Obama. Biden. Clinton. Salazar (maybe).
With the first sitting United States Senator since JFK being elected President, and his running mate as well as his SoS choice also being Senators, suddenly there's a flurry of activity and speculation about who's gonna be named by the various governors to replace each of them until 2010. In every discussion about the topic, someone inevitably says that the Governor in question ought to appoint a "placeholder" or "bench-warmer" to the office, the idea being that they'd only serve for 2 years before going back to whatever they were doing beforehand, like a stint in the Peace Corps or whatever.
Look, I understand and even agree with the principle here--that, Rod Blagojevich's opinion notwithstanding, a career as a U.S. Senator shouldn't be doled out like gold stars to a 4th Grader. It's not supposed to be a prize or award, and the people should ultimately decide who represents them.
HOWEVER, there's another angle to this that's worth considering: This particular 2-year stint is going to be quite different for those who are appointed than it would be at most other points in our history.
For one thing, whoever replaces Obama/et al is going to be swept in with a MAJOR change in Congress, not a minor one. In other words, it's not like one Senator died/retired in the middle of their term while the other 99 are stable--whoever is appointed is going to be joining a dozen or so other brand-new Senators at about the same time (give or take a month or so). A huge chunk of the incoming Senators are gonna be wet behind the ears (in terms of the Senate, if not elected office in general), all feeling their way around.
In addition, the next two years aren't going to give these new Senators much time to sit on their asses. There will be no "benchwarming" for the first two years of Obama's administration--if anything, it's likely to turn into the most active and robust Congressional/Administrative period in recent memory in terms of making major changes to our nation and lives.
So far, the only one who's been "officially" named is Joe Biden's replacement, his Senatorial Chief of Staff, Ted Kaufman. I'm sure he's a good guy, and as CoS to Biden all these years I'm sure he knows his way around the Senate, but what else do we know about him? Does he share Biden's opinions on stuff? Probably for the most part, but does he plan on actually working, or is he gonna just cash the paycheck for a couple of years, knowing it's a temp gig?
So no, I don't want someone appointed whose sole qualification is that they only want to be a Senator for 2 years, unless they are also truly passionate about squeezing as much good, hard work into those two years as possible. I don't want a "benchwarmer", who just sits around killing time until someone else comes in to take over. We have enough short-timers on the field as it is; we don't need any more.
UPDATE: I should probably clarify that I'm neither in favor of nor against appointing Caroline Kennedy; I haven't a clue whether she'd make a good Senator or a bad one. That's not the point.
I just don't like the general concept that the next two years are some sort of political limbo or "hold time" or whatever. If anything, 2009-2011 could very well be among the single most important two years in terms of sweeping government policies of our lifetimes. Who takes over after that may not end up being nearly as important as who serves during that period.