I think Caroline Kennedy would be a great choice for Hillary's seat in the Senate...she comes from a very political family and has done a good job in raising money for different causes.
Caroline, like the rest of the Kennedy's are all for the working class and she would be an asset.
Not one to grab the limelight but rather act behind the scenes, but will be able to connect to the average person I feel if she got the chance of becoming Senator for New York.

I say this as someone whose knowledge of the woman is strictly at the tabloid level...

Caroline is a little older than me and I grew up with her as the reluctant Kennedy. In her teen years she seemed sullen and withdrawn in front of the cameras and had a reputation for rebelling against her mom (which was understandable). It was all mild though, considering. Still it was surprising to see her morph as an adult into probably everything her mother (and most mothers) would have wanted for their daughter's life.

The strength and judgment she's shown to lead a quiet, productive life is admirable.

So she's cashing in chips that very few have to cash in, I have to say I'm glad to see her do it -- give her the two years and let the voters go from there. We've seen wives of dead senators and friends of presidents take over with far fewer qualifications.

And Caroline is not a newcomer to the world of power, she's going ramp-up faster than most to Washington D.C. with an enviable assortment of been-there relatives and friends who will mentor and coach her.

If she does take the role, I hope she soars. But if she tastes it and retires back into the private life she's seemed to prefer over the years, I'd understand that too.

It will be interesting.

She experienced a tragedy! She reads poetry! And since she's famous, of course she'll use that to achieve greatness!

This entire article is about the author's admiration of Kennedy--NOT why New Yorkers should accept her as their Senator. Every supporter of her appointment ignores the tiny fact that she would be unelected, and that New Yorkers will eventually have to decide whether they want her representing them.

NY, IL, DE and now CO should ideally have special elections instead of governors and Harry Reid picking who they like in the Senate. Then Caroline might actually have to, you know, become a politician and campaign.

Then again, some of the Kennedy sheen would probably wear off if she did that. She might turn out not to be the hyper-intelligent, sensitive, automatically capable figure that her supporters assume she is. (See Kathleen Kennedy Townshend in MD.)

If Al Franken and Arnold Schwartznegger are qualified then Caroline Kennedy easily exceeds the minimum requirements. Experience is not as important as talent, energy and ideals. Caroline Kennedy eaily meets those requirements. The 12% approval rating of the US Congress shows that experience has little to do with good government and policy. Its time for new ideas and new faces to replace the incestuous ingrained Congress.

Most of the incumbent senators had to work hard to get there. This is so un-Kennedy-fair. When is America going to stop genuflecting when a Kennedy enters the room?

re: Clinton: Two wrongs make a right now?

Western democracy is founded on a rejection of biological dynasties. They are, however, creeping back in. It isn't that she isn't qualified. Lots of senators have thin credentials. It's that whenever you allow something like this, or Clinton, or Bush jr., or Beau Biden, you erode the rejection of hereditary rule and ultimately begin to imperil the American democratic experiment. Don't roll your eyes. I used the word erode deliberately. Erosion happens slowly and almost imperceptably, and then all at once the foundations of your house fall into the sea.

I was expecting a well written essay that benchmarks Caroline Kennedy's skills and political / business experiences to those of previous NY Senators. What I got was a love letter. Clinton,the very least, legitimately campaigned for her Senate seat.

jetsfan123, you said it all.

If this endorsement of Caroline Kennedy is the best anyone can come up with, then she is truly unqualified to be the next Senator of New York.

On a most basic level, experience, Ms. Brooks appears to be grasping at straws. She fails to name a single _work_ accomplishment of Ms. Kennedy. Indeed Ms. Kennedy has some limited experience that could be highlighted, but nowhere in this article does Ms. Brooks provide a single reason, drawing from Ms. Kennedy's work experience, to distinguish her in any way from any other law school graduate.

Rather, and this is simply insane, Ms. Brooks projects a personal narrative onto Ms. Kennedy that "implies" certain qualities about her, and then rationalizes why these qualities not only distinguish Ms. Kennedy, but make her qualified to be a Senator for New York State.

She then digs an even deeper hole by analogizing Caroline Kennedy with Ted Kennedy. This argument is absurd on its face. Because her Uncle has performed well in the Senate, the niece will as well? On what bizarro planet does this make any sense? Like Ms. Brooks, I'll ignore the offensive nepotism inherent in this argument. It's been well-addressed elsewhere.

