Who Is The Wackier Kennedy Worshipper? O'Donnell Or Dowd?

You make the call. First up is Maureen Dowd:

I love the hurly-burly way the Illinois governor rammed through his choice for the Senate, compared with the namby-pamby way the New York governor strangled his best choice for the Senate. So now we have an N.R.A. handmaiden in Bobby Kennedy’s old seat? Paterson could have acted a month ago, or even a week ago. . . . Then the Democrats would have had another Kennedy in the Senate representing New York — Bobby’s niece and a smart, policy-oriented, civic-minded woman to whom the president feels deeply indebted in an era when every state has its hand out.

(Emphasis supplied.) That one is going to be hard to beat I know (and I did not even get into the paranoid CDS conspiracy theory.) But read what Lawrence O'Donnell had to say:

“Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people,” Lawrence O’Donnell says. “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with."

Allrighty then. I did not realize that for some in the Media the Camelot/Kennedy thing never ended. But on the wacky scale, I think Dowd wins. O'Donnell is offensive and weird. Dowd is, to coin a phrase, cuckoo.

The other thing that is weird is that these Kennedy worshippers never actually worshipped Ted Kennedy's progressive agenda. It is safe to say I think that between O'Donnell and Dowd they may have spent 1% of the words on policy instead of personalities (and between the two of them a third of their words have been hateful screeds against the Clintons.) It really all is personal, not policy driven, for them. I am coming to the conclusion the everyone in Washington is crazy.

Speaking for me only

< David Koresh's Mother Killed | Obama Names 4 DOJ Division Chiefs >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Thank you for pointing out (5.00 / 6) (#1)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 08:17:47 AM EST
    how little these two gasbags ever got behind a Ted Kennedy progressive policy push.  I've been spending a lot of time "out" these days.  Nothing like finally seeing the end of Dubya to bring a sense of peace.  The liberal base is intelligent so how is it that these two still get a paycheck for delivering this to our morning breakfast table?

    I am not so sure that it's just Kennedy. (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by cpa1 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:06:50 AM EST
    Dowd thought Caroline would be great and probably O'Donnell did too.  However, would they be so disappointed if the choice were Mario Cuomo, Gary Ackerman, Nita Lowey, Charlie Rangel (who wouldn't take it but would be great) or a leap like Paul Krugman?

    I was never a fan of the gift to Caroline, whether she'd be good or not.  As I have said before, NY Democrats should not have to worry about how Gillibrand is going to vote.  We shouldn't have to worry if she is really another right wing nut, a chameleon or god forbid, another Lieberman or Harold Ford, Jr.  Who the hell needed her...not us.  Haven't we suffered enough with our Democrats kissing conservative ass?

    I think and hope Paterson will pay for this with a primary loss for him.  We are all over Blogo for making his Senate choice all about him but how is Paterson any different? This choice says a lot of bad things to me.  

    I think Dowd and O'Donnell are just as upset Gillibrand representing NY as they are about their friend not taking over the Bobby seat.


    Hysteria about Gillibrand (5.00 / 10) (#46)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:08:10 AM EST
    is kind of silly.  I don't like her absolutist stand on guns, but she's already starting to back away from it.

    But really, a "right-wing nut"?  A "chameleon," a Lieberman or a Harold Ford?  You've got to be kidding.  Do you know anything at all about this woman other than the gun issue?  Doesn't sound like it.

    My understanding is she's openly pro-gay marriage and has been huge on choice and women's health issues in general.  Upstate NY is not rural Kansas, it's more like NH, if not quite Vermont.

    She worked her butt off for Hillary's first campaign, and Hillary in turn apparently backed her strongly with Paterson.

    She's only going to move more to the left in order to run statewide.


    gay marriage (none / 0) (#95)
    by Nasarius on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:48:35 AM EST
    My understanding is she's openly pro-gay marriage

    Yes, for how long, a few days now? Before that, she had no problem at all with separate but equal.

    Here's a very recent interview with her (h/t to the Brian Lehrer Show on WNYC):

    And then the question of whether you call it a marriage or not, what you label it, that can be left to the states to decide.


    "Chameleon" seems apt. I think she'll be a solid D vote. Maybe. But I really doubt she's the kind of liberal voice that New York could support. Put it this way: she's not the kind of ally I would expect David Paterson to elevate.


    As an extremely strong (5.00 / 3) (#137)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:08:27 PM EST
    proponent of gay marriage, I don't see the problem with the statement of G's you quoted.  Unless the federal government is going to decree that all states have to recognize same-sex marriage, which it isn't going to do and certainly can't do constitutionally, it does, in fact, have to be left up to the states to decide individually.

    Where is the great anti-gay marriage sentiment in that?

    I only heard of this gal for the first time a few weeks ago, so I'm by no means an expert on her record and very willing to be educated, but so far, nobody's shown me all that much, and nothing t all that makes her anything close to a "right-wing nut."

    This is all reminding me a bit of the wild distortions that were spread about Palin's record, actually, when whole essays got written taking a small snippet of something she'd said and turning it into a broad-based ukase she never issued and didn't believe in.

    G is clearly more conservative than I would like on issues like guns and immigration, but she's no worse on balance than a pretty large proportion of our Dem. leaders, including Mr. Obama, who is (now, not some years ago), rather forcefully against gay marriage.

    Chameleon?  All politicians are chameleons to some extent, especially when they're going from representing a district to an entire state.

    I say again, her record doesn't come close to justifying the hysteria some folks are giving out with.


    A good, cogent... (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by NYShooter on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 10:12:44 AM EST
    .....analysis. I live in the district next to Gillibrand, and observing her on a day to day basis I can tell you she is a fine asset to the Democratic mix in the Senate.

    I was really disappointed in the instantaneous, knee jerk, negative reaction to her appointment. IMO, she is exactly what we need more of in our Party. Like Hillary, she is a policy wonk. Like Hillary, she is indefatigable in her work ethic. And also like Hillary, she is right on most issues.

    The 2'nd amendment is a done deal; vehemently protesting it would be fatal in the district she hails from. To do any good for our country, like they say, "first, you have to win."

    From what I've seen, that issue is the only thing that her detractors hang their vitriol on, and that to me is pathetic.      


    And by the way (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:10:27 PM EST
    you mean "the kind of liberal voice" Manhattan could support.  The state as a whole is hardly so liberal, and even Manhattan doesn't exactly have a recent history of liberal mayors.

    Obama and Biden clearly stated they are (5.00 / 3) (#147)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:05:26 PM EST
    not for gay marriage and Obama added that marriage is a  "spiritual" thing and "God's in the mix" -- so how is she, at her worst, less than they.  At least she's willing to take a more human stance right now (a less hypocritical one).

      Are they?


    Bob Somerby (5.00 / 3) (#127)
    by BernieO on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:35:07 PM EST
    would say this is an example of Irish Catholic bias. It is really nutty.

    I think Somerby (5.00 / 4) (#135)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:34:11 PM EST
    nails it.

    I have no doubt (none / 0) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:10:26 AM EST
    Absolutely none, that they would be whining about this.

    When for gawdsakes has Dowd ever written about the NRa before? You are forgetting who Dowd and O'Donnel are.  


    Confusing. Who is this O'Donnell? TV writer (none / 0) (#21)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:33:45 AM EST
    and actore and talking head news guy.  At first I was thinking of fellow who worked for JFK and was in the car behind the President and First Lady in Dallas.

