Caroline Kennedy Has What It Takes

[ClarkUSA]

Lawrence O' Donnell is known to most of us as a MSNBC commentator and executive Producer "The West Wing" but his
former life as Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance and Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee
on Environment & Public Works is what informs this political insider's savvy opinion piece over at HuffPo:

Now that Caroline Kennedy has apparently told New York Governor David Paterson that she would like to be appointed
to Hillary Clinton's senate seat, the Governor's short list should have only one name on it. Caroline Kennedy is, by far, the
strongest possible choice Paterson could make.

For the Democratic Party, the most important qualification Paterson should consider is electability. Paterson's
choice will have to run for the seat in the next election in order to earn the right to complete Clinton's term, then
run again two years later to earn a new full six-year term. The worst thing the governor could do is appoint an
obscure member of Congress who promptly loses the seat to the opposing party--exactly what happened the
last time a New York governor appointed a senator.Andrew Cuomo is a good bet to win those two elections,
but Caroline Kennedy is a better bet. And every other name that has been floated is a risky bet.

Cuomo would be shaking the same New York money tree that Paterson is counting on for his own campaign in
2010. Caroline could tap Kennedy fundraising sources and Obama money sources who are forever grateful
for her endorsement and leave more of the New York money tree to Paterson and the rest of the New York
Democrats who need it. Kennedy's fundraising power extends far beyond her own campaign. Upon taking the
oath of office, she would instantly become the second most sought after headliner for Democratic candidates'
fundraisers. If a senator couldn't get Barack Obama to come to his fundraiser, he would beg Caroline Kennedy
to do it. This would give her more power in the Senate than any other freshman. Committee chairmen would
give her goodies for New York not just because they like her--which they would--but because she could raise
serious money for their reelection campaigns. She would be the only freshman who, through fundraising and
campaigning for senate candidates, could help push the Democrats up to 60 votes in the senate.

No one has ever been elected to the senate already knowing what he had to know to be a good senator. Caroline
knows much more about New York than Hillary Clinton did when she decided to run for senate. Caroline is more
prepared to be a senator than Bill Bradley was when he won his seat in New Jersey. Bradley, whose only adult
activity prior to running for senate was playing basketball, turned out be an exceptionally good senator. And
Caroline is much older, wiser, and better prepared for the job than her Uncle Ted was when he joined the
senate.

Having worked for Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan, I have seen what it takes to be a good senator, to effectively
represent the state of New York and to win elections there. I have no doubt Caroline Kennedy has what it takes.

What Mr. O' Donnell says makes damned good political sense: we need an impregnable Senate seat from someone
who won't drain resources from the Democratic Party but rather replenish them and make it look good to be a
Democrat. As for Andrew Cuomo, he lost me when, as a Hillary supporter during the primaries, he spoke about
how he thought Obama tried to "shuck and jive" with the media.

[cali]

1. we have absolutely no idea what kind of candidate or campaigner she'd make.

I think his case is rather weak.

[galaxy21]

5. Hey, her dad was JFK! That's all the qualifications she needs!

Look, I'm sure she's a smart, talented woman, but really, she's only being considered because of her last name.

People really need to move away from this tribalism. You can't say 'nepotism sucks' when republicans do it, but its 'romantic attachment' when we do it. Beau Biden is different since at least he'll be running a campaign, and someone could easily run against him.

[CTyankee]

40. All of what you say would be damning if we imagined that CK is power hungry

and is just cashing in on her name. I don't believe that. I believe that she is motivated by patriotism and truly believes in Obama's mission and wants to do whatever she can to see it enacted legislatively.

Over my long life I have never seen Caroline Kennedy conduct herself with anything but exceptional grace and intelligence. Her family and her name is what it is. That alone does not disqualify her from becoming Senator. It does, in a way, qualify her which in lots of other scenarios could be a bad thing as you aptly point out. However, I think she will be enormously helpful to establishing Obama's legacy and I'm all for it...

[Raksha]

89. Caroline isn't power-hungry and she isn't cashing in on her name,

basically because she doesn't NEED to? But is there something wrong with US--that is to say, the Democratic Party--cashing in on her name? I don't see anything wrong with it, especially considering that she more than lives up to the illustrious Kennedy name.

