Enough of dynasties: No legacy appointment for Caroline Kennedy

If you love fashion,you must konw abercrombie and fitch
and you are a abercrombie manor
abercrombie womensand
hollister clothingis also very fashion.
And you know RuehlNo.925
I also like abercrombie outlet,and you?

Throw da bums out. I agree with you, George. Family dynasties must be shut down. Anyone who has already served one, maybe two terms, or if their spouse or parent has served, should be legally disqualified from ever serving in any political capacity in state or national offices. The corrupt system has become a money-making venture for career politicians as evidenced by the scab that was yanked from the oozing sore that is Illinois when their current Governor was arrested. Throw da bums out. Who wouldn't want a life-time pension and an inside track? How much schmoozing must be smothered on our new Secretary of State in the form of silent money slipping into banks before her crooked husband is finally caught up to his elbows in the slime? A trillion?

This may be from left field - but Caroline Kennedy is qualified if Hillary Clinton was qualified. People seem to forget that Hillary Clinton's qualification to be U.S. Senator was that she was the First Lady. And if the fools in New York want someone like that (who, by the way, moved to NY for the sole purpose) as their U.S. Senator, then that was up to them. In New York, you see, logic in politics has been absent for many years.

Personally I don't much care whether or not Caroline Kennedy is qualified, that question should be put to voters in the State of NY. Some apparently think she is. Of course those same people thought Jeane Carnahan was qualified, and still think Barak Obama is qualified. If less than 200 days in the US Senate, and zero executive experience qualifies someone to be President of the United States, and having been married to the former govenor of a state qualifies someone for the US Senate, I guess being a rich socialite might just measure up.

Caroline Kennedy is not unqualified BECAUSE she is a celebrity. But for her to be appointed simply because of her celebrity is inappropriate.

If Caroline Kennedy demonstrates her competence by working up within the system--through election or appointment to lesser posts, her being a celebrity should not be an obstacle to her attaining any office. IMO she currently doesn't merit being appointed to serve out HRC's senate term. I think she may ultimately prove to be a splendid public servant if, with a measure of humility, she runs for office like folks with fewer connections and less name recognition do.

Rebelmama, sure we could do worse than Caroline. But there are hundreds, maybe thousands of people who have devoted their lives to public service who could also serve, but they're not famous. How about appointing some scientists, who would probably never run for office but could serve, even for a brief time, on important committees and advise the legislature. Maybe some artists and writes, who also would not likely run for office but who could provide important ideas, albeit temporarily, to the legislative process.

Congress is so dominated by lawyers now, and this is a loss to us. It was not always this way; Congress used to have farmers, laborers and others from a broad range of life in America.

Here's another idea: for temporary appointments, why not get retired Congressmen and Senators who could step in and immediately contribute but who are not likely to use the appointment to propel themselves into the next election?

Let's see...Caroline Kennedy is a intelligent lawyer, author, mother, great speaker, thoughtful, familiar with living life in a fishbowl, willing to step out for her beliefs...we could do a lot worse, don't you think? To oppose a viable candidate because he/she has a famous name is no different from using race, gender or religion as a litmus test. I'll be the first to admit name recognition can be an unfair advantage (think Ted Stevens, for example), and for that reason I struggle with support of term limits. (Just try to boot out an incumbent in a society where the only thing worse than bad press is no press!) But a famous name shouldn't be an excluding factor.

George, you are discriminating. Just because a person is famous, a rock star, a movie star, a billionaire, a dirt poor laborer, fat, ugly, white, black, yellow or whatever, do you just throw them in the ditch because they immediately do not meet your criteria. The now new buzz word of elitist comes to my mind - are you being one in some form? How many times are people passed over for a job because they aren't a pretty boy or girl or they are black (that does still happen), etc., etc. You are continuing the saga - shame on you. That's how girls get complexes when they lose their self-confidence thinking they don't come up to par with the thin stick models. Now you tell me a person wouldn't be a good candidate because they are famous. Lordy, lordy, lordy!!!!

George you are the one who is putting the famous name into the equation. Will Caroline be just as qualified as Sarah? You could have had Sarah leading this country with her measly ass experience and eduction. No problem for me to have Caroline as a Senator with the "famous name" not even in the mix - she sure as heck will be an improvement over what I have seen for years with elected officials after elected officials going to prison for their lovely acts. Caroline will be pure as the driven snow compared to some of the jaybirds we have had represent us and if she screws up, she also will suffer the consequences.