Mrs. Coleman has also lawyered up, with a different set of lawyers than Sen. Coleman.

I find the discussion of Caroline Kennedy for the Senate totally infuriating. (I've been ranting about it on my blog since the idea first broke.) Apparently the Kennedy family cannot countenance the idea that they won't have a member in the Senate when Ted dies, and so Caroline is foisted on us.

It's a disgrace. I'm sure she's a lovely and intelligent human being, who has much to recommend her. But she has no claim to the seat, and to imply otherwise is insulting.

So, would Caroline Smith, a 50-year-old affluent housewife and occasional author, but without the famous name, be considered for the Senate seat

I have no dog in the fight regarding New York's seat in the senate. I certainly have nothing against Ms. Kennedy, and I suspect she would well represent New York.

But I contrast that with Al Franken for literally every vote in Minnesota to become that state's senator. It is a reminder of the benefits of wealth and power in every society, and that the wealthy and powerful never fully appreciate those inherited benefits. Ms. Kennedy will likely receive the seat as a gift from family and friends with the same ease that I will get a tie for Christmas.

Mr. Franken is a testament to the fact that anyone in America may become wealthy, famous and powerful. Ms. Kennedy is a testament to the fact that it is much, much easier if one's family is wealthy, famous and powerful.

I think all the talk of her connections and bringing in high-name people is going to hurt her. Obviously that's that circles she travels in - the rest of the 20 million NYers don't really count do they.

1st up on the Crooks and Liars page this AM is an article about Elliot Spitzer's downfall and the curious circumstances that might make one think that there was some illicit efforts to cause it.
What do you think?

By all means lets have our (tut tut) principled discussion about political aristocracies and all - and while we principled Democrats are at - let's just give Gulliani the seat. I was against Hillary on principle - but I wasn't so stupid as to think that it was better to have Republican in the White House than her.

so uncurious george thinks jeb would be an "awesome senator."

to coin a phrase, "so what?"

Kennedy should make a quick move to Illinois. The word is that the senate seat there is up for sale.

I'm irritated by the media overstating the significance of criticism from Hillary supporters of the possible appointment of Caroline Kennedy to the U.S. Senate. I'm confident that such people make up a significant minority among those of us who would oppose this appointment.

This Obama supporter doesn't want to see Caroline Kennedy appointed either. Personally, I'm tired of the unfair advantage that people get in the media, among fundraisers and finally among voters (and sometimes Governors deciding who to appoint) primarly because of who their parents or spouses are. Caroline Kennedy is a class act, but there a many more lesser known people who are significantly more qualified and significantly more deserving.

Kennedys, Cuomos, Bushes, Clintons, Romneys, ... Enough!

CJ -You'd rather have Guiliani? Name recognition is an important factor in getting elected in a big state like NY. That's reality - I thought this was the community of those who are reality-based.

What I meant to say in the first sentence above was "disgruntled" Hillary supporters (make up a minority of the critics). I'm sure many, if not most, critics are Hillary supporters who oppose a Caroline Kennedy appointment for the same reason as I and many other Obama supporters...not because they're still angry about Kennedy's support for Obama.

C.B. -- Who had more name recognition at the start of the presidential race, Barak Obama or Hillary Clinton?

You'd rather have Guiliani? Name recognition is an important factor in getting elected in a big state like NY. That's reality - I thought this was the community of those who are reality-based.

Fine, I'll say it if no one else will: this (non-Democrat) Obama voter would rather see Giuliani win an honest election than see yet another aristocrat rise to power on the basis of her name. Dynastic politics is vile, undemocratic, and totally contrary to the values that the USA was supposedly founded on. We've just endured the worst president since Nixon, a spectacular underachiever whose rise was due entirely to his family connections. That alone should be sufficient reason for the Democrats to swear off this idiocy forever. At least Hillary had to win an election first.

