From my perspective, "political experience" is bullshit. What exactly does experience in winning elections have to offer here? I really don't understand why just serving in government automatically "qualifies" someone for a Senate seat, regardless of what they did there or what their policy positions are -- pretty much the same way that I didn't consider it relevant whether Obama had "executive experience" during the Presidential campaign. And I don't think that "rewarding" someone for good service in lower rungs of government is inherently any more of a valid use of this seat than handing it to a candidate with high name-recognition.
I think you can assume that
any Senator from New York will come down on a fairly consistent left-wing line on most issues, so the real policy qualification question is whether someone can make a useful contribution in one or two specific policy areas of focus -- I think Kennedy's history of involvement with the NYC school district suggests she could be a very effective voice for education reform and funding, and her consistent background working in the arts means she'd be invested in another issue that I consider to be exceptionally important for New York State.
This NYT editorial, for example, argues that her specific achievements in the NPO world, as well as her experience on Obama's VP team, suggest that she will perform well in the environment of the Senate.
EDIT: Just out of curiosity, how many people weighing in on this subject live in New York State or have lived there in the past? I'm not looking to say anyone's opinion doesn't count, just curious if my regional perspective is different.