It would be one thing if her name were her only qualification, but it's isn't. As you say, she has always conducted herself with exceptional grace and intelligence, and I think she'll be an outstanding senator--and a damned effective fund-raiser too!

[CTyankee]

90. Oh, I think we can expect good things, perhaps even great things, from her.

It's kinda funny to see Dems here on DU go after her. I'm sure some folks here would think I am dreaming of Camelot, given my age, but it really isn't that as much as it is Caroline's demeanor and her presence that I value so much.

[galaxy21]

91. You know Freepers go on about Palin's 'presence' and 'charisma'

like we are with Caroline...

I'm not saying Caroline is Palin, she's a lot smarter for one thing. But any time you have a candidate that may not be entirely qualified, saying 'well, they have a great personality!' doesn't really convince me either.

As for Caroline, she might not appear to be overly ambitious, but if she's willing to accept a senate seat when she knows there are better qualified people, it does make you wonder.

[CTyankee]

92. Well, Caroline doesn't really have that "great personality" as it was applied to Palin.

If anything, Caroline is almost overly modest and shy, which is why I find odd that people attribute all this power stuff to her.

I don't really know why you say others are more qualified. How do you know?

[galaxy21]

93. "I don't really know why you say others are more qualified. How do you know?"

I think anyone in NY with an extensive political background is more qualified than Caroline. And there are literally hundreds of people that could apply to.

[CTyankee]

94. Well, that argument was used against Obama...

just sayin'.

[galaxy21]

97. Barack actually ran a campaign though,

He never had anything handed to him.
If Caroline ran a campaign, and proved herself to voters that would be one thing, but just giving it to her for no good reason (other than her family name) is not right.

[CTyankee]

98. It is too bad that she didn't but she has done campaigning for him and for Kerry.

As I've said I think she's willing to do this to get Obama's agenda enacted so we can pretty much assume that she is on board with his ideas, his framework, his philosophy. I think that is the whole point for her. I trust that.

Plus, I think she can win. And I will bet you that Obama thinks so, too. I don't think he'd ask her if HE didn't have faith in her. I'm willing at this point to go along with that judgment. His judgment in every other area has been right on, in my estimation.

[pnwmom]

19. She campaigned actively for Obama. How can you say you have no idea

what kind of campaigner she'd make?

[Captain Hilts]

26. She also campaigned with ChelseaC and the Kerry daughters for Kerry. nt

[ShortnFiery]

36. Oh hell, after Jebbie and George P. Bush serve they can hand the reins over to Princess Chelsea?

:crazy:

[Captain Hilts]

38. You're just a troll. nt

[onenote]

30. If she's a bad campaigner/candidate, she'll lose in the primary to a good one

Not sure that I see the risk.

[H2O Man]

2. I agree.

Nominated.

[FrenchieCat]

3. I agree that what makes a good senator is not neccessarily

experience working in politics.

Otherwise, someone needs to tell Frank Kappa and his "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington".

[Occam Bandage]

8. That was a movie, Frenchie.

In real life, angels don't come down and show suicidal people how valuable their lives are, and in real life, inexperienced people thrust into authority turn into Sarah Palins more often than they turn into Jimmy Stewarts.

[FrenchieCat]

11. I know that it was a movie.......

[pnwmom]

20. Senator Patty Murray, who campaigned as "the mom in tennis shoes" has been

an excellent progressive and very popular Senator. But her resume was thin compared to Caroline Kennedy's.

[Billy Shears]

27. In Real Life, Caroline Kennedy can be President in 2016 if she wants to

and you know this to be true...

because in Real Life, Fantasy sells.

[ShortnFiery]

34. OMFG! HRC maybe - but C. Kennedy doesn't have the chops. Not "fantasy" = "delusional."

:thumbsdown:

[Billy Shears]

83. Caroline will beat HRC in the Primary if it comes to that

8 years in the Senate will give her more chops than HRC or Obama had this time around.

I doubt Hillary would even take the chance of running against a Kennedy.

[cali]

15. That's Capra. And it was a movie.

[FrenchieCat]

23. You are right, as usual!

LOL!

