Thank you. This is exactly correct.

What about W Bush - Hillary Clinton etc. politics is all about name recognition.

Well, I guess all the inhabitants of "blogleft" [Josh Marshall is most prominent] are going to oppose this based on their opposition nepotism [see Josh's remarks concerning Hillary running for president].

Oh wait a minute, that was then, now Josh has some entirely NEW thought.

BTW, I think she would be a good senator. I just can't stand the filthy hypocrites that make up blog left.

This from the guy who saw Beau Biden give one speech and declared "Beau Biden is going the make a grwat junior senator from Delaware."

Shmuck, have you never heard about the value of symbolic politics?

Yeah, it bugs me that someone feels okay about being appointed to the US senate without having had to really get out there and campaign for anything, ever. It's questionable enough when a Clinton name or a personal fortune allows people to enter public service in one of a very, very few top offices available in this country (the presidency & vice-presidency, governors, the few powerful lieutenant governors, a handful of big-city mayors & the Senate), but even they had to campaign.

But what really gets me is the extent to which Democrats-- apparently considering media appeal above all else-- are willing to be so much like Republicans in terms of embracing inherited privilege. Yeah, the Camelot thing guarantees Sunday-blather props, but it also reinforces the idea that the political parties are really just two competing closed operations, with dynasties and entrenched ruling classes and virtually nothing to do with ordinary people.

Didn't stop Bill Bradley from being a damn good senator now, did it?

And for Chrissakes, his claim to fame was basketball!

And, as you have recently pointed out, neither did Hillary Clinton at the beginning. That's what wrecked her health care effort. You've also recently found the experience argument unconvincing when wielded against Barack Obama. He really did have no legislative experience, but building coalitions is also the work of a community organizer and he is deploying it well, contacting congresspersons on both sides of the aisle and building relationships.

Everyone starts without experience, and I doubt seriously that experience in the New York legislature is particularly useful in the US Senate. It's a different, much more combative, environment.

I find all these sorts of arguments to be singularly unconvincing. The truth is that anyone who is appointed is going to be minimally useful for some considerable time due to the Senate's rigid seniority system. Anyone who is appointed is going to have to follow a learning curve (something which, incidentally, Hillary Clinton was also praised for during her first few years). The ability to learn and adapt to new environments seems to me to be significantly more useful than a lifetime of experience following the same old rut.

Wealthy people are neither more nor less qualified for the Senate. It is irrelevant. Experience is sometimes good, sometimes bad, and sometimes irrelevant. I don't think we'd argue that Earl Warren was a bad justice simply because he had no previous experience.

The truth is that it is nearly impossible to predict how someone will perform in a job like this. They can have the longest resume on Earth and still be ineffectual. Strom Thurmond is a good example of this. He had more senatorial experience than anyone else on Earth but you'd be hard pressed to find an actual legislative accomplishment attached to his name.

I make no brief for Caroline Kennedy. I don't really know much about her. One argument in her favor is that she will have to mount a campaign in just a couple of years and being plugged into the Kennedy money network is an advantage as far as keeping the seat in Democratic hands. You could also argue against her, but you need a better argument than just "experience" and "I hate rich people."

She's a director of the NAACP Legal Defense Fund. I don't know what the scope of her role there is, but they are involved in the legislative process and saying she knows nothing about it is ridiculous. You could make many of the same criticisms about her father before he was elected Senator. Or the Senator she's potentially replacing (although I guess Hillary's got the constituent services part down in spades with her two First Lady roles).

Ezra, you are right that there is a skill to being a legislator - however, the natural extension of your line of thinking is that people ought to work their way up through local, state legislatures before they go to Congress. And I would guess most members of the House and Senate would fall into that category. But I would argue that there are other qualities and experiences in addition to legislative experience that would make someone a good Senator. The case needs to be made obviously for Caroline Kennedy or anyone else with a nontraditional pathway, but I think there have been Senators on both sides of the aisle who were considered (at least by their own party) to have been successful - Corzine and Frist, come to mind.

