The latter two will each get retirement benefits for their new positions, with the Clinton household getting retirement payments for being an ex-governor, ex-president, and ex-secretary of such_and_such, and possibly ex-senator.

I’d say Ms. Kennedy’s experience compares very favorably. That liberal rag The New York Post seems to agree with me.

what princess wants, princess gets!

Noneya on December 17, 2008 at 11:41 PM

In New York, anyway.

I’ve never even heard this aristocrat speak, but I’ve heard gushing reviews from the MSM.

LevStrauss on December 17, 2008 at 10:01 PM

Listening to her is a yawner.

Just using sick humor, a caricature of how bad she nauseates me and for a good reason. She is a caricature of how ridiculous name recognition and media fawning are in politics today. I’ve never even heard this aristocrat speak, but I’ve heard gushing reviews from the MSM. Hillary we knew intimately to the point of having too much information, Obama we knew, he became President because of one nationally televised speech. With Caroline, the NY political establishment said, “Hey you, come over here, you want to be a Senator?” This is ridiculously nauseating. What kind of mindless lumps could actually say, “boy that’s a great choice”. This is politics for the remedial.

Is the MSM going to parachute legions into Manhattan to vet her?

Hahahahahahahahahaha!!!!!!!!!!

You’ve never read any comments about “prissy” Sen. Graham on HA? Regardless, your calling attention to what you perceive to be Caroline Kennedy’s sexual proclivities is a typical sexist tactic.

If it doesn’t bother you, why worry about my allegation? Let it stand or lie where it is. You think sexist remarks are perfectly acceptable retorts to political differences. I don’t.

No biggie.

The Race Card on December 17, 2008 at 6:36 PM

I didn’t say anything about Caroline Kennedy’s “sexual proclivities”. I couldn’t care less. I said she’s not as attractive as Sarah Palin. “Sexism” can sometimes be this shifting thing to beat people over the head with. But yeah, no biggie.

Shouldn’t Caroline get the Palin treatment?

JadeNYU on December 17, 2008 at 7:55 PM

Sure she should, but she won’t.

little skank Kennedy

We have our own skanks, many of them male. Why would you even reference her sexuality?

I must have read this wrong the first time. I thought it was referencing Teddy.

LissaKay on December 17, 2008 at 7:46 PM

That’d be nice but (if I recall correctly) the Senate gets to appoint the VP so we could get President Cheney but we would probably not be able to get VP Rice.

At least Governor Palin had been elected as a mayor and governor before she ran for nationwide office.

Furthermore, the VP merely casts the tie-breaking vote in the senate. A senator would cast a vote on every item that they deigned to vote on.

Seems to me that someone running for Senate should at least be as qualified as someone running for VP. If Sarah Palin was not qualified enough for the one, I guarantee that Caroline Kennedy is not qualified enough for the other.

I have no interest in being unhinged and hateful, but, I am tired of always turning the other cheek on this kind of crap.

First female AND first black POTUS.

Thunder effectively stolen. But it was never about race … right? Right?

wcrego on December 17, 2008 at 5:55 PM

Thanks – in college, I majored in electrical engineering, wherein familiarity with Rush music is a core curriculum requirement.

Which Republicans point out in talking about McCain’s creepy grin, or Sen Graham’s appearance.

You’ve never read any comments about “prissy” Sen. Graham on HA? Regardless, your calling attention to what you perceive to be Caroline Kennedy’s sexual proclivities is a typical sexist tactic.

If it doesn’t bother you, why worry about my allegation? Let it stand or lie where it is. You think sexist remarks are perfectly acceptable retorts to political differences. I don’t.

No biggie.