Saying over and over again how Patterson can appoint anybody he likes, a strawman since nobody has disputed that, isn't the same as saying that he should appoint anybody he likes or that his choice would be any good.
Being left arguing that he would be in his rights to appoint a certain somebody, is infinitively weaker then being able to argue that he would be right to appoint a certain somebody.
It seems you are incapable to understand that distinction and that you have to resort to hostility instead of arguments is just unfortunate.
We don't know how Kennedy will do in an election, because she has never ever been a candidate for office. And running for office requires a very different skill set then actually being a senator.
Being a merely mediocre candidate is probably good enough to hold this state. However, it's clear that unlike the other politicians who we know are either mediocre or good at being a candidate for office, she is untested and could be a bad candidate and lose us the seat.
Kennedy is actually the only who could lose the seat, because her qualities as a candidate running for office are completely untested. Not the biggest of chances maybe. But it's still important to take note of that fact.
And I find the assertion that somebody who never ever ran for any office as the best able to take on all comers in 2 years and again 2 years after that for a statewide office laughable especially when there is a candidate who has every advantage she has, plus actual experience running and winning statewide
He should appoint somebody who is the best qualified to represent new york.
For his own sake he should choose to make allies rather than rivals of the current politicans in his state, who matter a whole lot more for the governor and his state then Obama and the Kennedy family.
I know you don't like it but doing the politically smart thing for your party, and for yourself, is not automatically appointing Caroline Kennedy.
I'm sorry... but could you please explain how putting charity parenthesis is not trolling?
That way he is claiming that president Clinton is not running a charity and is raising money on false premises for whatever reasons thus defrauding people.
Seems like pretty cut and dried trolling to me and has little to do with opposition to my opinion as my "opinion" was nothing but a debunking of his rather strange reasoning for claiming it isn't one. Namely a minor general reserve and foreign contributors.
And the job of the sec of state is twofold, namely 1. to advice the president about foreign policy.
Clinton has her strengths and her her weaknesses. Without a doubt she has considerable knowledge about foreign policy as evidenced by her campaign for the nomination. However there are people who are even better in that regard. Luckily one of them is the vice president. So that although Clinton merely one of the best but not the very best is forgivable.
2. a representative role: to be an effective stand-in of the president and to increase the international standing of the USA by help forging alliances and understanding
There is no better candidate to adequately represent the USA. Clinton is currently still better known then the president and is almost universally respected all over the world. She is known to be an effective diplomat and negotiator when the situation demands it.
So we have somebody with a very good understanding of the international stage for her advisory role and the single most qualified person for the representative role. I'd say she fits the role for Sec of state as needed in the cabinet by Obama perfectly.