CHELSEA should get Hillary's seat.

[boppers]

She comes from a well-connected family.

She has just as much experience holding office or being elected as Caroline (none).

She has much *more recent* experience with her family being in the white house.

She has as much as, if not more, name recognition as a "New York senator's" name.

She's given as much of her life to public office as Caroline (none).

Let's draft her!

:evilgrin:

:sarcasm:

[rwenos]

1. Chelsea's Not 30 Yet, Is She?

Gotta be 30 to be a Senator.

On edit:

Wikipedia says Chelsea was born on February 27, 1980. So she turns 30 on 02/27/2010.

[boppers]

8. Aw, bummer.

A sarcastic, rhetorical, discussion point ruined by a literal interpretation.

[me b zola]

11. We knew that you were being ridiculous

:think:

[boppers]

29. Only marginally.

People are taking Caroline Kennedy seriously.

:shrug:

[me b zola]

32. Which is the opposite of ridiculous

Supporting Caroline Kennedy for Senator from NY is savvy and smart. I want someone who comports themselves with the class of CK, who understands politics and all of it's workings, someone who shares the ideals of PE Obama, who has the weight to get the job done & get elected in 2010.

Ms Kennedy is the perfect choice for the appointment. We should rally behind her.

[boppers]

35. "the class"

Well, I guess that sums it up.

[ananda]

38. Car o LINE! Car o Line!

nt

[tabbycat31]

2. if this were 2010 I think she would

[ShortnFiery]

7. Geesus NOOOOOO! Enough of Clinton-Bush ERA.

:puke:

[AspenRose]

50. I just want to say thank you for being intellectually consistent.

I can appreciate and respect that. :hi:

[ShortnFiery]

3. Hell yeah! Then George P. can get seated in Florida.

:sarcasm:

[Adenoid_Hynkel]

4. as in Hedge Fund Chelsea?

um...no thanks

[sohndrsmith]

22. thank you. well said. nt

[political_Dem]

24. That point knocks this idea out of the water.

[TexasObserver]

5. She's not qualified.

[Beacool]

12. Neither is Caroline.

:shrug:

[TexasObserver]

15. Sure Caroline is and Chelsea isn't.

You have read the constitution, haven't you?

AGE 30 is the minimum for the senate, and unless Chelsea has been lying about her age ....

[Beacool]

23. Chelsea is not in the running

and if age is the main qualifier, then there are millions of people who are equally qualified.

[TexasObserver]

49. Do you have a point?

[emilyg]

44. And Caroline is?

[TexasObserver]

48. Yes. Why this irrational Kennedy hate?

[emilyg]

52. I don't hate Kennedys.

Only person I ever hated is Hitler.

[me b zola]

6. Yeeeee-haaaw!

Let's get a hedge-fund, Wall Streeter in the Senate! :crazy:

[saltpoint]

9. Chelsea Clinton does not meet the age requirement in the

Constitution.

In 2010, she will.

[ShortnFiery]

14. Bush, GHW+ Clinton,Bill+ Bush,GW+Obama+ Kennedy,Caroline+ Bush, Jeb+ Clinton, Chelse- Bush, ...

George P. :scared: :puke: :nuke:

[saltpoint]

16. You must have missed the point.

[ShortnFiery]

17. Oh, I fully understand "the point" is that political royalty rules the USA ...

but some of us "little people" will not STFU and let Princesses Caroline and Chelsea RECEIVE their "birthright." :puke:

[saltpoint]

18. Honestly. You missed the point.

It was about Constitutional prohibition based on age.

[ShortnFiery]

20. Yes, that was the "in your face" point, but the larger point is that of POLITICAL ROYALTY ...

and the "lemmings" who are willing to let people COMPLETELY OUT OF TOUCH with the plight of Average Americans be appointed to spend our money.

Outrageous!

Just breathtakingly outrageous that you are an "all too willing" pawn in the political elites' GAME.

[saltpoint]

21. Of course if it's not a Deesh, it's just not a ceiling fan.

[Lex]

27. LOL.

:thumbsup:

[ShortnFiery]

30. Yes, you're so cute - encouraging each other.

Perhaps the rulers who you both so seemingly "adore" will increase your chocolate rations when times get really rough. But they won't unless you turn-in all those who don't LOVE "political royalty." ;)

[saltpoint]

47. I do like chocolate.

A lot.

[boppers]

25. Ah, whose point?

Mine was about woefully unprepared folks being put into office based on dynasties.

Yours was about legal barriers, regardless of dynasties of qualifications.

Am I right?

[saltpoint]

46. No. IMO, you aren't. Fame is not a legal barrier to seek public office.

Being born the daughter of someone famous traditionally gives that candidate (or potential candidate in this case) a leg up in the sweepstakes but her fame or bloodline are not valid considerations for disqualifycation, or dismissal.

We dislike Bush because we dislike his ideological bent and his political ineptitude, not because he is the specific genetic offsprings of his parents.

[Whisp]

10. she still has to explain that Tuzla thing...

how 2 Clintons can come up with the same lie...

[Beacool]

13. You brought out of the woodwork the usual crowd.

Same old crap as in the primaries.

;)

[FrenchieCat]

19. I think I read a lot of that kind of conversation earlier this year......

Really!
I think some were saying that she should run for President one day.

I should try and find those posts.....

[spiritual_gunfighter]

26. Chelsea Clinton? haha good one n/t

[bluestateguy]

28. Too young, but she should run for the House some day

On the campaign trail for her mother, she showed herself to be knowledgeable about the issues and good in 1 on 1 exchanges with voters.

She campaigned honorably for her mother, and never made personal attacks or smears of Obama.

[ShortnFiery]

31. Yes, she acted 16 going on 28. She was awesome.

:eyes:

[bluestateguy]

33. I hyave no idea what that remark is supposed to mean

I'm afraid that your wit does not make sense to me.

[WinkyDink]

36. It means this poster dislikes the offspring of politicians following in their footsteps.

[ShortnFiery]

41. No, it means that Chelsea did not represent herself well. Hope she's doing better in Hedge Funds

than she did campaigning for mother. "Well, I don't think that's any of your business." Whoa, awesome for a 16 y.o. not one who's in her late 20s. :thumbsdown:

[emilyg]

45. You should be as mature as she is.

[WinkyDink]

34. And she's written a book on the Constitution, too!

[ShortnFiery]

42. Put Caroline to the front of the line ... for authors, NOT Legislators for NY State Senate.

:shrug:

[cstanleytech]

37. Actually she (Caroline) is more qualified than Chelsea in many ways

if anyone wants to bother checking, mind you not sure if I would vote for her, it would depend who was running against her in an election.

[Alexander]

39. Seems like some people here want to keep the seat open for her in 2010.

Hence the vocal opposition to Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg from certain supposed Clinton supporters.

[pnwmom]

40. Has Chelsea raised over three hundred fifty million dollars in private funds

for the NY city schools?

Maybe with her hedge fund thingies?

[rvablue]

43. OH GOD. Everyone took the bait on this........when will DUers stop overreacting to flamebait ???? n

[iamthebandfanman]

51. im rooting for carson daily

the kids love him!@#

[boppers]

53. Is he old enough?

Does he have a "well connected" family?

:evilgrin: