Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

NY-Senate: Much Ado About Nothing (Yet)

Caroline Kennedy listens to a reporter's question during a news conference at City Hall in Buffalo, N.Y. on Wednesday, Dec. 17, 2008. Kennedy is campaigning for the open Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. (AP Photo/Don Heupel)

An Associated Press report this morning citing two anonymous sources suggesting New York Gov. David Paterson would pick Caroline Kennedy as the replacement for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton set off a tumult of speculation about whether the high-profile appointment process had come to an end.

No so fast, Paterson spokesman Errol Cockfield told the Post's Shailagh "Shazelle" Murray this afternoon. "The AP story is incorrect," said Cockfield. "There is no front-runner, and the governor is not on the verge of any decision."

Regular Fix readers know we have made the case for and the case against Paterson picking Kennedy to replace Clinton. And, we still believe that Kennedy has the strongest chance -- thanks to her last name and, especially, her ties to President-elect Barack Obama -- to be the pick.

Some New York political leaders have been publicly skeptical about Kennedy -- particularly after her rocky debut with Upstate voters last month. But, political reality may well be setting in as uber powerful state Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver dropped his opposition to a Kennedy appointment earlier this week.

While most observers believe a Paterson pick will come in the near future, he could well wait until the end of this month when Clinton is expected to be confirmed as Secretary of State by the Senate to make his decision known.

At this point Kennedy has to be considered the frontrunner but no reporting we have done over the past 48 hours leads us to believe she is definitely the pick. Paterson is casting a very wide net in terms of potential appointees -- a move designed to show that he will not simply accede to the will of the party establishment and pick Kennedy. He may wind up picking her anyway but it is likely to be on his timetable and no one else's.

By Chris Cillizza  |  January 2, 2009; 6:00 PM ET
Categories:  Senate  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: Happy 2009!
Next: VA-Gov: The Macker Is In


I wonder why there hasn't been more discussion and information on Fran Dresher's striving for the N.Y. Senate seat. I saw her on Larry King and her credentials should put her at the top of the list of appointees. I wish she has been given a voice in the press. She and her political and hands-on organizational and humanitarian work for the U.S is a story itself. She shouldn't have to work for this Senate seat in the shadow of a Kennedy.

I thought I read that Caroline decided to ask for the seat so a Kennedy could still be in the Senate, to follow her uncle Teddy Kennedy into the major stage of politics.

Put a spotlight on Fran Dresher and see how she compares to all the other candidates.

Fran Dresher should get the Senate seat.

Posted by: erochetucson | January 5, 2009 2:03 AM | Report abuse

MS. Kennedy is not doubt decent. She, however, should not be the senator from New York simply because she is a Kennedy.

If she did she would paving the path to royalty in this country.

We do not need that in the US. Look at what royalty has done to the world....bankrupt the systems.

Posted by: wrock76taolcom | January 4, 2009 3:21 PM | Report abuse

...Wondering whether the best way out for Mrs. Schlossberg (who still may be a lock for the Senate seat) is to have O give her an prestigious ambassadorship, say, to England or France. Give the Senate seat to one of those in NY who have been awaiting in line for about a decade. My favorite: Jerome Nadler.

Having repeatedly bashed the hapless Mrs. Phalin for, according to Mac's campaign, having no knowledge of any policy issue from the last "ten years," it is not fair or consistent to turn around and vigorously advocate for Mrs. S, even though she is an O-Nation hero.

And for the record, to respectfully answer the question endlessly posed by Mrs. S (in one NYT interview, a record 142 times): no, I don't know....

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 4, 2009 1:53 PM | Report abuse

I really don't care if Kennedy is or isn't a great choice. She represents the continued rise of aristocracy and dynasty that we are supposed to be trying to prevent here in the US.

There has to be somebody in NY who is smart and capable and who wasn't born to privelege.

