Cheat Sheet

There is a small contingent of vocal grousers on the Caroline Kennedy appointment. However, for all their grousing, no one is actually talking about anyone else. When these people are pressed for other suggestions, they speak only of "many more qualified people." Then they revert to their inexperience screed. The "inexperience" argument should be suspect. Mere months ago it was Barack Obama who was so inexperienced that he could not be president. Who are these people who decide what experience qualifies one for office?

A good education, a demonstrated work ethic, good interpersonal skills and an inquiring mind are what is needed to do pretty much anything. Caroline Kennedy's NYT endorsement of Obama made a different to my parents who were leaning toward Hillary and Edwards.

CK articulately and wisely supported Obama when it mattered--and I support her.

Was it not the media that created this coronation scenario to begin with? And now the inevitable comeuppance. Can't wait for the resurrection story.

The Kennedy endorsements had a negligible impact on Obama's victory, if even that. Did you notice he lost Massachusetts and California? Where else would the Kennedy name be expected to count more than those states. In any event, having endorsed Obama over our home state Senator - the wisdom of which is yet to be proven - is hardly a compelling qualification for someone who has never demonstrated any of the political skills a Senator needs to have. "Experience" does not require having been previously elected, but it should mean that you have showed some kind of leadership beyond raising a modest amount of dough for the schools from your fellow socialites.

Ms. Kennedy is an unapologetic snob. She does not like people, especially regular folk.

She's mean underneath it all.

Caroline is not at all suited for this job. Her personality is reticent, and she has no political smarts or experience whatsoever. Being a Kennedy does not anoint her, and I'm insulted as a Democrat that she won't allow any real dialogue about her positions,finances, or details about her supposed track record.
Her books and work with Bloomberg are not the kind of political experience required.

For one thing Caroline lacks speaking skills and communicates poorly. Her sense of entitlement is pathetic, and I can just see Guiliani or any other GOP pol salivate about running hard against her in 2 years.

She is incapale of running a crisp,focused campaign replete with policy details, and street fighter instincts which all successful pols must have to survive,

The cult of Camelot should not take down this crucial senate seat because she feels it's an opportune moment to "grab it".

Her sense of entitlement and the pro Kennedy bloc do not offer the people any comfort about this grab at power by a totally inexperienced,shy,inarticulate "Kennedy".

Moynihan is right: Caroline Kennedy is a scholar and has demonstrated an extraordinary work ethic and superb democratic values. She would be a fantastic United States Senator for the State of New York. If her brother had lived, no one would be grousing if he wanted the position. Caroline Kennedy already has a tremendous amount of power, whether people like to admit it or not. No one else can even come close, so no one else can do for New York what she can. Caroline Kennedy for Senate!

I know Gov. Paterson is blind enough to appoint Caroline. However, it will give me the opportunity to vote her out in 2010.

Daniel Patrick Moynihan may have held no public office prior to senator BUT he was elected, defeated some stellar opponents in the primary, and unseated an incumbent!

Wow. This controversy is just weird! A few years ago, the cry was for term limits, because we just HAD to do away with those "professional politicians". Now, people oppose a possible Kennedy appointment because she's not good enough pol? Then the same people (with the strong encouragement of the media) talk about "enthronement". Doesn't anybody understand what this appointment is about?

First of all, it isn't your decision, it is Governor Patterson's decision. And in making that decision, what has to weigh hugely is: Since he or she will have to defend the seat twice in the next four years, can the appointee hold the office? Caroline Kennedy can. She probably can raise $100 million or so it will require to keep the office. Heck, she could probably self-finance.

It's clear from all his barking against her possible appointment that Peter King thinks so, too. And I'll bet HE thinks her name is a plus.

Questioning her qualifications is both intellectually and politically dishonest. She is easily far better educated and far more accomplished than half the people who have served in the Senate. In fact, she is studious. She might actually read those bills. Her speaking style and demeanor seems measured and thoughtful, much like a certain former Senator from Illinois, who stammers and says "uh", occasionally.

Her political views seem to mirror or mesh with those of the previous officeholder and the Senior Senator. And she has a close professional relationship with the President-elect.

I dunno, this just strikes me as a no-brainer.