Incidentally, I think a compelling political argument for Caroline Kennedy is the fact that she *will* have to run in an election. Under the New York law, Clinton's replacement would have to run in 2010 in a special election and again in 2012. New York is an extremely expensive place to run a statewide campaign. Kennedy's name recognition would be an asset in the kind of fundraising that would be required to run in 2010 and 2012.

@ S Brennan: Yeah, because "filthy hypocrites" only reside in the "blog left" (whatever that is). Sheesh...

@ mark f: Beau Biden is the elected AG of Delaware. Thin resume? Maybe. No resume at all? Hardly.

@ Ezra: "Ready on Day One" is a piece of political rhetoric that needs to DIE. Please don't feed the Newspeak.

I get weary when I hear the same old "lack of experience" drivel.

What is needed in congress ? What is the criteria?

HONESTY
COMPASSION
COMMON SENSE
COURAGE

Lots of corruption in our government comes with plenty of EXPERIENCE!

What I don't like about Caroline is that we don't really know what her politics are. Sure, we know she's a Democrat, but does she have a paper trail that we can look at? Al Franken was a newbie too, but at least he had written and talked about a whole range of issues, so you knew what you were getting.

(Maybe Ms. Kennedy has done this too and I'm just unaware; if so I'd be interested to know what's out there.)

1. I agree with Ezra that we should consider legislator to be a skilled position and we should favor people who have the relevant experience, not media celebrities and people with famous names or famous parents.

2. Further, though, even if you doubt the value of such experience, it is still offensive to appoint Caroline Kennedy. If you want someone with nontraditional experience, there are plenty of non-upper class individuals that one could choose from, including community organizers, heads of activist organizations, public interest lawyers, scientists, and the like. If you believe in "nontraditional" routes, that's the direction we should be going in.

Democrats should be in favor of tilting the public policy apparatus AWAY from powerful families and aristocracies. If anything, having the last name "Kennedy" should be seen as disqualifying for elective or appointed service in the government. Let them do something else and let some other people, who didn't have the advantages at birth that Caroline Kennedy had, have a chance.

Is Paterson considering anyone from Western New York? This is what irritates me the most -- the NYC area has the most people in the state, but there is already an entire senator from NYC. It would be nice for Buffalo, Niagara Falls, Jamestown, etc. to have actual representation in the senate. Around here we're rooting for Brian Higgins, who is already in Congress and has been an effective legislator.

I really do not think that NYS is going to turn around and elect a Republican in 2010 just because the Democratic candidate isn't famous.

I wonder if there's a connection among Democrats between the disappointment toward the Clintons since the general election and a desire to have some kind of dynastic family in politics which makes Caroline Kennedy appealing...

mkd, when you said: "Yeah, because "filthy hypocrites" only reside in the "blog left" (whatever that is)."

Do you mean to say, "the right are hypocrites...we should be too"?

Or that when the left lies, cheats, steals...kills...it's okay because the right does it too?

If so, since we're essentially the same (or should be) why are we better?

Just asking

Of the 99 current Senators -

*49 previously sat in the House of Representatives
*15 others previously served in a state legislature (16 if we include Obama)
*5 others served in various local legislatures (city council, county council, school board)

That leaves a full 30 with no prior legislative experience: Alexander, Bayh, Bennett, Bingaman, Bond, Casey, Clinton, Coleman, Collins, Conrad, Corker, Cornyn, Dole, Hagel, Hatch, Kennedy, Kerry, Klobuchar, Kohl, Lautenburg, Lieberman, McConnell, Martinez, Ben Nelson, Salazar, Sessions, Specter, Warner, Webb, and Whitehouse.

That's a pretty substantial portion of the body.

I don't care for dynastic politics at all, and her last name is a strike against her, from where I stand.

However, I have heard one compelling argument for her appointment: her celebrity means that she has a fighting chance to beat Giulianni if he runs in 2010.

S Brennan: I just can't stand the filthy hypocrites that make up blog left.

That sounded to me like you were implying "blog left" is the sole repository of hypocrisy on the internet (which would, of course, be ridiculous) and hence is a good reason not to like "blog left". If you are just militantly anti-hypocrite I applaud you, but if you are somehow making value judgments a la "I hate the right because they're a bunch of crooks" then I suggest you look around and try to find any human system that is not riddled with hypocrites. Or crooks.