[ShortnFiery]

17. The two are NOT mutually exclusive. Being IMMORAL and INEXPERIENCED is a "no go" for my vote unless

the alternative is truly EVIL. :(

[Cha]

4. Might know..

we'd agree:):fistbump:

Caroline Kennedy showed extraordinarily good judgement in her January 27, 2008, NYT endorsement of Obama..

<snips>

"My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

We have that kind of opportunity with Senator Obama. It isn’t that the other candidates are not experienced or knowledgeable. But this year, that may not be enough. We need a change in the leadership of this country — just as we did in 1960."

<much more>
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.html?_r=1

[ClarkUSA]

10. Always looks that way, eh?

Wasn't Caroline's endorsement an awesome day for Obama supporters and the nation? The timing couldn't have been better,
coming as it did after the close NH primary loss and before the blowout victory in NC. Thanks for the reminder of why Team
O will always have her back and why so many Clintonians are against her appointment.

:fistbump:

[Cha]

13. You mean

SC? :) It was extraordinarily good timing for us and I appreciated her so much..thanks for reminding us of the time sequence, Clark.

:fistbump:

[ClarkUSA]

14. Oy, I have NC turning blue on my mind.

Sen. Clyburn would rip me one if he knew I'd mixed them up. Thanks for the kind correction, zidzi. It's great to relive now
what was a golden moment. May there be many many more for Team O.

:fistbump:

[Captain Hilts]

24. I see no Obama/Clinton divide on this issue.

[H2O Man]

28. She had been

supporting Senator Clinton early on. Then she switched, and endorsed Obama. For some people, that is unforgiveable.

[ClarkUSA]

78. Thanks for the reminder.

And you're right. Guess she's another "Judas" eh?

[cali]

35. I'm against her appointment and I supported Obama long before

she made that appointment.

[ClarkUSA]

51. I recall many primary clashes with you over Obama while you still defended all things Hillary

I supported Obama long before Caroline's endorsement. I don't believe you did but it's a nice fiction, nonetheless.

[Occam Bandage]

6. She has not ever run a campaign. She has not ever been involved in policy.

We have zero evidence as to how "electable" she would be, nor as to how effective she'd be in Washington. But hey, her dad was President, and he got shot and that was sad, so she should get to represent one of the most important states in the Union!

[galaxy21]

12. I think if Caroline gets appointed, there are going to be a lot of pissed off politicians in NY

And I wouldn't blame them. There are better qualified people.

[ShortnFiery]

18. Pissed-off because they have paid their dues and are more qualified than Political Royalty that ...

is "a Kennedy."

[Beacool]

42. Exactly!!

First time we agree on something.

:D

[Billy Shears]

84. pissed off because they want no competition for HRC in 2016

too bad Obama had better plans.

[onenote]

31. were they pissed off when HRC decided to run for Senate from NY?

If so, how did it effect anything?

[Beacool]

43. Hillary EARNED her seat.

Voters had a choice and they chose to vote her into office, not just once but twice.

No one is choosing Caroline, but her family and the governor.

[onenote]

46. somebody's gonna be pissed no matter who is chosen and they can challenge her in the primary

I'm still not sure why the feelings of those who get passed over for the appointment should matter. No matter who is chosen for the job, others will not be and they will think they should have been. And they can, if they so choose, pursue the nomination in the primary. History shows that being an appointed senator doesn't carry with it the same benefits of incumbency as being an elected senator.

Also, Hillary didn't even have to run in a primary to get the Democratic nomination in 2000. Other possible candidates, including most notably Nita Lowey, stepped aside to make room for Hillary.

Handing Hillary the nomination is not that much different than handing Caroline Kennedy the interim appointment. Still have to get elected at some point.

PS - I was a happy supporter of Hillary as the candidate for NY Senate in 2000. I thought -- correctly -- that she'd be a stronger candidate than Lowey. I happen to think the same is true of Caroline Kennedy -- that she'd be the strongest state wide candidate if she decides to run in 2010.

[Billy Shears]

85. but was she really a New Yorker??

[whistler162]

21. Well we knew Moynihan was unelectable.....

until he won the Senate race.

[Occam Bandage]

22. Which is why we run the races. nt

[Captain Hilts]

25. I thought D'Amato was! And again in '92...nt

[cali]

32. uh, Moynihan RAN. He was not APPOINTED.

Get the difference?

