Thursday, January 22, 2009

Good-bye, Senator Princess

I let Wednesday's drama over Caroline Kennedy's on-again, off-again Senate withdrawal pass by without comment. It was one of those stories where, as a blogger, if you get on it 30 minutes late, you'll be forever trying to catch up. I figure most people who were interested in the story could follow it via Drudge or other bloggers, so . . .

Well, having blogged the living crap out of the inauguration reaction, et cetera, now I notice this New York Post story:
Kennedy was "mired in some potentially embarrassing personal issues," the source said, citing tax liabilities and worker compensation liabilities connected to the employment of a nanny.
The source also said the state of her marriage may have presented a problem as well. "She has a tax problem that came up in the vetting and a potential nanny issue," the source said. "And reporters are starting to look at her marriage more closely," the source continued, refusing to provide any specifics.
Kennedy denied any issue over her marriage in an interview with The Post last month.
Hmmm. First of all, why can't these rich people hire a personal manager to deal with things like making sure all the paperwork is in order for their nannies? I mean, low six figures, say about $200,000 a year, to have a good accounting firm on contract to handle all that kind of stuff, soup to nuts. She's a freaking Kennedy, and she can't do that?

Second, what is this with the Post reporting opaquely on "the state of her marriage"? The Post reporter is quoting an anonymous source to insinuate that either Caroline or her husband is cheatting. Maybe both. For crying out loud, she withdrew her name from consideration!

It's over, so what is the point in dumping this bit of anonymous dirt on her now? Because it was in your notebook and you figured you wanted to get the maximum mileage out of your little tidbit of gossip before Caroline faded from the headlines? Leave that crap to Page Six. True or untrue, it's just wrong to dump it like this, based on an anonymous source and without citing any evidence, now that it's irrelevant.

No comments:

Post a Comment