Do you mean to say, "the right are hypocrites...we should be too"? Or that when the left lies, cheats, steals...kills...it's okay because the right does it too?

Of course not (though I like the melodramatic "...kills..." part, nice touch)

If so, since we're essentially the same (or should be) why are we better?

Because our policies are better.

It's a moot point anyway, there is nothing hypocritical about Josh/Ezra's position. They questioned Clinton's candidacy because she was specifically running on a platform of Experience when there was little experience to point to. Kennedy isn't doing that so there is no logical inconsistency.

i hope caroline kennedy becomes the senator of a state which she is deeply a part of, and greatly represents.
she seems to be a woman of enormous courage, compassion,fine intellect and grace.
her appreciation and understanding of social justice, law, the arts, education and knowledge of politics for the betterment of others seems to qualify her brilliantly, as far as i am concerned.
having lived with the asassination and legacy of her father....the bright lights of her uncles, the death of her legendary mother, having raised a fine family and being a highly educated and cognizant person who seems without bitterness, ruthlessness and corruption, in spite of all that she has endured from her earliest years, indicates to me that she has remarkably human qualities that will work toward the good.
i hope she becomes the senator.
whatever her family ties, i dont believe they should be a mark against her.....she seems to be a truly unique, dignified and gentle person who could make a wonderful contribution in her own right.
my best thoughts are with her.
yes you can, caroline!

This anti-Kennedy hysteria is getting out of hand. First, plenty of people with no prior legislative experience go to the Senate. We are currently hoping that a guy best known for being a writer and performer on "Saturday Night Live" squeaks out the Minnesota Senate Race. Second, the mouth-foaming about affronts to democracy and whatnot: HELLO, APPOINTMENTS ARE NOT DEMOCRATIC. They are, by nature, a state's executive plucking somone out of his back pocket to fill a seat that somebody else was elected to.

The anti-Kennedy frenzy seems to rest on the premise that appointing somebody who has never served in office before is Bad, while appointing someone who is holding or has held some other office is Good. But we do not hold our elective candidates to this standard. There was no outrage when Franken ran. There was no outrage when Joe Sestak ran for Congress. There was no outrage when Jean Carnahan got appointed to a dead man's seat. And, as others have noted above, there was no outrage when Hillary, who wasn't even from New York, ran. Does winning a Democratic primary somehow magically give one the 'experience' necessary to serve in the Senate?

If the voters of New York State are not happy with Caroline Kennedy's services, they will have a chance to vote her out in the 2010 Democratic primary and another chance to vote her out in the fall election. Democracy will have its say.

Seems like the people getting angry about this are not angry because of some committment to democracy or belief in experience as a virtue but because they are simply angry at the thought of another Kennedy in the Senate. Boo hoo hoo.

Vidor:

Re-read my comment above. Yes, I believe that governmental experience is important. But if you are going to buy the "broader experience" argument, there are tons of extremely smart and accomplished middle-class people with non-famous last names in many fields who one might turn to.

In other words, arguing that "you don't HAVE to have experience to be a Senator" doesn't get you to Caroline Kennedy. Only a belief that the children of the powerful are entitled by their birthright to things that the rest of us can't reach no matter how hard we strive gets you to Caroline Kennedy. And that should be the ideology of the Republicans, not the Democrats.

I will grab Caroline's tit and force feed her beer in support of this nomination.

Obama = change.

"Only a belief that the children of the powerful are entitled by their birthright to things that the rest of us can't reach no matter how hard we strive gets you to Caroline Kennedy."

All power to the Soviets!

Honestly, is this a surprise, that upper-class people have an easier path to power than Joe the Plumber does?

Oops! Sorry. Anonymous 6:02 p.m. was me.

With all her potential influence, Caroline Kennedy has done just about nothing to further progressive goals in this country. Now she's having a mid-life crisis or whatever and so she wants a senate seat handed to her? Give me a break. Go pay your dues, lady.

She's a spoiled brat. Did you know that Ted Kennedy endorsed Obama against Hillary because Caroline asked him to? You're talking about a woman that never hears "no" for an answer. For that reason alone, I'd like Paterson to tell her to piss off.

