Reply #152: YES, a thousand times yes to what you said, BUT

[clear eye]

Hinchey is too old to run a hard statewide campaign in 2010, much less go for another term in 2012. The appointee gets to be accepted as the Senator for two years, in effect becoming an incumbent, before running. The Dem leadership understandably wants to give this advantage to someone able to stick around a while. Then there is the matter of needing many large donors. Coming from a relatively poor district, Hinchey hasn't needed them before. So he is not being considered.

Since Nydia Velazquez turned it down, I think Carolyn Maloney is best choice among the people whose names were included in an article posted on the DNC blog. She is extremely knowledgeable and experienced, and has been rated tops by many public interest non-governmental organizations (NGOs). She's no Hinchey, but is lightyears beyond Kennedy in qualifications, the sum of whose public life has been sitting on a few boards (which wikipedia calls "is a director of"), and occasional fundraising.

To learn more about Carolyn Maloney see my OP: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x4604244 (I've emailed the Governor to recommend her, and I hope others will as well.)

The most worrisome thing about a possible Kennedy appointment is that w/o the normal issues background with which even a freshman Senator normally comes equipped (knowing that the NYC public schools need money doesn't take deep knowledge of issues), she will be weak in understanding the impact that bills or Obama recommendations would have on NYers and the country. There's a fair chance that Kennedy, who is only being considered because Obama is grateful for her early fundraising, and because she agreed to make some phone calls to help him vet his VP options, would not seriously consider problems her constituents might have with aspects of bills the President sends to the Senate. In other words, she may become an Obama rubber stamp.

Some posters have claimed that Hillary Clinton was equally inexperienced when she first ran. Here are some differences:

Bill Clinton frequently reiterated that the voters were getting "2 for 1" when they elected him because his wife was also extremely qualified and he would be regularly consulting with her. "During her post-graduate study, Rodham served as staff attorney for Edelman's newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal."--from her Wikipedia article.

She also spoke informally with the people who came to see Bill, went on fact-finding trips with him, and attended numerous dinners of state during which she'd converse, at least occasionally about current affairs, with the most powerful people in the world. "In 1997 and 1999, Clinton played a role in advocating for the establishment of the State Children's Health Insurance Program, the Adoption and Safe Families Act, and the Foster Care Independence Act."--also Wikipedia
The Wikipedia citations are all footnoted there, if there are any doubters.

The research Clinton did for the above-mentioned legislation is a completely different type of involvement than sitting on a few boards and occasionally fundraising for a couple of causes or a political campaign by phoning your wealthy friends. Large donors with backgrounds like Caroline Kennedy's are normally thanked with ambassadorships.