(And I thought Giuliani was by far the most frightening of the Republican candidates last year, a unique combination of appalling ethical lapses and reflexive authoritarianism. But Giuliani waged a terrible presidential campaign that took much of the luster off his "hero of 9/11" image; what makes you so certain that he'll win a senate seat in 2010 if the Democrats don't once again embrace the Kennedy clan as their saviors?)

* George W. Bush thinks Jeb Bush would be an "awesome" senator.

Would that be "awesome", as in "awesomely stupid"---or "awesome" as in "awesomely Darth Vader-ish"?

Hillariously, Bowers endorsed Slaughter over Kennedy for various reasons. I wonder what he'll say now... My guess is nothing and Sirota and Stoller will call Slaughter an ignorant blue dog.

Not the only Kennedy that could go to the Senate. Reportedly, Ill. Lt. Gov. Pat Quinn is looking at Chris Kennedy, an RFK Sr. son.

Geez, three Kennedys in the Senate. All we need now is J.P. Bush to marry a Kennedy.

As Governor, Jeb created 10, 20, life for violent crime, repealed the helmet law, and cut taxes for small businesses. He was Johnny on the spot when it came to hurricanes. As a Florida voter I'd rather see a Dem in the seat, but we could do worse than Jeb Bush. He is definitely not his brother. The Bush family has a retreat on Boca Grand Island and Jeb quite often found ways to not attend family events there, even though it's in his own state. I don't think he likes them much.

CJ - So you think there's a plethora of politicians out there who are as brilliant and talented as Obama - and anyone one of them should be able to do what he did? You have totally misconstrued his achievement. It was a once in century win - and we are lucky for it.

Caroline will be faced with "winning her seat twice in the next four years. Either she will be able to do it or she won't. And beive me the Republicans are not going to let the seat be handed to anyone.

Nat- Guiliani - was a presidential failure -but he he not necessarily as state failure. And if you think Guiliani is beatable - what about Bloomberg?

You think Caroline is incompetent and unqualified to run - fine -say so -but name recognition is not the problem here. Bush failed because he was an incompetent and because he was a Bush.

As I said, Caroline will have plenty of opportunity to fail before 2012. But maybe that's not what you're afraid of - really.

Dynastic politics is vile, undemocratic, and totally contrary to the values that the USA was supposedly founded on. We've just endured the worst president since Nixon, a spectacular underachiever whose rise was due entirely to his family connections.

Yeah, let's just assume that anyone from a famous family is as bad as George W. Bush. I've looked at her background, and there is no evidence to indicate she's remotely like him.
I also don't see much, if any, difference between someone like Caroline Kennedy, who would be appointed for two years before she would have to win two elections within two years, and someone like Hillary Clinton.
For some reason, Kennedy would be less legitimate than Hillary Clinton, who had zero ties to the state and moved there solely for the purpose of taking advantage of an open Senate seat--and who only emerged from the primary based on her last name and marriage to the president. She had zero experience as an elected official.

The only people I take seriously in these debates are the ones who want to end special appointments altogether, and switch to all special elections. I would favor this, because then you don't have to worry about what governor might be replacing a Senator, and you don't have everyone making demands based on unwritten rules and personal biases.

Apparently the Kennedy family cannot countenance the idea that they won't have a member in the Senate when Ted dies, and so Caroline is foisted on us.

She won't be "foisted" on you any more than any other person the governor might appoint. Then she'll have to run for election in 2010 and 2012, and the voters can un-foist her if they want.

It's a disgrace. I'm sure she's a lovely and intelligent human being, who has much to recommend her. But she has no claim to the seat, and to imply otherwise is insulting.

Maybe you should actually look at her background before flying off the handle about it then. No one is saying she has any more "claim" to the seat than other powerful figures in New York who are able to pick up the phone and express their interest(as others have already done)--unlike millions of New Yorkers who are also just as qualified by age and residence, among other things.

