she is not the most qualified. why do we assume she is a quick study? other women have battled in the political arena and deserve a shot. this whole thing is aristocratic and vile.

The primary concern should be holding that seat in 2010. And one thing the Kennedy haters are overlooking is that Caroline is probably the best bet to do that.

Caroline Kennedy just might be that person.

...or she might not. It's not "Kennedy hating" to suggest that Ms. Kennedy, while a lovely and admirable woman, comes to this with little more than name recognition to really recommend her. She has not spoken publicly at great length (indeed, she's done nothing to engage public support for her appointment, which might be indicative of a bigger problem), we have little idea about her views on key issues for New Yorkers, and the "family dynasty" she represents is rarely thought through fully on the left (ask around Massachusetts for how reverently the family is perceived).

Clear-headed viewing of this would at least suggest that others should be considered, seriously, as an alternative. The idea that Kennedy represents the best hope for Dems in 2010 is at least questionable - she has no real connection to upstate, and she'd have a hard time prevailing in conservative neighborhoods across Queens, Long Island and Staten Island, just for starters (you'd have to ask, too, how the Catholic hierarchy will deal with what are her likely fully pro-choice and pro-gay stances). Indeed, her novice status suggests the best hope the GOP has to regain some footing statewide - they could hardly ask for more than an untested newcomer still feeling her way around the state. Yes, her celebrity catapults her past some nagging questions, but it will not solve all problems, and so far, though I think she's a terrific person, I don't want her for my Senator. I can't muster the energy to make it a battle (you'd simply have to accept her and hope for the best, I think)... but I hope someone does fight this, or at least I hope cooler heads think longer and harder about this than anyone seems to have this far.

I live in NY so it is not just talk for me. What exactly has she done to deserve to be plopped in one of the most powerful seats in the country? It is a political seat. I politician should be in it. Someone who runs for office and wins--any office in the state. My god, is there really a shortage of good politicians in NY? "Well her dad was a good senator" is not an argument.

Maybe Caroline Kennedy has some qualifications, but the reason she's being moved to the head of the line over thousands of equally qualified people is that she's JFK's daughter.

I think that's ridiculous, and I'm a couple years older than Caroline, so it's not just a generational thing. I'd say it's a small-d democratic thing.

If she wants the seat, let the governor appoint a caretaker to serve for the rest of this Congress, then she can run for the seat in 2010.

As unseemly as it may be, nothing is more important in the Senate than seniority, and whomever is appointed to fill this vacancy is going to be amongst the very most junior members of the Democratic caucus, with very little ability to influence the chamber themselves. I'm not necessarily in favor of appointing Caroline to the seat (I don't have as much of a problem with dynasties in general, but appointing someone on little more than name is still a bit unseemly, to say the least), but I think it's at least worth considering that none of the other candidates are going to able to exert near the amount of individual influence from the seat as Caroline, whether through her familial connections to one of the Senate's most senior members or through her relationship with the new President. Is that reason enough to give her the seat? I don't know, but it's certainly worth considering from the point of view of the state's interest.

An appointed Senate term is an amazing opportunity to give a giant boost to someone who would probably never run for the office. Picking a legacy seems like such a complete waste. Why not find a young and highly competent upstate mayor or state legislator that would have difficulty raising money.

And one thing the Kennedy haters are overlooking is that Caroline is probably the best bet to do that.

Well I'm sold! Because a blog commenter said so without a single example. Done and done! Let the coronation begin!

Let the coronation begin!

Well I'm NOT sold. Because after all, we must demand that our Senators have prior legislative experience (how's Al Franken doing with his recount, anyway?) or that our appointees must have held prior elective office (what's Jean Carnahan up to these days?).

Malcolm Gladwell is smiling.

Well I'm NOT sold. Because after all, we must demand that our Senators have prior legislative experience (how's Al Franken doing with his recount, anyway?) or that our appointees must have held prior elective office (what's Jean Carnahan up to these days?).

No, we don't have to demand that. But we can choose from among the thousands of qualified, smart New Yorkers without legislative experience but with more interesting life experiences than Caroline Kennedy.

There's a leap between "choose a fresh face" and "choose Caroline Kennedy", and that's a leap you only can make if you think there's something about being the daughter of JFK that entitles her to a free pass into the Senate.

Look, I continue to hold to my position: being a Kennedy should disqualify her, not qualify her. The Democrats should be about fighting the privileges of wealth and celebrity, not reinforcing them. If Caroline Kennedy wants to become a politician, let her start at the bottom like everyone else has to.

Queen Caroline is already on royal progress through the more wretched corners of her new realm, no doubt dispensing generous favors and scraps of the delicious fare from her table to the ragged peasants lining her route.

G-d shave the Queen!