OK, she has no public image to judge her on, and she's not saying anything. If that meets the requirement to be a senator, she must be in a massive group. Oh, but she's the daughter of JKF, that changes everything! (If we were in India.)

We ran Sarah Palin out of town on a rail for being a vacuous candidate who wouldn't talk to the press. Why should Caroline Kennedy get a pass to hold such a powerful position simply due to family connections? Jeez, democrats, get it the fuck together!!!

We need to learn Caroline's details, and make a choice. She has wonderful credentials on paper, no matter what kooky people say. But we need to move forward from that.

Can she talk? We need to hear her speak.

http://www.prochoiceny.org/news/headlines/200812191.shtml

The only thing Governor Patterson wants to hear is the sound of money coming in for 2010. And he doesn't want to compete for those dollars with a Senate candidate who can't raise significant funds on their own. He's up for election in 2010 and that is certainly not lost on him. Kennedy can raise the dough and that will end up being the bottom line.

As for abortion rights, that's a non-issue. If Caroline Kennedy turns out to be anti-choice, I'll eat Joan's hat.

That she didn't vote is somewhat embarrassing but in my opinion, weighed against my first point, it's an issue that will not matter all that much.

And not for nothing, the tiresome rhetoric about politicians who have "paid their dues" and have "experience" coming in from all sides (not from Joan) amounts to a hill of beans. For all the posturing, I look at a guy like Chuck Schumer and see someone who paid his dues and earned a reputation for the so-called 'toughness' and experience needed in New York.

The only problem with that is Chuck's toughness and experience went out the window when it came to cracking down on Wall Street. He's as much responsible for this disaster as anyone.

So paying dues? I've seen enough of that, thank you very much.

Salon has been exceedingly petty lately. It is a senate appointment not an election. She would flll a vacant seat left by someone who never lived there until elected whose primary qualification was wife .. unless you count a law degree and a lot of fundraising and public service. At least Caroline has lived there. No one is being forced to appoint her but she seems to have impressed the Senate majority leader.

Enough with the picking of nits I say and making up litmus tests for this and also for invocations.

I don't believe it is a done deal for Hilary as Secretary of State. We have a long way to go before that seat is actually open.

CK does not deserve/ merit this slot.

Let her retire to the Hamptons and ski in Aspen.

Are we not getting just a little weary of the enfranchised pretending to care about the rest of us?

Whether she's an intellect is another matter. From what I've seen, she's spent her time in the typical leisure activities of the spoiled rich, supporting culture and the arts, and fundraising for local schools. Please.

I like the Kennedys. But the silver spoon aspect creeps me right out. We need accomplished, intelligent people in office now, not a lazy, self satisfied heiress.

I have political reasons for being quite fond of Kelli Conlin -- so much so that I wish Paterson would appoint her to Hillary Clinton's seat. Why not? She has a great deal more public experience.

The problem with Caroline Kennedy -- besides the trading on her name (the poor gal can't help it!) and her lack of solid experience in the world of work or politics is that she wants to stick her little toe into this and be handed the seat. She needs to talk to real people (not the old boys network in the Senate) and actually answer the questions of reporters. What she needs is a press conference. Then she goes on the record as to many of her views.

Politicians with experience already have a record, a paper trail of their votes.

If Kennedy isn't tough enough to do these things, is she tough enough for the senate?

I keep seeing her photographed with men. There's nothing wrong with that but she needs to be seen with more powerful women. Otherwise, because of the youthful images we have of her and her lack of experience, she runs the risk of being seen as the sort of woman who is always deferring to Daddy figures. You all know the sort -- shy, unassertive, male-identified.

I could see if she was being appointed to a full term, but she will be filling out the last two years of Obama's term, and then she will have to fight for it.

Sonny Bono's widow was appointed to fill his House seat, and she was a former model and trophy wife, I would say Caroline Kennedy would be a fine choice.

Joan, it seems (and I may be wrong) that you are assuming that because Caroline is devoutly Catholic, she must be against a woman's right to choose. It's entirely possible to be both pro-life and pro-choice. Your average liberal Catholic is usually personally opposed to abortion for themselves, but would not actively work to take away other women's right to choose.

I'm about as far-left as anyone you'll meet, not a Catholic and am 100% pro-choice. But I have no objection to someone being pro-life... as long as they are not anti-choice. There's a difference.

But for the record, Caroline is pro-choice. Give her a chance.

Certainly she's a strong liberal. The evidence for that is overwhelming.

Overwhelming? I haven't seen any of it, apart from her last name. Elucidate me, please.

I do know,

my home computer?

I'm shush.

O 'hacked'

and is out!

It's wackier.

O Whatever.

O it is dead.

walter_mop?

Oh, coo_coo,

Who do care?

sop_sop, Oy!

Evil incarnate?

Whatever, Oy!

Oh, my O day.

Whoopee. Oy!

Hang in there.

However? Oho.