I mean, why not?  Really?  I live in Minnesota.  The race does has some influence on me as a citizen of the U.S.  So, I do get an opinion.  Yet, I feel I shouldn't feel too strongly about it since I'm not a constituent of the State. Thus, for me Fran Drescher seems the safe choice.  Upon further examination the strong choice. 

I found a statement I couldn't disagree with on this Reuters blog article on Fran's Senate run by Jill Sergeant.  I understand the arguments against her Hollywood ties.  How do you argue with this?

Do actors make good politicians? I don't think one profession lends itself to the other more so than experience in any other profession save previous political experience. It certainly helps the public identify with them-their names and faces. Like a bonus round of advertisments, their careers can promote them. We as Americans need to stop and weigh what these actors say disciminately and not be clouded by false perceptions. Actors are people-plain and simple. They too have their own opinions and are just as valid as anyone elses but for us to look at Fran Drescher and actually think we are voting in the Nanny is ridiculous. The fact they were acting before their political careers begin should be a moot point. If she thinks she can do the task than more power to her! If my views coincide with hers, I would vote for her but on that basis alone not her acting career.

Other comments like "she's a survivor" also resonate with me.  She's an experienced one of those. Indeed, Fran Drescher's career and experience are not things to be made fun of either.  "More than just a pretty face and a nasal voice" as blogger Jill Serjeant states.  Serjeant continues:

The actress has survived uterine cancer and earlier this year she was appointed to a U.S. State Department envoy program and toured Eastern Europe to talk about health issues. Last year, she created a charity called the Cancer Schmancer Movement after her recent battle with the disease.  Drescher told People magazine that when she was on the lecture circuit for the State Department she was often asked about a future in politics.  "It was one of the single most-asked questions: When are you going to run?  Only second to: Is that your real voice?," Drescher told the celebrity magazine.

She has name recognition.  She's likable.  She's popular.  She's been tactful about throwing in her hat.  She's adamantly pro-gay and pro-woman.  She comes from a working class family.  She's survived rape and cancer; started her own health care movement (albeit a small one).  She's ran her own TV show.  She seems admirable.  Commendable, even.

Another factor is the chaos factor.  Namely, the Senate is such an old, doddering institution I'd like to see some chaos thrown in.  Senator Al Franken will be great and shouldn't be taken likely.  In that same outsider, non-pol background, sort-of sense:  I'd love to see a little Senator Fran Drescher chaos.  The Senate needs a little mixing up.

So for me, the non-New Yorker paying attention to the side show, Senator Fran Drescher sounds pretty good!