Tain't Bismarck, North Dakota

"Absolutely."

That writing was on the wall for days.
She wants to enter politics. She has a right to enter politics.

You can bitch and moan all you like, but New Yorkers won't vote for someone with tin-plated Joe-the-Plumber kind of fame. They think big in the Big Apple. They want the real stuff. Caroline fits the bill perfectly.

It's a done deal. She will win in a landslide.

I have no particular problem with Caroline Kennedy as a Senator, but I'm not aware of any compelling case for handing her the job. About the same can be said for any of the other candidates. But this creates a problem for Governor Paterson. He will have to be a hard-ass in tough upcoming budget negotiations and can't afford to appear to have been rolled. Besides, whoever he appoints, he creates a dozen enemies and one ingrate.
What he should do is appoint an elder statesperson caretaker and saay he is leaving the permanent job up for the people to decide. But who? Basil Paterson, who would be a fine choice for any other Governor, is his father, so that's out unless he wants to display enormous chutzpah in the run-up to the budget talks. Mario Cuomo would be another good choice, except that a prime contender for the permanent gig is his son Andy. Maybe Judith Kaye, Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals, who has to leave the court because of mandatory age limits.

We actually have no idea if Caroline Kennedy is the real stuff. But we probably will in 2 years.

Anyhow though I think he's a hack, Al Giordano made a good point: David Patterson has long been accused of only rising as he has due to his dad and the dynasty argument against Kennedy has got to really piss him off. Will he appoint out of spite? Probably not, but it sure won't hurt.

And this lays bare the problems with all the hulabaloo over Kennedy's qualifications for the Senate seat and the hand wringing over nepotism that has been particularly evident on the left side of the blogosphere.

There are really only three publically stated qualifications for US Senator. First that the person be at least 30 years of age, second, that they be a citizen for at least nine years, and, finally, that they are an inhabitant of the state. There is one other qualification that just about every Senator will have to meet eventually, they have to be able to win an election.

As you point out, there are place holders appointed for up to 2 years, until the next congressional elections. But, unless the appointment is a real place holder (usually for a shorter term than two years), who has no intention of running in the next election (historically, usually a surviving spouse), it would behoove the Governor to appoint someone who can stand for election and win in the next cycle.

Viewed in that light, Caroline Kennedy may be much more qualified than anyone is willing to give her credit for. She may not have the experience that many would like, but, at first blush, she certainly seems to have the electability that her party would (should) desire. Name recognition through the roof and some proven fund raising capabilities. If she runs in primaries in 2010, all things being equal, I would say that her chances of prevailing are at least as good Hillary's were in 2000, probably better. If she is as good a Senator, during a two year appointment, as Hillary has been over the last eight years, she will be unbeatable in 2010. The primary Democratic Party objective -- holing on to the seat -- will have been well served.

And finally, Patterson could do a lot worse in appointing a replacement for Hillary.

It's something of a gotcha question -- If she answered it the other way, the interpretation would be "See, she's not serious enough to run for a contested seat."

I can't get that exercised over the "descent into aristocracy", or whatever people are calling it. The Senate was never intended to be a small-d democratic institution-- I don't need to tell PA readers that popular election of senators is an innovation less than 100 years old. In this case, the governor can fill the vacancy with who he wants, and that person will stand for election in two years. Why raise a ruckus just because the relatives of the person he might pick? I bet Caroline Kennedy would make quite an effective senator, which is all that matters.

"whom he wants"

In her first visitto Rochester, U.S. Senate hopeful Caroline Kennedy met Wednesday with Mayor Robert Duffy and Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-Fairport, asking questions about upstate but not asking for an endorsement. [...]

1) In Rochester, it's called a Kodak moment. 2) Louise Slaughter already endorsed Kennedy a couple days ago.
3) At some point is she going to let people know what her worldview is, or should we just assume it's somewhere between Ted Kennedy, Obama and Bloomberg?

Her comment could also simply be an effort to convince people of her commitment to the office. The political calculus surrounding it is interesting, but overblown.

Her comment could also simply be an effort to convince people of her commitment to the office. The political calculus surrounding it is interesting, but overblown.

Given how jealously she has guarded her privacy over the years, I think it is reasonable to anticipate that she is REALLY serious about this, and not just looking for a two year lark.