Al Franken...Bill Bradley...Bloomberg, the names of individuals that come up here who had no legislative experience only speak to why the CK concerns (and Jane Hamsher has lost her f-ing mind over this one) are so over blown.

And Eve mentions Trent Lott and his legistlative prowess, and right there you have an argument for CK.

The point about experience is well taken, the hand wringing and being "pissed off" is odd given you seem to grieving the loss of Elliot Spitzer who had neither legislative experience nor common sense.

"go pay your dues, lady."

caroline kennedy has more than paid her dues.
more than paid them.
how anyone can look at the tragedies she has shouldered, beginning at the earliest age....and imagine that she has not paid her dues, is hard to understand.
she has grown up in the world of the deepest hatefulness of politics, and has managed to keep her optimism, her idealism and her dignity.
dignity......what does that even mean anymore in political life?
we should welcome that rare quality.
she has led a meaningful, courageous, inspiring and dignified life and she has made positive contributions along the way.
i think she has a lot more character, insight and compassion than most people in politics and public life.
i think she will be an outstanding senator.
and she "actually" has a history and deeply rooted and commited life in new york. imagine that.
caroline kennedy=a fine choice for senator.

Ezra... I think you are a brilliant... writer. You should stick with writing and let the video people do video.

Sorry man.

caroline kennedy has more than paid her dues ... how anyone can look at the tragedies she has shouldered, beginning at the earliest age....and imagine that she has not paid her dues, is hard to understand

I meant "pay your dues" as in "go accomplish something of note," not "go suffer some more."

A whole lot of people have suffered a whole lot worse than Caroline Kennedy. Do you know what sucks even worse than losing your father and brother early? Losing them early and being dirt poor.

This isn't a suffering contest, and even if it were, Caroline Kennedy wouldn't even warrant an honorable mention. She has accomplished nothing noteworthy. Worse, she hasn't even tried to accomplish anything noteworthy. The only thing noteworthy about her at all is the fact that John Kennedy was her father. That is literally it. I am absolutely certain that there is someone in the state of New York who can be 100 times the senator this woman is likely to be.

"Alexander, Bayh, Bennett, Bingaman, Bond, Casey, Clinton, Coleman, Collins, Conrad, Corker, Cornyn, Dole, Hagel, Hatch, Kennedy, Kerry, Klobuchar, Kohl, Lautenburg, Lieberman, McConnell, Martinez, Ben Nelson, Salazar, Sessions, Specter, Warner, Webb, and Whitehouse."

Errr, your list is somewhat strained.

Ken Salazar - elected Colorado State Attorney General

John Kerry - elected Lt. Governor of Massachusetts

Norman Coleman - elected Mayor of St. Paul

Ben Nelson - elected Governor of Nebraska

Sessions - elected Attorney General of Alabama

Alexander - elected Governor of Tennessee

Corker - elected Mayor of Chattanooga

Bayh - elected Secretary of State of Indiana. elected Governor of Indiana.

Bond - elected Governor of Missouri. elected Missouri State Auditor.

Casey - elected Pennsylvania State Auditor General. elected Pennsylvania State Treasurer.

Specter - elected District Attorney of Philadelphia

Whitehouse - elected Rhode Island Attorney General

Lieberman - elected Ct. Attorney General

just because they were elected in state executive offices doesn't mean they weren't experienced in constituent service or negotiations, etc.

I'd be more flustered about this if the Senate were anywhere near a democratic institution.

Caroline Kennedy--she's a lot like Sarah Palin but with more taste, more money, more connections, and less experience.

And I'm a sucker for big-toothed redheads. What was that comment about the beer?

Shorter Jacqueline: CK supported BO; she deserves the seat.

my father was killed while serving this country too and I am guessing I came up harder than Ms. Kennedy. Now where is my appointment?

my father was killed while serving this country too and I am guessing I came up harder than Ms. Kennedy. Now where is my appointment?

Well, let's see. Do you have an irrational hold over the consciousness of weak-minded baby boomers? No you do not? Thank you come again.