have expected to find it, with life stories or characteristics that party conventional wisdom at the time deemed "unelectable", is not "the same argument". Not at all.
Rather it's a vindication, to my mind, of both the best values our party aspires to as well as actual American meritocracy in action.
But, I digress. I assure you I have no interest in punishing this young man for his last name. He doesn't get any bonus points from me for it, either, but I'd certainly give him just as much chance as I would anyone else. Hey- If he can lead, fucking AWESOME.
I admit I get a bit frustrated, around here, with this sort of magical thinking infecting some in our party that if we just could plug in the right set of variables, we could staple together the ideal Democratic Candidate, like Frankenstein's monster assembled on a slab. You know, the exact right percentages of looks and connections and geography and... whatever. Add to that the sort of almost OCD idea that having a magic last name on the ballot will translate into electoral victory.
To my mind, you don't list the requirements and then go searching for the perfect homunculous to slap up there on the stage and cash in the requisite votes. Leadership is an organic phenomenon. We need someone who can inspire, who can lead, and that may end up being a Millennial Kennedy or it may end up being the mayor of South Bend, Indiana, with the funny name. I don't know.
But I promise, if it comes up, I will give this dude a chance. While I'm not a fan of the one who is on the anti-marijuana legalization crusade, as a general point of politics I harbor no ill will towards the Kennedy family, believe me. 
Edit history
= new reply since forum marked as read
