The news of Ms. Kennedy’s conversation with the Governor of NY changed during the day (yesterday). It was not thought - or known - at first that Ms. Kennedy may have initiated the conversation.

We can’t make this journey together by ignoring one another. Civil political dialog has baggage and stirs emotion. This country very much needs mature political dialog. I enjoyed corresponding with you. There’s an old adage that applies to politics as well as business, “When two people in business always agree - one is unnecessary”.

Whew, Susan, that was a crafty reply. When I saw that quote I “anticipated” it was going to be used to say that the “sad commentary” related directly to Ms. Kennedy - completely out of context. A very cynical “anticipation” on my part followed by an invitation from you to join “us cynics”. Well done.

Carmel, I am sorry - that is not the point at all. The point is that there are others more qualified based upon experience and leadership skills. The point is that your comparisons of Ms. Kennedy to what you perceive as the dregs of politics does not serve Ms. Kennedy well. To just say she is better than Bush, or Palin is a poor comparative selection method. Given the base line of ineptitude you have provided for comparison - the pool of available candidates only increases. Try raising the bar a bit.

The issue I have is whether Caroline Kennedy *should* be appointed - as stated. I did not make any comparison between Senator and SOS, understand fully the duties of both and have no idea why you brought it up. If I answer the double post - do I have to say the same thing ;)

The starting gate would be the US Senate in this case, unlike most. The debate is not over whether she is qualified so much as “the most qualified”. If I base my decision solely on her resume of work - I believe there are others more qualified. Your belief that she is truly someone who can and should start a political career because she would be an asset has no real supporting tenets other than her silent background work? The interesting part of all this for me and why I chose to participate in this way is that every blog I’ve read discussing this today has comments dominated by people who say similar things - “oh, I like her” - “Great news - a return to Camelot” - “she’s smart” - “she and Ted can pave the way” etc. Not very much discussion on what her politics actually might be, what experience she has with legislative bodies, what she might do for NY or any other important aspects we might evaluate in contrast to others who have demonstrated political leadership skills. It is no more or less objectionable that someone who liked and voted for Bush because he seemed like such a down home kind of guy - or likes Al Franken because they think he is funny. It has long been articulated that if candidates aren’t celebrity enough - or pretty enough - they stand little chance of election to a high office no matter how qualified or how astute they really are. I believe this is a sad commentary on the nature of American politics and the American electorate.

Carmel, try not to suppose too much, I didn’t mention Vittner, Bush Cronies or Arnold or Palin - you did. Imposing such suppositions is as absurd as the analogy I provided about Silda. The only alternative name I posed was made in my original reply to this thread. It is equally absurd to to plead your observational selection of failures to bolster Ms. Kennedy’s qualifications.

Ms. Hoover, you seem flustered. No need. I don’t believe there is any malice in the various points of discussion. It makes no point to tell someone else to learn their history. How about, those who do not learn lessons from history are doomed to repeat their mistakes. American traditions as you describe sound more like nepotism than a functional means of placing the most qualified. What is being said here is that the most qualified person should be named and that such qualifications are those earned. Many here are well aware of Ms. Kennedy’s accomplishments and recognize them - however they do not necessarily mean she is most qualified - much less “more than qualified”. The notions such as woes in the family necessitating she be allowed to prove herself and that Hillary was only married to experience could be contorted into suggesting that Silda Spitzer would do.

Hillary’s experiences are of a much higher profile and on the firing line as an adult for years prior to her entry into the Senate. Caroline was a child when her father was president and her uncle ran for president. Do you have some more specific data on those “huge family businesses” and who runs them? While philanthropy and politics mingle - equating the power of the two seems more an emotional attachment to the person that a practical one.

Isn’t Ms. Maloney a bit more qualified? Is a name all that is needed for a Senate seat? I have respect for Ms. Kennedy’s public contributions, but I fail to see how they have prepared her for the Senate. Is this just string pulling?

An interesting perspective… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/patricia-degennaro/obama-dont-hire-hillary…

Foist, this site is so Flash and banner intensive the upload speeds are VERY slow. Maybe it’s the server, but whatever it is it needs looking into. Recall Madeleine Albright said, “we think the price is worth it”, while calmly asserting that U.S. policy objectives were worth the sacrifice of half a million Arab children - a 1995 U.N. Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) report that 567,000 Iraqi children under the age of five had died as a result of the sanctions. [1] [1] http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=1084 American foreign policy, without regard to what party occupies the executive branch, has historically relied on strong arm tactics and gun boat diplomacy in lieu of any meaningful dialogue. As a result, any consideration given to the aftermath of an invasion or the plight of women - and children - were minimal. Culturally, what existed under the prior dictatorship was an anomoly amid Islam and should be understood as such and acknowledged diplomatically before any “boots on the ground” is even considered. Any member of congress who voted to allow the Bush administration to move into Iraq - particularly those who did not even bother to read the resolution - should be shown the door without pension or any other benefit. Any member of congress who makes no effort to understand the repurcussions of military action in both cultural as well as political terms should suffer the same fate. No one can be responsible without such understanding. We need desperately to become responsible.