The Times publishes a transcript of its interview with Caroline Kennedy. Not pretty.

NYT: why should [Governor Paterson] pick you over any of these other ones, what makes you the best candidate?

CK: Well, it obviously depends what the governor is looking for. I can tell you what I think I’d bring to this, which is, you know, I’m not a conventional choice, I haven’t followed the traditional path, but I do think I’d bring a kind of a lifetime of experience that is relevant to this job. I think that what we’ve seen over the last year, and particularly and even up to the last — is that there’s a lot of different ways that people are coming to public life now, and it’s not only the traditional path. Even in the New York delegation, you know, some of our great senators — Hillary Clinton, Pat Moynihan — came from, you know, other walks of life. We’ve got Carolyn McCarthy, John Hall, both of them have an unconventional background, so I don’t think that that is, uh — so I think in many ways, you know, we want to have all kinds of different voices, you know, representing us, and I think what I bring to it is, you know, my experience as a mother, as a woman, as a lawyer, you know, I’ve been an education activist for the last six years here, and, you know, I’ve written seven books — two on the Constitution, two on American politics. So obviously, you know, we have different strengths and weaknesses. And I think I also bring kind of a lifetime commitment to public service, a knowledge of these issues, and I’ve spent a lot of time encouraging people, and younger people, to go into public service, through a lot of the, you know, nonprofit work I’ve done. So I think it’s a whole, it’s different, it’s completely different, and it really is up to the governor to decide who would do the best job.

Got that?

The obvious point to make here is that Caroline isn’t eloquent. Perhaps it would be unfair to ask that of her; she is new at this business, after all. (Though one would think that she’d have done some public speaking…because, of course, she has.)

But what is more interesting to me is that this linguistic confusion reflects a search for a voice, which is something you often see in an individual in a state of transition. Caroline Kennedy is not ready for this job. She may be at some point; she might make a great senator. (I doubt it, but sure, it’s possible.)

And her voice reflects that state of transition, gives it away absolutely.

Depending on your taste, this may be a good or bad thing. Sometimes it’s refreshing to have a pol who doesn’t speak in canned soundbites. At the same time, the level of Kennedy’s verbal fumbling is pretty extreme; the quote above borders on incoherence, which is traditionally considered a liability in a politician.

From a journalistic standpoint, rather than a personal one, I’m fascinated—people in a state of change are always the most interesting to watch.

Now, a small but significant point: Kennedy says in that quote above that she was written seven books.

A look on Amazon shows that this is not quite true. In fact, it’s a pretty egregious exaggeration that, coming from someone else, we might actually call a lie.

Kennedy has co-written two books examining famous Supreme Court cases. She has also compiled a book of her mother’s favorite poems, a book of poems and songs and stuff celebrating America, an anthology about winners of the Profiles in Courage award, “a potpourri of her favorite stories” [etc] about Christmas, and another book of poems for children.

So, if you actually want to get all literal about it, Caroline Kennedy hasn’t really written any books. [And that’s not even considering how much hired help she had putting those books together—do you think she really went out and found those songs celebrating America all by her lonesome?]

It’s one thing to stumble answering questions you’ve never had to answer before. It’s another to exaggerate your resume in a way that borders on falsehood.