A lot of people have suffered childhood tragedies, raised families, kept their sanity and have written good and thoughtful books. Many of them have done so without the benefits of the Kennedy wealth or the opportunities and contacts that you get by being accidentally born to a rich politically connected family.

You're right, the comparison to Sarah Palin is unfair. Palin at least ran for office and let the people judge her qualifications. Caroline Kennedy wants to be appointed Senator. Her public "I'm interested," is the answer to a question that nobody asked. Hopefully Paterson realizes that and will appoint a proper caretaker to the seat. If Caroline Kennedy wants to be a Senator she can run for the seat in 2010 (and she should run as a newcomer, not as the appointed incumbent).

OK, I'll open the can of worms.

Why the overt hostility to Carline Kennedy? Yes, she has not sought political office before. She is also a bright, capable, serious and publicly-spirited possible Senator. Will those of you who are denouncing her (seemingly for her name and heritage alone) at least have the courage to admit that there are many, many possible choices, even among NY Dems, that could be worse selections for Gov. Patterson to make?

Often to be appointed to a position is an honor. We don't elected Supreme Court justices. Obama is currently appointing many people. No one's complaining about that!

Public service involves many things. Not just elected office.

This whole thing is a red herring!

I have no desire to disparage Caroline Kennedy, but I can't see why she should be entitled to a Senate seat... all of this is what the British call "wet".

This was meant to make a modest point, which is that a part of what we look for in leaders, officials, etc., is the capacity to see life plain, in all of its tragic dimensions, and the go forward with humility and a feel for the commonwealth. If one is well-educated (not well-born, destor 23, well-educated) one can learn the finer points of a public policy debate in a few weeks. But learning how to care with a broken heart takes years; and don't tell me that a part of what we've sensed in Obama from his memoir, and McCain, too, now that the election is over, is not this very ability to make the most of things. Of course, many other Americans--all, actually--have suffered greatly, or will. So let's look for the Emerson in our candidates, not just the Stephanopoulos.

Caroline Kennedy deserves, if nothing else, to be treated with abiding respect for how she's conducted herself, and not be dismissed as someone with an over-reaching sense of entitlement; that was said about Bobby, too, when he ran against Senator Keating. Anyway, it is late in Jerusalem, and I'm going to bed.

I admire the Kennedy's for all the liberal causes they backed over the years.

With that said, I don't support Caroline for the appointment. There are some good Democrats in the House that I'd prefer, not necessarily in this order; like Jerry Nadler, Nita Lowey, Carolyn Maloney. Maybe Louise Slaughter from the Buffalo area.

These people all ran in elections and won and whoever gets the appointment needs to run again.
Louise Slaughter might be best chance to hold onto the seat as she represents upstate NY.

So far we're losing at least 4 who were elected to Senate seats; Obama, Biden, Hillary, Salazar, and trading them for 4 appointed seats who must run for the seat eventually.

Many in NY State may see Caroline's appointment as
unjustified for some reason or other and many are alerady speaking out against it for various reasons. Can we expect these peoople to vote for her when she has to run?

I forgot to mention this:

I'm sorry to say that much of what I hear about Caroline from many Democrats is how much money she would be able to raise.

Sarah Palin is more qualified to be NY Senator than Caroline Kennedy (putting aside the obvious residency requirements).

I can't believe I actually agree with JohnW1141 but the only reason Caroline is being considered is because of her fund raising abilities.

She has zero experience and has skipped out on voting in more than one recent election

The Senate is an intellectual ghetto populated by overrated underachievers. Caroline should fit right in.

Everyone gut check their reasons why they do or don't want Caroline to get the appointment.

Some of you exhibit personal spite and social resentment, including reverse classism.

Some of you seem not to question the whole "royal" problem of our government especially the Senate, which is a major source of negative status quo-ism.

Some of you try to play it safe down the middle, which means to me that you don't care that much either way, which ain't a bad way to go, discretion still being the better part of valor (or moral cowardice sometimes).

The conventional wisdom is that Caesar's wife must be beyond suspicion. In this case, Caesar's daughter, Caroline, must also be beyond suspicion of royalism. Therefore, despite my earnest wish that she get the position right away, I fervently wish instead that she'd reject the appointment and begin establishing her cred now for 2010.

I think she has what it takes personally to be a great force for political good in this country. I'm talking about her character, intelligence, and political wherewithal. Asking her to earn it through election in the first place is not too much to ask.

If she does so, she will begin to vindicate the faith of those who think she is ready now. If she accepts an appointment now, she only gives credence to her skeptics, and deservedly so.

So, run, Caroline, run, in 2010. Now, roll up your sleeves and sling some mud like the rest of your peerage! And the cred you earn by rejecting the appointment now and earning the position in 2010 may be the only thing standing between Palin and the presidency in 2012 or 2016 (God save us all).

Excellent read, I just passed this onto a colleague who was doing a little research on that. And he actually bought me lunch because I found it for him smile So let me rephrase that: Thanks for lunch!
Womens Swimwear