Sunday Morning Open Thread

Roland Burris will be on ABC's This Week today. Harry Reid will be on Meet the Press. It should be interesting.

On Meet the Press, Harry Reid called Blagojevich a liar regarding the allegations from his camp that Reid opposed the appointment of Jackson, Jr., Danny Davis or Emil Jones. There are tapes of course and they will come out. But Reid didn't flinch. For the record, preferring a different appointment on electability grounds seems a reasonable thing for Reid to have done. He is denying that he even did that.

This is an Open Thread.

< NYT Takes Another Look at the Anthrax Attacker | Houston Gets a DA With a Sense of Fairness >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Given Reid's statement (5.00 / 1) (#10)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:14:13 AM EST
    and now considering the time lapse for the "disclosure" of Reid's conversations with Blago, I am beginning to believe Reid on this.

    Though I stand by my view that it was perfectly appropriate for Reid to give his views on who had the best chance in 2010.

    If I was asked, I would have said Valerie Jarret myself.

    Question: (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:15:17 AM EST
    supposing a tape of this conversation between Blago and Reid exists, under what circumstances could it possibly be released to the public?

    In a Blago trial (none / 0) (#13)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:16:44 AM EST
    when he explains the process for appointment and who he was talking to.

    I think there is no doubt the tape will be disclosed.


    Hmm (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:21:10 AM EST
    As a citizen, that makes me a little bit uncomfortable. Why should Reid be subjected to having his phone calls be released to the public when he isn't accused of any wrongdoing?

    I guess I just don't know the process.


    Why? (none / 0) (#19)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:25:50 AM EST
    Because due process demands it.

    Blagojevich can certainly testify about the conversations - (which actually raises an issue in my mind, can this be construed as testifying without facing cross examination? Criminal lawyers?)


    If a surrogate (none / 0) (#27)
    by Salo on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:01:00 AM EST
    Took the call then there's no 5th amendment issue.

    Maybe Reid will become a leader (none / 0) (#71)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:20:18 PM EST
    on issues regarding the federal government listening to the conversations of its citizens "for national security purposes"?

    It would be nice to see Dems (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:32:58 PM EST
    reverse their awful reversal on FISA.

    I have to say (none / 0) (#73)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:24:27 PM EST
    If someone taped my private phone conversation and then released it to the world without my consent, I would be pretty unhappy, especially if that someone were the US Government.

    I realize that Blago has a right to defend himself, but what about Reid's privacy rights?


    I would too but is this true in an investigation (none / 0) (#91)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:41:32 PM EST
    Fitz is not just checking to see if Blago committed a crime he needs to see if anyone who talked to him also could have committed a crime.

    I know there are two divisions by state.  Your state is either a two party state or one party when it comes to permission to tape. If one party state you only need the permission of the one doing the recording to tape.   If you are just recording your calls for the heck of it and sending them out to the public I feel that is wrong.  However if you are taping as in this case for a prosecution or defense then I can see Reid tapes if relevant to the case  being on you tube in the future.


    Many of the phone calls were (none / 0) (#116)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:49:57 PM EST
    taped pursuant to previous court order.  Didn't appear, from the affidavit attached to the complaint, that there was a prior court order covering each and every taped call though.

    Could be (none / 0) (#127)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:17:07 PM EST
    but I find that very hard to believe in this case since gathering the evidence is so important and not using a court order could probably make the evidence inadmissible.  I am not a lawyer  but you would think a prosecutor would make sure he's or she's got all are i's dotted and t's crossed so as to make sure the evidence was legally gathered.  

    Check out the affidavit to the complaint. (none / 0) (#128)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:24:04 PM EST
    Hmmmm... (none / 0) (#92)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:42:02 PM EST
    If Person "A" says that Person "B" made the statement that "The moon is made of cheese", and Person "B" says Person "A" is a liar, would a recording of that conversation still completely covered by the privacy rights?

    If Person "A" were to sue Person "B" for slander because, in truth, Person "B" did say that the moon was made of cheese, would those tapes be available for Person "A" to prove that point?

