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  7. #52
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Fluffy View Post
    Um, no, Caroline is known for not doing interviews and press as an adult. She rarely gives interviews 'n such. Just because she's photographed when she's out in public does not mean she has experience dealing with the media. When you don't give interviews, that means you don't have any practice answering reporters' questions and follow-up questions. Hillary, as first lady, gave tons of interviews and made hundreds of media appearances. Hillary and Caroline aren't even in the same ball park in this category.
    I didn't say that Caroline was known for doing interviews. I said she's been dealing with the media her entire life. Two different things. I mean she's had reporters shoving microphones in her face for decades, but she speaks when she chooses to.

    And how can you think that someone who has spent their entire life living in the glare of the media spotlight doesn't have any experience with the media. Caroline had to deal with her father, mother and brother dying under the glare of the media spotlight and she didn't crack under the pressure. Whereas, Hillary started crying because the pressure of the campaign trail got to her in New Hampshire.

    Quote Originally Posted by witchcurlgirl View Post
    Of course I was going to bring up Obama to make 'my case'. I'm so glad you waited

    I haven't forgotten that during the election we were asked to overlook Obama's lack of executive experience based on things like the fact the he was the first black President of the Harvard Law review, because incredible acheivements like that showed that he was an intelligent and accomplished man. Just like Hillary becoming the first female partner in the Rose law firm shows her intelligence and ability.

    These accomplishments, like being a community organizer, were presented to show he was intelligent and would bring better ideas to the office that what we had been stuck with for the past 8 years. A case was presented for what he had accomplished, and how effectively he was able to run his campaign. There is no similar case to be made for Kenndy. She was born on third base.

    And yes, I can say that Kennedy is getting by on her name because it's a fact. Would they be appointing a woman to the US Senate with her background if her name was Smith? Not bloody likely.

    Hillary had to make her case when she ran. She had to present her positions, she ran against another candidate and won. And Hillary was a part of building the Clinton dynasty. Any person who follows politics can see that without HRC, there may never have been a President Clinton. She wasn't a typical political spouse.Kennedy is using inside connections to be appointed over far more qualified people including several long time members of congress and the former AG of NY.
    When was anybody ever asked to forget that Obama had no executive experience by focusing on him being the first black president of the Harvard Law Review or that he was a community organizer? Because I know Obama himself NEVER said that.

    But you focusing on Obama to deflect from Hillary doesn't change the fact that you tried to make the case that Hillary being the first female law partner at her firm qualified her for the Senate. And let's not forget all of the times that people tried to cover up Hillary's lack of executive experience by claiming that being First Lady counted as experience to be president. Or that Hillary tried to cover up her thin resume on foreign policy by lying about being under sniper fire.

    We can go back and forth about this all day, but the original discussion was about Hillary and Caroline. Now, if you feel that you can't prove your argument without having to drag Bush and Obama into it then so be it. But by constantly doing that you just show the weakness of your argument against Caroline.
    Last edited by Tati; December 17th, 2008 at 04:40 PM.

  8. #53
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default Why Caroline Kennedy is not Hillary Clinton

    Tuesday, Dec. 16, 2008 14:50 EST
    Why Caroline Kennedy is not Hillary Clinton

    The response to last night's post about Caroline Kennedy, in which I asked (begged?) Gov. David Paterson not to make her New York's next senator, was fascinating and passionate.

    Thanks to EmmaFinn in particular for naming yet another upstate New York congresswoman who is worthy of consideration, Louise Slaughter, and for underlining what's truly important. Job No. 1 for any New York senator is helping the half of the state's population that lives beyond the big city and its suburbs. "Here in upstate New York, we're hurting," she wrote. "We're losing jobs and population at an alarming rate. Our infrastructure is crumbling."

    But the main topic of discussion seemed to be whether Caroline Kennedy is more or less entitled to the Senate seat than the woman she would replace. "What exactly were Hillary Clinton's qualifications to run for senator of New York?" demanded tmaddin74. "How is Caroline Kennedy's situation any different than that of Hillary Clinton nine years ago?" asked Halifax.

    Well, as Christopher1988, no fan of Hillary, noted, "There's one big difference. She was elected by the people."

    In 1999 and 2000 Hillary Clinton marched through the snows of upstate New York like Marshal Zhukov, grinding out an electoral victory. She vanquished first Rudy Giuliani and then his replacement, Rick Lazio, in a race the Republicans were originally supposed to win. Caroline Kennedy, who has not, as letter writer zwrite notes, "held a full-time job in years [or] run for even the lowliest office," would be handed the Senate seat by appointment. She would not have to defend it at the ballot box until 2010.

