But I like what I do know.

Also, I would like to see a woman fill that seat, though obviously it's not a requirement.

I think this would be about the ultimate in nepotism.  She seems like a good person, but she's done virtually nothing in politics aside from having the right last name.  At least Andrew Cuomo, no poster child for pulling oneself up by one's bootstraps himself, went out and got elected to something on his own.

I would rather have some qualified Latino Dem politician take the seat rather than a crony who is not going to challenge the new President on even a single issue. I am sorry being a Kennedy is not a qualification for such an important job.

...with your assessment, since he's already called upon her to play an integral part in regard to naming Biden to the ticket!

So, your difference of opinion with Barack Obama's sentiments is duly noted.

I don't think it's a horrible pick by any stretch of the imagination, according to the Wiki bio Bob posted above, she is a lawyer, has experience working in both DC and NY, she certainly has the liberal creds, and might make a great senator.
We've put less experienced people in Senate seats (John Tester, Jim Webb, etc), why not give her a chance if New Yorkers support it?

Time to bring out the big guns.

I love the idea.

I'm a little surprised that she hasn't been set up to inherit Ted Kennedy's seat when he's eventually forced to resign due to ailing health.  I can't think of anyone in Massachusetts that would whisper a single word against that.

I'm normally not in favor of legacy candidates, but Caroline is an accomplished woman in her own right, and has already done a yeoman's service in vetting the VP.

I wouldn't rank her among the top speakers in the country, but being a senator isn't all about speeches as much as knowing how to work closely and well with people who don't necessarally see eye-to-eye with you on every issue.  On that mark, I'm sure she'd do just fine.

(1) Has a famous last name.

(2) Has lady parts.

(3) Supported Obama.

This has gotta be confusing for some folks.

..unless there's an indisputably better candidate than the names I've seen floated so far. Leadership is about more than wonkery.

Being famous and highly regarded won't hurt her re-election prospects at all. She may not have the campaign machinery now, but I can't see how her famous family would abandon her in that department by the time the 2010 campaign rolls around.

will be active in politics.  At this point, she seems to be good choice. But only time will tell, how she will perform as a politician and people's representative. Folks upset over her support for Obama early in the primaries aren't been fair.

i like her - but i almost want her to stay away from office since this family seems cursed everytime it does...

so my final analysis is:  good?

Count me against this one.  Yes, I think it does smack of cronyism if someone without any of the ordinary qualifications but with a famous last name is appointed as a Senator.  Hillary Clinton also rose in good part on her family connections, but she went out and ran for the seat.  I think people would have found it very odd if Hillary (who had much more substantive prior experience, including being involved in the Watergate hearings) had been initially appointed as a Senator, and I find it similarly odd that a Kennedy who has never held a political office would be appointed as a Senator.

Remember all that talk about political dynasties during the primaries?

The Clintons aren't a dynasty.  The Kennedys are.  I don't know what qualifies Caroline Kennedy to the high office of New York Senator, other than her name.

I'm sure there're dozens of New Yorkers that have more extensive public service resumes than Caroline.  Unfortunately for them, they don't have a name like Kennedy.

As I wrote in the front page article, I'm a little ambivalent.  I have to assume that there are public servants who have a proven record who would be superior choices.  Obviously she's very intelligent, but her Wiki bio does not clarify her independent qualifications and achievements very well - she's a lawyer who has served on a number of boards, several of which are family-related.  Maybe she is the best nominee, it's just that this doesn't seem like a slam-dunk choice to me.

I really dislike how having a famous last name is half the battle in American politics.

There is probably a good chance she would win if she ran for it, but a bit conflicted that she gets appointed her first try at elected office.

She seems very intelligent, and certainly a liberal and a good democrat.

But, I also am bothered by the dynasty thing a bit, and also by the celebrity/name thing.

Of course, Cuomo has the same name recognition, which is a big deal in politics...and, he has already served in government officially.

I would have trouble choosing, but I would lean towards Cuomo, and if Caroline wants to hold office, let her run for congress someplace.

