Really? That’s all I’ve been hearing about her. Except for the Sentate part.
Me, too. I hear very few people touting her abilities. She’s still America’s Sweetheart, but I don’t think there are any illusions regarding her qualifications.
Being a Senator and being the President are two very different things. (And running for Vice President is the same as running for President - you can get the top job at any moment so you have to be ready.) I’d agree Kennedy doesn’t have the experience to be President.
Would I vote for her? I can’t say. Elections don’t occur in vacuums, and voting choices depend on who she’s running against. Tell me who the other candidate(s) against her is(are), and I can tell you if I’d vote for her or not. Until then, who knows?
Not just no, but hell no.
Me too.
The other thing that I’ve been hearing a lot of discussion about is whether the things that she is claiming as relevant experience actually is relevant experience.
My mom, who has lots of experience with non-profit and volunteer organizations, pointed out that the fact that someone is involved with, or even sits on the board of, a particular charity tells you virtually nothing about their actual involvement or the work that they do. If Caroline Kennedy is on the board of XYZ Foundation, we don’t know if really out there getting her hands dirty or if she just shows up at a couple of galas a year and lets her name be used to help with publicity and fundraising. There’s no shame in the latter, of course, but it’s not really “experience” per se. Without confirmation or statments from the people who run the charitable organizations, we really don’t know.
I’d have no problem supporting the hypothetical brilliant but inexperienced candidate with great ideas and charisma and energy, but I don’t think we’ve seen that Caroline Kennedy has these attributes. She’s no Barack Obama.*
In contrast to many of you, however, I think that “just being a Kennedy” is great preparation for being a senator. Caroline Kennedy has moved in rarefied circles all her life. She knows lots of influential people. She knows protocol. She’s used to being in the public eye. And so on and so forth.
But these things are not sufficient qualifications in and of themselves. If she had an strong resume overall, then “being a Kennedy” might be enough to give her a little bit of an edge. But since her resume is weak otherwise, it’s irrelevant. It’s sort of like when Hillary Clinton was being talked about for Secretary of State. Her international experiences as First Lady were definitely considered an advantage, but they weren’t her main qualification.
So, to answer the OP–Given what I currently know about her, and assuming that there was a reasonable alternative on the ballot, I would not vote for Caroline Kennedy.
- I’m giving myself Lloyd Bentsen flashbacks, here!
I could have sworn people have been saying she’s unqualifed to begin with and that she was under consideration only because she’s a Kennedy.
Have you seen this video? She obviously has no idea what she’s talking about, no grasp of the issues, and no idea what to do about them. So she fills the air with “ums” and “you knows” and makes vague references to things such as “New Yorkers have been losing jobs, obviously”, without giving one whit of an idea what she would (or even could) do about them herself.
Ditto. As Fretful Porpentine points out, it matters whether this is a primary or general election. In a primary, I would take a long hard look at her history and performance and compare them to those of her various opponents. I see no reason to be particularly interested in her credentials right now (no election on the horizon) but I would certainly pay attention then. In a general election, I would vote party label unless there was a very compelling reason not to; I’d be pretty irrational to do otherwise given that I actually care about issues.
I came to say this, and “what are her positions on the issues” as well. I don’t live in NY, but the fact that she wants to become a Senator without having to address either of the above is part of what is annoying.
Regards,
Shodan
I hate to shock you, but elections are determined by something even more irrelevant: Party affiliation. Read it and weep!
And I couldn’t count on you answering the question either.
Err, party affiliation is very relevant, perhaps supremely relevant in legislative races. Most of what any legislator does is vote party line on roll call votes. Effective independent initiative is rare, especially among junior members.
Not in a primary election. If she’s appointed, and she performs reasonably well, I’d consider voting to re-elect her; if she wins a primary, and the opposition is someone whose policies make him or her unpalatable to me, I’d probably hold my nose and vote for her. I would not, currently, select her.
Not to get sidetracked, but why aren’t we hearing more about Carl McCall as a possible choice? He’s a Democrat. He’s got experience (State Senator, Comptroller, ambassador, plus corporate experience). He was considered as a possible Senate candidate in 2000 and ran for Governor in 2002, so he apparently has no objections to accepting a higher office. He has connections in Albany, New York City, and Buffalo. He would seem to be a strong contender but I haven’t heard his name being mentioned. Is there something I’m unaware of?
Well, at least that’s a step above Minnesota…
Jesse Ventura
Al Franken
Who’s next - Hulk Hogan, Kathy Griffin?
To answer the OP - In saying I would have a vote then I would think there would be an opponent so it depends on who that would be.
However, they would have to be a miserable slug for me to cast my vote for Caroline
How is Minnesota’s election of a wrestler and possible election of a comedian worse than California’s parade of celebrities?
Well she’s as qualified as Obama and smarter. All she needs to do is go on Oprah and have Oprah say “Oh she’s so adorable.” And all Hollywood will back her into office.
Care to back this up, or is this just yet another of your pointless driveby incorrect snipes?
Seriously, what makes you say this? Granted, I’m a Republican, but I fully acknowledge the intelligence of both Bill Clinton and Barack Obama. I have seen absolutely nothing (and remember that up until she began this attempt at Senate appointment I not only had nothing against her but actually had a fairly high opinion of her) to persuade me that she is, at best, of average intelligence…and that that even average intelligence is also accompanied by the kind of belligerence and snotty, superior attitude that comes with having a fairly well-developed sense of entitlement.
Avg. to dumb intelligence:
And here she is, “ums”, “you knows” and all, showing Wolf Blitzer some attitude re not vetting Hillary vs. Biden, Bayh, et al., which is reminiscent of her attitude with the two NYT reporters (‘have you guys thought of working for women’s magazines…I thought you were the crack political team here’) that interviewed her last week:
*Blitzer: “But the decision formally not to go ahead and vet [Hillary Clinton], ask for the documents and interview her and all that, which is what you did with Senator Biden, Senator Bayh, and Governor Kaine, and the others…”
Kennedy: “Wow. You know an awful lot about this. Because I’m not gonna tell you anything else.”
Blitzer: “Walk us through that process.”
Kennedy: “No! I’m not gonna walk you through that decision. It’s a confidential process.” *
To my mind, this is not the way an intelligent and savvy politician (or would-be politician) would behave. She seems very much an arrogant, entitled snot with none of her mother’s style or grace and none of her father’s political savvy or charm.