    In fact, there's another Kennedy whose New York political career has far more parallels with Hillary Clinton's. Forty-four years ago, Robert F. Kennedy became a New York resident so he could run for the Senate. One of his prime qualifications was having held an unelected position in his brother's administration. There was some grousing about nepotism, and opponent Kenneth Keating called him a carpetbagger, but if New Yorkers had really minded, RFK wouldn't have won the election by 720,000 votes. RFK's son, in fact, compared Hillary Clinton to his father when she first ran for the Senate in 2000. It is RFK's seat that Clinton now holds.

    New Yorkers don't mind carpetbaggers. We were all once newcomers to the Goldene Medina. Give us your tired, your hungry, your wealthy, your privileged, your former attorneys general and first ladies. Let them buy houses in Chappaqua and run for the Senate.

    But above all, give us someone with pointy elbows. We don't need a neophyte. Letter writer GW says, "Give the kid a shot." How about we don’t? (And Caroline, who is over 50, is only a "kid" in photos of Camelot anyway, which underscores my point about wallowing in nostalgia.)

    We need someone who can follow the obnoxious but effective senatorial template that Chuck Schumer lifted from Al D'Amato, or the dogged and relentless model pursued by Hillary Clinton. Battered by recession downstate and decades-long decline upstate, New York absolutely requires an effective advocate in the Senate, and there are many worthy candidates for the job. Again, here's EmmaFinn: "Does Caroline have what it takes to get something done? I honestly don't know. Does she deserve a chance when so much is on the line?"

    ― Mark Schone

    Why Caroline Kennedy is not Hillary Clinton - War Room - Salon.com

  9. #54
    Elite Member witchcurlgirl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Acerbia
    Posts
    33,488

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by kingcap72 View Post




    We can go back and forth about this all day, but the original discussion was about Hillary and Caroline. Now, if you feel that you can't prove your argument without having to drag Bush and Obama into it then so be it. But by constantly doing that you just show the weakness of your argument against Caroline.
    Uh no. No weakness in this argument. We were just off on a tangent regarding Obama and Hillary.

    On Caroline/ Hillary: The facts are Hillary had more experience in politics and working life- , and was elected to the senate by the people of NY. Caroline has less experience and is being appointed to the senate.

    I never said that being the first woman partner qualified Hillary to be in the senate on it's own. I said it was something she brought to the table. My exact post was:

    'The difference with Hillary is she was elected, it wasn't an appointment. She also had practiced law for years, becoming the first woman partner in her firm. She did bring a bit more to the table.'
    It's no longer a dog whistle, it's a fucking trombone


    All of God's children are not beautiful. Most of God's children are, in fact, barely presentable.


    If I wanted the government in my womb I'd fuck a Senator

  10. #55
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Angry Nepotistic succession in the political class

    Wednesday Dec. 3, 2008 07:21 EST
    Nepotistic succession in the political class

    Bill Clinton yesterday was forced to deny speculation that he would be appointed to replace his wife in the U.S. Senate. Leading candidates for that seat still include John F. Kennedy's daughter (Caroline), Robert Kennedy's son (RFK, Jr.), and Mario Cuomo's son (Andrew). In Illinois, a leading contender to replace Barack Obama in the Senate is Jesse Jackson's son (Jesse, Jr.). In Delaware, it was widely speculated that Joe Biden would be replaced by his son, Beau, and after Beau took his name out of the running because he's now serving in Iraq, the naming of the actual replacement -- lone-time (Joe) Biden aide Ted Kaufmann -- "upset local Democrats who believe the move was a ham-handed attempt to engineer the election of Biden’s son, Beau, to the Senate in 2010."

    Meanwhile, in Alaska, Lisa Murkowski, who was appointed by her father to take his seat in the U.S. Senate when he became Governor, yesterday warned Sarah Palin not to challenge her in a 2010 primary, a by-product of tension between those two as a result of Palin's defeat of Lisa's dad for Governor. In Florida, Mel Martinez's announcement that he won't seek re-election in 2010 immediately led to reports that the current President's brother, Jeb, might run for that seat. And all of that's just from the last couple of weeks.