I have to question whether there are any editors at The Daily Beast or any criteria for selecting articles. I'm from Massachusetts, liberal, and, predictably, a supporter of Ted Kennedy and predisposed to (irrationally) supporting the family's activities. But this article is such an atrocious, irrational, substanceless endorsement of Caroline Kennedy, I have to wonder how it got published.

And if I was Caroline Kennedy, I'd be embarrassed that this is the best anyone could come up with to support me. Ms. Brooks makes Ms. Kennedy sound utterly pathetic.

"Muddy upstate barns."

That's all we are. We don't matter. Thanks for that!

Why doesn't she take Teddy's seat.

This is just pathetic.

"Muddy upstate barns."

Thanks for that. That's all we are to you. We want a senator from the rest of New York.

But thats the thing. Hillary wasn't qualified. Nor was she even a New Yorker. The Clintons purchased a home in the place they felt Hillary would have the best chance of winning and that happened to be New York. They had never lived or showed any interest in New York prior to them leaving the White House. Had Rudy not gotten Cancer, I'm not so sure Hillary would have even become a Senator. But as a New Yorker, I would say she did a fairly good job, but better than someone else could have done? I don't know. But at least she won the seat fair and square and wasn't handed the seat because she supported Al Gore. And it comes down to this...I am sure Caroline Kennedy is a good person and does a good job running the New York Ballet and raising money for various causes, but is she the most qualified person or woman for that matter for the job? Any objective person who is aware of the many New Yorkers who could potentially fill the seat and have earned their positions without a popular name would have to say...NO.

Why not?

Because there are about a dozen far more qualified, experienced and committed candidates who are deserving of that position. For a list of them, look elsewhere on TDB.

As for the "tempered by personal tragedy" stuff, you are getting into Oscar Wilde/Little Nell territory with that. To quote Dorothy Parker, "I may fwow up" the next time somebody advances the notion that being America's Orphan is a qualification for being handed great power.

If you feel sorry for Caroline, why don't you just send her a plant or something.

I think she would be an asset to the senate. She is just as qualified as Hillary was. If I lived in NY I would vote for her.

I'm sure you can find dozens of people with similar "qualifications." Why not give them a try

does this author know what she's talking about????

Hillary ran for almost 2 years. going up against Rudy Guiliani. Nothing was given to her moron.

Ms. Kennedy is without a doubt a talented, intelligent, well spoken woman who reads poetry. She might well make an excellent Senator; however, were she Caroline Schlossberg with a law degree who has written several books and raised a lot of money for the NYC school system and not Caroline Kennedy who has written several books and raised a lof of money for the NYC school system, she would not be considered for the position.

There are many women of Ms. Kennedy's age, intellect and accomplishments who have worked for years within the party. Give one of them the leg up to a senate seat that they would never have otherwise. When the seat comes up for election by the voters of NY state, Ms. Kennedy will still have her name, family connections and her estimable ability to raise money; if at that time she can beat the incumbent then "Welcome to politics, Senator Kennedy."

And, as a side note, while Senator - soon to be Secretary of State - Clinton certainly had many of the same advantages that Ms. Kennedy does in regard to name recognition, family connections and an estimable ability to raise money, she won her seat in an openly contested election; it would be unfair to all concerned - including Ms. Kennedy - for CK to do any less.

Can someone please explain to me why these foreign nationals think that they are qualified to comment on on U.S. politics.

Christopher Hitchens, Andrew Sullivan, and now Geraldine Brooks.

Why doesn't Ms. Brooks spend some time in the muddy barns of New Zealand, since she probably has never been to upstate New York, let alone western or central New York.

hammer: "Its time for new ideas and new faces to replace the incestuous ingrained Congress."

I just about spit out my coffee when I read that. You really think that a Kennedy is a new face with new ideas? This is the ULTIMATE example of an incestuous Congress.

And cicero: thanks, you explained this wonderfully.

She was raised in a political family ... think of the conversations she has been able to learn from and develop opinions. Her temperament is perfect for public office because she does not relish the spotlight. She has written books, encouraged reading, public service, she's a constitutional scholar. I must also add that she lost her father to public service ... I admire her courage. She enourages me.

She knows more about our Constitutional rights than the last WH resident.