Posted by: EvilleMike | January 4, 2009 1:14 PM | Report abuse

I personally believe C.K. is ultimately electable - probably a good choice for reasons: name recognition, NYC pandering and generally uninteresting competitors.

It's gone on for a while, might be better (for GovPat)to do the Blago/Cable Guy 'Git er Done' than to wallow in the media/politico crap for much longer.

I kind of think, you know, like maybe this story has gone on well, yaknow - well like a bit toooooo long.

Posted by: newbeeboy | January 4, 2009 11:06 AM | Report abuse

Bokonon, I think everyone should have a live-in editor. My wife is a former magazine editor and a very talented copy-editor—I credit her blue-pencil savaging of my early writing (25 years ago) with any good habits I may have developed (although the overly complex compound sentences are, of course, the fault of no one but myself).

Yes, although my Study (“Societal Impact of the Extremist-Obsessive Blog Poster”) is focused on behavior and not on linguistic expression, it would certainly be easier if folks like 37th could manage a little more coherency. Despite his issues with grammar and structural logic, I can usually figure out his intention from context. I did have particular trouble with these:

… “The democrats are one sick bunch of people - AND NOW THE IDEA
… “Everything thought this issue was settled last spring.”
… “Bush really want not in office long enough.”

I still regret I can’t record behavioral cues matched to specific postings. I’d hypothesize a direct correlation to using ALL CAPS, with spittle-spewing (maybe a keyboard moisture sensor?). Oh well, this study is of only anonymous subjects—perhaps someone will manage a more controlled study in a laboratory setting.

Still not enough of a sample on this thread to post a full accounting but I’m sure we’ll have more. Interim observations as of Jan 4 3:35aET show 37th with 5 of 28 total postings (18%), with 1 of 5 postings on-topic (20%). That was, by the way, the first on-topic posting to any thread since data collection started…let’s hope for more.

Posted by: malis | January 4, 2009 11:03 AM | Report abuse

Winners this week

Mrs. Schlossberg (for her starring role in the recent YouTube presentation, "The More You Know," which captures her use of the catchphrase 30 times)

The poster "malis" (for his Jan. 3 @ 2:30 post on this string brilliantly analyzing the demented serial rants of robo-troll "37andO")

Blags (for flipping the script on his tormentors by appointing a perfectly qualified 71-year-old AA former state attorney general to O's vacant senate seat)

Rachel Maddow (for showing every weeknight why she was a Rhodes Scholar; smart without being loud and unpleasant)

John Wayne (despite his odious politics, for producing, directing, and starring in the 3-hour-plus Technicolor epic "The Alamo")

"Fight Night" (Cox Cable on demand)(ten times better than Eastwood's unwatchable "Million Dollar Baby")

Dean Smith


Harry Reid (for [as reported, 1/3, by Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun Times in a major article to which Drudge and HuffPo linked], allegedly pressuring Blags (prior to his arrest) not to appoint AA candidates to O's vacant senate seat--if true, it suggests Blags appointment of AA Burris was a back-at-ya by Blags to Reid)

Kathy Griffin (for vulgar, mean-spirited insult "comedy" that will ultimately put her wherever Andrew Dice Clay dwells in the entertainment industry)

"37andO" (for serial offenses against common sense, goodwill, and civility)

O's normally brilliant advisers (for not keeping BHO one hundred miles away from this Blago mess and instead having O support blocking the seating of Burris; what will O do if the monochromatic Senate follows through on its announced threat to, Bull Connor-style, physically jack-up the 71-year-old Burris if he tries to enter the Senate chamber?--not good, not pretty)

George Will (for his column in today's Post reminiscing about the good ol days days when employers could use intelligence tests to discrim-, er, evaluate applicants; file it with Kathleen Parker's infamous Gone With the Wind ode to her AA nanny; how is this stuff getting past the Post's diverse set of editors???)


Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 4, 2009 10:47 AM | Report abuse

Leon, your observations are welcomed by me, too. Yours is a NY voice I look forward to reading here and I promise not to push CK on you and your state.

