All of the objections applied with greater force to Hillary CLinton, and besides, Caroline Kennedy has been a New York resident far longer than La Hillary. Doesn't matter: if Caroline wants the job, Caroline is gonna get it. And a good thing for New York it is, too.

So now we have two articles essentially dissing Caroline Kennedy for not being "qualified" enough to serve as the junior Senator from New York.

What, pray tell, disqualifies Caroline Kennedy from serving as a Senator?

Her B.A. from Harvard and her law degree from Columbia? Or how about her career as an attorney specializing in privacy rights and co-authoring two books on that subject? I suppose her founding of the Profiles in Courage Award isn't enough, or the fact that she worked for the NY Dept. of Education and raised around $65 million for public schools. And I guess the fact that she currently serves as President of the Kennedy Library Association as well as a director for both the Commission on Presidential Debates and the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund and was named as a top adviser for President-elect Obama's vice presidential search committee matters not at all. As for her politics, the fact that she is solidly liberal clearly means she's undesirable, given how overrun the Democratic Party is with those people.

Neither article offers any concrete reason to say "No, thanks" to Caroline Kennedy as the junior Senator from New York except that she doesn't have much political experience. Funny, didn't a bunch of Republicans say the same thing about our President-elect?

I'm shock to see this on the pages of Salon. Do you believe in democracy or oligarchy?!?!?! Senate seats are not hereditary. We've had enough people advance to high office because of their father/uncle/husband. Don't get me wrong, I like Hillary, but I ultimately couldn't vote for her in the primary because there is something inherently wrong with having Presidents with the same last names too close to each other (why people didn't think that with Bush I and II is beyond me too).

For those of you that keep throwing up "what about Hillary?" - at least she campaigned and won her seat fair and square. Plus, she'd worked on all kind of policy initiatives. Ms. Kennedy - who I think is also a lovely person - has not done anything to deserve her seat. She writes books and fundraises for foundations. Giving her the seat is just has bad as Gov. Blago selling Obama's - except that instead of money it's being sold in exchange for her Kennedy name and all of the prestige that goes along with it (and all of her rich friends that will be oh so appreciative).

For those of you who talk about her "inspirational" qualities - exactly what is inspiring about her? What is her vision? What does she want to accomplish for NY and the nation? Does she have any policy goals? Or just thinks it'll be fun to hang out with Obama in Washington, since they're good friends now and all. What's to say she won't just continue her ceremonial duties and leave the work of governing to paid hands.

Non-rich candidates have such a hard time getting elected in the first place. Why not give one of those, who has perhaps actually worked in government before, the benefit of incumbency for 2010? How much longer will we continue to let ourselves be governed by oligarchy? Where does it end?

People who are pushing her and somehow arguing this elusive "star" quality have not even proved that. John Jr. at least had charisma. She is merely a rich, connected, mildly attractive parttime worker and apparently a good mom.

I commend her for these. However, she hasn't even so much as given a rousing speech.

Is "Well ... but ... but she's a Kennedy" really the rational argument you want to make?

@ zwrite:

John F. Kennedy was a Harvard grad. Even if his children only had gentleman's/gentlewoman's C's, they would have been admitted to Harvard on the basis of legacy preference. John Jr. flunked the bar exam three times. He was probably bright enough to be a senator but by most accounts, he couldn't hold a candle to his father's or even his mother's intelligence.

I recently had the opportunity to see Caroline Kennedy speak at DeAnza College in Cupertino California as part of a women's series. The other speakers I've heard include Maya Angelou, Jane Fonda and Lily Tomlin.

In each case, with the exception of Caroline Kennedy, the women were lively, engaging, thoughtful in their remarks, and described how their life work was translating to doing more good out in the world.

I was so excited for the opportunity to see Caroline Kennedy because she is a woman I nominally looked up to. We are about the same age and though she has been able to spend her time as an at-home mom, I felt that because of her family and their history, there must be a professional with aspirations to help the world lurking inside her.

