With the departure of Hillary Clinton from the US Senate, it was immediately obvious to all that the logical candidate to replace her would be someone with no relevant experience or past demonstrated interest in the position, but with a number of extremely important characteristics:
- Famous
- Heiress of a vast fortune created by a very successful and famous ancestor
- Popular fixture on the NYC social scene
Unfortunately after that, things went off the tracks and Caroline Kennedy was inadvertently assumed to be the proper choice. But what about Paris Hilton? She satisfies all of the above criteria also, and unlike other rich heiress socialites she leveraged her inheritance to become a model, actress, author, musician, tv star, and fashion designer creating a burgeoning empire. Clearly she is the superior entrepreneur and business person with a natural drive to create value in the marketplace. In addition, her involvement in the last presidential campaign demonstrates an interest in national politics.
Isn't this what our failing economy needs, rather than an otherwise equivalent candidate who instead channeled her fame/ wealth/ celebrity into mundane society endeavors such as serving on non-profit boards?
Posts
3 comments:
Unreasonable,
I think the answer lies in the minimum age requirement for the Senate: 30. The Kennedys are experts at holding Senate seats until their youthful scions hit the "you must be this tall before taking this ride" mark that sits by the door of the world's greatest deliberative body.
It's really outdated, if you ask me. Let's remove the requirement altogether and anoint Chelsea Clinton to take her rightful place by her mother's right hand. Where's that Clinton family sword? Arise, Lady Chelsea!
We seem increasingly open to American copies of British originals. First "Coupling" and now, the House of Lords.
Christian,
As that idiot Frank Rich of the disreputable NY Times recently said, its no big deal who is appointed since its only for 2 years.
I say he's right. Let Paris Hilton be senator despite the fact that she is 27 instead of 30. Its only for 2 years.
Perhaps one of Bill Clinton's donors is available for the work? Like Lakshmi Mittal or Mrs. Marc Rich?
Post a Comment