Happy New Year.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 4, 2009 10:16 AM | Report abuse

Leon, good points, and that's why I asked the question. Generally, I’m skeptical of people whose entry into a field is almost entirely based on name and connections. That included Al Gore and George H. W. Bush (sons of Senators/St. Albans Prep/Yale), Hillary Clinton, George W. Bush and, yes, in this instance Caroline Kennedy.

That doesn’t mean they can’t eventually prove talent and capabilities in their own right (i.e., GHW Bush in particular, and Gore/H Clinton to a lesser extent), but I’m much more inclined to believe those who started without advantages and succeeded on their own smarts and talent, like Bill Clinton and Obama (for the same reason, I give a lot more credit to Sarah Palin than Lisa Murkowski).

I won’t presume to tell New Yorkers who their Senator should be but would observe there are probably 10,000 New York women equally qualified as Caroline Kennedy, and 500 far more qualified. That doesn’t mean she couldn’t be a good, even a superb senator, just so could 10,000 others who aren’t under consideration.

Governor Paterson will make his decision based on two factors:

2) Is the person a credible choice who won’t be a detriment to the state as Senator?
1) Will the person be a plus (more so than other candidates) in raising money for the state Democratic Party and supporting other 2010 state races (especially the Governorship), and be able to hold the Senator’s seat for the Dem’s?

Given those factors, Caroline Kennedy is a rational choice, even though she might not be a good choice.

Posted by: malis | January 4, 2009 9:27 AM | Report abuse


Grow UP - stick to stating your opinions and supporting them on the topic at hand.

Leave other posters alone.





Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 4, 2009 3:35 AM | Report abuse


I have read very little on Benet- but it seems to me that he has had a series of jobs that he EARNED, not by having the right last name but based on merit. He also seems to have had a great deal of RESPONSIBILITY in those jobs. These were not just figure heady jobs capitalizing on his good name or small charitable works or light book writing (even her consitutional law stuff is almost an "idiot's guide too") like Caroline.

I am a NYer. I was a loyal Dem and volunteered (in fact, deputy field directed in 2 states for weeks on end) for Obama. Endorsing him does not qualify her to be my senator. She has done very little with her position- yes she has raised fine children- which is admirable but not what makes a good senator. There are 11 people I can name that are more qualified and want the job in NY. She is my last choice to represent me. I hope that people from outside of NY can understand that their pressure to force this really unqualified woman on me and my state is fairly annoying.


Posted by: nycLeon | January 3, 2009 11:28 PM | Report abuse

While I myself am not "malis," I AM an editor, and therefore feel justified in pointing out to 37th that in asking malis "What part of 'Stop harassing other poster' do you not understand?" he has failed to recognize that his question makes no sense. In order to be grammatically correct, he would have to:

1) insert the definite article before the word "poster" - "Stop harassing THE other poster" - in which case he would need to specify the original poster as well as the "other" one. This would give rise to several questions.
*For example. would it be permissible to harass the original poster? And by what standards is a poster thought to be an acceptable target of abuse? That might depend on the words and images contained thereupon. I would suspect that were the poster a depiction of the latest in French cinema, 37th would lead the charge himself, carefully replacing any reference to France with the - possibly misspelled? - words "freedom," "frog," or "Commie."
*And how, in fact, does one successfully 'harass' a poster? Would graffiti be enough, or would actual physical damage need to be done? And if so, would the damage need to be irreparable? Or would it be enough to simply shame the poster into replacing all of its longer-than-two-syllable words with pictures of weapons?
*And what would be depicted on the poster held to be sacrosanct by 37th? There are many possibilities... perhaps a picture of former President Reagan? Perhaps the shot of the soon-to-be-late-and-unlamented President Bush, protecting us from terrorist attacks aboard a battleship, with a banner behind him celebrating the "accomplishment" of his mission? Perhaps a poster celebrating the movie "Top Gun," with Mr. Bush's likeness Photoshopped in next to Tom Cruise? Perhaps an action shot of the intrepid hunter who is our Vice President?

