Bloodless Coup

Unlike Caroline, he's done stuff.

Well it's not like Caroline's been in a coma. She just hasn't been in government jobs. To me that's not prerequesite for success in the Senate. I think what matters on that score is ideology, negotiating skills, the ability to hire good staffers (since senators, themselves, are rarely conducting oversight or writing), and the ability to influence others (which a Kennedy from New York state who's unusually close to the president-elect should have). And I don't see any evidence that Kennedy isn't a winner re: those characteristics.

If we were making a cabinet pick Bennet would be 100 times more appropriate than Kennedy. But senators aren't implementing policy or running a large bureaucracy.

On an unrelated point, I will say that one nice thing about the Senate is that it's keeping us all super-young forever. Bennet will be the youngest senator - and he's 44.

Has Caroline done one thing, ever, that hasn't come about because of her status as spawn-of-Jack?

I have no idea. Other than her philanthrophic work, and that little book of her mother's favorite poems she put together, I don't know what she's done. But given the position she was born to that doesn't seem an unproductive way to have lived her life. When one has those kinds of means, putting them toward "good works" can be very productive. And while she was mocked by some of the press for noting, among her qualifications for office, that she was a mother, I don't think that not being a professional politician-for-life is a bad thing at all (I think our government might well benefit by having a few less of those in office) and sometimes being a mother has been seen as a benefit (I'm thinking of Patty Murray's "mom in tennis shoes" campaign in 1992).

Look, I'm not saying she's necessarily the best pick in the entire state of New York. But it bugs me that she's being singled out for attacks along these lines while there are a ton of men in Congress who got there more because of their name than their efforts. And a lot of people are throwing around all kinds of "political experience" as invaluable, when there are a lot of senators who had that when elected who aren't especially effective, and her uncle, who's arguably the most effective legislator of the last few decades, entered office with perhaps even thinner credentials. A lot of things are being taken as givens that I think are simply incorrect.

And to beat this dead horse further - maybe it's not "fair", but the fact that she is JFK's child is a huge asset for her and potentially the state of New York, and something that other aspirants for the seat simply don't have. She has huge name recognition (that's largely positive). And she can travel the country, support candidates (make alliances), bring attention to issues, and get ins for NY in ways that I don't think are true for potential senators Steve Israel, Byron Brown or Carolyn Maloney. All 3 of them could be good senators, maybe even very good senators. But if NY wants immediate attention I think Kennedy can provide it in a way that members of the US House or a mayor's office likely can't.

Sure she didn't necessarily "earn" that power - but the Senate's been filled with the children of the rich and powerful since it was created. If people have a problem with that they should change the election system or some such thing.