You go, Ken!

Do for the Greedy Old Party what you did to the Office of Secretary of State in Ohio.

Ken Blackwell heading up the biggest group of liars and cheats - the GOP. From the person who handed Bush reelection in OH in 2004. Perfect. A better match could not be made in hell itself.

Mike Huckabee believes the Republican Party has to avoid the "mushy middle"...

Fine. The GOP can be as un-mushy as it wants to be. That leaves room for some other party to grab that mushy middle for itself.

Here is a question to ponder. With the Republican party moving ever harder to the right, will a genuine center right party emerge to fill the void or will the Democratic party move a little right leaving room for an energized party to it's left?

The best argument on behalf of a Caroline Kennedy appointment is presented in The Field: http://narcosphere.narconews.com/thefield/caroline-kennedy-no-drama-no-drama-was-cool

"With the increasing talk that Caroline Kennedy is a leading candidate to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate,..."

Frankly, I'm frustrated to continue to see so much nepotism (I've modified the definition slightly for my purposes) in the halls of Congress, in our state houses and our White House (Dodds, Kennedys, Clintons, Rockefellers, Bushes, Gores, Bidens, Sununus and on and on). The media and the voters glorify people because of who their parents or spouses are. It's ridiculous.

I have no doubt that there are numerous persons who we've never heard of (but Governor Patterson has) who are more experienced, more talented and more committed to be the Senator from New York than Caroline Kennedy. It's nothing personal. She's a class act. But c'mon. Enough.

on Kennedy for the Senate--the main argument against her in that link appears to boil down to--

1. She's never run for nor held elected office before--this would hardly make her unique as a Senator, but okay.
2. It would look too much like an entitlement, or inherited position. Not sure why there's such a big objection to that all of a sudden, seeing as how many elected officials have relatives who held the same or other positions in government.
And she'll actually have to run for election in two years anyway, are the voters all just a bunch of stupid dupes who can't decide for themselves?
3. Her only involvement in a political campaign was for Obama, and apparently that one was too easy or didn't require much risk. This ignores that she endorsed him during the primaries, when it was anything but easy. The general election was by no means a sure thing either.

I don't know if she's "tough" enough for the Senate--is Harry Reid?--but I believe she's an attorney and is pretty sharp on Constitutional issues. I can think of worse candidates.

Tweety was probably gaming MSNBC the whole time.

The media and the voters glorify people because of who their parents or spouses are.

When you get right down to it, the only people you can blame are the voters. They elect and re-elect these legacies. Some are good, some (whathisface in the White House) are not.

I doubt Matthews could win--in his mind, Pa. consists of Philly and the main line.

Her leadership could have been really helpful when the rest of us were trying to keep the progressive lights on and getting the stuffing beaten out of us by a very well-financed right wing for the past eight years. But when things were tough, she was nowhere to be found.

That's nowhere near a good reason to oppose her. It reads more like sour grapes. The Constitution doesn't require lockstep allegiance to the progressive netroots:

No Person shall be a Senator who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty Years, and been nine Years a Citizen of the United States, and who shall not, when elected, be an Inhabitant of that State for which he shall be chosen.

Or she.

As far as perceived "qualifications" are concerned, the only thing Hillary accomplished before becoming a senator was setting back health care by fifteen years.

Re Caroline Kennedy: Give it to someone who has already faced and represents New York voters rather than giving Kennedy a political boost that she hasn't earned. If she *really* wants to be in politics, the seat will be up for election in both 2010 and 2012 - let her earn it.

New York voters deserve to be represented by someone who wants to represent them - not by someone who has an "entitlement" to a political position.

As far as perceived "qualifications" are concerned, the only thing Hillary accomplished before becoming a senator was setting back health care by fifteen years

Not so - Hillary Clinton went through the nitty-gritty of the political process and earned her qualifications. She established a campaign and a presence in every one of New York's 67 counties. She went out on a "listening tour" around the entire state and actually met and discussed issues with voters. She credibly campaigned both for her party's nomination and for the Senate seat, and in the process established herself as an actual viable *political* figure. And all of that really mattered after she was elected and actually had a connection with representing her constituents (part of why I don't hold the Iraqi vote against her - her constituents overwhelmingly supported Iraq resolution).