The problem I have with the "placeholder" argument, which I've seen several times at Kos, is that you're essentially sticking your state with one ineffective, lame duck Senator who no one will take seriously--for two years during a critical time in the country's history.
I have enough respect for the voters that they can decide in two years, and again two years after that, if Caroline Kennedy or whoever is appointed is good enough for the job.

I expect Paterson would prefer to name Andrew Cuomo, so as not to have serious primary competition when he runs for Governor. I don't think Kennedy would be interested in Governorship but Cuomo will be.

I think you're looking at it the wrong way Steve. While I suppose it could put Patterson in a tight spot, it seems more likely that's she freezing out the other candidates, namely someone like a Carolyn Maloney. After all, if you've already got a relatively safe seat somewhere else, how enthusistically are you going to be to take a seat in the Senate knowing, or at least assuming, that it entails a primary campaign against Caroline Kennedy in 2 years? It certainly makes it less attractive to someone like that, who may be inclined to run against Patterson for the governor's office or just stay where they are.

And on the other hand, I think she just proved she's quite capable of handling her business when it comes to the political game.

I'm sure she's learned quite a bit from her family on how to run a campaign and play the political game.
I'd say that's why there are so many political "dynasties" that Democrats hate all of a sudden. A lot of children tend to stay in the family "business" or follow in their parents footsteps--because they learn from their parents and maybe favor a particular occupation because it runs in the DNA. It's no different in any other business--and kids take advantage of their parents' connections in all other areas as well.

I guess I just don't like all the snarky and nasty comments directed at Caroline Kennedy, as if there's something different about her situation as opposed to what's been going on in this country since it was founded. You think George Washington's nephew was appointed to the Supreme Court because he just happened to be the best qualified?

"I guess I just don't like all the snarky and nasty comments directed at Caroline Kennedy, as if there's something different about her situation as opposed to what's been going on in this country since it was founded."

I still want someone to explain to me why this is the gubernatorial appointment to a Senate vacancy that has everyone a-twitter over the very notion of gubernatorial appointments to Senate vacancies.

She ought to at least pretend to get to know the people whose interests she insists she wants to "represent" and not simply tour provinces. This is the Kennedy monarchical demand for special privilege, and it is grotesque, undemocratic.

Now we see the downside of Hillary's going to State.

This whole "dynasty" issue is totally overblown. The Clintons even get referred to as a dynasty now. The Clintons?! All two of them?! Bill grew up poor for crisakes! It's all fluff. If we really want to talk about "dynasties" and the corrupting influence of power, we'd be much better served talking about:
--jacking up the inheritance tax
--increasing the income tax rate on top earners
--taking private money out of politics
--further restricting lobbying
--changing corporate law to reduce their power and influence (the ultimate dynasty--they can live forever)
--strengthening labor laws
--more....
These things would have a MUCH greater impact than worrying whether Caroline Kennedy--who seems smart and genuine by most reports--represents a dynasty because her father had the potential to be the greatest US President. And on more point, Palin is part of no dynasty--and she is an idiot.

It's something of a gotcha question -- If she answered it the other way, the interpretation would be "See, she's not serious enough to run for a contested seat."

I agree. I can't see her answering "No" to that question. "Sure, I'd love to be Senator...as long as I get the job handed to me."

I think it's pretty likely that there will be a primary campaign in any case, especially if Kennedy is picked ahead of the other deserving candidates who have won political campaigns.

Benen: "...I wonder if Caroline Kennedy is trying to force Paterson's hand..."

Absolutely.

Yes, she's qualified. Yes, she's a class act. But that's beside the point.

For no reason other than her bloodline, Caroline Kennedy has an unfair advantage over more qualified competitors for that seat...in the media, among the fundraising circuit and among the electorate.

These are serious times, and we can and should apply stronger criteria when selecting our representatives than sending the spouse of child of somebody we admired simply because, as the argument goes, they start any campaign with an unfair advantage.

I think the qualifications for any elected official is not whether her/his butt has occupied a chair in the House or state gov't but how well they can think through complicated issues and energetically apply solutions. Caroline Kennedy would get my vote (I'm a New Yorker) because of the quality of her mind as well her energy and commitment to the task (she has demonstrated that working in a number of quasi governmental bodies). Carolyn Maloney, on the other hand, a person supported by a few women's groups for the spot, has been my Rep. for what seems to ages and I know of no accomplishments she can be credited with.