Allan - Special Elections solve nothing but people's "distaste" for trumped up impropriatey(sp.) Special elections are called in a hurry - and favor those with ....what for it.... name recognition!!!! But then of course she would be "elected" - and everyone would complain that she benefited unduly from name recognition. No - bottom line - all Kennedys, Bushs, Clintons, Bidens, Cuomos and anyone else who has a relative living or dead - should not be allowed in politics. Period. That's rational. That makes sense.

How much chance the MSM let alone blatantly conservative media will play up Coleman's possible irregularities to even a shadow of that buzz about Blago, Rahm, and Obama?

And if you think Guiliani is beatable - what about Bloomberg?

Not a fan of him either; he bought his way into public office (although at least his fame and wealth was earned rather than inherited), which I always find tasteless. And I despise his petty authoritarianism and determination to interfere in New Yorkers' personal lives. But I'll still take an elected Bloomberg over an appointed Kennedy. (Disclaimer: I live in CA, so what I think about New York politics doesn't really matter anyway.)

You think Caroline is incompetent and unqualified to run

No. I think she should have to *run* for it, like everyone else - the Kennedy name still gives her an unfair advantage, but at least the voters get a say in it, and she'll be forced to defend her qualifications in public instead of calling up the governor and asking for the job. She might be a perfectly decent senator, but the only reason she's even being considered for appointment is her name and resulting insider connections.

I'm not a fan of the way Hillary became senator either, and I wasn't a fan of her for president, although I would still have supported her over any of the Republicans running this year.

Yeah, let's just assume that anyone from a famous family is as bad as George W. Bush. I've looked at her background, and there is no evidence to indicate she's remotely like him.

I agree; my point was that this foolish sentimental attachment to politicians from famous families needs to be beaten out of both parties. (Adulation of politicians in general needs to stop too, but that's not going to happen any time soon.)

The only people I take seriously in these debates are the ones who want to end special appointments altogether, and switch to all special elections

I am 100% in favor of special elections. I think there are situations where it may be unfeasible to do this immediately and an interim senator needs to be appointed, but in those cases, the stand-in should be prohibited from running for the seat later. (I would also favor additional prohibitions on their activities while in office to limit the potential for corruption.) Biden's replacement is setting a good example, although I realize this is partly being done to clear the way for Biden's son.

BTW Dan, who *does* have a "claim" on that vacating Senate seat? I didn't think anyone had a "claim", that it was up to someone/s to pick and they could pick who they like from among the qualified - so if Caroline is qualified, why not her as much as anyone else? If she's not, then OK not her.

Qualified-Qualified-Qualified! That's most of what I'm hearing about nearly every candidate for elective and appointed office. For those of you who think "qualified" means so much-What does it mean? How can anyone assuming an office for the 1st time be judged qualified? Did you vote for Bush, Clinton, Obama? What made them qualified to be elected? THEY COULD GET THE VOTES! Caroline can get the votes. She will have 2 yrs to prove she's qualified. The question of "qualification" is never answered in these cases until after performance review. There is no reason to think Caroline can't perform. At least, I bet she can walk and chew gum at the same time. Geo Bush couldn't do that and he was judged qualified.

But she has no claim to the seat, and to imply otherwise is insulting.

Wrong. Her claim is as great if not greater...

She came out early and ardently for Barack. He was tottering after New Hampshire. The going was iffy. She put her name, resources, and energy on the line. Who knows what might have happened if she did not rally to his side?

We might be stuck with McCain...

So two points:

1) She was smart enough to realize the Barack is the change we need. That he is our future...
2) She risked her political capital and fame to help him along.

I'm okay with all that...
And I am okay with her.

Nat -This isn't a question of who is a fan of this or that, or what would be ideal or not, and what we would like to see happen to the rules - This is an actual situation being faced by the sitting governor of New York (my state), who must appoint a senator and the democrats in our state and how to best preserve a senatorial seat that will be challenged in 2010 by a high profile Republican.

The only reason Caroline would not be acceptable for such appointment is if she were incompetent. Nothing about her life or work suggests that - in fact it suggests quite the opposite.

