Another take on monarchist and entitlements: just because someone holds NY office, representing a part of the state, should not entitle them to represent the whole state. That's akin to a baron becoming King.

I am not from New York and have no skin in New York's senate seat game, other than my general desire to see the best possible lineup of Democratic senators in the US Senate. I have never had any strong impressions about Caroline Kennedy, one way or another. I'm glad she endorsed Obama, just like I'm glad a lot of people endorsed Obama and voted for him.

But here's my question for New Yorkers: You guys are from one of the most populous states in the union. Is Caroline Kennedy really the best you've got? I find that hard to believe. I see no particularly distinguished record of accomplishment; nor do I see any particularly impressive record of political insight, people skills or policy ideas. She does seem like a perfectly decent and right-thinking person; but no more decent than a million other hard-working and right-thinking New Yorkers. Based on the size of your state alone, there must be at least a thousand other public servants across New York who bring at least as much to the table she does.

Even the people who are defending Kennedy's bid never seem to get around to making a strong positive case for her. They spend all their time attacking the people who say you guys can do better.

You know, my wife is on the board of the local Salvation Army, works at a homeless shelter, and is also a tenured professor, an outstanding teacher, and very active in her college's government. She spent five hours on Christmas Eve ringing the bell over a Salvation Army bucket in 20 degree weather. As far as I can tell, she is as qualified as Caroline Kennedy to be a US Senator. And as great as my wife is, there must be a few thousand other people just as good or better in my small state of New Hampshire.

Honestly New York, can't you guys do better? In that whole big state, surely there must be a few truly amazing individuals, not just people who are solidly above average.

This is absolutely, completely, hands down a great post. Going to the center of the issue, the reasons why -or not- anyone should be considered for the job.

In principle I think Caroline Kennedy is OK subject to her dealing with various issues-some raised here and othes to come.

I certainly agree she should provide whatever disclosure is expected of senatorial candidates.

And I want to know her position on things like the size of the DOD, National Health and Choice.

Her lack of experience is a negative but not one that has disqualified many other senators. For example Maria Cantwell and Frank Lautenberg who each came to the senate directly from a business career with no prior experience in public office.

Obama's use of her in the VP selection is some indication that he's convinced she's highly qualified as a person altho of course that's not conclusive as to how he might feel about her as a senator.

Her name is probably sufficient to assure her of re-election in two years time.Whether she can also be sure of re-election in 4 years time may depend to a greater extent on her legislative record. Her wealth will help her in both those contests.

She's clearly smart. To a greater extent than many sitting senators she is widely travelled.

It's irrelevant whether she can manage her staff. We only need to be sure she is able to choose good chief of staff. And if she could help select Obama's VP I expect she can hire her own chief of staff.

I'm not concerned about whether she's the most qualified candidate for the job. Just whether she is qualified enough , which so far I think is the case.

Nor do I consider that her family should either entitle or disqualify her from joining the many Udalls, Bushes,Adamses Roosevelts, Gores , Rockefellers and Murkowskis who have served over the years.

Is too bad that her defenders here choose to attack her critics here but clearly that's irrelevant with respect to her personal qualifications.

destor, I'm not being venomous, I'm laughing at most of the justifications given for being opposed to Kennedy's appointment. There is a load of disingenuousness within them.

Last Sunday on Face The Nation, Gary Ackerman (D-NY 5th) appeared with Peter 'Pete' T. King (R-NY 3rd) and Thomas M. Reynolds (R-NY 26th) in a bipartisan Kennedy attack. The main lines of attack were: she has led a sequestered life, never had a real job, and lacked experience.

What is Ackerman's "real job" history? He was born in 1942, graduated from Queens College with a BA in 1965, and beginning in 1978 has continuously held elective political office. Sorry, I do not consider "politician" to be a "real" job.

How about Ackerman's on the job experience? He is a Member of The House Committee on Financial Services, and two of its subcommittees: Subcommittee on Capital Markets, Insurance, and Government Sponsored Enterprises and Subcommittee on Financial Institutions and Consumer Credit. Looks like Ackerman's Congressional history has been a failure, given the current economic situation.

As to entitlements: both King and Reynolds became eligible for the draft in the heart of the Vietnam War, and both were able to get slipped into cushy stateside National Guard Posts. Reynolds assertion of "entitlements" is extremely odious for this reason. His birth date was September 3, 1950, which meant that he was exposed in the first lottery draft of 1969, and had no preexisting student deferment, because his time at a University of one year at Kent State had already past. His birth date was lucky number #049, Grade A Vietnam Prime. Reynolds served in the NY Air National Guard. Who and or what entitled him to this?

As to her lack of political experience, many of her past organisational associations required an application of politics, some positions did not.

• Office of Strategic Partnerships for the the New York City Department of Education, director
• The Fund for Public Schools, vice chair
• Concord Academy, board of trustees
• Kennedy Library Foundation, president
• Harvard Institute of Politics, adviser
• Commission on Presidential Debates, board of directors
• NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, board of directors
• American Ballet Theatre, honorary chair

Her seeming unwillingness to speak publicly is a valid concern. Since she has stated that she desires the appointment, she should also state publicly what her political point of view is, and not just in written letters.

