Just to prove Tena's point, allow me to say that, while I have no strong opinions one way or the other about Caroline Kennedy, the fact that Harry Reid likes her makes me instantly inclined to dislike the idea of "Sen C. Kennedy (D-NY)." Of course, the choice of New York's senator is really none of my business (being as I am a citizen of Missouri), but why let that sort of consideration get in the way of my shooting off my trap?

I'm not a Caroline hater, by any means, and I agree with bluebell, below, about her probably being a reliable liberal vote. I also tend to think the experience argument isn't all that it's cracked up to be.

That said, there's no one else from New York? No one? She's stepping in now? Where has she been for the last 8 miserable freaking years? Not engaging publicly in the political process, certainly.

From Befuddledvoter, a wise and deliberative reader at the legal blog TalkLeft:

"There are over 250K people who have graduated from Columbia Law School. There have to be more who have graduated Harvard undergrad. Then, I am sure many of those people have been published also, and probably not books geared toward younger audiences. I am sure some have gone on to lifelong careers in law, having clerked and taught etc. Most, I am sure, have worked at least 40 hours per week.

"I understand about the aura surrounding CK. I understand it too well after this past presidential election.

"I think implicit in core Democratic values is the belief that position and achievement in this country should be merit based; that everyone should get a fair shake; that those who start out disadvantaged should get a helping hand.

"I just want to know what kind of person CK is; what she has done with her 51 years; and why she deserves this immense honor.

"Whoever is handling her is doing her a great disservice in not conveying HER story. I know her FAMILY story only. She may be an incredible person with great potential. I simply have no idea who she is and the extent of her potential."

I agree, I don't see any downside to Caroline, other than the Reid endorsement and a sense of entitlement, which quite frankly every Senator seems to have once they are in office.

A reliable liberal vote in the Senate is a valuable thing, and one less beholding to special interests could be a great thing.

Why not? Bigger question marks have been sent to the Senate.

Tena, I think Caroline Kennedy might be a fine pick. But I'm so distrustful of Reid, after years of talking tough and then accomodating the Rethugs, that I have to question his motivation here, fairly or not. I know that you disagree about Reid, but a lot of us out here are pretty steamed that he didn't do more with his leadership position, even with a razor-thin majority. (That's certainly never stopped the Repukes.)

What's not to get?

A political insider gets the inside track to a position. Same as it ever was. Difference is, this political insider is a "Kennedy", and criticizing a "Kennedy" is sort of like criticizing Reagan to a Republican: it's not done, evidently.

I'm supposed to think she deserves it because she's a Kennedy?

That's just complete and utter bullshit. There are some Kennedys who just weren't politically adept. That's what matters to me in this 57 seat Senate. Caroline Kennedy might be the next best thing since sliced bread, but politically, I have no idea of her skills.

You answered your own question - you said you don't like dynasties, except this one. Well, some of us don't like dynasties and don't think this warrants an exception.

In my view, we've reached a point where celebrity and family name have become far too important as factors in obtaining elected office, which leads to an unhealthy concentration of power among too few families, barriers to and disincentives for new people to join the process, and stagnation of ideas.

Greenwald did an excellent piece on this a while back: http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/12/03/aristocracy/index.html

Check out looseheadprop at FDL for some of the practical problems that appointing her could well produce for New York Democrats.

But I think you're mistaking the central question. The decision here is not "does Caroline Kennedy deserve to be New York's junior senator?" That seems to me to be a straw man designed to box in those against the appointment as being "Caroline Haters." But the actual question is "does Caroline Kennedy deserve to be New York's junior senator more than the other contenders, and if so, why?"

I think most of the serious contenders have devoted themselves to public service. Hers may have been higher profile starting at a younger age because, well, she's a Kennedy, and that allowed more opportunities. Whole family devoted to public service? That's a fine thing, but if you turn it around, it's saying that others are less deserving because other members of their families didn't choose public service or didn't have the resources to take that route.

The problem, as I see it, is that if you consider only the characteristics that really distinguish the candidates, you have, for most other serious candidates, "worked their way up, advancing the cause of New York Democrats," vs. "is a Kennedy." I have nothing against her, and would have no objection to her running for Senate on that basis, but having someone appointed on that basis makes me uncomfortable.

(And just to show I'm not a "hater," here's an argument for the other side from Al Giordiano that I find somewhat persuasive.)

I agree, what's the big deal? Maybe I'm missing it, but no one who has expressed their outrage here the past few day has offered an alternative along with reasons why that person would be so much better...Maybe I missed it, but haven't seen it.

I'm all ears. And don't give me Andrew Cuomo, either.

Who the $!#@ asked Harry Reid? It's Paterson's decision. Given that she would be my Senator, I want someone with more qualifications than having political strings pulled for her. Hillary didn't have Bill pulling strings for her. She went to upstate NY. She talked to the voters. Caroline Kennedy has lived in a cocoon all her life and now wants to go into politics and first stop is the Senate?

Even in seeking the Senate seat, other people are doing the hard work for her. RFK, Jr., Teddy Kennedy, Harry Reid. Here's a clue. Hold a press conference. Have actual political opinions that you are willing to share with the public and your would be constituents. Make your own case for why you should be Senator - current qualifications and what she will do if elected. Specifically. Hopefully she'll do something other than just nod when Ted Kennedy or Obama says to. If she can't make a basic case like that to Paterson herself, how is she ready to be Senator?

2 books about the law (not practicing law) and fundraising? Yeah, so much more qualified than Randi Weingarten.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randi_Weingarten

I don't think the relevant comparison is to other Senators. It's to other individuals in New York who might be interested in the position.

And you just made a more persuasive argument than anyone else has made with respect to CK. (And significantly better than Reid's. His argument is that she's a particular age, he's talked to her, and she's a star...Talk about uncompelling...--and why is he weighing in, anyway?)

Thank god someone else sees what I see - I think she's qualified, I like her and it's not because I think the Kennedies are great.

But you know CT, it's kind of weird to someone my age anyway to hear someone say "I'm supposed to like her because she's a Kennedy?" Cause you know, yeah, the Kennedies do get respect just for who they are because they've really given their all as a family to the country and to progressive causes. Always.

As far as dynasties go, I resent being accused of not liking them except for this one. She is not being considered for the White House or a cabinet post. I don't mind political dynasties in Congress at all. I don't approve of them in the White House.

Thank god someone else sees what I see - I think she's qualified, I like her and it's not because I think the Kennedies are great.

But you know CT, it's kind of weird to someone my age anyway to hear someone say "I'm supposed to like her because she's a Kennedy?" Cause you know, yeah, the Kennedies do get respect just for who they are because they've really given their all as a family to the country and to progressive causes. Always.

As far as dynasties go, I resent being accused of not liking them except for this one. She is not being considered for the White House or a cabinet post. I don't mind political dynasties in Congress at all. I don't approve of them in the White House.

Only $65M in two years? And why was she content to focus on raising that piddling sum (the annual budget for NY City schools is $21.05 Billion) from private sources instead of advocating for greater public dollars, using her name to bring attention to the issue?