That’s, you know, for sure, you know.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/27/2008-12-27_caroline_kennedy_tells_daily_news_i_woul.html
you know.
“I’ll have to get back to ya, Katie…” wink 
Hey, I said I thought she was unqualified from Day one. How she could be “surprised” to find out she doesn’t vote is beyond me, and obviously her chances are pretty much nil at this point.
I wish the media had been as aggressive in exposing Palin as it has been with Kennedy.
Context, Count, context. Palin (at least in the sense that I think you’re referring to) wasn’t going to get back to Couric in regard to recalling her own decision to run. There’s a considerable difference between “When did you decide to seek office?” vs. “How has McCain been a maverick?” or “What is the Bush Doctrine?”.
Nice try, though. 
The difference being that the questions to Palin were relevant (especially the one about the Bush Doctrine), and the one to Kennedy was fatuous, pointless fluff.
Having said that, I think we can agree that both women are unqualified, and that both have embarrassed themselves in interviews.
Perhaps she thought she had people who took care of that for her.
In my county in California campaigns can buy voter registration information on CDs after signing a bunch of forms threatening you with prosecution if you publicize them or use them for any other purpose. I can’t remember what I paid last time but it was very cheap. It has your name, mailing and situs address, phone number, gender, DOB, birth place, when you registered and all of the other things that you put on your registration form. It shows what party you said you belonged to, all of the precinct information and whether or not (and where) you voted in the last 3 elections. It doesn’t say who you voted for. You pop it into a database and that’s what you use to generate targeted mailings.
And complex, multi-faceted and difficult even for those familar with them to explain in the facile way necessary in that type of interview. Couric/Gibson knew that, which is precisely why they asked those types of questions in the first place.
Oh, I don’t know…they may have either been setting her up to look bad (which is my guess as to her take on it), or they may have been trying to give her an opportunity to campaign a little by describing how she’s looked forward to being able to serve someday and the stars have now aligned in terms of family, work, and opportunity to allow her to persue that dream.
In other words, she could have turned the question to her advantage instead of arrogantly exposing the fact that she feels she doesn’t need the NY Times or its readers in order to obtain the Senatorship.
We can agree that both lack polish. Palin was at least as qualified in terms of experience to be vice-president as was Jimmy Carter to be president. It was my fond hope and belief that, if elected, she would perform at a level much higher than did he, but it wasn’t a certainty.
And there have been some behind-the-scenes stuff that went on that has lessened my support for her to a certain extent.
Still, with regard to Palin’s responses vs. Kennedy’s, I think it’s an apples/oranges thing.
No, Palin was not remotely qualified to be VP. She wasn’t even qualified to be Governor of Alaska. Kennedy isn’t qualified for either of those things either, but lets not act like Palin is any better. Technically, she has more elected experience and is probably qualified, at this point, to run for Congress, but saying she was as qualified as Carter is ridiculous. Thankfully, Palin’s never getting anywhere near the White House, though. Even John McCain has said he won’t support her if she runs in 2012.
Hey, I have an idea. Let’s stop talking about Sarah Palin.
I didn’t say she was as qualified as Carter in the sense you apparently mean it. I said she was as qualified to be vice president as he was to be president. (Both governors from small states populationwise, and with no discernable foreign policy or foreign affairs knowledge.) There’s a difference.
Works for me.
Now.
Alaska’s population is roughly 700,000. Georgia’s population in 1970 was 4.6 million, and in 1980 was 5.5 million. Georgia was not a small state then (though not terribly large either), and at 9.5 million is similar today.
The point is that they were both from relatively small states, not that they were from equally populous states. Neither has had to deal with the multiplicity nor the complexity of issues involved in governing states such as those in the northeast and great lakes areas, nor of states such as Texas and California which both have at least two metropolitan city areas with greater populations than Georgia’s current statewide population.
But having said that, what does it matter? State governorship does not equal foreign policy knowledge or expertise, even among governors from large, difficult to manage states, and it’s my contention that as long as the candidate has good judgement, leadership skills and the ability to appoint advisors also have good judgement and know their stuff, they will be able to deal with foreign affairs issues in a perfectly competent way.
If you live in Washington State, then yes. The government voter registration database is for sale to anyone with a credit card. But if you are short on funds, no worries. Someone already subscribes to the database and has made it available online for anyone to use. Plugging in just enough data reveals names, addresses, birthdates, gender, last voted, etc. An identity thief’s goldmine. It’s all public information.
If this were a state in which Democrats normally have to sweat out Senate elections, I suppose I’d understand appointing a neophyte with a famous name and no other qualifications.
But this is NEW YORK! No matter who Governor Paterson appoints to fill that Senate seat, that seat will remain safely in Democratic hands for the next few decades. Which means Paterson could appoint any number of qualified Democratic Congressmen or mayors or Party functionaries. There’s no need to resort to a gimmicky pick like Caroline Kennedy.
Yes, but even NY has rules. If they have a good ‘excuse’ for a pick, then they won’t have to use their resources putting out the fires generated by putting in somebody like Britney Spears, and covering up. America is used to Kennedy antics, and they have a rep for politics, so nothing that she can do will surprise anybody. She’s in.
It does kind of tick me off that someone like Kennedy simply announces that she wants a highly coveted position and then has a reasonable expectation of getting it just because she has the last name “Kennedy.” She’s been capitalizing on her name for years (which is her right, I suppose) but there’s quite a difference between landing an interview with Oprah in order to promote your really boring book on lack of privacy in the United States and simply deciding one day that she wants one of only 100 Senatorial positions.
Hillary Clinton had a famous name, too, but it didn’t bug me when she was elected because she worked tirelessly on the campaign trail in order to convince people to vote for her.
BTW, I’m not one who thinks that the Senate and House should be front loaded with seasoned veterans. I think it should ideally be comprised of farmers and bankers and teachers and housewives and even, god forbid, someone who makes less than $750k/year. So being unpolished politician isn’t much of an issue to me. She’s a smart lady and she can learn. But I have to say that my sense of fairness is offended that she thinks she’s worthy of a position by virtue of waking up one day and wanting it.
I wish to subscribe to your newsletter… which, hopefully, will be a blank sheet of paper.
It’s even worse from the horse’s mouth…
Maybe somebody will do one on the “ums” next. 
And from what I understand, her handlers now are requiring reporters to submit their questions in written form (with answers to follow from the handlers themselves, apparently). This from Michael Goodwin’s column in the Daily News:
*“Sensing she’s not ready for prime time, her handlers, most of whom have connections to Mayor Bloomberg, suddenly insisted media questions be submitted in writing. The answers they provided, under their names, were vapid. And she will not, as is the campaign custom, release financial documents that reveal her wealth and holdings. We’re expected to trust she has no conflicts of interest.” *
Somewhere, yes. For one thing, they have to track who votes in order to stop people from voting multiple times in the same election. For another, in many states if you fail to vote for X number of years (or elections) you’ll be dropped from the rolls and have to re-register. (This in turn helps to purge voters who move out of state, or die, without giving proper notice to the Board of Elections.)
Who’s registered to vote has always been public record; I remember MTV’s “Rock the Vote” campaign being greeted with jeers that many of its celebrity spokesthings, starting with Madonna, were not themselves registered to vote. (Madonna’s contribution was an ad in which she said “If you don’t vote, you’re gonna get a spankie.”) This is the first time I can remember a celebrity’s actual voting record becoming an issue.