2) attribute the question to some hulking, sub-verbal Rambo-esque character, whose demonstrably bloody patriotism would excuse him from using the definite article. This would be a daring choice, as 37th's customary tone on this blog does not give a potential reader the requisite confidence in his (37th's) literacy which would be necessary in order for said reader to realize that the writer was mimicking another's voice.

Perhaps malis' research into the linguistic traits he has exhibited thus far will shed light on these points.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 3, 2009 11:05 PM | Report abuse

Of all the lame arguments used to justify Kennedy's appointment to the NY Senate seat, the one about her "special" relationship with Obama is the weakest. It makes a mockery of everything Obama claims to stand for. He claims we're in a new era in which there are no more "special" relationships and for the moment I'm going to believe him. I don't believe he would do anything for Kennedy that he wouldn't do for any Democratic Senator.

And the other gaping hole in Cillizza's latest boost for Kennedy is what Silver actually said. He didn't say he endorsed her. He said that IF PATERSON APPOINTS HER, HE WOULD SUPPORT HER. Obviously he WOULD. He's a Democrat. He doesn't have any choice in the matter.

As a yellow dog Democrat my concern about Kennedy is that I don't think she can compete in the political arena to retain the seat. Since a Democrat is unlikely to challenge her in the primary, I think she will lose to a strong Republican candidate. If you've read the transcript of her Times interview or seen any other taped interviews, I don't see how you could think otherwise.

Posted by: YellaDog | January 3, 2009 6:42 PM | Report abuse

Caroline Kennedy is not even the most qualified Kennedy, let alone CANDIDATE for the vacant senate seat. This pick would be a mistake for Patterson, and a mistake for New York. If she wants it so bad, run for it in two years. America is done with dynasties.

Posted by: FilmBuff84 | January 3, 2009 6:24 PM | Report abuse

AlaninMissoula (btw, been there), both the House and Senate changed their seniority rules about two years ago. Now, no additional seniority is gained for an appointment within a specific time of the expiration of a session of Congress so there's no reason for an early resignation/appointment.

As an interesting bit of trivia, Ken Salazar ranked last in senate seniority to Barack Obama's next-to-last, only because Colorado has fewer electoral votes than Illinois.

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2009 5:10 PM | Report abuse

Interesting to compare the reactions regarding the possible selection of Caroline Kennedy to NY’s Senate seat, to the similar selection to of Michael Bennet in Colorado (announced today).

Opposition to Kennedy seems to fall in two areas: 1) ‘Celebrity’ and family connections shouldn’t be considered in such a decision. 2) Kennedy’s experience, although praiseworthy, has no particular relevance to qualifications for the Senate.

Bennet’s background consists of being a corporate turn-around specialist working for billionaire media tycoon Philip Anschutz; leaving that to become Chief of Staff for his close friend, Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper; then in 2005, being Hickenlooper’s surprise non-traditional choice to head Denver Public Schools (a large and troubled urban public school system). He is regarded as being highly successful in all these positions. Also, it was widely reported that Bennet was one of Barack Obama’s finalists for Secretary of Education.

Michael Bennet’s selection is generally being praised in Colorado, as an ‘out of the box’ choice—a non-politician who’s an intelligent problem-solver with a history of bringing competing factions together. Questions are primarily around whether he will prove a good enough politician (and money-raiser) to be elected on his own in 2010.

So, how different are Michael Bennet’s qualifications from Caroline Kennedy’s? Neither have ever held elective office (though Kennedy has far more political experience). Both can demonstrate lots of good work and the people who’ve worked with them recommend them highly. Bennet would not have been in this situation if not for his friendship with a high-ranking politician (Hickenlooper), as Kennedy would probably not be under consideration were she not, well, a Kennedy.

Yet, there is far more opposition (and even ridicule) directed to Kennedy than to Bennet.