    I'm just wondering how these thing usually work out in the legal system.  


    Not a lawyer here, so I need some help (none / 0) (#115)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:42:11 PM EST
    Do any of us have any privacy rights when telephone conversations are taped during an investigation by a federal prosecutor? If Fitz has tapes of calls between Blago and Reid, or Blago and anyone for that matter, can't those tapes be used at trial? And if the tapes are used at trial don't they then become a matter of public record?

    Does Reid have standing to object to the use of tapes of his talks with Blago?


    b/c (none / 0) (#161)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:41:41 PM EST
    he had the misfortune to call someone being wiretapped  with a warrant, hopefully his hands are clean or he is caught up in it...

    I found it interesting that most commentators (5.00 / 3) (#26)
    by ericinatl on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:00:04 AM EST
    this morning think that the Democrats are on shaky ground in not seating Burris.  

    The problem is that Blago picked someone whose particular appointment cannot seriously questioned as tainted.  And the only power the Senate "may" have is with respect to the election or appointment process of the actual person being seated.

    Blago outmaneuvered Reid and Obama, and it's time to face the fact that they lost.

    I agree... (5.00 / 4) (#31)
    by santarita on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:17:31 AM EST
    seat Burris and be done with it.  The guy is a Democrat and will vote reliably so.  I'm assuming that Fitzgerald did what he did not only to prevent Blago with a continuation of his alleged malfeasances but also as a warning shot across the bow to some of the people that Blago had been dealing with on this issue that their names might come up in the criminal trial in an unflattering way.  I assume also that Buriss is free from that particular taint (or else Fitzgerald would have sent a warning shot over his bow as well.)

    The country is a mess and Congress, Obama and the media should be focussed on the real issues and not on a freak show.


    Yes. But then the focus will move back (none / 0) (#33)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:20:49 AM EST
    to the Caroline Kennedy appointment -- possibly the reason for the Dems moving the focus to Blago, Burris, and Illinois?

    Are the Dems doing ... (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by santarita on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:36:57 AM EST
    the focussing or the media?  

    At this point, all that I care about is that reliable and electable Dems  get appointed to these seats.  If we went through the bios of many of the current Senators, would they all have had the same kinds of qualifications that people want the governors to look at when appointing a Senator?  


    The media (5.00 / 2) (#42)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:52:39 AM EST
    do as they're told and look where they're told to look at the bright, shiny, stories.:-)

    And yes, it certainly also has occurred to me that many a man and a few women have been appointed to the Senate with far sketchier resumes. . . .


    Personalities vs Issues (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by santarita on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:12:04 PM EST
    It's so much easier and more fun to pretend that gossip about personalities qualifies as news.  The news shows are basically Entertainment Tonight but about political stars instead of movie and tv stars.  

    On the other hand, I've been really impressed with the NY Times writing on the economic crisis.  


    I love this gem by Kennedy.... (5.00 / 1) (#64)
    by vml68 on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:38:16 PM EST
    in an interview with the AP.

    "I was really surprised and dismayed by my voting record," she said. "I'm glad it's been brought to my attention."

    I always thought if you have a sketchy resume you should atleast be able to talk a good game/bullsh*t your way into the job. Somebody needs to tell her to work on atleast one of the two!


    Priceless. (5.00 / 1) (#118)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:52:45 PM EST
    (P.S.  Shouldn't this be front page news here?)

    Sketchy Resume? (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:43:07 PM EST
    What? Is that in comparison to yours?

    And seems to me that you are trained to prefer BS coverup. That is your criticism of Kennedy here, no, that if she had a better resume she would BS her way around reporters.

    For me it is quite refreshing that she is not pandering to the press one iota. Makes them look like the fools they are, not the reverse, imo.


    Well, I hope Paterson doesn't appoint her, (5.00 / 2) (#66)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:47:25 PM EST
    but it's not crime if he does, and nothing that needs a coverup.