    West Wing O'Donnell (5.00 / 7) (#23)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:36:38 AM EST
    A longstanding pr*ck and inveterate Clinton hater.

    Yes, and a guy (5.00 / 3) (#32)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:51:29 AM EST
    who speaks on all subjects with the certainty and pomposity of an old-fashioned and out-of-touch professor emeritus.

    He's a blogger? n/t (none / 0) (#38)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:58:36 AM EST
    Not really (none / 0) (#41)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:59:39 AM EST
    A HuffPo blogger which is to say, not a blogger at all, merely a FOA or a celebrity - and likely both.

    Like 99% of the other (none / 0) (#40)
    by brodie on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:59:27 AM EST
    teevee pundits are overly-certain and pompous, too.  

    At least O'D has some solid background and seems well-versed in the issues, from what I've seen, and doesn't just wing it from the lips, like Tweety or the very shallow David Shuster or Joe Scarborough.

    Iow, O'D would be my pick for the MSNBC opening at 10 pm.


    Can you point to one thing hwe has written or said on ANY issue that you thik knowledgeable?

    Here's the funny thing - O'Donnell is a pure DLC centrist Lieberman type whenever he deigns to discuss any issue and has been attacking liberals for as long as he has been punditing.

    and Dowd, well, the next policy issue Dowd writes about will be the first.

    The ignorance about these people is stunning.


    On matters of political (none / 0) (#61)
    by brodie on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17:59 AM EST
    strategy, and some economic issues, I've seen him strike the right notes, though I don't always agree with the pol he's backing.  

    But that's from my small sampling of what must be 1000s of O'D appearances on the tube over the years, if one counts shows like McGlaughlin Group, which I never watch, and Morning Joe, which I rarely see and where he's apparently a semi-regular.

    Generally, I like his forceful style.

    This would be in stark contrast to so many wimpy Dems -- far too many of them on MSNBC and CNN -- who offer up mushy ot1h/ot2h non-confrontational, "bipartisan"-sounding analysis.

    And, again, if I somehow found myself being skewered in the media the way CK got it for 2 months, I'd want a loyal friend like O'D in there firing away at some of my oppo and providing cover.


    Which political strategies? what issues? (none / 0) (#81)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:31:57 AM EST
    Please name them.

    He also has real anger issues (5.00 / 1) (#144)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 06:52:36 PM EST
    from what I've seen of him on the 'pundit' shows.

      But he always starts out with that forced 'kindly' look before the hate overcomes him.  Just don't disagree with him on his favorites.  Gillibrand represents 'cows'? and is not the daughter of royalty that Caroline is huh?   Blubbering blabber.


    But O'Donnell Yelling 'Liar' At The Swift Boat Guy (none / 0) (#162)
    by daring grace on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 02:22:11 PM EST
    on Scarborough's MSNBC program in 2004 was well worth watching...

    Less than two years ago ... (none / 0) (#130)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:01:21 PM EST
    O'Donnell was touting Bloomberg for President, claiming he could win a three way race.

    And we all know what a progressive Bloomberg is!

    Cuckoo ... cuckoo ... cuckoo!


    He also worked for Sen. Moynihan (none / 0) (#54)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:14:37 AM EST
    according to this New Yorker article, which is a good summary of the CK Senate story. I think it is the original source of the quote BTD is using.

    Indeed he did (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:24:04 AM EST
    And Moynihan was one of the worst Senators NY ever had.

    Don't tell Tim Russert! (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:26:54 AM EST
    That shous you how bad Moynihan was (none / 0) (#79)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:31:20 AM EST
    Russert, O'Donnell etc.

    Actually, I was friends with one Moynihan guy who was a great guy - Dick Eaton. Yep. You never heard of him. Shows what a nice guy he was.


    Nope (none / 0) (#86)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:35:12 AM EST
    Never heard of him.

    He's on Morning Joe and Tweety a lot. (none / 0) (#94)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:48:32 AM EST
    Former aide to Senator Moniyhan (none / 0) (#97)
    by Molly Bloom on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:55:44 AM EST
    He was the Democratic Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Finance from 1993 through 1995 (Sen. Moynihan was the chair during this time period). In 1992, he was Chief of Staff of the United States Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works (Moynihan was the chair 92-93).

    Others have given some detail on his career as a screewriter and actor. I think he is a lawyer, but am not going to google it to find out.

    Moynihan was no friend of President Clinton's health care plan. Whether that stance is also attributable to  O'Donnell I do not know.


    I think that Caroline would be (none / 0) (#145)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:00:46 PM EST
    a good education fundraiser and ambassador to monied people, for Obama and the country, and he will be able to use her in some capacity (though her husband is said to not want her to move to Washington as she planned -- which is understandable, and she wouldn't have to).

      Obama had campaigned (as had Hillary) for Gillibrand when she ran for office.  He needs all the Dem votes he can get and is not about to talk G down, in favor of Caroline at this point.

      I have nothing against Caroline (except for her seeming to feel that as a daughter of Kennedy with access to money and a close connection with Obama she should have been appointed, without much thought from her about all the others who had actually worked more than full time in tedious circumstances and were also "deserving" of being seriously considered).

      Maybe she's relieved now and will welcome a less overwhelming and more appropriate job with Obama later.


    Let's see what happens (none / 0) (#10)
    by Democratic Cat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:13:53 AM EST
    She's up in 2010.  If she doesn't perform for downstate, she'll get ousted and that seems fine to me.

    In the meantime, she has started kissing downstate's a** and Rev. Sharpton seems willing to give her a shot.  Seems like a good start.


    What happens to $$$ for NY? (5.00 / 6) (#47)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:08:17 AM EST
    Teddy Kennedy said that the appt of his niece would prove rewarding remuneratively for New York in the sort of "pay to play" that is legal in politics.

    So now, New York will not get his approval (and from what he said, he controls it!) for all that stimulus funding flow -- and Paterson will pay for that at the polls, we presume.   This does not seem to be the New Dawn in America, at least not in New York.


    Hmmm (5.00 / 3) (#57)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17:12 AM EST
    I guess the idea is Charles Schumer is chopped liver. The idea strikes me as insane.

    Not to mention the Ways and Means Chairman (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17:48 AM EST
    is someone named Charlie Rangel, who David Paterson has known since he was born.

    He's indispensable (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:18:31 AM EST
    and he knows it.

    Not bad for 10 years in the Senate.


    Well, I thought it was inane (5.00 / 2) (#106)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:25:54 AM EST
    if not insane that Massachusetts could so mess with New York, i.e., Schumer -- and especially if the Dems want to keep New York seats in Congress and the govship.  So I also wondered why that comment of Teddy Kennedy's wasn't called out (including here).

    But then, a lot of Dems have acted both inanely and insanely of late.  


    "...of late"? (none / 0) (#108)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:40:15 AM EST
    Evidently my 'of late' is a lot longer than your 'of late.'

    Ha. True. It's just that (5.00 / 2) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:55:00 AM EST
    I finally was forced to wake up and smell the coffee.  Or whatever it was "of late" that stunk so much that turned me into an Independent.:-)

    I understand perfectly. (5.00 / 5) (#2)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 08:20:28 AM EST
    You see, no Kennedy ever stained the office of the Presidency by being caught cheating with another woman,  nor did any besmirch the office by virtue of being born a commoner.

