Over at The Motherblog, Dana Goldstein admits that she's coming around on Caroline Kennedy. I'm not -- at least not as an appointment. Which is not to deny Kennedy's genuine advantages:• Star Power: Few politicians will command as many cameras as Kennedy. Few will be as able to shout through the media's everyday cacophony to make a sustained argument. There's real value in having a prominent progressive able to use the airwaves -- not to mention a beloved Democratic legacy -- for her political purposes. You could see how this could matter amidst a long health care battle, or a fight over global warming, or another war. Carolyn Maloney would not have the same national presence.• Money: Kennedy is not an experienced legislator, but she is an experienced fundraiser. She helped lead an effort that raised more than $60 million for New York public schools. And that has real benefits. It has benefits for keeping Kennedy's seat, of course, but also for winning other elections. A Kennedy fundraiser for a congressional candidate in southern Massachusetts, or even western Missouri, will raise a lot of money. If Kennedy dedicated herself to this aspect of the job, she could conceivably play a decisive role in securing a couple more votes in Congress.• Kennedy-ness: Obama owes both Caroline and, even more so, Ted Kennedy. That's a good thing. It's important that the most effective progressive in American life has the president's ear. But due to his health, Ted Kennedy's continued presence in the Senate looks ever less certain. If he had to vacate his seat in the near future, Caroline could lay authentic claim to his legacy and ensure the president and the Senate don't lose focus on his priorities. Her moral and emotional weight of her presence would make it less likely that promises made to Ted Kennedy would be broken in his absence.• Safety: It's simply very unlikely that she'll lose the seat. She has too much money, too much media access, too much residual goodwill. A Senate seat in New York isn't exactly a tenuous position, but strange things can happen with unknown candidates. Put simply, she's the best bet to keep the seat in Democratic hands for the foreseeable future.That said, she's an inexperienced legislator, has no record of constituent service, is not nearly the most qualified applicant for the job, and is an inescapably dynastic choice. On ground of simple equity, she should not be appointed. No direct descendant of John F. Kennedy needs an extra leg up in life. But then, no one should be appointed. At least not in a way that effectively decides the Democratic nomination and the Senate seat.Rather, Governor Paterson should make a caretaker appointment: Some gray wonk or dutiful civil servant or relevant expert (What's up, Varmus?) who will step down from the position in 2010, when it comes up in a special election. Kennedy has expressed interest in this seat, so presumably she's prepared to run for it. Let her. Let her do the work of talking to voters and amassing endorsements and holding townhalls. And let everyone else interested in the seat do the same. Use the appointment to emphasize the importance of the 2010 election, not effectively decide it. Then if Kennedy wants the seat, she can campaign for it, and win it, with no questions of legitimacy or elite favoritism. Leave it to the voters. It's a neat resolution from a procedural standpoint, and it's good politics for Paterson, too, as it draws a sharp contrast with Blagojevich's efforts to leverage the appointment process to increase his own power and wealth. Image used under a CC license from DiggerSF. THE CASE FOR, AGAINST, CAROLINE KENNEDY.
Over at The Motherblog, Dana Goldstein admits that she's coming around on Caroline Kennedy. I'm not -- at least not as an appointment. Which is not to deny Kennedy's genuine advantages:• Star Power: Few politicians will command as many cameras as Kennedy. Few will be as able to shout through the media's everyday cacophony to make a sustained argument. There's real value in having a prominent progressive able to use the airwaves -- not to mention a beloved Democratic legacy -- for her political purposes. You could see how this could matter amidst a long health care battle, or a fight over global warming, or another war. Carolyn Maloney would not have the same national presence.• Money: Kennedy is not an experienced legislator, but she is an experienced fundraiser. She helped lead an effort that raised more than $60 million for New York public schools. And that has real benefits. It has benefits for keeping Kennedy's seat, of course, but also for winning other elections. A Kennedy fundraiser for a congressional candidate in southern Massachusetts, or even western Missouri, will raise a lot of money. If Kennedy dedicated herself to this aspect of the job, she could conceivably play a decisive role in securing a couple more votes in Congress.• Kennedy-ness: Obama owes both Caroline and, even more so, Ted Kennedy. That's a good thing. It's important that the most effective progressive in American life has the president's ear. But due to his health, Ted Kennedy's continued presence in the Senate looks ever less certain. If he had to vacate his seat in the near future, Caroline could lay authentic claim to his legacy and ensure the president and the Senate don't lose focus on his priorities. Her moral and emotional weight of her presence would make it less likely that promises made to Ted Kennedy would be broken in his absence.• Safety: It's simply very unlikely that she'll lose the seat. She has too much money, too much media access, too much residual goodwill. A Senate seat in New York isn't exactly a tenuous position, but strange things can happen with unknown candidates. Put simply, she's the best bet to keep the seat in Democratic hands for the foreseeable future.That said, she's an inexperienced legislator, has no record of constituent service, is not nearly the most qualified applicant for the job, and is an inescapably dynastic choice. On ground of simple equity, she should not be appointed. No direct descendant of John F. Kennedy needs an extra leg up in life. But then, no one should be appointed. At least not in a way that effectively decides the Democratic nomination and the Senate seat.Rather, Governor Paterson should make a caretaker appointment: Some gray wonk or dutiful civil servant or relevant expert (What's up, Varmus?) who will step down from the position in 2010, when it comes up in a special election. Kennedy has expressed interest in this seat, so presumably she's prepared to run for it. Let her. Let her do the work of talking to voters and amassing endorsements and holding townhalls. And let everyone else interested in the seat do the same. Use the appointment to emphasize the importance of the 2010 election, not effectively decide it. Then if Kennedy wants the seat, she can campaign for it, and win it, with no questions of legitimacy or elite favoritism. Leave it to the voters. It's a neat resolution from a procedural standpoint, and it's good politics for Paterson, too, as it draws a sharp contrast with Blagojevich's efforts to leverage the appointment process to increase his own power and wealth. Image used under a CC license from DiggerSF. 