Posted by: malis | January 3, 2009 3:44 PM | Report abuse






What part of "Stop Harassing Other Poster" do you not understand?





Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 3, 2009 2:47 PM | Report abuse

I think Governors are missing the boat by picking late. Had governors made a decision before the end of the year and the out-going Senator cooperated by resigning the seat early, the appointed picks could have gained a seniority edge over the rest of this year's freshman class of Senators. Now all the appointees will have less seniority than the elected frehmen.

This has been done before, but apparently no one is thinking along those lines this year.

Posted by: AlaninMissoula | January 3, 2009 2:38 PM | Report abuse

Update: A Study on Motivation and Societal Impact of the Extremist-Obsessive Blog Poster
Subject: “37th” (shortname for subject using approximately 20 different variations of a userID containing the root phrase “37thandO”)

Subject’s postings (through Jan 2, 4:56pET) to the string “Best House Campaigns of 2008” were previously collected and classified in four defined categories. This entry appends subject’s additional posting.

As of Jan 3 10:17aET, 37th owned 14 (+3) of 64 (+6) total entries, raising the subject’s percentage of total postings to this string from 19% to 22%.

Number and percentage of on-topic postings: 0 and 0%

1) Simplistic insult of individuals and groups: 22 (+2)
2) Paranoiac accusations: 6 (+1)
3) Rote repetition of fantasy scenarios 19 (+4)
4) Projection (accusing others of behavior exhibited by the subject) 9 (+2)

Subject has initiated posting to two additional strings. Data currently being collected and analyzed. When sufficient data has been collected results will be posted to those strings.

Posted by: malis | January 3, 2009 2:30 PM | Report abuse

What is this country coming to? The most exclusive club in the land, the United States Senate is being bargained and brokered like a used car! In NY a prima-donna without any experience expects to get the seat. In Illinois a tainted governor appoints a perfectly eligible person and the democrats will not seat him and in Minnesota the republicans say that they will block the winner, should that be a democrat, from taking his seat. Like all good republicans that lose a close election they want to take their case to the Supreme Court (eventually) where they of course expect to win 5-4. Why can they not abide by the results of elections? Ah who cares, they make themselves more unelectable by the day. Why do they think a respected incumbent like Coleman had so much trouble? Because he is a republican, that's why!

Posted by: Opa2 | January 3, 2009 1:01 PM | Report abuse


...AND my access account to has been SUSPENDED -- meaning that I am blocked from the site.

Am awaiting a return call from John Harris to see whether this was Politico's doing... whether Politico was pressured or ordered to do it (or whether he is prohibited by the Patriot Act from saying so)... or whether a third-party hacking entity is interfering with free speech in America.

Posted by: scrivener50 | January 3, 2009 12:42 PM | Report abuse


Suspect Big Brother surveillance, interception, tampering with your internet connection?

Please go to and post your experiences under the blog thread about browser security.

The ACLU must file a CLASS ACTION SUIT on behalf of all citizens whose internet connections are possibly being unconstitutionally spied upon -- and tampered with.

Read about my experiences related to posting here at "The Fix" and elsewhere at the link below.

Yesterday, I received email notice that more than 80 of my posts to over the past few months were DELETED from the site, along with the Google links

The emails purportedly were from Politico -- and stated that the posts were removed "due to inappropriate content," despite the fact that many had been on the site for months, and that there was nothing remotely inappropriate about them.

My conclusion: Either Politico was pressured into removing my posts -- or a third party hacking entity with an ideological agenda is imposing prior restraint and censorship on political web sites.

Perhaps during the discovery phase of a class action lawsuit, we will learn the truth of what's happening to "free" speech in America.


Posted by: scrivener50 | January 3, 2009 12:34 PM | Report abuse


Posted by: mattadamsdietmanager1014 | January 3, 2009 11:18 AM | Report abuse






Lose the attitude.





Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 3, 2009 10:32 AM | Report abuse

37th says:

"Lets just say for a moment Paterson nominates someone else, and Caroline runs against that person - isn't that messy? Paterson runs the risk of his choice being rejected."

Uh, dude? You DO know that Paterson will not "nominate" anyone. That's done by the parties themselves. He may indeed "appoint" someone other than Kennedy, and if he does, that person will be the senator from NY. Yes, he or she will have to run for reelection in 2010, but by that time, he or she will have amassed an - albeit slim - record on which to be judged, and if he or she loses to another candidate, it won't reflect on Patterson so much. Let me repeat: his choice cannot be rejected until 2010. This year, whomever he chooses WILL be the Senator.

You have a great many opinions that you insist on sharing - better said: "insist on forcing upon those who read this blog" - but they are ALL based on partisan feeling and/or prejudice rather than fact. Please do a little research before stating as fact that which you wish were true. And lose the multiple carriage returns - you must realize that if you're trying to convince anyone of your point of view, your approach only comes across as annoying/bullying. I don't think that's your goal, however - I think you're trying to ruin this blog because it is a forum for political discussion which often includes opinions with which you do not agree. Hope I'm wrong.

Posted by: bokonon13 | January 3, 2009 10:23 AM | Report abuse





17 Days until the start of the Third Clinton Administration

We have been through this before -

A Campaign promising 'CHANGE' How in the the world was Obama not called for Plagarism against Bill Clinton??

A Campaign promising a Middle Class Tax Cut - Let's see it.

The last time we had a Clinton Administration - Wall Street was deregulated with the Repeal of the Glass-Steagall Act and that set the stage for today's economic disaster.

The last time we had a Clinton Administration they cut the intelligence budget and NEGLECTED FOREIGN POLICY unti we were blind in the Middle East and the Terrorists were running wild.


Let's see it.

First, he has to hire more Republicans, not just a few token Republicans (especially if he is claiming he wants experience)






Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 3, 2009 9:58 AM | Report abuse

Lets just say for a moment Paterson nominates someone else, and Caroline runs against that person - isn't that messy? Paterson runs the risk of his choice being rejected.

Caroline Kennedy with her high name recognition, her fundraising potential and her own money is ahead right now.

She has at least the ability to throw the first 10 million into her own race for 2010 - who can match that?

Appointing Bill Clinton or Cuomo appears to favor one of those families and really is not the "neutral choice" which one may want with a caretaker.

So a caretaker would have to be someone else who really is not connected to someone who wants to run again.

Hillary may quit her cabinet position and go back to the Senate at some point... maybe.

Paterson may be better off going with a young guy who is a rising star - and one who can use a boost in the tough New York politics

The problem really is there are so many top tier heavy weights in New York.

Which brings us back to Caroline who is now emerging as the 'safe' choice.

Posted by: Yes37thandORulesForever | January 3, 2009 9:43 AM | Report abuse

Chris, Your previous "case" threads were excellent short primers. For those who did not read them, I think they can be fairly summarized as having presented a stronger case "against" then "for".

Is there a price that NY would pay for either selecting or not selecting CK? Is there a price Paterson would pay either way?

I am decidedly not a New Yawker. I do not know what weight Paterson is giving to each of the variables. However, at this moment, waiting to be certain that HRC is confirmed seems prudent.

Posted by: mark_in_austin | January 3, 2009 9:26 AM | Report abuse

I think that Kennedy's chief asset is the sense of quiet decency that she projects, due in part to her not being a professional politician. Frankly, I think her deficiencies have been over-stated and her attributes minimized. If she were ever to jump into politics, the time is now, while her uncle is around to mentor her. I appreciate the Kennedy tradition in politics, appreciate her support of Obama at a crucial time, and think that she can be a formidable ally in helping to mobilize support for Obama's programs, in a way a freshman in the Senate most likely would not be able to. Heck, I have a soft spot for nice people and Caroline seems like one.