Another common complaint is that an ability to raise large amounts of campaign contributions in a short period of time should is a proper consideration for the appointment. This Senate seat comes up again for election in 2010, and 2012. Any person appointed to it, who wants to be reelected, and does not have a preexisting network available for use acquiring campaign funds will not have time to do a proper job in the Senate, as they will be focusing primarily on raising money for the next four years.

And lastly, using the term "entitlement" as an oppositional argument to Kennedy's appointment leaves me rolling on the floor laughing. Whoever comes out of this process as the new NY Senator, by definition, received an entitlement unearned in an election. The argument is absurd.

I don't care if Kennedy gets the appointment or not. I am however wondering why you've not stated your preference for the appointment, so that the person can be vetted in the same fashion, using the same methodology. Your opposition is both one-sided and biased without it.

The problem is that when pain drops upon the heart of a customer servant assistant or a school teacher, people say, "That's life; but she better get over this hump in her personal life and get her shit together, because its interfering with her job performance." When she does recover, get her shit together, and go on with her job, nobody points to the restoration of equilibrium as a qualification for a major promotion, since we all experience suffering.

But when pain falls upon the heart of a thane, or a king, or the "triple pillar of the world" ... or a princess ..., then people say it is "tragedy", worthy of the stage. They write books and articles and plays about our mighty, suffering betters. And they respond with bedazzled awe.

OK, it's a slow day so I'll bite. First, I don't care about this much: I'm not from NY. As long as it's an appointment and not another &%^%$* election, NY can get themselves one of Santa's elves for all I care (insert Kusinich joke here).

That said, NY would be crazy not to take Kennedy if she really wants to serve (which she clearly does). In my view, the qualifications for senator are simple: the ability to effectively wield influence in the senate thereby bringing more clout and benefits to the state. If a senator can't do that, it doesn't matter how much local ass they kissed - the state is still screwed. Clearly, basic alignment with the views of voters on core issues is also a must.

There is an assumption that a freshman has say over what they are allowed to do; that their "issues" have some bearing. That's bullshit. A freshman won't control committee assignments or the roles they play on the committees. Most enter with few connections or allies in the senate and zero bargaining chips. It takes years of moving up to get in a position to wield any power. Clinton didn't do NY any favors using the state as a breeding ground for her higher ambitions - eight years later and you still have a freshman Senator.

So the first point is electability leading to seniority. Kennedy has announced she'll run in 2010 regardless. Question one is - can she take the seat if it's given to someone else? Could anyone take it from her if she was appointed? Since even you might vote for her(if it's YOUR choice - and you are given good reason), I tend to think she can take it if she really runs. I don't see anyone being strong enough to take the seat from her if she's appointed. If Kennedy is forced to take the seat in 2 years, her success would mean NY generated zero seniority in the seat for a decade.

But at this point, there is really no time for the NY senator to gain clout. We are already in the immediate crisis. In two years, whatever is going to happen with the bailout and such will have happened. Whoever is selected should be the person who can start off with the maximum power possible.

In her own right, Kennedy has national connections. She will enter the senate able to rally allies and raise funds from many areas around the nation. This is something that the leadership will nurture to the benefit of NY. She will also enjoy support from the allies of her uncle, putting NY in a prime spot as the shuffle happens when he inevitably retires.

But beyond that Kennedy is unique. Describing her as simply the child of a president or someone who lost their father(and brother) doesn't honestly portray the circumstance that forged Caroline Kennedy. She bravely wore the face of America's pain when her father, beloved by so many, was killed. No millworker's child ever had to endure such public and endless chronicling of their loss. There is no comparison. JFK's death forced her into a public life that simple human tragedy or being a president's daughter does not normally impose.

She holds a well-earned place of respect in the minds of many democrats. The democratic party has worried about, respected, and protected her literally her whole life. Nobody else, period, can walk onto the senate floor to the same deference she would. You may begrudge her this - but it makes it no less a fact. Can Cuomo march into Ted's office and insist on lunch? Who would refuse Caroline without hesitation? That's a strong benefit to NY.

She has received condolence from heads of state who hold her in honor. Who else in the running can say they already bring the respect of foreign governments? Again, even though she was placed in the position by circumstance - it makes the reality no less valuable if Caroline were to harness this on behalf of America and the people of NY.

I also like her political independence - although it's sort of a bonus. It would really shake up the power structure if she came in from left field. The other major contenders seem to be trading on back-room political connections - is that truly better than the celebrity of JFK's daughter?

She has assets that no other individual in America brings to the table. This makes Caroline potentially more powerful than any freshman senator in recent history. I'd take Dan K. one further: not only is Kennedy the best NY has - she's possibly the best democratic appointment available in the nation. Oh yeah, and she's a lawyer, wrote several books and seems to care about education ... but that's largely irrelevant IMO.

That's my 32 cynical cents on Kennedy. For the record: I sure don't think saying I'm wrong (or measuring by different criteria) is hypocritical. Maybe some folks are just sensitive :-)

Side Note: with a GOP delegation and having lost our senior guy to wide-stance issues, Idaho is SO TOTALLY screwed ... hopefully they throw our new dem congressman a few bones! I'd love someone with Kennedy's clout instead of friggin Risch ... they're gonna have him cleaning toilets on the urnial-cake subcomittee or something. I wish we had your problems!