Why's everybody jumping on a blind man and a Kennedy heiress? Let me get Caroline off the hook, first. She wasn't the best choice to replace Hillary Clinton and the reasons for that are pretty plain--there's no point beating the drum about Princess Pony's diction and phraseology at a bombed out news conference. But Patterson saw that and didn't appoint her, disappointing the gushing hordes who wanted to revive "Camelot" and assure a permanent flow of money to Democratic Party coffers. Picking Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary would have been a disaster of gigantic proportions, and NY power pols had already retreated to battle stations in preparation of engaging in the coming battle. But why beat on Caroline? You can't blame a girl for trying a little aristocratic hustle. Let it go. It's done--so overrrrr!
More to the point, and somehow lost in the media spotlight, is the fact that New York is a big state. Central and upstate New York are a great deal different from the Upper East and West Sides and much different still from the East and West Villages. I've heard there were people up there who managed dairy farms, went hunting, ice skating in natural ponds, joined the military services, were patriotic, and put common sense ahead of ideology in their political choices.
The Gillebrand appointment is a dog that hunts (pun intended). What really kills me is that some of the media windup toys were actually comparing Blagojevich's "quick action" to appoint a successor to Obama's senate seat with Patterson's slower appointment of Gillebrand. What a crock! Consider where the criticism comes from--the wild-eyed sycophants and court toadies of the New England aristocracy.