    I don't think that kind of guilt (none / 0) (#6)
    by cpa1 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:09:28 AM EST
    by association is appropriate for Caroline.  From what I can see, she is a great American, a very classy and very smart woman.  

    How about virtue by association? (5.00 / 2) (#8)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:10:55 AM EST
    Do you object to that too?

    No, (none / 0) (#19)
    by cpa1 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:31:26 AM EST
    I agree with you there and I think it's unfortunate that it appears that that's way Dowd and O'Donnell are upset.  

    I could be wrong.  Do you really think it's only about Caroline?


    Think? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:35:59 AM EST
    I know it. Have you never read Dowd and O'Donnell before?

    I"m saying nothing about Caroline: (none / 0) (#13)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:23:43 AM EST
    my comment is about Dowd and O'Donnell.

    O'Donnell's comments (none / 0) (#29)
    by brodie on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:46:31 AM EST
    as a friend of CK are understandable and entirely on the mark wrt his skewering of Gov Paterson, who badly bungled this one and unnecessarily and shamefully helped to tarnish the image of a good person and loyal Dem.

    I hope a Cuomo or other solid Dem primaries this moron in 2010.

    As for Dowd, her positive remarks about CK the person represent one of the few times in the past decade that I've applauded her.

    Though I think that in the end it was probably better that CK dropped out.

    She can regroup later, if that's her wish, and seek public office w/o having to be hamstrung by a capricious and backstabbing nitwit like Paterson.


    Your hope is a pipe dream (5.00 / 3) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:58:38 AM EST
    Primary the African American Governor? Political suicide. Cuomo went down this path once and still has scars because of it.

    I am shocked at the lack of knowledge being exhibited here.


    Someone who bungled this (none / 0) (#49)
    by brodie on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:10:20 AM EST
    badly over what should have been a simple and closely-held process of naming a replacement -- a pol who looked so inept in that is likely to bungle again between now and the '10 primaries.

    Dems in NY might not want to see a badly dinged gov, mostly self-inflicted damage, go up against a major Rethug like Rudy, and so they may well get behind a Cuomo in order to avoid the loss in the general.

    Lots can happen in 18 months in politics.

    I would have thought the recent presidential election cycle would have proved that ...


    Dream on (none / 0) (#55)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    From the bungle to the primary challenge.

    BTW, when exactly do you think a primary campaign has to start? 18 months from now is 2 months from the primary.

    Any primary challenge to Paterson will have to start now. Who do you think is going to jump in and alienate African Americans?

    Give me one name. Just one. And do not say Cuomo because no way in hell will Cuomo make the same mistake twice.

    So who is your name? Oh BTW, who is going to support that challenger?


    You miss my point. (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by brodie on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:23:57 AM EST
    If Gov Moron bungles again in the next year or so, with his polls in the dumpster and rumblings aplenty about whether he should even seek a full term in his own right, the Dem pols are going to evaluate the situation and jump in if they see the opening.

    The pols and the party are not going to sit around and watch the gov's seat lost to a strong Repub just because Paterson is AA and is therefore somehow untouchable.


    See (5.00 / 5) (#77)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:29:36 AM EST
    Your premise is that in NY politics, Paterson bungled here. If you can find one actual pol in NY who actually believes that, I have a bridge to sell you.

    Forget about the primary, let's build a REAL paayback scenario - CK booster Bloomberg decides to run against Paterson.

    If you want to threaten Paterson, there's your threat.


    I find it amusing. . . (none / 0) (#89)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:36:24 AM EST
    how many Kennedy supporters are citing Bloomberg as an authority on why she should have been appointed and Gillibrand not.

    I don't think Cuomo will primary him, but it (none / 0) (#70)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    is not absolutely inconceivable. Marist currently has his approval rating at 44%. If it should drop into the lower 30's and head to head polls against Repbulicans start showing Paterson losing, I could see a primary challenge happening. Unlikely, but possible.

    Never happen (none / 0) (#75)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:27:44 AM EST
    Two words on Cuomo - Carl McCall.

    Oh please (none / 0) (#85)
    by cotton candy on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:34:39 AM EST
    That is absurd that his contest against McCall would doom him.  What an absurd notion.  

    Obviously (none / 0) (#104)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:14:31 AM EST
    you do not understand my point - AFTER challenging McCall, Cuomo can;t challenge Paterson.

    If you think that is absurd, then you know nothing about NY politics.


    Actually, (none / 0) (#134)
    by cotton candy on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:14:56 PM EST
    I do know quite a bit about NY politics and if the hotly competitive dem primary for governor has ruined Cuomo's chances then it should also ruin Terry Mac's chances of becoming Governor because of McCall.  

    Pataki did decent enough among blacks which didn't help McCall and Terry Mac did nothing to provide funding and other stuff for McCall. Shouldn't Terry Mac's involvement as well disqualify him from running in a state where 18% of the voters are black and who could judge him as well?

    No, I still do not think it is absurd for Cuomo to challenge him as Patterson's popularity isn't even sky high among blacks.


    Whatever (none / 0) (#139)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 03:35:07 PM EST
    If that sounds like reasonable analysis to you, then go with it.

    Sounds nonsensical to me.


    Primaring Paterson (none / 0) (#65)
    by cotton candy on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:20:42 AM EST
    Longtime lurker here but your comment just set me off. You act as if Paterson's actions do not warrant a primary and it has nothing to do with whether he is black or not.  

    In addition to bungling this appointment he has not been a very good governor and NY is in serious trouble budget wise. The man is incompetent and challenging him in a primary wouldn't be such a bad thing for our democracy and especially the state of New York. You might have forgotten that he only is Governor because of Spitzer and not because he is a great politician or anything.


    I believe every pol should be primaried (5.00 / 1) (#67)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:23:25 AM EST
    My comment is not about what I think she happen, but what I believe WILL happen.

    And take this to the bank, Andrew Cuomo will NEVER EVER primary David Paterson.

    So tell me who is?


    Never say never (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by cotton candy on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:31:30 AM EST
    Cuomo is ambitious and he knows Paterson is weak.  NY is a mess right now and Paterson isn't very popular.  Do not be surprised to see Cuomo primary him in 2010 and I wouldn't be surprised if he was successful.

    With Cuomo and Paterson (none / 0) (#83)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:32:41 AM EST
    Say never.

    Two words - Carl McCall.


    As it stands right now, today, Cuomo will (none / 0) (#74)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:27:09 AM EST
    not challenge him. If Paterson starts approaching Spitzer levels of approval, Cuomo will see his chance, and it becomes very tempting.

    NY is not enamored of Paterson (5.00 / 1) (#91)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:36:40 AM EST
    He's a bit of a drama King and not an effective leader. He came in with scandal and if another one reaches the radar screen in the next year of so, he'll in serious trouble. IMO

    Paterson in primarily going to suffer from (5.00 / 1) (#116)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:20:06 PM EST
    the economic crisis. People here (everywhere really) are scared and pissed. Their anger can be fairly indiscriminate and the top guy is going to bare alot of it, even if he's completely blameless.

    Actually, he might. (none / 0) (#84)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:34:37 AM EST
    The man is an idiot.  Although he's an idiot who learns, so perhaps he won't make the same mistake twice.

    More likely he would angle for a situation in which Paterson retired after this term due to poor poll numbers.  Or wait a term.

    The Times is running an article containing speculation that Cuomo's being driven by a desire to find a path for him to the White House in 2016.