    The Senate alone -- to say nothing of the House -- is literally filled with people whose fathers or other close relatives previously held their seat or similar high office (those links identify at least 15 current U.S. Senators -- 15 -- with immediate family members who previously occupied high elected office). And, of course, the current President on his way out was the son of a former President and grandson of a former U.S. Senator.

    Isn't this all a bit much? It's true that our political/media class in general is intensely incestuous and nepotistic. Virtually the entire neoconservative "intelligentsia" (using that term as loosely as it can possibly be used) is one big paean to nepotistic succession -- the Kristols, the Kagans, the Podhoretzes, Lucinanne Goldberg and her boy. Upon Tim Russert's death, NBC News excitedly hired his son, Luke. Mike Wallace's son hosts Fox's Sunday show. The most influential political opinion space in the country, The New York Times Op-Ed page, is, like the Times itself, teeming with family successions and connections. Inter-marriages between and among media stars and political figures -- and lobbyists, operatives and powerful political officials -- are now more common than arranged royal marriages were among 16th Century European monarchs.

    But this fixation on parent-child, sibling and spousal succession for elected office is particularly problematic. It's certainly true that one can find, in individual cases, instances of self-sufficiency and merit even among those benefiting from nepotism and family names. But the fact that it is now so commonplace -- almost presumptively expected -- for political power to be passed along to close family members is quite anti-democratic. The number of families possessing some sort of aristocratic-like claim to elected office is clearly increasing. By definition, that diminishes the role of merit and the need for democratic persuasion in how elected leaders are chosen. And this dynamic, in turn, fuels how insular, incestuous, unaccountable and bloated with entitlement the Beltway culture is.

    There are numerous factors that account for this artistocratization of our politics. Viewing political officials through the combined prism of royalty and celebrity naturally generates interest in, and affection for, their family members. The same deeply sad mentality that makes it worthwhile for celebrity magazines to pay many millions of dollars for celebrities' baby photos is part of what makes so many people eager to vote for the sons, wives, and brothers of their favorite political star. Independently, a rapid worsening of America's rich-poor gap stratifies the society in terms of opportunities and access and breeds a merit-deprived aristocratic culture.

    Beyond that, the massive structural advantages of incumbency easily allow resources and other favors to be heaped on chosen family members for succession, and for loyalties and affections to be transferred for no reason other than family connection. Then there is the large number of uninformed voters -- working in tandem with our vapid, gossip-obsessed political media -- that place a huge premium on family name recognition and even generates some voter confusion that further aids family succession (how many voters who cast a ballot for Bob Casey and John Sununu in their Senate races -- or elected Harold Ford, Dan Boren, Connie Mack and Bill Schuster to the House -- mistakenly thought they were voting for their elected-official dads who had the same or very similar names?).

    Family succession is hardly unheard of in U.S. political history, but what was once quite rare has now become pervasive. As The Washington Post's Dana Milbank put it in 2005:
    With at least 18 senators, dozens of House members and several administration officials boosted by family legacies, modern-day Washington sometimes resembles the court of Louis XIV without the powdered wigs.
    Illustrating that radical change, here's a revealing 1929 article from Time Magazine expressing some mild disapproval for what was, back then, the rare occurrence of a son who was elected to succeed his father in a Minnesota Congressional seat after the father was killed in a tragic fire (the new son-Congressman, the article noted, was "an engaging young man, thoroughly Nordic in appearance"). About this single familial succession, Time sternly intoned: "Primogeniture and hereditary public office have no place in U. S. tradition."

    That is clearly no longer true. One of the most encouraging aspects of Barack Obama's success -- and, for that matter, the ascension of someone like Sarah Palin or Bill Clinton -- is the pure self-sufficiency and lack of family connection behind it. But even pointing that out demonstrates how meritocratic self-sufficiency has almost become the exception rather than the rule. That we now treat Presidents like Kings and expect them to exercise similar powers is consistent with the broader trend whereby we are ruled by a Versailles on the Potomac, with all the bloated, decadent insularity that implies.