    That's a hoot; I had missed it (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:23:49 PM EST
    but it shows that she has learned the basics of management doublespeak.

    Really?? (none / 0) (#34)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:29:13 AM EST
    First of all, she has not been appointed.
    Second, Patterson is not a known crook.
    Third, why not discuss the Delaware appointment.
    By your standards, it must be considered tainted a priori, right?

    No, not tainted at all. Paterson (5.00 / 1) (#36)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:34:54 AM EST
    seems admirable to me, and in no small part for his continual push back on the pressure he is getting from the Kennedy machine.

    But you are not aware that the possible Kennedy appointment has raised questions about her qualifications, with not only no political experience but also no strong record of even voting?


    So to distract attention from an (none / 0) (#38)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:38:32 AM EST
    appointment which has not occurred, but which would be perfectly legal,
    Reid is risking being seen as racist by blocking Burris?
    Perhaps he  is actually trying to divert suspicion from his role in the anthrax attacks, too!

    Oh, I doubt that Reid (none / 0) (#41)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:50:32 AM EST
    is a racist or, because of that, could even imagine that he would be portrayed as a racist.  It is too bad, as he ought to have learned from what was done to the Clintons.

    No, you're just making this way too complex, apparently for the sake of argumentation.  And I'm not interested in that low level of discourse.  Bye.


    Its a lesson everyone has to learn.... (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:15:22 PM EST
    ...it has become conventional wisdom that the Clintons deserve every accusation that is levied at them. People never think it can happen to them too. But then, of course, when it happens to them THEN it is unfair. This is how the Republicans get the Dems every time. We are so quick to turn against our own.

    For the sake of argumentation, (none / 0) (#44)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:59:05 AM EST
    you are advancing a hypothesis which has no known basis in fact, which doesn't make sense, and which serves only to pollute the discourse.
    It would be more valuable to discuss Reid's involvement in the Anthrax murder case, or the Black Dahlia's murder, IMO.

    P.S., Reid has already been (none / 0) (#45)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:00:21 PM EST
    portrayed as a racist for supposedly opposing the appointment of any of three African American possibilities.

    Continual Push Back? (none / 0) (#43)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:56:56 AM EST
    Got some link regarding your allegation that the "Kennedy Machine" is getting pushed back by Paterson?

    I asked you for some links regarding your allegation yesterday, even googled and got nothing.


    Really? You didn't just google? (none / 0) (#49)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:07:34 PM EST
    There were so many stories on this yesterday.  But you were too busy being argumentative, too.

    Here's a bit from WaPo, just to whet your interest to go find out what's going on in the real world:

    Gov. David Paterson hasn't made up his mind about the New York Senate seat, but the rumors are swirling.

    Today's brushfire: An Associated Press report quoting two unnamed sources close to Paterson asserting their belief that his pick will be Caroline Kennedy.

    "The AP story is incorrect," said Paterson spokesman Errol Cockfield. "There is no front-runner, and the governor is not on the verge of any decision."

    I Did Google (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:11:19 PM EST
    And mentioned it twice. Nothing in your quote or article mentions anything about Paterson pushing back the Kennedy machine.

    He has not decided who he will appoint yet. That is all.

    Is he also pushing back against the Maloney machine, and the Cuomo machine?

    Your spin regarding Kennedy is transparent.


    Spin? No spin; I'm quite clear (none / 0) (#105)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:26:28 PM EST
    in my opinion, and only that, that she is not ready to be a good Senator.  And we need good Senators, especially in states so significant to the economy as New York.

    You think she'd be a good Senator.  I can't imagine why, but you're entitled to your opinion, too.  Why you don't think others are entitled to their opinions here, squeaks, says a lot about you.


    Yes Spin (none / 0) (#113)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:33:48 PM EST
    Or borderline propaganda. You have claimed that Paterson is pushing back the Kennedy machine.  You stated it as fact supported by various articles in the press.

