Understood, “f p,” but here in New York, where our local politics are pretty childish and sleazy to begin with, Paterson shocked people. Attacking her AFTER she withdrew? Even Kennedy’s rivals and critics - and I’m talking about pols who were driving and stoking the media mockery of her qualifications, her “entitlement,” and her disastrous interview performance - were appalled. It was like sacking the wounded football player when they’ve already left the field and are limping up the ramp to the locker room. And the player was from Paterson’s own team - a fellow Democrat and a loyal one. It just is not done no matter what a person’s surname is. Paterson behaved just like an insecure boyfriend who was dumped. Rather than act like a grown-up about it, he lashed out at Kennedy in a totally sleazy and self-destructive way, betraying confidences and embellishing them with clumsy lies. He was so focused on trying to hurt the girl who brushed him off that he lost sight of how petty and repulsive it made him look to their acquaintances. As a New Yorker, I don’t need a Governor who is still stuck in adolescence. I’ve been a supporter before, but next year, I find a grown-up to vote for.

I wouldn’t credit the NY Post story too much. The Washington Post tried to verify by calling the other contenders and couldn’t. Remember that the same columnist said that it was sewn up for Rep. Steve Israel about a week ago. The only thing that has been leaked to the press thus far is that it will NOT be Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Her camp’s aggressive thrashing of Kennedy seems to have cost her in the estimation of the Governor, who is said to feel she “comes on too strong,” and is “too belligerent” for him to work with. Considering those statements by unnamed aides to the Governor, it the NY Post story just seems like sour grapes from Maloney. Maybe she is just trying to kamikaze Kennedy at this point.

It is not surprising that Maloney is temporizing on supporting Obama’s recovery package. Her cowardice in the face of the anti-tax crowd is legendary in political circles. In 1992, Maloney abandoned Democrats in the hard-fought, party-line passage of the first Clinton budget. The most important vote of that generation, the passage of the bill is the reason that the Federal budget was finally balanced, the long boom of the 90s launched, and the idea of government redeemed with the public. As the hard-right tried to strangle the Clinton administration in its crib, more courageous women and men (Pennsylvania’s Marjorie Margolies-Mezvinsky, for instance) literally sacrificed their careers to ensure the passage of the critically needed bill. Newly representing a safe, overwhelmingly Democratic district that supported the President and the plan, Maloney worried about her donor base and abandoned her colleagues. Since then, her record on economic and tax matters has been more attuned to tony Republican suburbs than the interests of her constituents in Astoria or the lower east side. This could be a benefit should she get the Senate appointment as she will need to carry more conservative parts of the state than her NYC base. And it is not at all clear that the bully attack politics of her camp (Almost every assault on Kennedy originated with her supporters, from questioning of her ties to the Mayor to J-Lo.) has hurt her in the least in the rough and tumble world of New York politics. Maloney might yet be a Senator. But if she is, it will be because of her political street-fighting ruthlessness, not her mixed and mediocre record as a public servant.

I strongly disagree with My Alias, Elaine AL Meqdad, and C Hardy. Ms. Kennedy may or may not be the best option, but I really think that this stuff about “objecting to her being appointed” is totally unfair nonsense. The law calls for an appointment, not a special election. If you disapprove of that law, OK, but how is it Caroline Kennedy’s fault? As her critics keep pointing out, she has never been an elected official before so it seems to me she is less responsible for the process being what it is than they are. The idea that her appointment would amount to being “handed the seat just because she is a Kennedy,” is totally dishonest straw-man argument. Do this thought experiment: Imagine that there was a wealthy, well-connected New York woman who was: - an author and Constitutional scholar; - a well-known figure among charity and cause groups; - a confidant of the new President that the state’s current political leadership was NOT close to by virtue of having opposed him in the primaries; - also close to Vice-President, having been a close family friend for years and having led the process that put him on the ticket; - a favorite of the Senate Majority leader – a huge advantage when the new Senator will be either 99th or 100th in seniority; - a confidant and chief advisor to the chamber’s most influential senior member (Ted Kennedy). Good government aside, the appointee will need to raise 60-100 million dollars over the next four years to hold the seat in 2010 and 2012 for the Governor’s party. Even without a political “brand name,” our hypothetical candidate would be well positioned to do that by virtue of her great wealth and connections. The truth is that such a person would be (and should be) on the Governor’s list even if her name was Jones and the public never heard of her parents. This is not to say that Kennedy does not have weaknesses as a candidate (although supporting Obama over Clinton is a political strength, My Alias) or that there aren’t other interesting prospects on the list. But Kennedy is clearly qualified and has a number of potential benefits for New Yorkers. Why should the Governor and New Yorkers reject such a candidate out of hand just because her name is Kennedy?