The New Poster Child for Unqualified Candidates:”Senator” Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg?

Earlier today, I found out that Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg, the 51-year-old environmental lawyer, daughter of President John F. Kennedy and Jackie Onassis (and sister of handsome John Kennedy, Jr.) who has shied away from the political arena for most of her life may be considered to replace Sen. Hillary Clinton for Senate seat. 

Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg with Obama during 2008 Campaign

The niece of Edward and Robert Kennedy. The powerful Kennedy clan is fully behind her rising to the office previously held by her uncle, Robert Kennedy who held the New York seat from 1965 until his assassination in 1968. 

Once Clinton is confirmed to President-elect Barack Obama’s cabinet, New York Gov. David Paterson will appoint someone to fill the seat for two years. Democratic officials say Caroline Kennedy has spoken to New York Gov. David Paterson about the Senate seat. Paterson’s office says that the governor had been approached by several candidates for the job but that he would not discuss private conversations.

Of course, since she took on a much more high-profile role during the presidential campaign and, if she does it, would be more than New York’s junior Senator; she’d have closer ties to the Obama White House than any of her colleagues, a direct line to the East Wing.

Ok, so she´s educated. But what are her qualifications, except being the daughter of a President as a child? She’ll probably last two years, to be replaced by future Senator Rudy Giuliani (he has started to schmooze to Obama with his praises). How hypocritical is the media praising Caroline´s interest, while trashing Gov. Sarah Palin´s credentials? Excuse me that many of us have not gone to the famous liberal Harvard University for the elites. 

I am not complaining. In fact, this is AWESOME NEWS. Give the seat to Caroline. If the Dems appoint Caroline to the Senate, Sarah Palin’s credibility will earn massive points! Palin ACTUALLY has experience! If this happens, anytime a liberal or a media rep (and SNL)  mock Sarah’s qualifications, intelligence, or any other quality, the other side can simply point to Caroline and say, “Yeah, well, let’s talk about Caroline.” I mean, let’s face it…if you’ve ever heard Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg speak (without a script–and most of these politicians who were hyped up…ehrm…), then you know she’s not a very bright woman. And if we’re being totally honest she’s really that attractive, either. So wouldn’t it be perfectly delicious if the Dems unconsciously replaced Sarah Palin as the next national laughingstock with the last surviving member of JFK’s family? *Let me start my childhood signing of the cross á la Catholic*

Sarah Palin is smarter than what the media gave her credit for. But then the media thought that Ronald Reagan was stupid, but Reagan outsmarted them every time. Let´s face it, the global financial crisis were  handled by Harvard and other Ivy League alums. We all know that classrooms and real world are VERY different. So pedigrees and grad school doesn´t really mean a lot when it comes to crisis. It is all about character.

Let us see how “fair” the media will treat her, I hope that they give her as much attention as they did to Sarah.

America, welcome to the  new poster child for unqualified and incompetence: Senator Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg!

Media Bias Towards Obama

The mainstream media’s support for Barack Obama’s presidential campaign was so biased that even major insiders are now admitting they were shocked by its depth and depravity.

Last week, Time magazine’s Mark Halperin called the media’s performance during the campaign simply “disgusting.”

Halperin told a panel of media analysts at the Politico/USC conference on the 2008 election, “It’s the most disgusting failure of people in our business since the Iraq war.”

He added, “It was extreme bias, extreme pro-Obama coverage.”

According to the Web site Politico, Halperin, who edits Time’s political site “The Page,” zeroed in on two New York Times articles near the end of the campaign that profiled both Cindy McCain and Michelle Obama.

“The story about Cindy McCain was vicious,” Halperin said. “It looked for every negative thing they could find about her and it cast her in an extraordinarily negative light. It didn’t talk about her work, for instance, as a mother for her children, and they cherry-picked every negative thing that’s ever been written about her.”

But the Times gave Michelle Obama red carpet treatment, “like a front-page endorsement of what a great person Michelle Obama is.”

Halperin, a former ABC News political director, allowed that some of the press coverage simply reflected the extreme efficiency of Obama’s presidential campaign.

“You do have to take into account the fact that this was a remarkable candidacy,” Halperin said. “There were a lot of good stories. He was new.”

Obama also had a lot of money and outspent Republican John McCain by more than 2 to 1.

The press never bothered to hold Obama accountable for reneging on his promise to use public financing. McCain kept his promise to do so.

During the campaign, conservatives criticized the pro-Obama coverage, but it had little effect.

Columnist David Limbaugh noted: “Never has that been clearer than in the 2008 presidential election, during which they are covering up rather than covering Barack Obama’s shady past and alliances, his knee-deep involvement in corrupt practices threatening the very core of our democratic system, and his many policy misrepresentations.”

Limbaugh noted that the press went into a tizzy over Sarah Palin’s wardrobe, but ignored extravagances like Obama’s “obscenely idolatrous million-dollar Greek coliseum mirage.”

Now that the election is over, Halperin is not alone in admitting the bias. The Washington Post’s ombudsman recently conceded that the paper’s coverage was skewed strongly in favor of Obama and against the McCain-Palin ticket.

Obama’s ’Change’: Recycling Clintonistas

What’s with Obama’s choice of old-time Clinton cronies and recycled Washington insiders to run the transition to his new politics of change?

Can’t the anti-Washington-insiders and the president-elect find anyone who isn’t a Beltway has-been?

Judging by the appointments to his transition committee and leaks about possible top staff and Cabinet choices, Obama appears to be practicing the politics of status quo, not the politics of change.

Obama based his innovative campaign on an emphatic and convincing commitment to change the culture of Washington and bring in new people, new ideas, and new ways of doing business.

But now, Obama has definitely changed his tune. As president-elect, he’s brought back the old Washington hacks, party regulars, and Clinton sycophants that he so frequently disparaged. Like Jimmy Carter, the last president who ran as an outsider, Obama has reached out to the same old folks who dominate the Democratic Party and represent the status quo.

His transition committee looks like a reunion of the Clinton administration. No new ideas of how to reform the system there. The chairman, John Podesta, was Clinton’s chief of staff. He presided over outrageous last-minute pardons and his style is strictly inside-the-Beltway and make-no-waves.

Then there’s Carol Browner, Clinton’s competent former EPA administrator who became the consummate Washington insider. She’s Madeline Albright’s partner and recently married mega-lobbyist and former Congressman Tom Downey. During the uproar over Dubai taking over U.S. ports, Browner brought Downey to meet with Sen. Chuck Schumer to plead Dubai’s case. Downey was paid half a million dollars to push Dubai’s position. He’s also a lobbyist for Fannie Mae, paid half a million to try to cover their rears on the subprime mortgage mess. Is this change?

Federico Pena was Clinton’s secretary of transportation and of energy. The president felt he was unduly soft on Air Florida after a crash and lost confidence in him. Now he’s back as a transition committee member.

Bill Daley, Clinton’s former secretary of commerce and the brother of the mayor of Chicago, is the epitome of the old Democratic establishment. Clinton appointed him to the Fannie Mae board and his son worked as a lobbyist for the agency. Aren’t these the kind of folks that Obama ran against?

Larry Summers, president of Harvard and former Clinton secretary of the treasury is not exactly an outsider either. He’s also alienated more than a few with his bizarre suggestion that women may be genetically inferior to men in math and science.

Susan Rice, assistant secretary of state under Clinton advised John Kerry and Mike Dukakis. Does that tell you enough?

Obama has named one of his big bundlers — Michael Froman, an executive at Citigroup. Is this supposed to symbolize change?

Obama’s choice of a spokesperson for the transition is also surprising; she is definitely not the face of reason and new politics. Stephanie Cutter is the brash and combative former Clinton, Kerry, and Ted Kennedy mouthpiece. The liberal DailyKos.com once described Cutter as “a moron to the nth degree” when she tried unsuccessfully to force The New York Times’ Adam Nagourney to treat her unsolicited e-mail criticizing Howard Dean as “background” without mentioning her name.

Speaking of brash, Rahm Emanuel, the new White House chief of staff, makes Cutter look timid. Rahm is also a former Clinton White House staffer — and a very obnoxious one. He spent his White House years leaking to The Washington Post whenever he didn’t like what the president was doing. Even Bill Clinton stopped trusting him. Any hopes of Obama keeping his commitment to reach across the aisle would go right out the window with Rahm’s appointment. Instead of extending a hand to the opposition, it would be like raising just one finger. And Rahm’s strident demeanor laced with the ‘F’ word in every sentence will do little to elevate the bipartisan dialogue in Washington.

Christopher Edley, another member of the transition team, is dean of the Berkeley Law School. He was a member of the U.S. Civil Rights Commission under Clinton, and his wife, Maria Echaveste was Clinton’s deputy chief of staff.

Transition committee staffer Christine Varney was a federal trade commissioner under Clinton and worked in the White House.

Throughout the early debates, Obama criticized Hillary Clinton as part of the inside-the Beltway establishment that needed to go. But now he’s reaching out to these exact same folks. Some change.

Republicans WILL Rise from the Ashes and Emerge Stronger

If ever there was an election that was not worth winning, it was the contest of 2008. While it was hard-fought on both sides, had McCain won, it might have spelled the end of the Republican Party. As it is, the party is well-situated to come back in 2010 and in 2012, if it learns the lessons of this year.

Simply put, all hell is about to break loose in the markets and the economy.

The mortgage crisis will likely be followed by defaults in credit card debt, student loans and car loans. We will probably be set for two years of zero growth, according to economists with whom I talk. And the federal efforts to protect the nation from the worst of the recession will probably lead to huge budget deficits and resulting inflation. We are in for stagflation that could last for years.

Had McCain won, he would be the latter-day Hoover, blamed for the disaster that unfolded on his watch. Now it is Obama’s problem. With the Republicans suffering a wipeout in congressional elections (although not as bad as they feared), the ball is now squarely in the Democratic court. Good luck!

If Obama raises taxes, the situation could get even worse. With a liberal Congress on his hands, he will be constrained to move to the left, if he needs any pushing.

When Clinton was elected in 1992, the Democrats in control of Congress gave him a clear message: Either you govern within the four walls of the Democratic Caucus or you won’t get our support. Crossing the aisle to get Republican votes, even including the GOP in negotiations, was a no-no for which the president would pay dearly if he transgressed.

The result was predictable. Moderate initiatives like welfare reform were scrapped, the Congress passed tax hikes and legislation became festooned with liberal amendments.

Faced with the need to round up every last vote in the Senate and House Democratic caucuses, Clinton had no choice but to load up conservative bills like an anti-crime measure with liberal pork (like a provision for midnight basketball courts in urban areas) to get unanimous caucus backing.

Obama will have to move left to appease his caucus. He will become their hostage, and they his jailers.

This dynamic will produce extreme-left-wing governance, which the Republicans can blame for the continuation of the recession and for any worsening. The party will recover, fed by anger at Obama’s policies, and will emerge from this defeat stronger than ever.

But the Republicans must learn the lesson of MoveOn.org. Founded in the bleak days of the Clinton impeachment, MoveOn developed a grass-roots Internet base. Building up its e-list of activists and contributors, MoveOn laid the basis for the incredible Internet appeal of the Obama campaign. At last count, Obama has 4.5 million donors, most online.

Conservatives cannot count on the Republican Party to fight their battles for them, and certainly cannot count on them to win. The right needs to develop cyber-roots conservative organizations to rival the power of groups like MoveOn.org.

The stellar efforts of Newsmax.com and its ally, GOPtrust.com, illustrate the power of such efforts. Together, these groups raised $10 million for an independent expenditure on media in swing states featuring the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s anti-American bombast.

And their efforts worked.

Virtually all the polls agreed that Obama would win 52 percent to 53 percent of the vote, but the surveys varied in the amount of undecideds they found.

On Election Day, virtually every undecided voter went to McCain, and Obama’s final vote share was no more and no less than the 52 percent to 53 percent the surveys had predicted. This unanimity among undecided voters is attributable to the endgame of groups like GOPtrust.com and Newsmax.com.

These groups have to lead the way in running media to battle against the leftist legislation that will undoubtedly emanate from the Obama administration and the liberal Congress America has just elected. Then they can become the basis for a Republican resurgence, just as MoveOn.org was this year for the Democrats.