And she should accept the appointment if it is offered to her. Her qualifications include many national, state and city efforts where she effectively brought together a wide range of people to accomplish different tasks. It's ironic how the greatest and nastiest comments seem to be coming from supporters of other Democrats being  considered for the appointment. Upstate New Yorkers and city dwellers would support her in huge numbers based on her ability to access whoever she needed to access to represent and provide for the needs of New Yorkers. She has no partisan baggage or enemies I'm aware of, except maybe those who would support Giuliani or some Republican or another Democrat. She's smart and appears to consider herself suited to the job. As do I.

She seems like a very nice lady. But let's try to discourage dynasties. I find it hard to believe there isn't a single qualified democrat from that area.

A Kennedy? Ugh. Terrible choice.

The support for her and dissent are split between pumas or semi puma's and obama supporters. Still arguing experience is hilarious. I say the less experience but the more intelligent and good judgment a person has should be the qualification. I see Clinton clingers are arguing experience again, your arguments lost in the primaries and in the election too. Give it up and get over it. plus she helped Obama select his VP and was a close confidant in his team. as far as I am concerned that is a lot more experience than some no-body names that are being floated.

I am sure if obama wants her in the senate, she will be the next senator but we don't know if that is true yet.

After all, Her father was presdient and two uncles were/are senators.  What other qualifications would we need to know about.

She would join an illustrious group of dynasty pols--let's just look at the senate:

John Sununu (son of governor)
Judd Gregg (son of governor)
Olympia Snowe (wife of former gov.)
Ted Kennedy (brother of president)
Chris Dodd (son of senator)
Hillary Clinton (wife of president)
Bob Casey (son of governor)
Mary Landrieu (daughter of New Orleans mayor)
Evan Bayh (son of senator)
Lisa Murkowski (daughter of governor)
Mark Pryor (son of senator)

sen-elects:

Tom Udall (son of congressman and Interior secretary)
Mark Udall (son of congressman)

and that's off the top of my head--and just the senate!  A look at the House would knock you out, but for starters:

Patrick Kennedy
Niki Tsongas
John Sarbanes
Kendrick Meek
Jesse Jackson Jr.
Rep. Schuster (R-PA)
Dan Boren
John Salazar
Stephanie Herseth
Mary Bono
Ben Lujan
Ben Chandler
Russ Carnahan

Is this democracy?  I think not--how about oligarchy and/or plutocracy.

I think Caroline Kennedy is a fine person, but the most qualified to be senator?  Only if influence and connections to fund-raising sources constitute the most importatn criteria, and that says a lot about how badly we need campaign finance reform and public funding of elections.

And don't get me started on Andrew Cuomo.  
George H.W. Bush (son of senator);
George W. Bush (son of above)
Ted Kennedy

i'd be happy having JFK's kid in the Senate. But pumping her resume as in this diary and thread is just silly. there a MANY more RELEVANTLY qualified people - maybe not were her name, and but probably not without any public record to use against them.

My feeling is this would be a gift given her prominent promotion of Obama in the primary. THAT is not right at all when deciding a Senate seat.

I think she'd be well suited based on her resumé to serve as head of the NEA.

No more dynasties! ... Right?    I seem to remember a lot of no more dynasty talk during the campaign season.

I for one think she is totally unqualified to be Senator, I don't care who thighs she popped out from between all those years ago.

So much for the dynasty argument used to bludgeon Hillary in the primary. Obama's Palace Progressives are just amazing.

I'm not entirely thrilled by this. I want someone with the gravitas of Hillary Clinton, which is why I like Cuomo. He has earned his place in public services as HUD Secretary and winning a statewide election. I wouldn't mind someone from LI or upstate either. All the female candidates I have heard of just does not excite me.

Give Caroline Ambassador to the U.K. and then UN Ambassador if and when Obama wins a second term.

Oprah being tapped to replace Obama.

Honestly, it could happen. I actually think she's more accomplished than Caroline Kennedy to be a Senator.

Politics of fame, money, influence, cronyism and nepotism.

Don't do it Governor Patterson.