Posted by: Jeff-for-progress | January 3, 2009 7:59 AM | Report abuse

How many times haven't we wished that our leaders were independent, public-service minded and attuned to the needs of the electorate rather than simply 'experienced?' Some of our very worse politicians have been the longest serving. Years in the public eye a good politician does not make! Until we have public financing of elections, the next best thing is good leadership free from the pressures of big money lobbying interests. Go Caroline. Your heart is in the right place.

Posted by: loveforall | January 3, 2009 3:21 AM | Report abuse

Caroline Kennedy would be a terrible choice.

Posted by: Phil6 | January 3, 2009 12:16 AM | Report abuse

Chris, Many of us in western New York hope that Gov. Paterson looks west of the Hudson. He seems to be taking a deliberative approach to this appointment, for which I am grateful, but what does it say about the state of politics that both leading candidates, Kennedy and Andrew Cuomo, are noteworthy as much for their political families as for their own accomplishments?

Posted by: -pamela | January 2, 2009 11:49 PM | Report abuse

Well, uh, that's right, you know.

Posted by: Thinker1 | January 2, 2009 8:55 PM | Report abuse

Uh, broadwayjoe, I think the point of this article is that that contrary to wishful thinking reports, Caroline is not a shoo-in and there is no pick. While you seem to be caught up in the Camelot romance, many of us who actually live in NY are hoping Paterson appoints someone that's done more than pass the family sceptre. We elected HRC twice and need someone like her, an experienced fighter who knows a little something about economics given the dire circumstances. Caroline is NOT that person and this is not the right time for a vanity appointment.

Posted by: NYdem08 | January 2, 2009 8:00 PM | Report abuse

While the news is good for Mrs. Schlossberg, not so for Mr. Burris--

From HuffPo/CNN, this depressing news:

The Dems plan to physically confront 71-year-old Burris if he shows up on the Senate floor (see below). Conjures memories of George Wallace and Orval Faubus blocking AA children at the schoolhouse door. Unbelievable. What is the possible harm in seating Burris??

Excerpt from article:

"Watch: What if Burris shows up?

The aide familiar with Senate Democratic leaders' plans said if Burris tries to enter the Senate chamber, the Senate doorkeeper will stop Burris. If Burris were to persist, either trying to force his way onto the Senate floor or refusing to leave and causing a scene, U.S. Capitol Police would stop him, said the aide."

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2009 7:13 PM | Report abuse

Chris, it is good to hear that things are going Mrs. Schlossberg's way. Her endorsement of BHO gave a critical boost to his campaign when the establishment was still skeptical of the young AA candidate. Her passing of the Kennedy sceptre to BHO symbolized the passing of her Dad's dream for our country forward to this generation.

With this good news for Mrs. S, we now can fully enjoy the good-natured YouTube presentation about her titled "The More You Know: Caroline Kennedy." Mrs. Schlossberg is, and always will be, an O-Nation icon and hero...uh, you know.

Posted by: broadwayjoe | January 2, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

Chris, looks like Colorado's going to lead. Local media are reporting Gov. Ritter has selected Denver Public School Superintendent Michael Bennet to replace Sen. Ken Salazar (Obama’s new Interior Secretary). Formal announcement coming tomorrow.

Bennet wasn’t one of the favorites…most bets were on Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper or outgoing (term-limited) Colorado House Speaker Andrew Romanoff.

Bennet has a business background as a very successful turn-around specialist and was a surprise choice for DPS Superintendent a couple years ago. He’s received kudos for some innovative education plans bringing the teachers unions and reformers together into some interesting compromises. He was also one of the finalists for Obama’s Secretary of Education.

He’s little-known outside of Denver and the Front Range but the Governor sees him as a centrist moderate (like Sen Salazar and the Gov himself) who can get the votes of the 1/3rd of Colorado voters registered as Independent, when he runs in 2010 (also helps that Bennet can provide significant self-funding).

Will update you when the formal announcement is released.

Posted by: malis | January 2, 2009 6:56 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company