In my mind, no, Elizabeth Dole wasn’t qualified, because she didn’t live in the state she claimed to represent. She grew up in NC, but spent very little time there as an adult, even after she was elected. Woman was a carpetbagger, plain and simple.
Yesterday’s letters to the editor of the N.Y. Times advanced some stunning arguments for the selection of Caroline Kennedy to the U.S. Senate. The best included this statement:
“It astounds me that anyone can accuse Caroline Kennedy of not having “paid her dues” in American politics. In addition to quietly devoting herself to public service, she has paid not only dues but also the ultimate price anyone can: the loss of her father and uncle to political assassins.”
Obviously, the trials and tribulations of the Kennedy family make them deserving of a permanent legacy status in American politics. If you disagree, you are disrespecting J.F.K. and R.F.K.
There was also a letter suggesting that Caroline take a starter job in politics by running for the New York State Assembly. How ridiculous! Caroline would have to rub elbows with men in ill-fitting suits from places like Elmira and Schenectady. Mere commoners! A Kennedy deserves far better than this.
The appointment looks to be a done deal, assuming Gov. Paterson knows how his bread is buttered and wants support from Washington for an election bid.
I thought it was brilliant.
Hillary wasn’t qualified for the job, either, but that didn’t stop the bozos in NY from electing her.
If the voters of New York want to elect someone with only marginal qualifications and experience for the job, that’s their business. Appointing someone because of who her daddy was is nonsense–she wouldn’t be under consideration at all if not for her family connections. Maybe if she’d held some other office or some public policy position, this would be palatable but to me the fact she’s even under serious consideration is a joke.
BTW, when did she drop the Schlossberg? Or is she divorced?
Speaking of which, did anyone hear the pack of reporters (legimately IMO) hounding her to answer their questions yesterday calling her (repeatedly) “Mrs. Kennedy”? Do they think she married into the Kennedy family or are they just stupid, do you suppose?
She’s still married to Ed Schlossberg, but there are rumors that they have been quietly separated for years.
Thanks, pseudotriton. I look forward to reading your own, O limerick expert. 
I read in the paper that she never changed her name from Kennedy to Schlossberg. “Ms. Kennedy” is the correct form of address.
Until she gets elevated to “Your excellency” or “Your supreme majesty” or whatever comes next for the child of a president around here.
“Senator,” maybe?
“President?”
And look at this picture!
That’s one pitcher of what appears to be lemonade, one pitcher of what appear to be tea, and another pitcher of what appears to be water…for two people at lunch!!!
That’s three entire pitchers of liquid for a simple two-person lunch!
Do we really want such a wastrel to become one of the 100 most powerful and influential people in government?
:: removes tongue from cheek ::
“Senator”? “President”? Neither does her justice. Don’t you get that she’s the daughter of a president? And when she was a tiny child he was assassinated. She deserves something more exalted, with cred like that. Something that includes a throne and scepter, maybe robes.
I should qualify my previous posts by saying I think she’d probably be a perfectly good senator. I’ve just had it up to here with our handing elected offices to people based on their famous fathers.
Conan?
C.K. claimed, at the end of oh eight
The Senate slot from New York State
Held by Uncle Bob
And now it’s her job
To show she has stature and weight.
According to wikipedia she never changed her name. Here is the interview that is cited:
ETA:Oops, Gala Matrix Fire called it first.
I assume you felt the same way when George W. Bush was elected Governor of Texas, and when Arnold Schwarzeneggar and Ronald Reagan were elected Governor of California? If not, why not?
All three had records of accomplishment and proven executive ability all on their own. None were elected because their husband had been president and they figured she had big suck because of it; none were elected because their electorate was willing to roll over and serve as nothing more than a stepping stone to higher office; and none were elected by carpet-bagging themselves into the only state in the union in which they could have been elected more than dog catcher.
The voters in New York elected her and they got the quality of representation and the loyalty that the rest of us knew they’d get all along. Thus they’re bozos.
No offense taken. I simply didn’t want to give DanBlather the wrong impression.
Oh, I very much doubt that. Has Obama said much to Paterson about it? Is there any reason to think he’d withhold his approval if Kennedy weren’t appointed?
Really? What was Arnold’s “proven executive ability”? Reagan was president of the SAG. This means he was qualified to run California? How so?
I didn’t vote for her, but I don’t think she got elected because her husband was president. I do think it gave her great name recognition and a big war chest, but for some reason, New Yorkers actually like her. She was not simply a housewife before she became Senator. You may not like her (I don’t), but she is a very capable, educated, experienced person.
Hmmm. Reagan sure used it as a stepping stone to higher office. Arnold can’t really go any higher because he’s not a native born citizen.
Do you have any particular reason why you think that Hillary could only get elected in NY? I mean actual, concrete, factual evidence, not just your opinion? Bill was elected in Arkansas, if I recall.
I think New Yorkers might disagree with you about the quality of her representation. She has always been very popular and had higher than average approval ratings. Do you have any factual, concrete reason for alleging that she did not provide quality representation? Are you going to accuse other Cabinet appointees who are vacating Senate and Congressional seats of disloyalty for accepting Obama’s offered positions? I’m not sure why you think she’s being disloyal to NY by becoming Secretary of State. The majority of New Yorkers wanted her to be President of the United States, so I’m sure overall they’re pleased by her appointment.
Doesn’t Clinton bashing ever get old for you guys? We are hijacking the hell out of this thread, I fully realize this, but I can’t let these statements go unchallenged, as they seem hypocritical to me. I am not a Hillary Clinton fan either. I have never once voted for her. However, as a New Yorker, I think your perceptions of her job in NY are not accurate.