There's some validity to the objections to her being parachuted in. It's pretty obvious that her name is the reason she can do this. This, however, is partisan speculation at its finest. I would tend to think she'll be at least as good as half the talking heads in there now.
Still smarting about your failed run, eh? Compare your laughable resume to hers and then promptly shut the hell up. You and your kind, of which there are too many here, are just smirking gnats making swarming noises, and it's getting annoying. I saw her resume (link above), and I think it's fairly impressive. You should finish your grammar courses, then maybe junior college, and then do something for your country or community before you cast your tiny stones at someone like her.
I don't really care either way about the specifics of Ms. Kennedy possibly being appointed to Hillary's Senate seat. What cracks me up is how the same guys here who hate the other side, or the the other sex, or whatever, use the exact same arguments out of both sides of their keyboard. Same old, same old, can't have that, no more Clinton's, no more Bushes, and all that. Now they clamor for experience. What really makes for experience? Being part of the good old boys club? A DC insider? Can't have that. Can't have someone with no experience either. All we can support are those who think exactly like we do, or else they're just no good, whether experienced or not. Cracks me up. c
First off cunt: Me and "my kind" unlike you and "your kind" are American citizens. No her resume for the U.S. Senate isn't impressive because she's never been a candidate for public office.
...like you have, eh? I note you refer to the female anatomy with implied repugnance, and readily make references to sucking cock in your many heated homilies. I wonder what Freud would say. That aside, wouldn't it be so much easier for you if you simply came to terms with the fact that you're scum? I can only imagine that it would lift a heavy burden. Appealing to your particular sensibilities, it would be like starting a new day with a fresh white sheet and hood.
Yet another classy grade school retort. And, since you were a candidate of sorts, kind of makes you think that not being a candidate is a positive thing. c
This really is not up to the residents of states other than New York. I see nothing wrong with CK getting a senate seat based on her name. Now if the republican scum want to go and wrestle with the issue of nepotism, the kind that keeps your kids from having to go to war by getting them into the National Guard, that gets them into Yale and Harvard based on daddy's influence, gets them the backing to run for Governor of Texas, etc. Then by all means lets apply the same rules equally to all situations. Oh, by the way, I don't think George Washington was qualified to be president, he had never served in any political elected position. Neither had Ike. The right wing arguments are so primitive...so unfounded, so devoid of reason, or any sense of fairness that would be applied to the government as a whole. This dumb bimbo from Alaska can be a heartbeat away from the presidency, but a class act like CK shouldn't be appointed senator. Really beyond any reasoning that I can think of.
Shouldn't you be studying for your arithmetic finals? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=146308&perpage=6&pagenumber=5 Oh, and I guess you never heard of Richard Clarke, have you? http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showt...48115&perpage=6&highlight=clarke&pagenumber=2 I can only imagine your pain: so much to learn but nowhere to store it.
Eisenhower was ELECTED. No one would beef about a nepotistic, well known non-politician (Ahnold is a movie star Kennedy creature) being vetted by voters. How would you feel if the Davis recall had allowed Arnold to be appointed by someone in Sacramento?