I have to question the focus on the need for an election, if only because it seems to utterly ignore the specifics of the situation. Undemocratic?  The very process of appointment is undemocratic, and it is the situation we find ourselves in.  Would elevating whatever Congressman fit the various check boxes for Patterson (Latina, Minority, Female, Upstate, etc) be inherently more democratic?  I doubt it.  They would have gone before the voters of only 1/29th of the state, in a district that may well hardly be competitive.  Andrew Cuomo has won the Attorney General's seat, but has also already lost a statewide race for higher office, not making it out of the primary for Governor in 2002.  Moreover, the argument seems to contradict itself.  Kennedy can't be appointed, because the power of incumbency would be too powerful, but we must be afraid that she'll not like it, not run for reelection, and lose that power of incumbency.  It seems that the ideal situation in Noam's view is that the seat be elected somehow.  However, that ship has clearly sailed.  The need  for Democracy in an appointment process, however, remains perplexing.

Bruce Reed takes apart the process of selection vs. election over at Slate.  He gives an interesting analysis:

www.slate.com/.../2207046

Okay, so your three objections to Caroline are: 1) not that she is inexperienced but that, unlike Hillary, she would have been appointed; 2) that getting appointed and serving for two years would give her a huge and unfair advantage over any challenger in 2010; and 3) that never having experienced the hurly burly of elective politics or the tedium of serving in Congress, she might discover she doesn't enjoy the job and decide not to seek reelection in 2010, depriving the Democratic candidate of the advantages of incumbency.

Before responding, I want to note that you seem to have left behind the silly non-sequiturs of your earlier posts, like she should not campaign for the job but she should answer reporters' questions.  With advice like that, I'm glad you're not her campaign manager.

Instead you introduce a new contradiction: incumbency via appointment would be BAD for Caroline since it would disadvantage other candidates, but since, if Caroline were to be appointed and not seek reelection, the advantage of incumbency would be lost, the upshot is that for anyone else, incumbency via appointment would be a GOOD thing.  Now one can argue that incumbency via appointment is good or bad, but it is hardly logical or fair to say that it would only be objectionable if the incumbent is Caroline Kennedy, but that otherwise incumbency via appointment is an advantage to be cherished and not put at risk by a possible discovery by Caroline that the political life does not suit her.

When otherwise smart people employ contradictory arguments to make their case, generally something else is going on.  I'm still curious, but my hopes that Noam will fess up are diminishing.

I always thought that the position of Senior Editor was bestowed on one with a certain gravitas and hoary with experience. I see Noam on TNRtv and see someone who looks like he could be one of my nephew's friends just out of UCLA. What I took for a quirkiness that came from the tired loins of one world weary and cynical is actually a whippersnapper throwing brickbats at his elders. Obviously Scheiber is not of the generation that knew Caroline in the White House, of the tragedy that she and her family had suffered to see two of the greatest politicians of their generation murdered literally in front of the eyes of the nation. The travails of her mother, a beautiful and enormously gracious presence who suffered indignities from the press, but managed to protect her children from the glaring eyes of a voracious press. And the tragedy of her death and then a few years later of the death of Caroline's brother and sister-in-law.

Caroline Kennedy although famous, is not a celebrity. Until this news about her decision to seek the Senate seat once held by her uncle, she led a quiet life, although not a private one. Her activities have been well known to any who have cared to follow them. Her fame did not come without risks. It has been reported that she had faced death when an IRA terrorist had planted a bomb in a car that she was about to travel in - attacked because of who she was.

She is not unqualified to become a Senator. She is a graduate of Harvard and Columbia Law. As an attorney and a member of the New York and Washington DC bar Caroline has devoted her life to the issues that she holds dear, education, politics, healthcare, and the arts. She has written (or co-written) two books and edited five others. She serves on the boards of many charities and especially those supported by her family.

I think this statement by Michael Moore echoes the sentiments of many.

"Caroline, you are one of the most beloved and respected women in this country, and you have been so admired throughout your life. You chose a life outside of politics, to work for charities and schools, to write and lecture, to raise a wonderful family. But you did not choose to lead a private life. You have traveled the world and met with its leaders, giving you much experience on the world stage, a stage you have been on since you were a little girl."

He thought that she would make a great vice presidential candidate. I think she would make an equally great Senator. Caroline Kennedy is not only qualified to be a Senator, she is also one of the great leaders of our time. New York would be greatly enhanced to have her representing them in the Senate. The fact that she is not a professional politician is one of the greatest features about her.

johnchen1 - thanks, that was beautiful.  I couldn't agree more.

First, Caroline Kennedy may well be old enough to be your mother. So how much experience do YOU have to judge matters of this sort?

Or let's look at the record of a Senator who does have lots and lots of experience. Sen. Chris Dodd [D-Connecticut]. Last night on Anderson Cooper they had a segment about him. They pointed out that as chairman of the Senate banking committe, he has been sitting on financial reform legislation since last July. It was noted that Dodd received over $4,000,000 dollars from the very firms the legislation would reform. Incredibly, when asked directly why he has done nothing to stop these enormous quid pro quo transactions between financial institutions and members of Congress....while so many on Main Street are hanging on economically for dear life....with a straight face he said something to the effect that, "well, they have a lot of influence on the legislative agenda here".

So, why do American voters sustain this sort of flagrant corruption over and over again? Because it is, say, perfectly legal?