She has done nothing that is questionable in this entire matters - except to think that she has what it takes to be a good senator and win two subsequent elections in 2010 and 2012 - Obama thought he had what it takes and guess what --- he was right.

It's amazing to me that people refuse to acknowledge the huge difference in someone who is a public figure, who has campaigned, established ties to various constitutencies, gotten themselves elected, and has a proven track record of representing the people of New York to the point that they have successfully been re-elected - in several cases many times - compared to someone else who has lived a very private life caccooned by wealth prestige and family ties - and then blithely assert that as far as the needs of the people of New York State in their public officials representing them in the national government that there is absolutely no difference between the two.

There are many appointed positions for which someone can be of public service - but there are other positions which are filled by election because the people should have a say in who represents them. The Senate is such a position. Caroline Kennedy has never ever put herself in front of the people to ask their permission to represent them. If someone must be appointed to fill the position until the people get a voice, then at least appoint someone who has gone before the voters before and has proven themselves in that way. if Caroline Kennedy wants to represent the people she will have opportunity to make her case several times in the future - to more than just political insiders and the governor - but to the actual people. In the meantime, give the position to someone who has already made and proven their case and whom the voters have already had the chance to weigh and chose.

Hold it a minute- isn't an endorsement from GWB the electoral kiss of death? The way I see it, Jeb might want to change his last name before announcing his campaign for the Senate.

-Z

The Caroline Kennedy case proves, once again, you can't beat the elite. (Dammit.)

I will wager that CK is going after this seat even if she is NOT appointed to it now. She is putting the democratic party in New York on notice that she wants it. She will do her "listening tour" regardless. This is not some overnight I'll take it - only if I don't have to earn it ploy.

She has made a very studied decision and Paterson and the other NY Dem Party elites are on notice that whom ever else they put in that position - they will be in for a considerable fight to keep it.

Jeb thought of himself as the education governor. Fla is something like 48th in the country in education
He also was smack dab in the middle of the Schiavo circus siding with the family to keep that poor woman "alive".
He is the hands down favorite of every mouth breathing, noddy head fundy in the state.
Thanks, but pass.

Caroline Kennedy is much loved and respected but what does she list as her qualifications for senator. She's authored several books on constitutional law and is considered highly intelligent (I mean look at Palin or Sen Reyes who thinks Al Qaeda is mostly Shiite and this is his area of expertise??) but what is her actual experience?

I would ask all to consider that by numerous examples already present in the senate...Judgment trumps Experience. There are so many experienced fools and idiots in the senate now that I for one think that if change is to come it must come from those who possess good judgment regardless of experience. I hate seeing self serving, self interested senators continue to get reelected simply because they've "done it before" yet just follow their parties dictates regardless of anything they believe.

It really doesn't take much "experience" to do what senators do but it makes all the difference in the world to exercise "good judgment". How does that equate with Caroline Kennedy?

btw...it's just as unfair to condemn a person based on them having a famous last name as to conclude they only achieve because of having a famous last name.

We all want our children to do good if not better than we did. The merits of each person should be individualized. A family of doctors; a family of lawyers; a family of politicians doesn't necessarily mean a dynasty as if inherited without effort or individual achievement.

Stormin' Norman seems to be running up a serious legal bill. I recall reading that the reason he was getting all the goodies from his "buddies" was because he was not independently wealthy and needed financial assistance. Those goodies included a really inexpensive apartment in Washington, gifts of clothes (but not of the magnitude that Palin got), $75,000 laundered through his wife, and maybe more that haven't hit the news.

I'm not sure what all the to-do about Ms. Kennedy is. I read several posts that start out about "I have nothing against Caroline Kennedy" and then go on to bash her solely for her ancestry. Forget it, people. Nowhere does she or anyone else claim that she has a "right" to the seat; she is applying her own methods to push for the appointment the same way that everyone of you does what you feel you need to do to get a job. The only question is whether or not she would be a good senator. So far no one that I've read has made a good argument one way or the other.