[onenote]

39. but the point is that Caroline K would have to run in two years as well

so what's the downside. either she has what it takes or she doesn't. if she does, she runs and wins. if she doesn't, she gets knocked off in the primary or decides not to run.

[ShortnFiery]

7. Oh stop it! The political royals will not rescue us "common folk."

It's an insult to promote her IMO, unless you believe in "The Fairy Tale of Kennedy Camelot?" If so, may God help you cope with the impending Depression.

[galaxy21]

9. Camelot was never a fairy tale

I respect JFK for his accomplishments, but as a personal role model? I've read a few of his biographys, if he wasn't on drugs, he was cheating on his wife. Or he was trying to 'play it safe' on civil rights. Some fairy tale.

I know LBJ gets shit on for Vietnam, but I've always favoured him above JFK.

[ShortnFiery]

16. Yeah, LBJ just LIED us into a war with N. Vietnam. He's a real peach = MYTH too. eom

In my jaded opinion, all POLITICIANS must we forced by The People to do what's right by them vice the corporations who give them all those $ and perks. :shrug:

[Beacool]

44. The term "Camelot" wasn't even coined to describe

Kennedy's term in office until JFK died. He's been enshrined in the pantheon of heroes because he died before his time. Let's see how people would have felt about him if he had lived and had thrust us into the Vietnam war.

:eyes:

[DCBob]

29. She also probably has the endorsement of PE Obama.

That would seal it.

[cali]

33. Obama is too wise to endorse her for an appointment

Do you really think he's stupid enough to piss off that many dem reps?

[DCBob]

37. Maybe not officially but cleary she is on his "good" side.

That must count for something. Right?

[SuperTrouper]

50. And paterson is listening...he will appoint her, mark my words.

[Billy Shears]

86. you know that Obama is behind her appointment. He is preparing for 8 years from now

I am damn excited to see he has a plan, too!

[Beacool]

41. What I see is that her main qualification is being a Kennedy.

Lovely woman, I absolutely have nothing against her and if she chooses to run in 2010 more power to her. Let her work her ass off traveling to every county, giving dozens of speeches, eating junk and sleeping little, just to earn the right to obtain people's votes. She should be given a senate seat because........what???????? Oh yeah, there has to always be a Kennedy in the senate and Teddy is ill, that must be it.

It infuriates me that the seat that Hillary campaigned so hard to get is being handed on a silver platter to a woman who has deliberately stayed away from seeking office for herself through her entire life. I guess that this is her payback for endorsing Obama.......

How many times did I read here about dynasties and that being one of the reasons not to vote for Hillary. Remember no more Bushes, no more Clintons? Well, let me add to that no more Kennedys.

And for the record, Cuomo is far more qualified to be a senator than Caroline.

x(

[ClarkUSA]

45. Hillary's main qualification for running for the Senate was being a carpetbagging Clinton.

She was never a lifelong New Yorker involved in New York philanthropy and social charity like Caroline but somehow
Clintonians didn't find that objectionable. There were far more "qualified" NY state Democratic candidates than Hillary
at the time, too, but they dropped out to make room for the out-of-state "celebrity". I remember it well, being a New
Yorker the amusement that many New Yorkers saw her and Bill's obvious political grasping. In this case, New Yorkers
see Caroline as one of us, and there is no question that she will win in a landslide if she is appointed and runs in 2010.

:shrug:

[cali]

47. Clinton hating crap. What a shocker from you

Yes, she was a carpetbagger, but so was Bobby Kennedy. And Hillary worked her butt off to get elected. It's nonsense to state that her only qualification was her having been married to Bill. Hillary had been involved in politics for decades. She was a serious student of policy. Now if Caroline wants to put in the hard work that any candidate puts in running for office- and not from the office- more power to her.

And sorry, dear. I'm an early Obama supporter.

[ClarkUSA]

48. Just the facts, ma'am... sorry if that disturbs someone from Vermont.

As for being "an early Obama supporter," that's crap. I was a real Obama early supporter and I recall many confrontations
with you during the runup to the Iowa caucuses when you attacked Obama and defended all things Clinton. Your revisionist
history is amusing, though. But as far as I'm concerned, you only became an Obama supporter when it became obvious he'd
win.

