Senate property rights and dynastic politics

I'm supportive of efforts to elect more women and minorities to the Senate, but I'm uncomfortable with the idea that Hillary Clinton must be replaced by a woman or Barack Obama by an African-American simply because of the previous officeholder's background. What's worse is that Caroline Kennedy, who is now seeking Hillary's seat despite a lack of obvious qualifications beyond "fairy tale" Kennedy mythology, would be the second person to hold New York's Senate seat largely on the strength of her last name. What might be seen as a victory for women would also reinforce the country's disturbing trend toward dynastic politics.

Comments

[Sam Thornton]

I keep hearing this recurrent phrase about "qualifications to be in the Senate."

Beyond the age, residence, and citizenship qualifications listed in the Constitution, exactly what are these qualifications and how does one acquire them?

If one looks at current Senators, if I'm not mistaken, there's not a rocket scientist among them. Their only relevant "experience" seems to be having their staff read briefing materials and reducing the gist to 3 x 5 cards and clever sound bites. How hard is that?

In fact, there are more prerequisites required of a licensed plumber (sorry, Joe) than a member of the Senate or House. It's time they got over themselves.

[Rob]

It's sad that the lifespan of ponies is only 20-40 years. How wonderful it would have been if Caroline could have ridden Macaroni to her swearing-in.

[King Politics]

It seems, though, that New Yorkers were pretty satisfied with Clinton, so they might not be turned off as much by dynasties as you are. Also, the different Kennedy's seem to get re-elected at pretty high rates, so if I'm an uninformed New York voter, I might just think that these Kennedy's are pretty good legislators. Why would Caroline be any different?