- Top Features:
- War Room
- Glenn Greenwald
- Broadsheet
- Joan Walsh
- Camille Paglia
- Since You Asked
- Follow Salon:
Read other letters about this article
If experience isn't important, and a famous name and the ability to raise tons of money are the only things that matter, then why not appoint Madonna to the Senate seat? She's lived in NY too. Besides, she's spoken out on issues far more than Caroline Kennedy has. Plus, like her or not, she did come up the hard way, while Caroline has had fame, money and advantages beyond 99.99% of average Americans for her entire life.
Seriously, this whole back stage lobbying thing sticks in my craw. The vast majority of wanna be Senators spend their lives slaving over legislation, raising money, listening to voters, crafting platforms, and campaigning. Even then, most never get elected to the Senate. Caroline makes a few phone calls to her powerful friends, and hey, she's moved to the front of the line.
We've suffered eight years of the worst presidency ever, after the SC appointed a dimwitted hack simply because his last name was "Bush". During the campaign, we were told over and over again that the country needed "fresh blood" and it would be terrible to vote for Hillary "just because her husband was President" and downright horrible to have "Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton". Now, we're supposed to support Caroline for the Senate, just because her father was President? Without even an election, like Hillary went though?
If Caroline wants a good job, give her an ambassadorship. If she's such a great campaigner (though she's never campaigned for office before) then let her get together the staff and run in 2010. That's the American way.