Can't say any of the same for Caroline Kennedy

New York voters deserve to be represented by someone who wants to represent them - not by someone who has an "entitlement" to a political position.

And how exactly do you know that she doesn't want to represent them? If she were appointed as Senator, she wouldn't have done any more to "earn" the Senate seat than anyone else. Then she would have to face the voters in 2010, just like any other appointee would, and the voters can decide if she deserves to keep the seat.

This is only a problem if you believe the voters are too stupid to decide for themselves who deserves to represent them.

Not so - Hillary Clinton went through the nitty-gritty of the political process and earned her qualifications.

Running for a political office doesn't necessarily make you any more qualified for that office. As noted above, the only qualifications required by law are fairly minimal, everything else is subjective.

part of why I don't hold the Iraqi vote against her - her constituents overwhelmingly supported Iraq resolution).

if it's just a matter of voting based on public opinion at the time, then we really don't need a legislature at all.

Hillary's replacement is going to serve a 2 year appointment. Historically many such appointments have gone to the spouses of the departed Senator. Does Bill want the job? If not Kennedy is as qualified as the next person. If she isn't much of a Senator she will be voted out in 2010.

Spouse not spouses (unless the departed Senator is from Utah.)

Running for a political office doesn't necessarily make you any more qualified for that office. As noted above, the only qualifications required by law are fairly minimal, everything else is subjective.

No - the qualification is in the running and, you know, actually getting elected. We're talking actual politics here - the people (i.e., the voters) making their wishes known - not some legal abstraction. Hillary *earned* her seat. Her constituents knew that she represented them and that she wasn't just the beneficiary of a gift by political insiders.

No - the qualification is in the running and, you know, actually getting elected.

No, the only qualification is age and residence. What you're arguing against is anyone being appointed to serve for the next two years, because in your mind that person was not elected and is therefore not qualified to serve in the position to which they will be appointed.

If you don't like the way that New York fills vacant Senate seats, then so be it. Otherwise, your argument boils down to not liking Caroline Kennedy, and not believing that the voters are smart enough to decide for themselves if they want to keep her in office.

"This is only a problem if you believe the voters are too stupid to decide for themselves who deserves to represent them."

Anybody who believes that George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, Mitt Romney and others like them didn't have an unfair advantage in the media and an advantage with fundraising over their opponents because of who their parents or spouses were is fooling himself. And anybody who claims that such unfair advantages in the media and in fundraising don't lead to more votes than they would otherwise attain is also fooling himself.

Personally, I'm frustrated with our institutions being dominated by people who are playing from a shorter tee when there are so many deserving people out there who would serve us just as well, if not better.

Might Chris Matthews' Senate bid be over before it starts?

What you're arguing against is anyone being appointed to serve for the next two years, because in your mind that person was not elected and is therefore not qualified to serve in the position to which they will be appointed.

No - I've never said that Kennedy wasn't "qualified" - the word was brought up by another poster who said that as far as "qualifications" went, the only thing Hillary had done was lose out on the Health Care initiative - I was pointing out otherwise. You have no idea what is in my mind - and that's a pretty crappy way to argue.

However my point, Kennedy being *duly* qualified, as I've stated on here and in other discussions - in a state of 20 million people, including several presumably adept elected officials who actually have experience representing constituents, that the people of New York State will be better served than just naming a famous person who's main qualification (besides the legal ones, and pointedly ignoring the elected ones) is that of having the status of an "insider" solely due to family connections. New York State deserves better. I'm an attorney - as "qualified" as Caroline Kennedy - do you really think that Gov. Patterson would take my call about my "interest" in the posiiton?

I actually like Caroline Kennedy - and should she be seriously interested in a political career I'd LOVE to see her run for the seat in 2010. But, in the meantime, I'd much rather see the seat go to someone who actually already represents New Yorkers and has built connections to more people than just those that live in the rarified upper class world that the Kennedy's inhabit.

