That should count for something among reasonable people on either side of the CK for Senate issue. But for some dyed-in-the-wool CK detractors, nothing she does is apparently quite good enough.

I also don’t think many of the skeptics give her credit for her 1998 public statements against the Repub Impeachment Insanity. And she stepped up and spoke out at a time when some lefties didn’t feel it necessary to stand against the attempted Rethug Coup — perhaps they were just carried away with their CDS.

What you linked:

Caroline Kennedy made her political debut in Manhattan almost exactly 10 years ago, when she showed up as the surprise speaker at a “teach-in” against the impeachment of Bill Clinton at New York University Law School. Her speech on that occasion was not memorable, nor did she display great passion as she read it, but none of that mattered. Her presence electrified what would otherwise have been a mundane gathering of liberal intellectuals, professors and politicians.

A dispassionate, unmemorable, read speech? That’s the “public statements against” the Clinton impeachment?

And I would appreciate — really — a link or two about Caroline’s 1998 courage against the impeachment. I don’t recall her activism on that front, and would like to know more about it.

I just want to make the case that there are people who are equally as sincere who have genuinely compelling reasons to take the other side. It’s not personal, except insofar as I take who represents me politically personally.

and, WADR, my thirteen year old child has been in the voting booth more often than Ms. Kennedy has these past years. That’s not good.

Kucinich is too short …

Nadler is too fat …

So?

The ‘more and better’ democrats sought be so many, MUST, obviously, then be recruited from amongst the ranks of the beautiful people … all other considerations, such as courage, capacity or intelligence must be kept in their rightful place, which is to say rather far down the ‘list’ … after pulchritude, ‘heritage’, ‘connection’ and ‘charisma’.

It is merest coincidence that the well-endowed, monetarily, comprise the largest contingent of the ‘beautiful’, owing it might be postualted to the self-evident fact of the far more pleasant lives available to those who are above such mundane concerns as money.

Therefore it is the sacred duty of the most-wealthy to put themselves forward as the undisputed best amongst us, a democratic form of nobless oblige, if you will.

Such ‘legacy’ candidates must never be subjected to undue scrutiny as it definitely makes the rest of us look mean and suspicious.

After a time we will have a stable of such heirloom candidates and their offspring.

What a wonderful idea.

Wonder why no one has thought of it before?

(The preceding snark was for entertainment porpoises only)