(Senator?) Caroline Kennedy

[MJZiggy]

Well, the Post is none too fond of her...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/12/19/ST2008121902599.html?sid=ST2008121902599&s_pos=list

And here's one I really agree with about her treatment from the media vs. Palin. Interesting read.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/12/18/AR2008121803230.html?sid=ST2008121902599&s_pos=

[Kiwon]

Well, the Post is none too fond of her...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...599&s_pos=list

That's not "the Post." That is Charles Krauthammer's op-ed.

The second one, Kathleen Parker's article, is more of the same elite, inside-the-Beltway snobbery. I'm disappointed you agree with it.

The elites' bit about Sarah Palin, the stupid hick from Alaska, is pure bunk. They acknowledge her popularity, her accomplishments, etc.,....but they don't like her because "she's not one of us."

Caroline Kennedy, on the other hand, has done nothing compared to Palin, but she's "sophisticated," had the right upcoming, gone to the right schools and belongs to the club. That about sums it up.

The Kathleen Parkers of the world are the phoney ones. Double-standards all around. They don't evaluate people on their merits. They simply favor those who are most like them.

MJZ, why do you buy into their nonsense?

[MJZiggy]

The second one, Kathleen Parker's article, is more of the same elite, inside-the-Beltway snobbery. I'm disappointed you agree with it.

The elites' bit about Sarah Palin, the stupid hick from Alaska, is pure bunk. They acknowledge her popularity, her accomplishments, etc.,....but they don't like her because "she's not one of us."

Caroline Kennedy, on the other hand, has done nothing compared to Palin, but she's "sophisticated," had the right upcoming, gone to the right schools and belongs to the club. That about sums it up.

The Kathleen Parkers of the world are the phoney ones. Double-standards all around. They don't evaluate people on their merits. They simply favor those who are most like them.

MJZ, why do you buy into their nonsense?

I disagree with your assessment of what the article says. It says that Palin was rejected on her incuriosity, and non-intellectualism (the do not appreciate "dumbing down" around here any more) yet they give Palin props (which I agree with in this instance) for having been elected to her positions and worked her way from Wasilla to the governor's mansion. It further goes on to say that as Senator Kennedy would have opportunity to do a whole lot less damage than the VP should anything happen to the Prez. This is true. That doesn't necessarily mean that Kennedy should be handed the job without proper vetting, even as a placeholder. The major rip on the Palin choice was that she wasn't properly vetted. This would likely wind up the same, though I will take issue with those who suggest Kennedy's done NOTHING. She has done things (just try writing a book once) and there are some things that suggest she might be able to use her name and connections to get some things done, but to just call and say she'd like the seat and have it handed to her based solely on her last name would be irresponsible.

[texaspackerbacker]

The second one, Kathleen Parker's article, is more of the same elite, inside-the-Beltway snobbery. I'm disappointed you agree with it.

The elites' bit about Sarah Palin, the stupid hick from Alaska, is pure bunk. They acknowledge her popularity, her accomplishments, etc.,....but they don't like her because "she's not one of us."

Caroline Kennedy, on the other hand, has done nothing compared to Palin, but she's "sophisticated," had the right upcoming, gone to the right schools and belongs to the club. That about sums it up.

The Kathleen Parkers of the world are the phoney ones. Double-standards all around. They don't evaluate people on their merits. They simply favor those who are most like them.

MJZ, why do you buy into their nonsense?

I disagree with your assessment of what the article says. It says that Palin was rejected on her incuriosity, and non-intellectualism (the do not appreciate "dumbing down" around here any more) yet they give Palin props (which I agree with in this instance) for having been elected to her positions and worked her way from Wasilla to the governor's mansion. It further goes on to say that as Senator Kennedy would have opportunity to do a whole lot less damage than the VP should anything happen to the Prez. This is true. That doesn't necessarily mean that Kennedy should be handed the job without proper vetting, even as a placeholder. The major rip on the Palin choice was that she wasn't properly vetted. This would likely wind up the same, though I will take issue with those who suggest Kennedy's done NOTHING. She has done things (just try writing a book once) and there are some things that suggest she might be able to use her name and connections to get some things done, but to just call and say she'd like the seat and have it handed to her based solely on her last name would be irresponsible.

Is there even such a word as "incuriosity"?

Kiwon, WHY would you be SURPRISED by Ziggy's swallowing of the elitist crap of that Parker article and the hate she spews about Palin? It's what she's all about, and her consistent sad position ever since the Palin phenomenon started.

I really wonder why liberal women are so threatened by a woman who is able to be strong and confident and relevant, while maintaining morality and femininity. Somehow, they seem more comfortable worshiping the shallow media-inspired dilettantes and socialites like Caroline Kennedy--who has literally NEVER succeeded in anything--as liberated women purport to expect in their role models. Yet she's Ziggy's kind of woman, and Sarah Palin--with all her accomplishments and her down-to-earth normalcy--is not.

[MJZiggy]

God damn are you paranoid. She gave Palin props for working her way up. Her problem with Kennedy is that she hasn't worked her way through govt. channels. She didn't even bash Palin herself. (and for a change, neither did I if you read my post). She (and I) were merely pointing out why Palin was not accepted inside the beltway (or out for that matter) and Kennedy is more palatable to them.

I even said I didn't like the idea of Kennedy just saying she might want the job and having it given to her. What more do you want. It's not like you'd have taken a fair look at a democrat (any democrat ever in the history of democracy and given them a fair look).

[texaspackerbacker]

God damn are you paranoid. She gave Palin props for working her way up. Her problem with Kennedy is that she hasn't worked her way through govt. channels. She didn't even bash Palin herself. (and for a change, neither did I if you read my post). She (and I) were merely pointing out why Palin was not accepted inside the beltway (or out for that matter) and Kennedy is more palatable to them.

I even said I didn't like the idea of Kennedy just saying she might want the job and having it given to her. What more do you want. It's not like you'd have taken a fair look at a democrat (any democrat ever in the history of democracy and given them a fair look).

I'm wondering as much about your definition of "paranoid" as I am about the existence of "incuriosity".

Your problem--and Ms. Parker's problem is that you/she seem to think there is something WRONG with being more like good normal Americans than these beltway elites.

If you want to substitute "liberal' for "Democrat" in your last couple of lines, you might have a point. I certainly am predisposed to oppose anyone following that rotten philosophy--just as you are about anyone and any idea that would be considered conservative. However, there have been plenty of Dems in my political lifetime that I have agreed with to some extent and on some issues. Lieberman comes to mind, as well as many "blue dog" or southern Democrats in the past.

[packinpatland]

I'm sorry Tex........Lieberman? Here in CT, his days as Sen. are numbered.

[digitaldean]

I'm sorry Tex........Lieberman? Here in CT, his days as Sen. are numbered.

Yup, go against the Democratic machine enough and they'll ditch you in a heartbeat.

Never mind the fact that Lieberman has done some significant work during his tenure.

[texaspackerbacker]

I'm sorry Tex........Lieberman? Here in CT, his days as Sen. are numbered.

Yup, go against the Democratic machine enough and they'll ditch you in a heartbeat.

Never mind the fact that Lieberman has done some significant work during his tenure.

I thought they took their best shot at him the last time around, and the people decided to keep him.

[packinpatland]

He's a waffle-er. With Joe, it's which way is the wind blowing and it always seems to benefit him.
First he's a Dem, then he's an Ind., then he leans Rep. He's all over the place.

This is the kind poll going around:

Do you approve or disapprove of the job Joe Lieberman is doing as U.S. senator?

Approve 36 (45)
Disapprove 61 (43)

If the 2012 election for U.S. Senate were held today would you to reelect Joe Lieberman would you consider voting for another candidate or would you vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 35
Consider Someone Else 18
Replace 48

If Joe Lieberman loses his committee chairmanship at Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs and switches his allegiance to the Republican Party would you that make you more likely reelect Lieberman more likely to consider voting for another candidate or more likely to vote to replace Lieberman?

Reelect 31
Consider Someone Else 15
Replace 52

http://blogs.courant.com/capitol_watch/2008/12/new-low-for-lieberman-in-quinn.html

By the way, CT has a Rep. Gov. and she's doing an excellent job. There are times it's not about party. In my opinion, that's the case with Joe. If there were a 4th party out there that was looking good........he'd join that one.

[MJZiggy]

Let me help you out, Tex.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/incuriosity

And find ONE spot in ANY post I made in this thread that in ANY way suggests that I think there's anything wrong with working your way up. I said exactly the opposite. Quit making shit up. And to you "democrat" and "liberal" are the same thing unless you want to make up that list for me of the democrats you support.

Jesus, try and toss you guys a bone and you make up opinions for me and attack the opinions you made up. Fifteen yard penalty for unsportsmanlike conduct.

[texaspackerbacker]

Don't get me wrong, it's not like I care about Lieberman.

He's one of the worst on global warming; He continues to be a tax and spend domestic liberal; He's staunch and pro-American on defense and security issues, but I think that has more to do with his being Jewish and a diehard supporter of Israel than anything else.

There's no way anybody decent is going to come out of a state like Connecticut, and Lieberman may be about the best we can hope for, but he's nothing all that special. I just cited him as one Dem that I had "taken a fair look at" or whatever Ziggy said.

As for sampling which way the wind is blowing, unlike some, I never criticized Bill Clinton for that. It basically means a politician is paying attention to the wishes of his constituents--which is what they all are supposed to do. My major gripe is those constituent wishes are all too often corrupted by the God damned American-hating assholes of the mainstream media.

[packinpatland]

"There's no way anybody decent is going to come out of a state like Connecticut..."

Geeeez Tex, thanks.

[texaspackerbacker]

"There's no way anybody decent is going to come out of a state like Connecticut..."

Geeeez Tex, thanks.

Maybe I should have said "politically speaking".

Actually, by that same reasoning, I really don't care if Caroline gets appointed either. The alternative, apparently, is Andrew Cuomo. He'd probably be just as bad and more effective in his badness--nothing decent is likely to come out of New York either--politically speaking.

[The Shadow]

Chelsea Clinton for Secretary of Defense!