If Gov. Paterson chose someone other than Caroline Kennedy for the Senate seat -- particularly someone without a "name" -- how might it affect his chances of staying on as governor, running for another term? Sure, he'd anger a lot of powerful people, but I would love to see him figuratively give the finger to the celebrity politics crowd. That would be a "profile in courage."

I'm an attorney - as "qualified" as Caroline Kennedy -

Sure, if you want to ignore everything she's done with her life, which includes a couple of books on legal issues as well as an actual member of Obama's campaign, and one of two people who headed his vice-president selection process. That's just what I know off the top of my head, and I can certainly think of many people who have held some form of elected office, but who I would still rather not see appointed to this position.

If not holding any elected office is a disqualifier for some, fine, but it's not a legal disqualifier. And I'll bet she would represent the needs of more New Yorkers than the typical politician who owes their job to wealthy special interests. Those kind of connections aren't always so good.

I'm afraid Jane and Steve and a few of the commenters on this thread don't really get what an "Upper House of the Legislature" is supposed do and what it's for.

Caroline Kennedy is exactly the sort of Man of Public Stature (okay, so one detail is off) that are supposed to populate the Senate.

Popular appeal and mass campaigning is supposed to be relegated to the House of Representatives.

And before anyone asks, yeah, I support repeal of the 17th Amendment.

This is only a problem if you believe the voters are too stupid to decide for themselves who deserves to represent them

Sarah Palin came pretty close to proving that point.

I'll bet she would represent the needs of more New Yorkers than the typical politician who owes their job to wealthy special interests. Those kind of connections aren't always so good.

Wow. so you're projecting some imagined qualities based upon... what exactly? your feelings and generalizations? as trumping consideration of someone else with a proven public record? That a really fine way to chose public officials... I concede. You win.

Part of Jane Hamsher's complaint is that if Caroline Kennedy is appointed, she'd be handed a Senate seat on a plate. True enough, but the rules say that the Governor has to hand the seat to somebody on a plate, so whoever gets it will not have gone through the campaign.

Some of Hamsher's commenters suggest that Paterson should appoint himself, on the grounds that there are currently no black senators, and who knows what'll happen in Illinois. (Patterson would have to resign and have his successor do it, which might not happen since his successor would be a Republican.) This would be a bad idea even if it worked. Governors who arrange to have themselves appointed to vacant Senate seats invariably lose them at the next election. Wendell Anderson torpedoed the Minnesota Democratic party's prospects for a decade that way when he put himself in Mondale's seat.

Wow. so you're projecting some imagined qualities based upon... what exactly? your feelings and generalizations? as trumping consideration of someone else with a proven public record?

What are you talking about? Your whole argument against Kennedy boils down to the fact that she's never held elected office, and I'm pointing out that many elected politicians are beholden to special interests who helped get them elected in the first place.
Of course, I can't compare Kennedy to another real elected official, and can only speak in generalities, because you haven't named anyone specific who you think would be better than her.
You said that Hillary was qualified because she actually ran for and won the seat. Fair enough, although you completely ignore the fact that she never would have had the slightest chance of winning if not for her name. Same goes for Andrew Cuomo, another possible candidate.
And Caroline Kennedy has actually lived in New York for most of her life, unlike Hillary who only moved to the state for the purpose of running for the Senate to further her own career.

Gah! Will nothing destroy that cockroach Ken Blackwell?

I agree, I am sick and tired of seeing sens and reps seats being handed down like entitlements, e.g. the Sanchez sisters in Cali, Liz & Bob Dole, Bill & Hill, Bushes....

This is just like Britney & Jamie Spears, the Lohans, Jessica & her sister, Beyonce & Solange, Miley Cyrus & Billy....

Just because one sibling or parent makes it big, doesn't mean the other one will, as we've seen with the Bush family, Spears family, Lohan family, Knowles family, Cyrus family.

It's time to start giving other people a chance, people who deserve the chance. e.g. I used to tease and say the Bush administration was like the Wizard of Oz, Bush needed a brain, Cheney needed a heart, Gonzalez needed courage, and Rice thought she could just click her heels.....