A New Senator Kennedy?

After weeks of speculation, apparently Caroline Kennedy has told New York Gov. David Paterson that she is interested in the Senate seat that will be vacated by Secretary of State nominee Hillary Clinton.

It seems fitting that Kennedy should occupy the seat, even though she has never shown any interest in a political post before. Her efforts have leaned to the more artistic and more nurturing side. Now 51, Kennedy has been a writer, editor, mother, and she's been involved in a lot of community work.

She's also a lawyer, like her father and uncles, with degrees from Harvard and Columbia. She has expressed opinions that are in line with Clinton's. But she's never run for public office.

It is, however, the "family business," you might say.

For a long time, most people believed her brother John would be the one from her generation to continue the family's political presence in the Senate beyond the tenure of their Uncle Ted, but John died in a tragic plane crash nearly 10 years ago.

Some of her cousins may yet ascend to great political heights, but none have served in the exclusive Senate and only a few have reached the House.

Paterson seems to be under some pressure by women's groups to appoint a woman to replace Clinton. Such pressure implies that any woman will do as long as the appointee is a woman. To me, that seems like a rather odd way of looking at it. It suggests that gender representation is all that matters.

But, if that were the case, doesn't it follow that more women would have supported the McCain-Palin ticket in November? That didn't happen. Instead, Barack Obama received 56% of the women's vote nationally.

In New York, the percentage for Obama was even higher — 67% of New York's female voters picked the Democrats.

Clinton's supporters in the primaries, although disappointed, did not gravitate to the ticket that had a woman on it. They voted for the ticket that more closely reflected their own beliefs. Ideology trumped gender.

The voters in New York didn't elect Clinton to the Senate because she was a woman — although she got the opportunity to seek the job because her husband was president (not unlike Kennedy, who has qualifications she has earned on her own but is considered a prominent prospect for this post because her father was president).

They elected her because she reflects their beliefs. When given the chance to choose their senator in a special election in 2010, those voters again will pick the candidate they feel more closely reflects their beliefs. My guess is that ideology will be more important than gender.

Kennedy may be the most prominent woman mentioned in connection with the vacancy, but she isn't the only woman who is interested, as CNN's Kristi Keck reports.

Among the women who have expressed an interest are Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Kirsten Gillibrand, New York City teachers union president Randi Weingarten and actress Fran Drescher.

And apparently, Kennedy will have to wage an intense campaign in two years in a special election to keep the seat — if she gets this appointment. She may come from a political family, but she'll be a novice as a candidate and can be expected to stumble a few times.

Rep. Peter King, a Long Island Republican who is making noises about running in 2010, is not deterred by the Kennedy name — even though his probable opponent is the daughter of a president and the niece of a one-time occupant of the seat she now desires.

And other politicians — in both parties — may be waiting in the wings — preferring to make their cases to the voters of New York rather than a constituency of one.

"I strongly believe that I'm much more qualified, much more experienced, and have an independent record," King said. "Nothing against Caroline Kennedy, but I don't think anyone has a right to a seat."

I must admit that I agree with King on that point — no one has a right to a Senate seat. These aren't family heirlooms — even though many people believe that the aide who has been appointed to Joe Biden's seat is merely going to keep it warm for Biden's son to win in two years — when his deployment to Iraq presumably will be over.

But that's a choice the voters will make. There have been many times when voters have been given the opportunity to vote for the son or daughter of a prominent politician from the past. Whatever the outcome, it is in the voters' hands.

And these seats aren't property for governors to sell to the highest bidder, either.

The people of these states are entitled to be represented by senators who share the same beliefs as the senators being replaced. Nothing else matters — gender, race, religion, age, nothing.

It's appropriate — in an ironic sort of way — for nepotism to come up in regard to this particular Senate vacancy. After all, wasn't that one of the arguments against Clinton's candidacy for the presidential nomination?