    Bingo (5.00 / 1) (#90)
    by cotton candy on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:36:35 AM EST
    Like I said, Cuomo is ambitious and he does learn from his mistakes.  Of course his eyes are on 2016. Is anyone surprised?  Getting a governor's term under his belt would help make his path to running in 2016 smoother.

    Why do all politicians think they can (none / 0) (#88)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:35:57 AM EST
    be President?

    Because if a State Senator turned (5.00 / 1) (#92)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:38:43 AM EST
    national Senator who spent about 100 days actually on the job can do it anyone can do it. If a stupid, video game playing, cheeto eating bufoon can do it, anyone can do it. If a womanizing hick can do it, etc.

    It's just a different mentality (none / 0) (#93)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:42:50 AM EST
    There's pretty much no way I'd want that job, ever.

    And if you think the Kennedys (none / 0) (#107)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:38:49 AM EST
    dislike Paterson, wait until Cuomo tries something.

    Caroline's a "loyal Dem" ? (5.00 / 1) (#148)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:09:06 PM EST
    No doubt she's a "good person" (but we need more than that as a requirement for senator) but she did not vote in HALF the elections, would not say she'd support a Dem over Bloomberg, a dear friend, and managed to contribute $1,000 to the Democratic party in all these decades.  That's the total, for one worth $100 million.  What makes a "loyal Dem" ?

    I must have been (none / 0) (#155)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 08:24:00 PM EST
    a VERY good Dem, as I voted Dem in all elections for a lot longer than since she was of age to do so, and I have very publicly said I supported them (and I do some speaking in very public venues), and I have donated a heck of a lot more than she has.

    But I'm a disloyal Dem, ever since it was so disloyal to its own rules, so there must be some other means to measure it. :-)


    You remain a loyal Dem, (5.00 / 2) (#157)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:22:57 PM EST
    to the Dem party that had a respect for truth.

      Pelosi and Brazile, and to a certain extent, Dean, gave up on that.  While we had a good choice of candidates, they made a farce of the process.  Ends can justify the means for those who especially like the ends, but that doesn't mean there is much respect for the means.


    Caroline Kennedy's Checkers speech (none / 0) (#51)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:11:31 AM EST
    that would be needed after this debacle would be something to see.  A Kennedy emulating, y'know, not a Kennedy but a Nixon?  Edward Schlossberg in a plain cloth coat?  But nothing surprises me anymore in this country's politics; it just appalls me.

    KDS (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by majkia on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:11:57 AM EST
    what is so weird, is that I'm old enough to remember when CDS was KDS.  Now suddenly the Kennedys are worthy of worship rather than scorn.

    Ha! (5.00 / 4) (#15)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:23:49 AM EST
    That's so true!

    This has nothing to do with the politics (5.00 / 6) (#27)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:43:19 AM EST
    and everything to do with the glitter; Dowd especially is just seething at the realization that she and Caroline Kennedy won't be bonding over the cocktail-weenie chafing dish, exchanging snide remarks (Dowd would be offering them, Kennedy would at least be gracious enough to just smile and nod) about the "real" Clintons.  I mean, you just know that for weeks now, she has been having these little one-act plays in her own head, where Kennedy realizes Dowd is her long-lost true best friend, and Dowd gets entree into a world she so clearly longs for.  It's really sad how little real life Dowd has, but that's no reason Kennedy should be the next Senator from New York.

    And Lawrence O'Donnell invoking the word "hack" is just too, too funny.  

    it's tit for tat time (none / 0) (#56)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17:04 AM EST
    CK was worked over nicely by the MSM and certain prominent bloggers. Now there's some payback going on for this.

    Payback? (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:21:44 AM EST
    By Dowd? Hit me with a feather. She does not even know how to hit back in a subtantive way.

    For crissakes, the asexist Tracey flick nonsense?

    She embarrasses herself as did O'Donnell. The only people they are "paying back" is themselves.

    Paterson and Gillibrand surely are not hurt by these fools.


    Dowd and MoDo are Children of Camelot (none / 0) (#78)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:30:13 AM EST
    Irish Catholics to boot. This might not be effective payback but it's their attempt to defend CK and bloody Paterson.

    Paterson, imo, is so pathetically lost in his own majesty, that he's clueless but it will add to the growing  narrative that he bungled the pick.


    A narrative whose shelf life (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:09:07 AM EST
    ends in a few days. No one really cares.  

    A lot of NY Dems are looking for reasons (none / 0) (#117)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:22:33 PM EST
    to shorten Paterson's shelf life. I think he sullied his image as a leader as well as created a few more enemies. Anything to weaken him is a win for me. Sure he 'might' have gained some upstate votes, but he sure as hell lost a lot of downstate votes and I think if a viable challenger emerges, Paterson might be hanging on for dear life.

    and yes, I know the odds are very slim (none / 0) (#120)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:25:51 PM EST
    but in politics anything is possible.

    The O'bama's are bringing back (none / 0) (#111)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:44:00 AM EST
    Camelot for the Irish Americans anyway.

    'tis true..he had a great or great great (none / 0) (#118)
    by byteb on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:23:53 PM EST
    grandfather from Ireland. :)

    Did you catch this story on Dowd's party? (none / 0) (#151)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:40:26 PM EST
    It's by Steve Clemons of The Washington Note.  

      He winds up apologizing that he enjoys these things and that schmoozing is necessary for his job of course.

      In his blog, there are some very interesting recent columns on Caroline Kennedy's situation (and he's been told that Teddy was the one who pushed her into this) and on the great start we've seen with the new foreign policy team.  Some very upbeat reading on that latter.


    Question (5.00 / 2) (#28)
    by themomcat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:44:59 AM EST
    "I am coming to the conclusion the everyone in Washington is crazy."
    What took you so long? ;-)

    Boy, I expected (5.00 / 1) (#87)
    by KeysDan on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:35:51 AM EST
    Maureen Dowd to be in a rage, but not  with quite the incoherence and rambling of her column today.  She was clearly on the ledge, taking off on everyone in her sights, even working in Mayor Daley's clinical analysis of Rod Blagojevich as being "cuckoo" (a tad better in prognosis, I guess, than being "off your rocker").  Ms. Dowd's disappointment seems to transcend revelry in nostalgia and teeters on the cusp of irrationality.  Ms. Dowd, can be a clever wordsmith and can demonstrate a keen wit.  Moreover, I do have a little bit of a soft spot (in my head) for her owing to her being one of the few early and continuing critics of the Iraq war. However, today's piece is devoid of any redeeming qualities.

    Forget her criticism of the war (5.00 / 2) (#128)
    by BernieO on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:42:58 PM EST
    She attacked Gore mercilessly. Had she opposed Bush strongly, she would deserve credit.

    That being said, I think my most cuckoo vote goes to O'Donnell for this one, given his remark about representing cows. These snobs believe that people who are not from cool urban areas are uneducated slobs. Pathetic.


    Gail Collins crystalized it for me (5.00 / 4) (#98)
    by souvarine on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:59:01 AM EST
    Gail Collins crystalized it for me when she described staying in touch with the voters as demeaning:
    Even before the messy denouement, there were worrisome signs that Kennedy was just not the kind of person who would have fun doing 4,600 events across the state. A well-adjusted U.S. senator needs to combine a sincere interest in public policy with a joyful acceptance of the need to demean oneself while begging for votes and donations.

