Comments on: Caroline Kennedy’s Qualifications To Be Senator

By: Joe

Joe — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 18:25:09 +0000

Good day all,
Can someone show me the qualifications that Mr. Schwarzenneger were before he became Gov of California? Is there a double standard here? Do you view the electorate of California poorly for believing that someone with his level of experience could be a good governor? Hasn’t he performed well?

How about the fine line between “experienced” and “elite”? If a person that you don’t like has experience, they’re either “elitist” or and “insider”. If not, then they’re under qualified. It’s a junior senate seat, folks. If you’re not a resident of NY, sit back and watch. As one said before, she meets the Constitutional requirements. She may not be a good senator, but only time will tell on tnat one. Can you say that all of your political choices have been correct?

By: Always Right

Always Right — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:54:02 +0000

This is an appointment – once in, she won’t be ousted. I don’t think CBK would win the seat – but if she’s appointed, it is pretty difficult to lose as an incumbent.

By: Always Right

Always Right — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:47:27 +0000

While I get the Hillary bashing (not a fan)- the idea that she had no experience is quite interesting. She at least had a law-carreer. On top of that, she almost got nationalized health care in the US – which is more accomplishment in national government than a lot of senators could claim!

Compare that to CBK – a fund-raiser, event organizer, and book editor. She can’t be seriously considered, can she?

By: Always Right

Always Right — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 19:40:49 +0000

I checked that wikipedia article – she’s a great fundraiser and event organizer is what I learned. Really Katherine? That was impressive? I particularly like that, of all her extensive experience, it is noteworthy that she rep’d the family at the funerals of past Presidents. By all means this woman should be a US Senator! Have Sarah Palin and Barack Obama so lowered the standards of experience required for national office that a fund-raising member of the NY Bar Assoc (when was the last time she actually practiced law?) is experienced enough?

By: miyamoto

miyamoto — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 12:14:26 +0000

What a load of sexist BS is posted here. Nasty, ugly, hateful BS.

The qualifications are quite simple and are stated in the Constitution, you remember that arcane, outdated document don’t you?

They are:
You must be at least at the age of 30 years old, and you must have been a U.S. citizens for at least 9 years.Resident of the state he/she will represent.

Last I checked she was all three of those.

By: Jim

Jim — Tue, 16 Dec 2008 03:42:42 +0000

Unlike those strong Bush women. But I think you got it backward at the end. It should be A******

By: Kiyoshi

Kiyoshi — Mon, 15 Dec 2008 21:35:15 +0000

And we thought Sarah Palin had no experience. Caroline Kennedy? I think she published a book of poems or something…yeah that will help! lol

By: Katherine Jones

Katherine Jones — Sat, 13 Dec 2008 01:58:20 +0000

I was unfamiliar with her qualifications and this discussion was not very enlightening, so I went of course to Wikipedia and was surprised to see that she is not really such a lightweight as you all say. Check it out. Yes, she has never run for elected office before, but this was Hillary’s first time too. And HRC’s “30 years of public service” is highly inflated, and includes a lot of first lady duties while pulling down private law firm salary.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caroline_Kennedy

By: LSekhmet

LSekhmet — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:19:10 +0000

I agree. But it’s up to Sen. Clinton what she does.

Personally, I think she should stay a Senator and wait for the various court cases to play out.

By: LSekhmet

LSekhmet — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:09:30 +0000

At least Al Franken had to run a campaign, fund raise, and meet up with real voters. And he’d been a Democratic Party activist long before this.

Franken running would be like me running, if I had any money and better health. I know the Democratic Party and I know the voters; I would be able to speak the language; were I elected, I would get results.

I cannot guarantee any results from Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg. She does know the higher-ups in the Democratic Party, but she doesn’t know the rest of us (the “plebes” or “great unwashed”), she does not speak our language, and I remain unconvinced she’d work hard to change the lot of ordinary Americans — especially since she’s apparently not ever met a single one in her entire overprivileged life.

Just say NO to Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg!

By: LSekhmet

LSekhmet — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 22:03:39 +0000

I don’t see Caroline Kennedy as anything other than a frail, wealthy dilettante.

As for Sen. Clinton, she had to go and earn her seat. She went to the state and campaigned — hard — and won re-election in 2006 because she was a good Senator.

If Caroline K. Schlossberg is appointed, in two years (2010) there will be a special election — and she will be out, because she won’t be a very good Senator because she’s never run for anything and never has had to prove anything other than that she can raise money and look like a Stepford wife on camera while praising Barack H. Obama.

Just say NO to Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg!

By: Regina

Regina — Mon, 08 Dec 2008 05:45:47 +0000

As a past Hillary supporter I am annoyed that Caroline Kennedy will be considered to replace Sen Clinton in the senate. The Kennedys lost their moral compass with Caroline’s endorsement and continued support of Obama. She is no JFK or RFK…..she should stick to reading her mothers favorite poems and her father’s christmas memories.

By: lute

lute — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 22:30:33 +0000

Here is a QUALIFIED, deserving woman for that seat.
The NY chapter of NOW wants Rep. Carolyn Maloney.
http://maloney.house.gov/

By: ellie

ellie — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:45:04 +0000

For starters, because she received 18 million votes from the American public.

By: ellie

ellie — Sun, 07 Dec 2008 21:39:26 +0000

Except that Caroline Kennedy has never received a single vote from the American public. Hillary Clinton was elected, not selected.

Not to mention other qualifications, such as being appointed to the Legal Service Corporation by Jimmy Carter, worked for the Children’s Defense Fund, was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff that took down Nixon and she was twice named to the top 100 most influential lawyers by the National Law Journal.

There’s a bit of a difference.