    UPDATE: In the comment section, Brenton Williams -- a Professor of American Constitutional & Legal History at DePaul University -- details one of the most egregiously undemocratic cases of nepotistic succession: Democratic Blue Dog Rep. Dan Lipinski:
    His father, Bill, the long-time incumbent ran for the Democratic nomination in 2004 and won easily. A few weeks before the general election he withdrew and the Illinois Democratic Committee met with him for 15 minutes, late at night, behind closed doors before emerging with their new nominee, his son, then residing in central Tennessee where he was an assistant professor at the University of Tennessee. . . .
    Still worse, a family friend [Ryan Chlada] with no funding ran as the Republican in 2004 to help insure that Dan faced no more than token resistance.
    As Professor Williams notes, the Lipinski son, ever since, has been vigorously supported by the Democratic establishment, particularly Rahm Emanuel, in order to defeat progressive (and meritocratic) primary challengers. He was simply handed the seat by his dad.

    -- Glenn Greenwald

    Nepotistic succession in the political class - Glenn Greenwald - Salon.com

  11. #56
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    I don't like to see anybody just get handed a Senate seat. And if this was any other Senate seat I would agree with the arguments against Caroline. But considering that Hillary had never held public office prior to being in the Senate, and coasted in on the Clinton name, it just makes the arguments against Caroline weak.

    The only difference is Hillary got elected, without any political experience, because of her last name. And Caroline would be appointed, without any political experience, because of her last name. One being elected and the other being appointed doesn't change that fact.

  12. #57
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    ^Yeah it does. Hillary was elected through a democratic process. Caroline won't be.

    This subject is on the Cafferty File today:
    December 16, 2008
    Caroline Kennedy qualifications for Senate?
    Posted: 02:15 PM ET

    FROM CNN’s Jack Cafferty:
    Caroline Kennedy says she wants Hillary Clinton’s Senate seat. Her resume is long on politics and short on public office. She hasn’t had a full time job in years and has never held an elected office.

    Last week New York Representative Gary Ackerman, a Democrat, said Kennedy’s only qualification was name recognition. In a radio interview he said she is no more qualified than Jennifer Lopez to be a Senator.

    According to the New York Times, Kennedy worked 3 days a week as director of strategic partnerships for the New York City schools for just under two years.

    Other than that, most of her time has been spent on boards for various non-profits, which has included raising millions of dollars for some causes.

    But the usually private 51-year-old daughter of the late President Kennedy feels this has prepared her for the job and she has asked New York’s Governor David Paterson to appoint her.

    Critics have been quick to note her lack of experience but friends and family are coming out too saying her behind the scenes work over the years is exactly what has prepared her for this job.

    Here’s my question to you:
    What qualifies Caroline Kennedy to suddenly become a member of the U.S. Senate?
    Last edited by Fluffy; December 16th, 2008 at 05:16 PM. Reason: added cafferty article

  13. #58
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    ^^So Hillary being elected to the Senate without any political experience and due to her last name that's okay? But it's wrong that Caroline gets appointed to the Senate with no political experience and due to her last name? That doesn't add up.

  14. #59
    Elite Member Fluffy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    5,600

    Default

    ^Hillary still had all the public relations experience of being First Lady. What has Caroline done in the past 10 years. Barely anything! If she gets the seat, I don't think anyone can say for sure that she'll be reelected. I think there will be a huge backlash against her by NYers unless she does a spotless, pitch-perfect job. Her appointment to the seat would be nepotism at its worst. It's degrees of difficulty, king. Hillary had to spend months of time campaigning and fund raising to get her seat. Caroline just wants her well-connected social circle to convince the governor to appoint her. Huge difference.

  15. #60
    Elite Member kingcap72's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    10 miles from Pootie Tang
    Posts
    21,909

    Default

    Fluffy, I get what you're saying. I do. But Hillary's time as First Lady doesn't count for anything, public relations or otherwise. Because what made Hillary qualified to represent the people of New York after only living there for five minutes? Caroline's lived there for 20 or 30 years, so wouldn't she have a better grasp than Hillary did when she first got there?

    Bottom line, I just don't see the difference between Hillary and Caroline's situations, other than one being elected and the other being appointed. Both would be getting positions based on their last name, which is always wrong.

Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Hillary Clinton says she's not interested in new position
    By kingcap72 in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: October 15th, 2008, 05:43 PM
  2. What's up Hillary Clinton's sleeve?
    By Incognito in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: June 8th, 2008, 01:36 PM
  3. Hillary Clinton's Civil War pt.2
    By *DIVA! in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 19th, 2008, 09:16 AM
  4. Caroline Kennedy "A President like my father!"
    By *DIVA! in forum U.S. Politics and Issues
    Replies: 18
    Last Post: February 7th, 2008, 02:06 PM
  5. Replies: 17
    Last Post: November 23rd, 2007, 10:10 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •