Must be nice to be a member of the Royal Family. It kind of makes you wonder what might have happened if Sarah Palin's name had been Sarah Kennedy.

(Image © Damon Winter for the New York Times)

Comments

[Jason Taylor]

Actually I don't find it distasteful-as long as the voters know what they're getting.
Given that the alternative to politicians running for their family's glory is usually either politicians running for their individual glory or politicians running because they think they know best, it doesn't necessarily seem so bad.

[Gina Dalfonzo]

Jason, if Ms. Kennedy were actually "running," I might agree with you. It's this "So what if I've never held an elected office? I'll just make a few phone calls and coast right on in on Daddy's name" business that gets to me. That and the fact that, as I hinted, the Democrats and the media threw a collective hissy fit over the credentials of a Republican woman who had far more political experience. Last time I looked, we were a democratic republic, not a hereditary monarchy. (Yes, I know she's not trying to be queen -- I'm just indulging in a little hyperbole to make a point.)

[Terrell]

So now if Caroline gets in we could likely go 60 or more years with a Kennedy in the Senate. Hmmmm... look at where we've gotten in the last 50 years.... makes you wonder if there is a cause and effect.

[Jason Taylor]

I must not have gotten that part.

[becky]

There has been a certain irony to this year's election. First, John McCain was hurt terribly by campaign finance laws that he co wrote. Now Ms. Clinton faces the possibility of seeing the woman taking over her seat in the Senate who stabbed her in the back by endorsing Obama.

[anne morse]

It's definitely the Year of the Unqualified Candidate, isn't it?