    Many of the elite pundits have no respect for or understanding of democracy, they think serving the nation means pleasing them and their friends. Hanging out with the plebs is demeaning.

    "...everyone in Washington is crazy...." (5.00 / 2) (#109)
    by kempis on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:40:36 AM EST

    And it really is about personality and power, not policy, though at times someone like Dowd gets her knickers in a twist over a rare idea she actually cares about. But it's rare.

    Support of the pundits (and the DC poohbahs) seems to depend mostly on how they answer this:  "who with the most power is kindest to me?" And the flip-side: "who with the most power neglects me?"

    In his book on Hillary, Carl Bernstein actually did a fair job of covering this phenomenon among the pundits and the society set in DC. According to his A Woman in Charge, perhaps the biggest mistake the Clintons made when they arrived in DC in 93 was that they did not kiss the right butts. They were naive and thought that all that really mattered was getting policy right. Not realizing the importance of cultivating relationships with DC socialites, they inadvertently offended many and the pundits who schmooze them. This meant that they had little friendly cover from the barrage of enemy fire from the Vast Rightwing Conspiracy.

    It's disgusting. But it's a universal disgusting trait. We humans tend to form societies like big ol' gorilla colonies; everyone wants to buddy up to the silverback. Ideas and principles and policies be damned. What matters most is where one fits in the hierarchy. If we like to be the one who picks fleas off the silverback but the new silverback seems uninterested, we see him as a threat and long for his replacement with one who appreciates our lofty position in the flea-picking order of things.

    This is something we human beings really need to grow out of. Democracies challenge us to do just that. But there's always suspense: will democracy last? Will we obey reason and be creatures worthy of democracy, or will we fall back into our more primitive selves and swing from the trees in our cocktail gowns? ....At least gorillas aren't pretentious (and they don't waste time with metaphors like this one. ;) )

    I believe (5.00 / 4) (#122)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:02:33 PM EST
    Bernstein hit the nail on the head.   Bill and Hillary were naive idealists.  And they did not know to kiss the arses of the DC press elite.  Thankfully, I believe that Barack and Michelle learned from them. I think that is why, despite the primary wars, the Obamas, respect and use the Clintons.  They KNOW that Bill and Hillary, like them, went into this with young and with great hope. Unlike the Obama's the Clintons had no one to turn to for things like that (though Hillary did speak quite a bit to Jackie about how to help Chelsea get through those years).

    Another example of how embittered the press are towards the Clintons (and the Carters who also did not kiss a**).  One announcer talked yesterday about how nice it was for the Bush twins to talk to the Obama children, etc etc etc.  THEN he says, how neat it is to have young children in White House, that is has been 50 years since we had young ones there, since the Kennedys. HELLO....Chelsea Clinton, Amy Carter?


    Obama does not "respect" (5.00 / 3) (#123)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:26:56 PM EST
    the Clintons.  He allowed, and perhaps even encouraged, his camp to call them racists.  He allowed, and possibly even encouraged (and even participated in) sexist carp.

    That is not respect -- and for that, he still has to work for my "respect," anyway (much as he has my agreement on and appreciation for some first steps taken this week).

    Obama learned to fear the Clintons, and correctly so.  As they now fear him, I presume.  That's the basis for a lot of good politics, and that is why this political partnership is going forward.  That's all.  And New York just got another taste of it, too.


    Well, I am not (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:32:59 PM EST
    going to argue the primary stuff either.  I do not believe that Obama believes the Clintons are racists...but I was as angry as any one when he allowed that. I have come to understand, accept the low blows of political battles.  Sadly.

    But I do think they respect if not the Clintons themselves, what the Clintons learned the hard way.


    This is not "arguing primary stuff" (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:04:41 PM EST
    I'm past that.  In a way, much as I wish a Clinton were in charge of the economy now, I'm glad that the first woman president did not step into what may be a doomed debacle for the Dems, sadly -- because then it will be doomed for all of us.

    Anyway, at the same time, I see no sense in ignoring what has been learned about the canny, calculating pol who is our Prez now -- as if this Chicago style of politics is to continue in the White House, as I think it will with Emanuel as COS and Axelrove still in the picture, we may well see more tossing under the race-card bus.

    And if so, we have got to call it out for what it is rather than letting it continue.  It is destructive for the polis, if not the pol who benefited by it.  And that the Clintons are strong enough to have endured it was good, but I do not want to see other good public servants lost to us who may not have the Clintons' incredible ability to endure such crap.


    Well I had been wishing for (none / 0) (#136)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:38:17 PM EST
    and supporting Hillary all the way.  But in a way I am relieved she is not in there.  I said that even before the primary ended....I did not envy whoever won.

    I am just not ready to agree with you on the personal motivations of Obama having anything to do with respect. Just my view that the game of politics is not a nice one....and often, even the politicians I admire most, have allowed themselves to be guided by those for whom I have no respect.  


    Okay, then -- we actually agree (none / 0) (#140)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 04:52:40 PM EST
    that "respect" is not the apropos term.  My point.

    And not my term (none / 0) (#141)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 04:55:07 PM EST
    but yours, as I meant to also say before the key gremlin got ahead of me and pushed send.:-)  Again, I'm just disconcerted by the usage of the word "respect," and it seems that you actually agree that it is not how to describe how politicians think.

    I can agree (5.00 / 1) (#143)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 05:42:25 PM EST
    to that.....I guess what I was thinking of is that I BELIEVE (I know this is just my belief) the Obamas are smart enough to have learned from history.  It is pretty clear to me that the Clintons did not learn the the game of the DC elites and did not kiss enough a** early on.....I think, (and I am not saying this to be either positive or negative about either the Clintons or the Obamas) the Obamas were smart enough to take note of it, and I suspect the Clintons (Hillary especially) is classy enough that regardless of her own hurt feelings etc, to warn them both of the pitfalls of not playing the game smartly.  In the end, in my view, the Clintons are about making sure a progressive/democratic government takes hold.

    J, with that I can agree, too (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 08:28:43 PM EST
    and especially that the Clintons seem to see it now as just the way it is, and forgive -- but never forget -- for the sake of getting back to good policy.  Because policy wonks, they are, above all.

    That is reassuring, as I'm not persuaded that policy has such priority with others in the party leadership.  Good signs this week, but not clear whether that was for policy or just to assert power.  We will see, hoping for more change!


    Well, let's take heart here maybe (none / 0) (#152)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:48:59 PM EST
     I particularly liked the photo for this upbeat article
    and I do think that after his extensive primary time with Clinton he does respect her (at this point).  How could he not?  Her senate hearings would show why he would.

      I could be wrong about his current attitude toward her but am hoping I'm not.

      On the other hand, I don't forget that this englightened guy has his darkly pragmatic and opportunistic side (in letting the 'racist' calls work for him during the primaries).
    But especially in politics, no one's "perfect" (as if).


    I couldn't believe it when I heard it. Are we just (5.00 / 1) (#124)
    by mogal on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:28:02 PM EST
    going to ignor two democratic presidents?

    If one is a part of (5.00 / 2) (#126)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:33:48 PM EST
    the MSM, yes.  The obvious hatred toward the Clintons has always been obvious.  And the Carters have always been ignored.

