Caroline Kennedy Why?

TW: The media in particular the smart set liberal bits have come down hard on the concept of Caroline Kennedy's potential appointment to the Senate. I like the idea and have been wondering why, as many of the negative arguments make sense. Her resume is solid for a layperson but thin relative to actual governance or executive experience and she epitomizes
"political" royalty for better or worse. Folks trying to argue for her on the basis of her resume are fighting a losing battle (Obama had the same problem).

The argument that if she wants to be a Senator she should wait and actually run in 2010 is fine but then that is not necessarily the choice. Whoever gets appointed should they choose to run will have a serious leg up on the competition. Alternatively Patterson could choose a seat filler but is that really serving the citizens of NY over the next two years?

Yet I like the idea. I may be just a homer for JFK's legacy but I think there is more. She emits a strong aura of competence without the usual stench of ambition, arrogance and smarminess associated with typical politicians. There is a certain innocence to her, she could be a Ms. Smith goes to Washington with a twist. My ultimate reason is a hunch that she would make an interesting Senator, I had the same hunch with Obama in 2007.

She has not used her pedigree to climb until now perhaps now is the right time. We have plenty of smarmy, over-achieving, backstabbing Senators, Caroline Kennedy would be a nice change-up.

From the Economist which clearly does not yet support the idea of Caroline in the Senate:
http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2008/12/building_the_case.cfm