[Name removed]

53. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Name removed]

73. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[whistler162]

58. Bobby Kennedy WASN'T a Carpetbagger!!!!!!

He was like Moynihan born in another state but both went to school and lived in New York.

[Captain Hilts]

64. Didn't live in NY very much. nt

[SuperTrouper]

49. However, Hillary turned out to be a fantastic Senator for NY; she is well liked in GOP Upstate

[Name removed]

52. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Billy Shears]

87. why is it that the GOP like the Clintons? ... I wonder

[Beacool]

56. I agree that Hillary would not have been in the running

in NY if she hadn't been Hillary, but she EARNED the seat. She worked hard to win over voters. What I object is giving a senate seat, one of the highest elected positions in the land, to someone who has never ran for anything. If she hadn't been a Kennedy the suggestion to appoint her to the senate would be laughed off.

[Captain Hilts]

62. It was handed to her by NYDems because Nita Lowrey could not be Rudy. HRC could and did.

My firm was polling in the state. And Rudy bailed because he was behind.

[Beacool]

66. Yes, but people voted for her.

They had a choice, they could have voted for Lazio. Now they are not given any choice in the matter.

[Captain Hilts]

69. Very true. The Dem Party's instincts were correct. So, no Senator Rudy. nt

[onenote]

72. and if Caroline gets the appointment its going to be for much the same reason

Its going to be because the NY party believes that she will be the strongest candidate. Whether that proves to be the case, like it was for HRC, will be established soon enough. I think she will be and thus have no problem with her getting appointed. Presumably those (including myself) who were glad to see HRC handed the nomination in 2000 also had no problem with that because whe thought (correctly as it turned out) that she would be a successful candidate.

[Captain Hilts]

76. I think NYS is bluer now, but I generally agree with you. She's their best bet. nt

[onenote]

65. and if Hillary hadn't been HiIlary, the suggestion of handing her the nomination on a platter

even though there other Democrats who had expected to run for the seat, would also have been laughed off. And I say this as someone who supported handing the nomination to Hillary because I felt that she would be the strongest candidate. I think Caroline would be the strongest candidate in two years as well, so I have no problem in her being appointed. If I'm wrong, unlike Hillary, she'll face a primary challenge and will either win over the support of the electorate or not.

[Beacool]

67. Sigh, I keep repeating myself.

I have no problem with Caroline if she chooses to run in 2010. My objection is that she is given the senate seat without having any other elected position or having even to campaign for the job. It's sheer nepotism.

[onenote]

70. someone is going to be appointed, you get that right?

Does that have to be someone who got elected to something? Why? Is being elected to the city council enough? state house? State senate? Lt. Governor or some other statewide office? Anyone who gets the appointment is going to have to run in 2 years if they want to keep the job. What difference does it make whether she ran for something else before getting this appointment? If you view getting the appointment as the equivalent to getting the nomination, then the situation is comparable to Hillary -- she got the nomination without having to run against anyone for it and without having ever held any other elected office. As I said, I'm glad Hillary got the nomination even though it meant pushing aside other candidates who had planned on running and who had held elected office. She was the right pick because she was the strongest candidate. I think Caroline is the strongest candidate, so I think she is the right pick. If I'm wrong, it will be proven in the primary in less than two years.

[Billy Shears]

88. don't be scared. at least Caroline is a New Yorker.

[Captain Hilts]

71. The Dem nod for senate was handed to Eleanor R on a platter in 1948.

The national party worked on her to accept to help cancel out Truman's opponent - Gov. Dewey's - appeal to New Yorkers.

For a variety of reasons, she said "no."

[ClarkUSA]

77. New Yorkers love Caroline and she will win in landslides in both 2010 and 2012.

And her presence will be a boon to the Democratic Party, as outlined in the OP. As for how she gets there, that's
immaterial to the bigger picture. Mayor Bloomberg, for whom she helped raise tens of millions for public school
funding during a busget crunch, thinks she'd be great for New York. I think the politicians know a winner when
they see one.

Some people are naturals... unless you're a New Yorker, you wouldn't know how much we love her here for not
being a showboating political whore while performing good works just because she wants to do something
worthwhile for her kids and all the children of the state.