    So Paterson "bungled" this? (5.00 / 4) (#110)
    by ChrisO on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:43:59 AM EST
    How often do you see a person who is a potential appointee initiate a full scale campaign for the job? How in the world is Paterson responsible for this not being a "closely-held process?"Paterson made vary few public pronouncements about the selection process that I saw. CK had her surrogates on every talk show pushing her candidacy. She also had the press completely in her corner and treating her as the heir apparent, until she clearly demonstrated that she wasn't up to the job.

    The fact is, the only qualification she had that prompted the hero worship was her endorsement of Obama. His followers showed a definite tendency for projecting their own stances on the issues onto him, and anointing him as the true progressive in the race. I'm not bashing Obama, because for the most part I don't think he misrepresented his stance on the issues.

    It's interesting how someone like CK can become a leading progressive "voice" without ever having taken a stance on the issues. Although she did oppose the war in Iraq. I know this because she told us last month.

    I can't pick a winner in (5.00 / 1) (#121)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:39:07 PM EST
    this sweepstakes.  Both are wacky and cuckoo...and embarrassing, as public tantrums and hissyfits usually are.

    Because they thought they had the power to choose the president, their public inability to force their choice of a NY senator must be somehow explained away.  And dealt with.

    What follows will be endless attacks on Paterson and Gillibrand in an attempt to 'right this terrible wrong' come the next election.

    They'll have opportunities to reinvigorate their CDS too - when Bill shows up in NY to campaign for Patison and Gillibrand.

    Should be fun to watch them getting their just desserts.  Again.

    Unless the mayor decides to run for governor.  Then it's a new ballgame, I'd say.

    Paterson (none / 0) (#3)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:05:30 AM EST
    Made his bed, now let him lie in it.

    What makes you think (5.00 / 4) (#5)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:09:27 AM EST
    Paterson is uncomfortable in it?

    Here's some news for you - Paterson wants to be reelected. that means he wants and needs votes all over the state.

    I had no objection to Caroline Kennedy but this attempt to proclaim her the liberal savior are ridiculous and embarrassing.

    Do you really endorse the lunacy from these pundits? Well, you can lie in that bed then.


    You're right, BTD. Most of NY does NOT (5.00 / 2) (#18)
    by allimom99 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:28:39 AM EST
    live in the city. I think Paterson took his time (as he said he would), looked at all the possibilities, and decided on Gillibrand. I'm really not that worried about her votes, and don't understand the knee-jerk reaction to her.

    from all accounts, she has represented her constituents well. I don't think Paterson would have picked her if he was worried about her votes - he does have to win statewide, not just in Manhattan. If Caroline is burning to be a public servant, she can run for a seat next year, and be subject to the vetting given any other candidate. I'm looking for Gillibrand to be a pleasant surprise.


    Actually. . . (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:57:35 AM EST
    Most of NY does NOT live in the city.

    Most of New York does live in or around the city.  But Paterson has much of this vote sewn up.  He may well be soft in the white suburban vote, but if anything Gillibrand's anti-tax background will appeal to them.

    It's upstate that Paterson has trouble and this appointment is clearly intended, at least in part, to help him there.


    Damned obvious (none / 0) (#44)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:02:54 AM EST
    for anyone who knows anything about NY politics. Meaning Not O'Donnell.

    Patterson doesn't have to do well, or (none / 0) (#48)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:10:14 AM EST
    even ok in far upstate. I think he wins even if he wins almost nothing north of Westchester. The upstate fetish is unnecessary when you're winning 70-90% of the vote downstate.

    Sure makes life easier (none / 0) (#53)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:13:10 AM EST
    when you are competitive upstate though.

    It is much easier to be an effective Governor when you win 57-60% of the vote.

    Paterson gave up nothing on policy and gained votes upstate. What's not to like from his perspective?


    Oh, I agree (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17:21 AM EST
    that CG works for him. I assume he's thinking first about his own reelection, second about her reelection, and third about picking up several of the guaranteed (upstate) open seats in the State Senate.

    I'm just saying that a downstate liberal (like, um, Paterson) can clearly win statewide without much difficulty.


    Downstate liberals have been (none / 0) (#63)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:19:41 AM EST
    winning for a long time. But effectively governing? Not so much.

    Plus Paterson is A-A, so this is uncharted waters as well.

    Gillibrand will win easily so long as she modulates her views to fit the state, as opposed to her district.


    Well, Spitzer (none / 0) (#71)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:25:59 AM EST
    won all but 3 counties and still flamed out spectacularly. So winning a big majority clearly isn't sufficient.

    I think Paterson has some serious work to do (and needs a big check from the stimulus) if he's going to be seen as an effective Governor.


    Spitzer's flameouts (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:26:50 AM EST
    were not on policy obviously.

    Really? (none / 0) (#76)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:28:34 AM EST
    After his bizarre fights with Bruno, I seem to recall an episode about drivers licenses. (He could have won that battle if he weren't otherwise such an @ss).

    Drivers licenses was the only policy issue (none / 0) (#103)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:12:24 AM EST
    But Spitzer's problems were more about his personal behavior (including the spying on Bruno.)

    Spitzer's first flameout was absolutely on (none / 0) (#82)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:32:16 AM EST
    policy and governance. He was a terrible Governor with very low approval ratings before the scandal. He was already set to lose the 2010 election or primary, and the scandal was actually a good thing for Democrats as it allowed them to get rid of him before elections.

    Nope (none / 0) (#102)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:11:38 AM EST
    His "policy" foibles were personal, using the Goverbnor's security detail to spy on Bruno, etc.

    The drivers license issue was the only thing that hurt him on policy. And it is interesting to hear about what Gillibrand needs to do on immigration in that light BTW.


    Spitzer could have probably ... (none / 0) (#132)
    by Robot Porter on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:07:54 PM EST
    turned it around save for his personal peccadilloes.

    Paterson will carry the City (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:31:53 AM EST

    Most likely (none / 0) (#34)
    by themomcat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:55:17 AM EST
    So will Gillibrand.

    Indeed (none / 0) (#36)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:57:16 AM EST
    I was disgusted that (none / 0) (#149)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:15:27 PM EST
    Kennedy advocates were telling reporters all during the final week that "It's Caroline!" while Paterson refused to say, and this kind of pressure from them was to make it look "inevitable," make him cowtow or be branded anti-Kennedy, anti-Bloomberg, anti-$$$power people.

      The hint was he'd have no $-support for his election UNLESS he named her.  This is repulsive.  How is it different from Chicago politics?

      If she really did not want to be named, he said to her (I think it was The New York Magazine reporting this) that she should stay in, that he wouldn't name her and she'd be okay.  

      This would have stopped all the conjecture about why she suddenly pulled out at midnight (which is really quite unbelievable).


    My feeling is that if you kiss (none / 0) (#11)
    by cpa1 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:21:25 AM EST
    GOP or conservative ass, you go down.  We have suffered for so long with jerks like Bill Bradley supporting the Reagan tax cuts, or John Kerry complimenting Bush for the great job he did after 911 or Joe Lieberman.  Max Cleland praised W in his campaign ads and when he lost he deserved it.

    I don't think Dowd and O'Donnell were just about Caroline as much as the fact they were disappointed and a little disgusted that NY was going to get a conservative Senator who supports cop killer bullets and the kind of legislative irresponsibility that allows a Colin Ferguson to kill Carolyn McCarthy husband and maim her son.


    No, that isn't accurate (5.00 / 1) (#105)
    by Addison on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:15:49 AM EST
    I don't think Dowd and O'Donnell were just about Caroline as much as the fact they were disappointed and a little disgusted that NY was going to get a conservative Senator...

