CAROLINE KENNEDY? REALLY?
I have nothing against Caroline. I'm glad she's made education her cause. I wasn't a Hillary supporter so I don't care if Hillary is thrilled with her successor or not. But listening to Pat Buchanan and Al Sharpton on MSNBC's HARDBALL last night, I am incensed by the notion of an appointment "by blood" as Chris Matthews put it. (I can't even watch CNN anymore--I flipped over for a sec during a commercial and Anderson Cooper was about to broadcast a swimming contest he had with Michael Phelps. Vital issues, hungh?) Why should a wealthy philanthropist with a prominent name simply ascend to the office, bypassing elected officials who have dedicated their lives to politics? It certainly doesn't seem like democracy to me. I mean, she provided Obama with a valuable endorsement during the primaries, and she is more qualified than J-Lo, but this just doesn't feel very democratic. And we aren't supposed to have nobility in the US.
She'd have two years to prove herself before her seat would be up for re-election. But as Randi Rhodes pointed out yesterday on Nova M Radio, the real test of Caroline's ability to win two years down the line will be her ability to raise millions for campaign ads for a job which pays $146,000 per year. So the job application fee of millions far outweighs the job's payment. Who would want that job? A wealthy philanthropist? Someone wanting to empower their dynasty? A politician who knows that the they'll be amply rewarded through "pork"? Or all three? As Randi opined, this is exactly why we need immediate campaign reform. There's something off-kilter here. Please tell me I'm wrong, but explain to me how this seems fair to you.
She'd have two years to prove herself before her seat would be up for re-election. But as Randi Rhodes pointed out yesterday on Nova M Radio, the real test of Caroline's ability to win two years down the line will be her ability to raise millions for campaign ads for a job which pays $146,000 per year. So the job application fee of millions far outweighs the job's payment. Who would want that job? A wealthy philanthropist? Someone wanting to empower their dynasty? A politician who knows that the they'll be amply rewarded through "pork"? Or all three? As Randi opined, this is exactly why we need immediate campaign reform. There's something off-kilter here. Please tell me I'm wrong, but explain to me how this seems fair to you.
posted by Lady Bunny at Wednesday, December 17, 2008
3 Comments:
What you object to most seems to be that Clinton will be replaced with a senator who is appointed, not elected. But this will happen whether Jackie Junior gets the nod or a career politician does instead.
But I agree that a prominent last name shouldn't really count as relevant political experience for would-be office holders. That's why I was heartened by the failure of Hillary Clinton to secure the Democratic Party's nomination earlier this year. She's only been in electoral politics since the year 2000!
I guess Hillary could have prevented this whole awkward situation by staying in the senate, but you know those Clintons--always looking out for themselves instead of the greater good.
Bunny, NO, it's not fair. I agree with you completely. As one person commented on the Rachael Maddow show last week, this has been particularly noticeable this year since Obama is "gutting" the senate for his cabinet appointments. Usually this kind of appointment without election isn't supposed to be common. Yes, I prefer an election over an appointment any day. Good on you for pointing this out.
I am excited about Caroline Kennedy! This country doesn't require much for those who run for office: Ross Perot, etc. That is essentialy the democratic way, and I agree with her politics so YES lets have an intelligent, ambitious woman pick up where her family left off...
Post a Comment
<< Blog Home