I posted this elsewhere. Here it is again.
Kennedy is an attorney, editor, writer and member of the New York and Washington, D.C. bars. She founded the Profiles in Courage Award, which is usually given to elected officials who, “acting in accord with their conscience, risk their careers by pursuing a larger vision of the national, state or local interest in opposition to popular opinion or powerful pressures from their constituents.” She also is President of the Kennedy Library Foundation, a director of the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund. She also is an adviser to the Harvard Institute of Politics. She has written two books on civil liberties and has served in a volunteer capacity on numerous educational and healthcare initiatives.

I’d say that makes her as qualified as the person she would be replacing. She has never tried to cash in on her family name or tragedies. I think she’d be great.

If she's not, you have two years and you can vote her out. You need to remember what a Senator is supposed to do for you, which is represent your interests in Congress and work well with the other members of the Senate to get things done. What makes you think she is any less qualified?

I am curious, since you were a Clinton supporter, whether this just rankles too much because Kennedy endorsed Obama? If that's the case, be honest about it.

I don't support a special election. It's costly and will we ever get out of the campaign mode?

Patterson should consult with Sen.Clinton and she should have a strong say in who will replace her. It's a matter of two years before another election. ,

Personally, I think New Yorkers should try and jump ahead of the pack & do something innovative. Instead of all the fine distinctions - whose last name is famous; was she a hooker or a staffer; does coke up the ass count? - Why not not get serious.

Vote for someone without a last name at all. With no genitalia. Colorless. Odorless. Shapeless. Spinefree.

I'd mention who it is, but you wouldn't know them.

Can someone please enlighten me? In California, we elect the Governor and Lt. Governor separately--we currently have a Rep. Gov. and Dem. Lt. Gov. Does New York do the same, or are they elected as a slate?

I suppose, in either case, the point is somewhat moot, as, one way or another, they WERE elected. Paterson ran as Lt. Gov. (and won) but is now serving as Gov. because that's what the Lt. Gov. DOES when the Gov. steps down or dies. He wasn't appointed to the job, any more than Johnson was appointed to be President when Kennedy was assassinated.

I am a Kennedy person and have been all my life. I like her and she probably would do a good job. I'm also in sympathy with Destor on this. Without her pedigree, Caroline would not even be considered for the post. And yes, Hillary had no more qualifications than Caroline but she was elected, not appointed, and the first axiom of our democratic republic is that all government legitimacy is derived from the consent of the governed. However, I'd point out to Destor and to Josh that I think Patterson's claim to the power of appointment is perfectly legitimate. And though I can certainly understand why people might prefer a special election in this case, apparently the constitution of the state of New York provides for appointment by the sitting Governor regardless of how the office was attained, not special election.

Patterson was, after all, elected Lt. Governor by the people of New York state in a free election was he not? The primary responsibility of any Lt. Governor is to step in as Governor should that office be vacated for any reason. Patterson happened to be one of the rare Lt. Governor's who fulfilled that responsibility. Thus, his power to appoint a Senator is perfectly legitimate albeit it is not ideal for an appointment to be made in this manner.

No one questioned the authority of Gov. Roger Wilson of MO to appoint a replacement when he succeeded to that office upon the death of Gov. Mel Carnahan after Carnahan died in a plane crash. Carnahan became the first deceased person ever elected to the US Senate. You may recall the late Carnahan defeated John Ashcroft for reelection. The people of MO pointedly took this dramatic step of electing a man who was no longer living to make sure that Ashcroft left the Senate and the new Governor could appoint a successor. Carnahan's tragic death and subsequent election meant that the following January, the Senate seat was empty and the "unelected" Governor had the respnsibility to appoint a replacement. Carnahan's widow was appointed to the seat and lost a close race when two years later she did have to stand for election.