    This argument is completely undone by the fact that both Dowd and O'Donnell were doing cheerleading specifically for Caroline Kennedy before the choice was made. They were not advocating for a progressive choice to be appointed, they were advocating for a specific person, their friend, whose policy statements seemingly came in a can. So the reaction afterward was about Caroline, not the choice, just as their commentary was before the choice was made.


    Yes (none / 0) (#14)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:23:47 AM EST
    I saw you demonstrate you utter lack of familiarity with Dowd and O'Donnell.

    You could not give a rat's a** about progressive policies.


    Not you (none / 0) (#16)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:24:21 AM EST
    Dowd and O'Donnell.

    One-issue reactions (none / 0) (#158)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:25:35 PM EST
    are, to me, sad.  The whole candidate (in any case) needs attention.  And a b&w evaluation of an issue is similar to me.

    Heh. (none / 0) (#43)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:02:09 AM EST
    Made his bed?  Paterson may catch some flack for the alleged poor management of the appointment.  But in terms of the political calculus, everyone always thought it would be someone who met at least two of three qualifications: upstater, woman, Hispanic.  Paterson's political calculus is sound.

    Contrary to the odd worship that she seems to inspire amongst some in the blogosphere, Kennedy has no particular following in New York.  Those who follow politics moderately closely know that she bombed in a campaign tour upstate and that she withdrew for some unmentioned personal reason.


    Huh? (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:06:33 AM EST
    veryone always thought it would be someone who met at least two of three qualifications: upstater, woman, Hispanic

    If everyone always thought that, there would have been no serious discussion of Kennedy.


    If she had not been. . . (5.00 / 4) (#50)
    by LarryInNYC on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:10:30 AM EST
    Caroline Kennedy, there never would have been any serious discussion of her.  Perhaps I should have said "Before her very public entry into the race put Paterson into an awkward situation. . ."

    Yep (none / 0) (#52)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:11:31 AM EST
    I wasn't around for (none / 0) (#12)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:22:20 AM EST
    the Kennedy "Camelot" days.  I haven't studied that part of history much, but it seems in the bigger scheme of things to be a largely transient phenomena.  

    I suppose it makes it that much easier to be nostalgic about.  I know we love our fairy tale narratives, but the people who perpetuate these myths are plenty old enough to know better.  

    Dowd and O'donnell are still living (5.00 / 2) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:25:24 AM EST
    their idyllic childhoods when pictures of the Pope and JFK graced the kitchens of their family homes.

    Frankly, it is pretty embarrassing imo.


    BINGO!!! (5.00 / 3) (#24)
    by Jjc2008 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:37:08 AM EST
    You nailed it.  Anyone who grew up in that age, (I did) remember it perfectly.  I was catholic and certainly we had our own share of worship surrounding the "first catholic" meme.  But I was from the Italian Catholic community.  Many of my friends were from the Irish Catholic community.  Even as a kid, I could see it...in the community of the Dowds, the O'Donnells (we had those names just on the other side of town), there was an air of superiority like I had never seen.  

    I see it still whenever Matthews, or Williams or any of them speak.  I still believe that is why there was still a bit of worship for Reagan...he had the right kind of name.  Old prejudices die hard.


    No (none / 0) (#133)
    by Spamlet on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 02:13:30 PM EST
    I still believe that is why there was still a bit of worship for Reagan...he had the right kind of name.  Old prejudices die hard.

    The Irish American/Catholic crowd did not gravitate to Reagan because he was Irish. They did not even consider him to be rightfully Irish, since he was the descendant of Orangemen. They liked him because of his allegiance to the Republicans's "southern strategy" (i.e., "law and order," translated as "keeping the blacks in line").


    Correct. (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 05:00:38 PM EST
    There's Irish, and then there's the ones that are invaders, impostors, and otherwise claim to be Irish but really are just in Ireland, as its map has been distorted for eons by the Brits.

    For example, John F. Kennedy was not the first Irish president, as it is so often misstated.  The first was Andrew Jackson.  But he, like Reagan, was an Orangey and a Prot.  Not Irish.

    So my Great-Grandma Bailey Flynn, who never missed daily Mass until the day she died, and spoke Gaelic daily, too, explained it to me.  Fortunately, that explanation was in English -- that there are two kinds of people in this world, and they are those who are Irish and those who want to be, but I was not to be fooled by them.

    And nobody dared disagree with Great-Grandma Bailey Flynn, all four-foot-eight of her -- even the six-foot-four ("in his stockin' feet, darlin', and I oughta know, as I'm the woman who darned those stockin's that gave him his footin'") man she married.:-)


    oy vey (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by cpa1 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:47:54 AM EST
    What's worse, getting sentimental about the Irsih Catholic Camelot or installing another potential Joe Lieberman in the Senate.  

    I think we are dancing around Dowd and O'Donnell and what their heart's desires are.  My question to you is, would they have written those op eds if Paul Krugman was the choice?

    Speaking of Krugman, he just said something on Stephanopoulos that I've been saying for years and that was that American business doesn't need tax cuts to invest because investing is more a function of interest rates and at almost zero now, they are still not investing.  How great would it be if he was the Senator from NY?


    You really do not get it (none / 0) (#35)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:56:56 AM EST
    they do not care if a Lieberman is installed - the sentimentality is the ticket. Indeed, that is my very point. Dodwd cares about issues? Since effing when?

    this is emblematic of all that is wrong with these people - it is all aboput caring about personalities, not issues.

    Oy vey - you do not know what you are talking about when it comes to Dowd and O'Donnell.


    I can understand how you feel about O'Donnell (none / 0) (#96)
    by cpa1 on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:51:36 AM EST
    because I have hated his arrogance too, especially as you noted above, when it came to the Clintons.  Sally Quinn, a legend in her own mind isn't any better.  Dowd, is also arrogant.  I just don't think these comments or op-eds would have happened if someone else was chosen.  

    However, instead of speaking without knowing what I am talking about, I checked Gillibrand's voting record and it really is fine.  You can see it here: http://www.votesmart.org/voting_category.php?can_id=65147

    She seemed to vote with the majority almost always, except for the authorization to monitor telephone calls outside the country, for which she voted no.  I didn't see her vote fo cop killer bullets but if that is true, that's a stain.  I think we need to learn more about Gillibrand and I take back all my comments above.  Can you do that?    


    His arrogance does not bother me (none / 0) (#100)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:09:41 AM EST
    His lack of commitment to actual policy issues does.

    Better info on Gillibrand (none / 0) (#150)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:25:32 PM EST
    I thought the NY Times article on Gillibrand was very interesting.

      So much better than the kneejerk reactions to the one-issue NRA thing.  Never mind her other votes.

      She might not be very well liked by her peers who don't like that she keeps moving up, but compared to Caroline's work background, she's a politician of no small substance -- just look at her website with its focus on transparency.

      But O'Donnell sees it only as representing 'cows'...

      I must admit that at first sight I was biased against her because she reminded me of Rita Cosby :-)


    I was thinking the same thing (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:00:24 PM EST
    Woman really doted on JFK. I think if you asked them, including my very intelligent Mother, what his policy issues were, they would not have any rapid answers. They thought his good looks and charm mixed with his youth and beautiful family were enough for a feeling of magic. Very similar to now except we KNOW the problems and they are not good. There was television and people saw them playing football and acting like ordinary people. They were down to earth American Royalty who were loved throughout the world.

