Comments on: New Yorkers: “Do. Not. Want. Caroline”.

By: Samantha

Samantha — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 15:32:12 +0000

Kennedy didn’t even vote in half the elections since 1988, for cripe’s sake.

The buzz is that the seat might very well go to the very hard working and rising star Kirsten Gillibrand.

By: DAB

DAB — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 14:39:28 +0000

Totally agree. I naively thought that the Kennedys would back off from this sham when the whole Blago thing erupted. Strange that so many saw no similarity between these two since they both reek of Pay to Play.

By: American Girl in Italy

American Girl in Italy — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:21:36 +0000

right on peggy sue!

By: American Girl in Italy

American Girl in Italy — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 13:14:08 +0000

Well, she doesn’t deserve a vote just for being a *woman*. If you weren’t so busy just trying to be rude, you would see that I was responding to the comments that Uppity made, that people were attacking her for not supporting a *woman*. If that were the most important thing, then why didn’t Caroline support Hillary?

I do not support Caroline because she is inexperienced and not qualified. Perhaps you need to put down the koolaid and go back and read my comment.

And, as an American, a voter, and a contributing writer at NQ, I do think it is of my concern.

Who the heck do you think you are to try and tell someone that they can not contribute to the discussion, or that it is none of their business?

By: Ellen

Ellen — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:28:59 +0000

I see – because Caroline had the nerve to support someone other than your Goddess Hillary that means she doesn’t deserve any respect or your vote? I don’t know that Caroline is qualified for the senate seat nor do i know if she would be a particularly good campainer (she isn’t too impressive so far). If you had some valid reasons for not supporting her it would be understandable; but to not support her just because she was for someone else is pretty weak and, well, just pretty much chilish sour grapes.
And if you are in Italy, its really none of your concern is it?

By: trixta

trixta — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:03:50 +0000

[i.e. Senate]

By: trixta

trixta — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:02:28 +0000

The push for CK for Senator, I believe, is to set her up to run in 2012 with Obama if Biden resigns, or for 2016 as the Dem candidate for president. Like Obama, Ck will use the office of Senator to launch her own presidential aspirations. It’s all part of the grand plan to keep HRC out of the presidential picture in 2016. I hope Chelsea decides to enter the arena of politics and run for her mother’s seat in 2010. She’s proven to be eloquent and knowledgeable about the issues. Chelsea’s bid for the Senaate would drive the Obots and Ck supporters crazy.

By: trixta

trixta — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 07:52:44 +0000

Voters are a quaint anachronism.

Ain’t that the truth!

By: trixta

trixta — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 07:48:02 +0000

Should CK be appointed, the role of a woman Senator would be reduced to that of a socialite — i.e. soley raising money for the bankrupt DNC.

By: Peggy Sue

Peggy Sue — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 07:13:57 +0000

The “accusation of not supporting ‘women’ for positions” is just about the most hypocritical, cynical stance of all in the Caroline Kennedy matter. The charge against PUMAs and other HRC supporters was that we were voting with our vaginas only. The charge against women supporting Sarah Palin was pretty close–we were voting with stupid vaginas.

But Caroline Kennedy gets thrown into the mix with no experience what so ever [Sarah Palin "was" a mayor, member of an Alaskan energy commission, and an acting Governor and Hillary Clinton's experience/accomplishments have been sung from every hall, far and wide, for SOS] but women are automatically suppose to say yes, yes, yes to the weak sister.

Why? Because she has a vagina, of course.

Please! Could you get any more twisted?? Apparently, Obamatron suckups is all it takes to be ready “On Day One.”

Beyond belief! Anyone buying into this nonsense has lost their bloody mind.

By: fif

fif — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:06:44 +0000

I think these polls might actually give Paterson the cover he needs to choose someone other than CK. He would be a fool to willfully ignore the voice of the entire state. Then again…the Party ignored the will of the majority of the voters in the country, so why should this be any different. Voters are a quaint anachronism.

By: fif

fif — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 05:01:16 +0000

This is starting to smell like Pay To Play and it’s not even being done in secret.

Starting? I thought it was a joke when I first heard about it.

Another NY-er here, and Gillibrand is my District Rep. She’s fantastic–strong, independent, intelligent, hard-working. Sound like anyone else we know? I’ve called Paterson & Silver repeatedly, and “encouraged” them to do the right thing. Recently, Paterson said he “would not be bullied,” and would “choose someone who could BE the next Hillary Clinton in 8 years.” I pray he is thinking about Cuomo, Maloney, Gillibrand or any of the other ELECTED representatives who are qualified and deserving. If not, our democracy is clearly beyond rescue–between the media and the financial corruption of the parties, it’s all bought and paid for.

By: Andrew P

Andrew P — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:59:50 +0000

The Marist poll released yesterday had Cuomo over CK 40% to 25%. He beat her in every region of the state. the closest margin was here in NYC, 36%-31%. If Paterson appoints her I think we’ll have to wait until he’s thrown out of Albany to see what the pay for play was; my money’s on the next Supreme Court vacancy.

By: fif

fif — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 04:57:55 +0000

And with that comment, Dean reveals exactly why Obama was engineered into the nomination over HC–his mysterious billion dollar pay day (that he didn’t even share with down ticket Dems). Nice to see the Dems’ standards are so high. Democratic principles? Nah…show me the money! They’re not even smart enough to hide it anymore. So what’s the difference between the “new Dem party” and the Republicans again? (And don’t cite policy: see FISA, Warren, privatizing Social Security, Bush’s security “tools” that will remain in place etc.).

By: Kal

Kal — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:30:12 +0000

And this woman’s. I was so offended at CK’s backing of BO, and at her turning her back on Hillary — people with such great wealth and social position should not try to abuse the system like that. I know, I know, she came by it honestly, but still — if her books hadn’t been such intellectual zeros, if her life hadn’t been neurotically lived in the ‘privacy’ she values so much for herself but not so much for others, if she had shown any leadership re poverty, gender, race, class, politics, anything at all, it could have been a different story. But I hold it quite strongly against her that she made a point of being ‘just a wife and a mother’ and making it sound like women who can afford to make such a choice really ought to make that choice.

Yes, there could have been some real focus on the real NY women politicians.

CK is immature and greedy. Typical for a senator but not something to brag about.