She's a total class act and just because she hasn't run for anything is irrelevant. Mayor Bloomberg was laughed
out of running for mayor for the same reasons you're raising now and he left the Democratic Party and became
a Republican because idiot Democrats wanted a proven winner. Well, he won in a landslide against a lousy
Democratic candidate who won plenty of races beforehand. And NY Democrats were left with a weakling party
for a decade that kicked itself for missing a golden opportunity, just because they underestimated the power
of celebrity and outside life experience. Pretty stupid, eh?

Well, the NY Democratic Party won't use that excuse again for barring Caroline from running. If she's not chosen
by Gov. Patterson, it'll be because she doesn't want the job, not because she's never run for office before.

[Captain Hilts]

60. Get counselling. This isn't about Hillary hate. nt

[Beacool]

68. Clark is a lost cause.

He can't help himself.

:eyes:

[ClarkUSA]

75. That's the pot calling the kettle black, isn't it?

;)

[Beacool]

80. Touche, my friend, touche..........

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

81. Heh heh...

:hi:

[ClarkUSA]

74. And did I tell you that I like the idea of Chris Matthews for PA Senate 2010?

Sorry if that too disturbs someone from "Matthews Hate" Hillaryland. Pot, meet kettle. :)

[onenote]

55. I supported Hillary getting the NY senate seat, but she didn't work at all to get the nomination

She didn't face a primary challenge because other Democrats were basically sent the message by party officials that they wanted HRC to get it. As a result, Nita Lowey, who had been waiting in the wings, decided to forego the campaign everyone expected her to make.

To a certain degree, appointing Caroline K as the interim senator and handing the nomination to HRC aren't that different at all.

Finally, there is no objective test for being a senator other than the ability to get elected.

[whistler162]

59. There is no nomination there is no election for TWO YEARS!!!

Gov. Paterson has to appoint someone to fil Senator Clintoon's term until the special election in 2010 which is then followed by the regular election cycle in 2012.

[onenote]

61. right. And getting appointed is no guarantee of getting nominated

Whomever gets appointed is going to have to work for the nomination, unless of course the other potential candidates decide that they have no shot at winning the nomination. That, in turn, will depend on how well or poorly the person who gets the nomination does in their two years. History indicates, by the way, that more than half of those appointed to a Senate seat don't end up with that seat when their appointment ends.

[goclark]

54. K and R Caroline is up to it!

People don't have to scream, be mean and step all over their opponents to be skilled.

She is SMART and PASSIONATE and has certainly learned a lot on the trail, from the beginning, for Obama.

She is the NEW style of politician that will suit the 21st Century just fine.

I'm all for Caroline and will work for her with all my might.

The Bullies have no place in the new politics.

[THUNDER HANDS]

57. we could run a blue pig in New York and win the senate

c'mon Lawrence, you're better than that.

[Captain Hilts]

63. How did D'Amato get elected and keep getting re-elected?

[onenote]

82. a variety of reasons, including weak opponents and thrid party candidates

In his first election, D'Amato only got 45 percent of the vote. But that was enough to win because Jake Javits ran as the liberal party candidate and got 11 percent, leaving the Democrat, Elizabeth Holtzman, with 44. In '86, running with the tide of Reaganism at his back and with a weak Democratic opponent, D'Amato got 58 percent. But six years later, he only managed 49 percent, but managed to win by a single point over a mistake prone Robert Abrams, who managed to alienate Italian voters, among other groups, both during his primary run against Ferraro and during the General election (by referring to D'Amato as a "fascist"). http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE6DD163EF936A35752C1A964958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=3

D'Amato finally lost in 1998 to Schumer, 55 to 45.

[Cash_thatswhatiwant]

79. I think she'd be a great pick.

[marlakay]

95. I don't live in NY and I would donate to her campaign

she would work tirelessly for good things. Yes she has power now because of her dad but she could use that to help the state.

Many say she hasn't waited her turn, thats what they said about Obama too. I am glad he didn't wait and become more WA like. Same with her. Let her in now while the lobbists don't control her.

[adoraz]

96. I like Caroline, a lot, but that doesn't mean I think

she should be Senator from New York, let alone President.

This is the stuff we should be moving AWAY from... electing someone because of their last name.

I read the article on electability, but I don't think it should be a issue as long as someone respectable is chosen. Dems always win NY.