Kirsten Gillibrand has been a representative in the state and has more qualifications than Kennedy does. And why is she checked off as unqualified? She got the seat, didn’t she?

Sorry, I don’t agree with this post at all. We can’t just hand things to women just because they’re women. I think Hillary was given sexist treatment during the primary but she didn’t deserve the nomination based on her gender; she deserved it based on her qualifications. Was she the most qualified Democrat? No. But she was more qualified than Barack. And that’s what riles me up more than sexism.

But I do think sexism has reared its ugly head once again. After white males were allowed to own property, who was next? Black males. Racial suffrage preceded gender suffrage. This is what you’d expect from society. White males, black males (and males of all other races), and finally all women. This is history. Why would we expect anything different?

Crappy argument. And bad comparison. Miss Camelot ISN’T as qualified as HClinton, Palin, and Gillebrand.

You are supporting Kennedy just BECAUSE she’s a woman. Sorry, I don’t believe in affirmative action for women. I want qualified people in jobs they are qualified for – whatever their gender.

And her role in that sexism toward Hillary (is what I was trying to say).

My problem with her was that I simply could not support her since she helped defeat a woman for president in a direct, unmistakable blow and then to add insult to injury, went after that woman’s senate seat. There is nothing that says we need to support a woman no matter what. But saying she is unqualified is below the belt usually.

There have always been men running for political office that if they had been a woman, it would have been said she was unqualified, but not if he was a man. The standards have always been higher for women.

Therefore, for women in particular, it is a slippery slope to call a woman unqualified. We have always had this obstacle and many times a woman was branded ‘unqualified’ simply for being female. This was what was so infuriating about Sarah Palin’s plight. She had been elected three times to political office. It was particularly painful to watch women denigrate her when she was a sitting governor of a state with an enormous popularity rating. How many of them could have gotten themselves elected governor, even from a ’small’ state – including Katie Couric?

I don’t recall that the Kennedys called Hillary unqualified. Apparently it was a personal vendetta. They had surely socialized together on yachts and at political events in years past. Perhaps Teddy didn’t like the fact Hillary had claimed health care in the 90’s and then in 2008 health care was Hillary’s deal when he had played the biggest role in congress in that arena.

After the election, Teddy used his seniority to make sure Hillary would have nothing to do with Health Care if she had stayed in the senate. That was pretty dirty for a dying man who had played a big part in her defeat as president.

I’ll be honest. I was astonished. She’s 51 years old. She’s had every advantage–family, education, money. But in that one interview, she sounded like a Valley Girl. It was embarrassing. And, I’m sure, humiliating for her. It didn’t give me any pleasure to watch or hear that because I was kid when JFK was President. I remember that magic that the Kennedy’s exuded.

But if you’re a private person [which I understand Caroline Kennedy is] then the rough tumble world of politics probably isn’t a wise choice. And for me, the whole thing sank when she said she would not run in 2010 unless she received the appointment.

Well, excuse me!

And btw, NQ was “not” the only place where posters talked about CK not being a wise choice. I read alot of criticism of her possible appointment on the far-left blogs, including Daily Kos and Huffy-Po.

http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/uscongress/a/senrequire.htm

EXCERPT

The Senate is the United States’ higher legislative chamber (the House of Representatives being the lower chamber), containing 100 members. If you have dreams of becoming one of the two senators who represent each state for six-year terms, you might want to check the Constitution first. The guiding document for our government specifically spells out the requirements to be a senator. Individuals must be:

at least 30 years old.

a U.S. citizen for at least nine years at the time of election to the Senate.

a resident of the state one is elected to represent in the Senate.

These are the only requirements for the office that are specified in Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution.

P.S This is a pretty neat site for general/broad info about the structure of our gov.

Hmmm…kind of a reverse sexism there (because he was pretty but dumb)?

I’m also tired of that argument. So what are we reduced to saying now: “Well, these other people sucked too, so let’s just elect another unqualified candidate?”

That’s the problem with continuously lowering the bar.