Caroline Kennedy

Another one the pundits got wrong. Except KT.

Change her name to "Caroline Smith" and try not to laugh when you ask yourself is she is qualified. She is less qualified than Sarah Palin, and anyone with a consistent internal radar ought to say so out loud. No, no, no. Senate seats shouldn't be put up for sale, nor should they be passed along in estates like favored golden music boxes.

Well, pourme, there's qualified and then there's qualified. I mean, have you ever met Sen. John Cornyn of Texas?
.
But the evening TV reports did focus more on how this would maintain the Kennedy 'dynasty' than what talents Ms. Kennedy would bring to the office.

@dave - Cronyn, and others, at least had to work for it. Kennedy wants it gifted - like an heirloom.

Caroline Kennedy is qualified. She went to Columbia and Harvard, has worked for the Met, has sat on several boards, has worked on education. She also is over 30 years old. A senate seat is not the Vice Presidency.
.
I am not in favor of her being picked. I think there should be a caretaker for the next 2 years. That being said, I get infuriated that people suggest she isn't "qualified". She has a wonderful resume outside of elected office. This may shock some people, but occasionally non previously elected people sometimes run for and win Senate seats.
.
I believe they should give the seat to somebody like Mario Cuomo for 2 years if he is willing and able to take it. Then let anybody who wants it in 2010 to run in a primary.

**She is less qualified than Sarah Palin,**
**
She has degrees from Columbia and Harvard, and has co-authored three books on the Bill of Rights and civil liberties. I don't like dynasty politics either, and as KT's article suggests, nothing about her bio suggests she's actually prepared for the grit of a campaign where she's the candidate and not The Very Special Guest Star.
But "less qualified than Sarah Palin"? Come on.

Fascinating. Now how about that Senate report?
http://levin.senate.gov/newsroom/release.cfm?id=305735

(I keep getting an ad for Cartier's. Some of you guys just knock me right out of ad demographic for this blog. Wattayoo? Romneys? McCains? )

Ok...anyone out there wondering if Hillary gets confirmed? Interesting how she hasn't resigned her seat. Are we headed for another cloture vote to prevent an up or down vote? If Hillary was sure she'd be confirmed she'd have resigned her seat.
.
Is Caroline Kennedy qualified? Who knows. She could be the next George Mitchell, or the next Bob Corker. There are plenty of qualified people in NY other than her. There could be worse choices.

If it weren't for her last name, she wouldn't be on anyone's Top 100 list, and no one would take her call. She has zero public record and hasn't put a moment's effort into earning an election at any level. She's not qualified to me. Let her run and earn it not use her influence to be given it.

Cliff, I really don't think the violations of human rights and alleged crimes against humanity belongs in a blog like Swampland.
.
What were you thinking when you posted that link?
.
Oh...you were thinking. Oops, my bad.
.
Must be the water in the Swamp.

Coffee: I am ambivalent about Ms. Kennedy. I understand your point. To great degree I agree. I just can't get too excited about this, other than to consider she'll probably vote 100% with Obama, and perhaps that is worth the appointment.

Unlike a lot of people who seem to have an opinion about this, I actually live in New York, so I get to vote on who our own senator should be (and rather resent out-of-staters who don't know who the alternatives are telling me who should represent my interests). I have no problem with Caroline Kennedy, probably the only Kennedy I don't have a problem with. I prefer her to Andrew Cuomo, who is likely to be the alternative, or Anthony Weiner, the Brooklyn a-hole who is a Schumer wanna-be but a-holier.
.
Hillary didn't have elective office before she carpetbagged into our state, and despite some initial grumblings she made her place. Caroline has been described as a workhorse rather than a showhorse, and I'm willing to believe that. Plus, she's outside of the Schumer/Rangel/Clinton machine, which is a plus for me, even if she will have to work with them.
.
Whomever is appointed will have to defend the seat in 2010 and 2012, perhaps against Giuliani, so what NY Dem name is big enough to go against a former presidential candidate (even if he is a buffoon)? She can raise the money and win. She is beloved. She will work hard. She is reliably supportive of Obama. She's got my vote.

It's one thing for people from political dynasties to get elected. But appointed? By an unelected governor? I'll be angry if this happens.

Outside of the Schumer machine? Pay attention.

Andy: Yeah, you're right. I was just sitting around huffing glue and I thought to myself, "I know! I'll post that link!" And that was really about the only thought I had for the next ten minutes.

pourme: I said she has to work with them, but she isn't Schumer's. Her name and stature are bigger than his.

"Unlike a lot of people who seem to have an opinion about this, I actually live in New York, so I get to vote on who our own senator should be (and rather resent out-of-staters who don't know who the alternatives are telling me who should represent my interests)"
.
That line came up last week. So you won't chime in on any races outside of the ones you can vote in? I would hope not.

When it comes down to Dem vs. Repub, I probably have an opinion.

Cliff,

The glue, what brand? Need thoughts... No wait I think I'll go to bed. Nevermind....

It's ultimately New York's call, but let's take a little snapshot of this moment in time: two Udalls just elected, Biden by all accounts warming his seat with a placeholder for Beau, Jeb Bush poised to run for Martinez seat, talk tonight that Salazar's brother is under consideration for his appointment if he goes to Interior, Hillary freshly moved from the Senate to State, the Governator, Al Franken, Tweety ... everybody's got their own opinion and mine is that we could do with a little less ascent to power with family and fame as such a key ingredient in the mix -- particularly when it's a matter of discretionary appointment.

For what it's worth, this guy makes a strong argument that Kennedy would be an inspired appointment:

http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/caroline-kennedy-no-drama-no-drama-was-cool

That's silly nibbly-a lot of people had opinions and even gave money in primary races that were outside their district/state. Lamont/Lieberman being an obvious example.
Better Democrats Please and all that.

How the hell is she qualified outside of her bloodline? I thought we got rid of the whole political power passes from parents to children when we kicked out the monarchal British back in the 1770's.
-
I vote no. Appoint someone who's qualified in some way besides nepotism. The government is still recovering from the damage done by a bunch of people selected for reasons other than ability by Bush/Cheney and Co. The Democrats don't need to repeat that mistake.

Paul-not: I admit that I have a bit of annoyance about this directed at Jane Hamsher who was mouthing off on HuffPost recently, even though she lives in DC. Mostly because IMO her braying is about ginning up own publicity rather than having a real opinion about it.