Dodd and all he stands for in political and lobbying circles IS the system in Washington.

george walton

I agree with all the comments above. I like Noam irrespective of his stripling handicap. Still, his "position" on Caroline Kennedy as Senator is so silly and pinheaded that I fail to understand, really, why he is in such a lather.

Frankly, at my age, my number one priority is to pick a winner. Caroline has led a useful life and would be a huge asset to the Democrat party. Sometimes I think that what separates me from all these smartest-boy-in-the-graduate-seminar-fellers is simply a different life, upbringing, and perspective. When I read and view Noam's airy all-in-his-head arguments, I feel the urge to pantomime that familiar - albeit vulgar - hand expression that symbolizes "what a jerk off", shake my head and chuckle...

johnchen1-

Like you, I'm old enough to remember Caroline in the White House, and like you, I'm old enough to remember the tragic deaths in her family. But that has had no affect at all on my view of this appointment.

If Caroline Kennedy were already a congresswoman or a state senator or a mayor of a reasonably large city--especially if she had accomplished something of consequence in such an office--then I'd say it would be entirely appropriate to consider her for this Senate seat.

But she's not, she's never held elective office, she's never won a single citizen's vote.

If, on the other hand, she were to wait until 2010, and actually run for the Senate, then that would be a different story.

And, yes, I realize that whoever gets appointed to this Senate seat would be jumping rungs without the benefit of voter approval. But isn't that all the more reason, then, to appoint someone who has already been voted into some significant elective office? Someone qualified and experienced, yes, but also someone to whom a substantial constituency has already given their official and demonstrable support?

hey johnchen don't hate on us bruins.

That never ending conflict between choosing a politician who shares our values and has little or no experience or a politician with years of experience who does not share our values.

Or maybe [if we are lucky] there is a candidate who has both years of expereince and who also overlaps with us regarding the issues of the day.

Still, In the end, and in ways I know I will never be able to fully explain, I opt for Caroline Kennedy here. She is very intelligent, experienced in other [and not unimportant] ways [lawyer, editor, author] and her values will make this a better world.

Besides, there are 99 other Senators when it comes down to voting. It's not like she is being picked to run a city or county or a state or a nation.

george walton

If you doubt Scheiber's acuity you should check out his blogginghead appearances, he definitely knows his stuff.  Beyond that, it's absurd to go from voting against age and experience for the office of POTUS then asserting age is necessary for the demanding task of opining on whether Kennedy should be senator.

I agree with Noam.  

JackR, points two and three don't contradict each other.  Noam's second point responds to a criticism he has received.  Specifically,why should he be concerned about a Caroline Kennedy appointment since she has to face the voters in 2010.  Answer:  Because of the power of incumbency.  Then at 1:46, he states that his third point does not respond to criticism he has received.  

Aside from the different contexts, I don't think the points are contradictory, merely a fork in a decision tree.  I read point two as saying that irrespective of whether she is a good or a bad senator, if she decides that she enjoys the job, the power of incumbency will give her a huge advantage over a better qualified candidate in 2010.  And since she has been in seclusion for the last forty years, we have no way of even guessing how she will perform.  Point three, is the other sided of the coin.  It assumes that she doesn't like the job.  In that case, if she chooses not to run in 2010, she will have wasted the power of incumbency for someone who would have happily and knowingly accepted the gritty responsibilities that come with the job.  Or at least that is how I heard it.  The problem is that since she has no record of public service other than the some volunteer jobs here and there.  Without that kind of record, there is no way to know whether point two or point three will come into play.

I don't object to her getting the job.  What I object to are all the unknowns that come with appointing someone with absolutely no experience.  I realize that the senate is infested with nincompoops.  Even so, U.S. senator is sort of a high office.  If she is really interested in public service, how about if she gets her feet wet by getting elected to a lower office.  If she compiles a decent record, I would be glad to vote for her if she decideds to run for senate.  As opposed to getting appointed.

felons writes: "If she is really interested in public service, how about if she gets her feet wet by getting elected to a lower office."

Which I would restate, "If she is really interested in elected office, how about if she gets her feet wet by becoming a regular voter?"

These are all very compelling arguments against Caroline. Indeed, I think it was the framers clear intent that no one not having clung to political office for decades should represent the people, no matter how intelligent, educated or accomplished in the real world. Citizen soldiers and career politicians I think is what they called it. Moreover, who could doubt that Caroline doesn't know what she's getting into, or have the stomach for it? And it is difficult to conceive of the sheer scale of naivete required to suppose that lineage can be meaningful (or name recognition in politics). Just look at what that type of thinking has done to the Colts and Giants quarterbacking position!

But I do take issue with one thing here Noam. Hillary was not so 'elected' as you are claiming. Hillary was for all practical purposes appointed by the establishment as the Democratic nominee in an overwhelmingly Democratic state over many 'more qualified' (indeed, by many years) Democratic politicians that would've successfully run for the seat otherwise. Even with her tenuous links to the state, she needed but a pulse to beat Lazio, so her proving up to be a competent campaigner garnered her an easy double digit win. All considered, your attempt to hand-wave away this historical analogy is pretty limp-wristed, but that hardly tarnishes the swiss watch that makes for the remainder of the 'argument'.

What I'm reading in the preceding comments is the following sentiment:

Noam Scheiber, you runt, shrimp, squirt, twerp, whippersnapper ,enough with your rationalizations. Who cares? We want the shikse.