    The reference to the JKF, Pope John Paul AND Pius XII was funny as to this day there are houses that still have those pictures hanging in the kitchen or the Living Room. My Mother for a few years had JFK's hanging in the bedroom. I still have her Warren Report book and the JFK campaign button.  


    JFK's house (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 01:43:49 PM EST
    Let's not forget that Maureen Dowd now lives in the Georgetown home once occupied by Jack Kennedy. She seems locked into the fantasy of Camelot. Her delusions run amok.

    Not so transient only because (none / 0) (#159)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:18:12 PM EST
    the realities of Bush, Bush, and Reagan are to vividly with us still.  So the Kennedy years, seen now in sentimental old video clips, can seem Camelot-like.

    Int. Herald Tribume Sat.-Sun. (none / 0) (#25)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:37:13 AM EST
    edition quoted a NY politico who was not authorized to speak for attribution as saying Paterson hasn't got his political house in order yet so had to accommodate the wishes of other pols in making this appointment.  

    well that's authoritative (none / 0) (#26)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:39:50 AM EST

    I figured you'd be impressed! (none / 0) (#30)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:47:31 AM EST
    Sweet Caroline (none / 0) (#33)
    by themomcat on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 09:51:37 AM EST
    Somehow, I have always known that song was about her. Her mother, who I met on several social occasions, protected her and her brother like a mother bear. Goddess love her for that. I don't know what crossed Caroline's mind when she decided to move into the political spot light but I am happy that she has moved out of it. Her mom would be happy too. Blessed Be.

    I think when you stand on that stage with Obama (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by ruffian on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:19:48 AM EST
    and hear those adoring crowds it might seem like a good idea. She's not the only one who got a little nuts.

    Dowd doesn't write about personalities (none / 0) (#59)
    by pluege on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 10:17:43 AM EST
    she writes about herself. She will say any contrary or outrageous thing to draw attention to herself - THAT is what Dowd is all about: 'Hey, looki meeeeeee!' She doesn't care about Caroline Kennedy, certainly not policy, or anything else except herself - she is an extreme Narcissist. She uses her column to draw attention to herself. And by discussing her completely useless comments ad nauseam, she has succeeded in achieve her goal, at least here.

    (p.s. don't know anything about O'Donnell)

    But she inspired "Sweet Caroline!" (none / 0) (#101)
    by Addison on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:10:19 AM EST
    Of the two quotes posted, Dowd wins.

    Paterson could have acted a month ago, or even a week ago. . . . Then the Democrats would have had another Kennedy in the Senate representing New York -- Bobby's niece and...

    This is the fun bit for me. If Paterson had acted a month ago, when Hillary Clinton was still the Senator, we would have had a weird "Senator-elect" situation which I'm sure would have been a bit confusing and frankly a little insulting to Clinton, sort of a shove out the door. Dowd of course wouldn't care about that.

    And then of course the second paragraph where "another Kennedy" in the Senate is listed as the first substantive reason for Caroline, and the latter clause where being "Bobby's niece" is listed before ACTUAL QUALIFICATIONS for being a Senator. It's a nice chunk of social circle babbling. Note to the wise: DO NOT take advice on investing in art from these people, they are deranged and think their NYC friends are the most talented people on Earth bar none.

    O'Donnell's quote here isn't nearly as bad as some I've seen from him. I looked around but I couldn't find them. One said that no one knows who will be good in the Senate until they get there, which isn't an argument for Caroline at all, but just non-sensically equalizes the field among every American citizen above the age of 35.

    Basically, the gist of these bizarre rants is that Paterson and the anti-Caroline gestapo have committed a war crime against a living monument, Caroline Kennedy-[Schlossberg], who is "the kindest, bravest, warmest, most wonderful human being I've ever known in my life."

    What Paterson Bungled (none / 0) (#113)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 11:57:47 AM EST
    For the thousandth time: I had no problem with Paterson not appointing CK (even though she was my first choice). My problem was how he conducted the process, this "American Idol" style of politics...he could have appointed Gillibrand or Maloney or McCarthy the minute Clinton decided to accept SOS...and now I hate Paterson for his trashing of CK. By all accounts, she and her husband have a happy marriage, she's been a good mother and a community activist.

    For me, Paterson is toast.  

    I think what you perceive as Paterson (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by Anne on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:04:02 PM EST
    unnecessarily dragging out the process was actually an effort to allow the millions of residents of the State of New York to weigh in on who would be representing them in the US Senate.

    Far from finding that ham-handed or politically dense, I found that to be the closest thing to respecting the wishes of the people short of an actual election.

    With more and more evidence that the people did not want Kennedy, Paterson wins for having listened to the people, a quality that seems to be in somewhat short supply these days; it's a win for the people and a win for Paterson, an equation that seems beyond the comprehension of the likes of Dowd and O'Donnell.


    Most definitely, NOT ;by all accounts' ! (5.00 / 2) (#153)
    by andrys on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 07:55:16 PM EST
    It doesn't matter to me whether they have a 'happy' marriage or not, but to insist that all say they do is to not be reading about this for the last two months -- not that it is true or not but that most definitely it's not "by all accounts"...

      That's too much like a created fantasy.  The people that created this chaos were those who pushed her into this against her best instincts and her current capabilities as a communicator and leader and then continued to press it even more, using the press to try to box Paterson in, in a fully bully-like fashion.  "It's Caroline!" assaulted us for the 4 days before she dropped out.

      The Patterson 'source' that mentioned her marriage should not have, after she dropped out.  That is agreed.  

      In no way should he have appointed anyone until Clinton had resigned the Senate seat, after actually being confirmed by the Senate (we know how these things can go).  


    Maureen Dowdie (none / 0) (#119)
    by S on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 12:25:31 PM EST
    Maureen Dowd is beginning to sound more and more like a gossip columnist...as longs as she is shoveling the dish against people she does not like and kissing up to her 'friends'

    ...she seems to spend the whole week thinking of the most remote and obscure way to make sure she manages to get in an attack on Hill and Bill...

    ...doesn't matter what the topic of her article is she will find a way to drag Hill and/or Bill in for a hit...

    ...I gave up on her objectivity a long, long time ago...

    it the Obama era, people like Maureen Dowd and Chris Matthews and the whole MSNBC crowd, including O"Donnell, seem more and more like relics with their same old tired narrative over and over and over again...

    ...get over it

    BTD, as usual, you're late: (none / 0) (#154)
    by cpinva on Sun Jan 25, 2009 at 08:00:14 PM EST
    Dowd is, to coin a phrase, cuckoo.

    ms. dowd has been certifiable for years now, you just noticed? she hears voices, she sees things, she's pretty much nuts. were your average jane to report these events, they'd quickly be taken away, in restraints, and held in a rubber-lined room, for their own safety.

    o'donnell is just an idiot, dowd is serially dangerous.

    Gillibrand's immigration stance is ridiculous (none / 0) (#160)
    by WS on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 07:34:26 AM EST
    especially for a state like New York. She better change; that's all I have to say.  She better change.  

    Everyone? (none / 0) (#163)
    by lentinel on Mon Jan 26, 2009 at 02:22:34 PM EST
    I take exception to your blanket statement that "...everyone in Washington is crazy."

    There's this bartender at the Poste Bar in the Hotel Monaco...