Instead, friends I attended this event with remarked how she seemed like "the neighbor next door," which was a polite way of saying she presented as unambitious, relatively uninformed, disinterested in the larger issues, and a weak speaker/presenter. Some brushed this performance off as her shyness, and perhaps that is at the base of it. However, as a senator, Caroline will not be effective if she cannot or does not want to develop relationships with her constituents, her fellow senators, and the larger body politic. Sure, she has friends in high places, but that won't carry her through a senate seat. And, it won't be in the best interests of the citizens of New York to appoint someone with such low energy and no track record of real accomplishment.

I'd like to see all those liberals who opposed Hillary Clinton's Presidential bid on the grounds that being a Clinton, Bush or Dole, does not make the Senator any better than her competition, and smacks of nepotism, forsake hypocrisy and stand up and be counted.

The Chris Mathews and Co., who reveled in denigrating Sen. Clinton's achievements by declaring that she only became a Senator, because (a) she was married to the then most popular Democrat, the 42nd President of our country; and (b) because the last name alone, endowed the Senate seat on her, need to clarify to us, why it is that Ms. Kennedy is any better equipped than Sen. Clinton for the position.

Ms. Kennedy's resumé reflects exactly what she really is - a very well endowed, highly-placed socialite, who has pursued a career in what all socialites aspire to and choose to do - fundraisers for the study of the arts, betterment of impoverished people, political causes which fit their agenda and philosophical beliefs and improvement of the lot of hapless children. Her degree in law was but a past time. During the feudal era, most members of the nobility were the ones who made discoveries, boosted science and technology, patronized litterateurs, sculptors, the gamut, in Europe and why? Because they had the wherewithal and leisure to do so. Nevertheless, there was a French Revolution, the Protestant Movement, the flight of the Huguenots, etc., directly attributable to the inequality that was rampant in the socio-political structure.

Sen. Clinton on the other hand, used her degree to great advantage, was actually the major bread winner of the family, and even pursued social and political goals, though not always in the most politic manner. Most critics forget that the Senator won her seat in the Senate - it wasn't bestowed upon her by anyone. She is well-loved in Upstate New York, a region, culturally, the very opposite of New York City; yet, she is even more cherished in the City and the suburbs. There was no Uncle Teddy in the horizon, to run interference for her; instead, her husband, the President, was alternately reviled for his sexual escapades (how many politicians have participated in the same form of ignominy since Pres. Clinton? Too many to count, right?), or reluctantly praised for his political acumen, while being denigrated for a hundred other reasons.

Sen. Clinton went on her "listening tour" and actually listened. Ms. Kennedy has demanded her seat because she is the sole remaining progeny of the most beloved Democratic President in history, cut down in his youth and too soon for the nation's collective conscience. Since Sen. Clinton conceded the race, we have heard a whole slew of "journalists" and opinion mongers say that Sen. Clinton’s original stand on the War brought her down. Let's get real for a change - it was all the support the President Elect got from Teddy and Caroline Kennedy, which did the trick.

Ms. Kennedy is by no means the most natural choice for the senate seat, because it originally belonged to the Late Robert Kennedy - Robert Kennedy, Jr. should be that person. Other than Ms. Ethel Kennedy, it might behoove all the Caroline Kennedy supporters to remember, that Robert Kennedy's own children, had chosen to stand behind Hillary Clinton. Only after she gave up her pursuit did they, and the rest of us, throw in our support behind Mr. Obama. Since Ms. Kennedy had designs on Sen. Clinton's seat, the least she could have done is to be loyal to New York, and represent us New Yorkers. Perhaps she should learn that lesson from Sen. Clinton, who despite suffering through a very contentious campaign, has proven beyond any doubt that she is a Democrat first and then a candidate pursuing her own goals - never mind the nonsense we keep hearing about the Clintons always looking after their own interest - another piece of perfidy to perpetuate the monstrous image of the Clintons that several senior members of the DNC have defined and the Media has underlined. Sen. Clinton has exemplified party unity and loyalty. Ms. Kennedy should learn some of that, serve the State a little, not just her own charities, and then perhaps we can be persuaded to support and vote for her. So, Ms. Kennedy, thanks, but no thanks - better luck next time. If she is imposed on us, we shall do all we can in 2010 to replace her with a more amenable New Yorker.