If Caroline's last name were Pailn

The title of the thread is taken from this

FOX FORUM POST

And here is a view from a

WASHINGTON POST OP-ED

Both agree that Caroline Kennedy is far less qualified than Gov Palin to hold office. The Post article claims that she need not the same scrutiny because her possible office is not as important as Palin's was. Any thoughts?

I am leaning toward the Post' opinion at the moment. No one, as far as I know, has questioned Gov Palin's capacity to govern Alaska.

Should Caroline Kennedy be open to the same level if scrutiny as Gov Palin was?

Please stick to the topic. This is NOT about Obama, Bush, Islam, the recession, or abortion. It is about the level of media scrutiny of two candidates.


(BTW - this is why I like Google News - it is easy to find different angles of the same story )

 

I agree - but do they matter as much for a Senator as they would for a Vice-President? When I read the Fox article I thought that the point was 100% valid, but the Post article, while agreeing in essence, did point out that Kennedy will only be one out of 100 instead of potentially being President.

Do Senate candidates and nominees 'deserve' the same level of scrutiny, or even more because they have a famous name? Should a famous name be a detriment to a potential office holder?

What would her scrutiny be like nationally if her name was Caroline Johnson or Smith?

 

So would you agree that every appointed Senator in every state should be open to the same level of intense public scrutiny that Governor Palin was, regardless of name or family and that the same experience requirement also be expected?

In other words, is she due extra scrutiny just because she is a Kennedy?

 

I appreciate your candour and find it interesting, mostly because I don't ever recall any kind of national scrutiny being paid to any other Senate appointee. Normally, I think, we just leave that up to the individual state to handle.

Now if you are talking about scrutiny in New York, I understand and agree.

 

I strongly suspect that if it were Palin before her run for the VP office none of us would even hear about it outside of Alaska. When was the last time before Kennedy (or the Obama seat) that you heard about a Senate appointee? Who, for example, without googling, is going to take Biden's seat?

 

This has nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

Any time you change parties it will get scrutinised, thats obvious - but that is not the case here, Clinton and Kennedy are both Democrats.

 

ON the contrary - it is evidence of my assertion - the scrutiny is normally not there in any case. why should Kennedy be an exception?

 

As they do when Republicans seat are maintained.

The question is does the author of the Fox Forum have a point. I contend she does not. Running for Vice-president and being appointed a state's junior senator are two different matters. Kennedy deserves no more scrutiny than Kaufman. Every vice-presidential candidate deserves special scrutiny.