    There were so many stories on this yesterday.  But you were too busy being argumentative, too.
    Here's a bit from WaPo, just to whet your interest to go find out what's going on in the real world:

    'This' being that Paterson was pushing back the Kennedy machine. That is the very definition of spinning, iow presenting your opinion as if it is a factual part of a news story in order to win support for your agenda.


    FWIW, I really wish you two (5.00 / 2) (#117)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:51:54 PM EST
    would cease your on line bickering.  

    Yes (none / 0) (#120)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:58:28 PM EST
    I am sure that would suit you.

    Slap. (none / 0) (#123)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:01:10 PM EST
    Agreed. If the stalking stops. . . . (none / 0) (#124)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:01:40 PM EST
    Take the high road. Puhlease. (5.00 / 2) (#125)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:03:09 PM EST
    Even better, (5.00 / 2) (#130)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:30:41 PM EST
    do not engage. Ignore. Accept that it's pointless. Say it with me... do not engage, ignore, it's pointless.

    Okay, for Oculus and Dr. Molly. :-) (5.00 / 3) (#133)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:39:28 PM EST
    Excellent :) (5.00 / 2) (#135)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:47:07 PM EST
    I may be extremely slow, but I do learn some things eventually.

    Ah well, whaddya gonna do. . . . (5.00 / 2) (#150)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:18:34 PM EST
    with stalkers.  They just won't stop.  I can't even converse with others. . . .

    I know. But say it with me, babe: (5.00 / 3) (#151)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:21:13 PM EST
    do not engage; ignore; do not feed the toxic.

    do not engage; ignore; do not feed the toxic.

    Repeat until necessary.


    If YOu WaNT a Private Club (none / 0) (#154)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:51:14 PM EST
    Start your own blog, just like our very own ppj did...  You kind of remind me of him...

    Dream On (none / 0) (#126)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:06:32 PM EST
    Your ludicrous hypothesis is that the (none / 0) (#51)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:10:36 PM EST
    stink over the Burris' appointment is being created to help Kennedy.
    You are welcome for the help in reading comprehension---of your own comments.

    You really need to read up (5.00 / 1) (#108)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:27:39 PM EST
    on management of the media.  I've done it, so I'm not so trusting that all is what we are supposed to see.

    Borderline conspiracy theory ranting: (none / 0) (#129)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:26:40 PM EST
    "If I don't see it, it must be there!"

    To expand, I think the idea that (none / 0) (#132)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:35:05 PM EST
    crying foul on Burris' appointment will help Kennedy politically is very flawed.
    Hasn't there already been a call by  a Republican to not seat Kennedy? Drawing attention to the arbirary, imperial nature of the appointment process doesn't help Kennedy. Talking up her strengths (whatever they are), does.

    As you hope that she is not appointed (none / 0) (#137)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:04:17 PM EST
    that's an interesting comment.  

    Okay, I'll play, I'll go first.

    She has good name recognition.

    Your turn.


    Her main advantage would be (5.00 / 1) (#145)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:58:33 PM EST
    electability, if she has that.
    Since her political involvement has been so sketch up til now, she seems a very poor choice.

    Okay, we agree on that. So (5.00 / 1) (#165)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:53:26 PM EST
    why electable?  I still don't see how you can see her as a good Senator, when you hope she doesn't get the post, and you say that our job is "talking up her strengths (whatever they are)."  I always thought that was the job of the pol who wanted the job of working for us.

    After all, it's going to be a Dem, so it's not a case of talking up a Dem in an election, so that a Repub won't win.  It's going to be a Dem, so why not go with the best Dem?  There are so many in New York who have built great records and already are proven to be electable pols.


    My remark about talking up her (none / 0) (#166)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:00:15 PM EST
    strengths was to suggest what would help her chances, as opposed to making a huge fuss over Burris, which you say is happening in part to help Kennedy.

    Sorry (none / 0) (#167)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:32:02 PM EST
    I just can't figure out how to follow that reasoning, or the vociferous reaction -- but it has been interesting to engage; thanks.

    Agree. Hope they move on. (none / 0) (#47)
    by Maria Garcia on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:04:08 PM EST
    the blago scandal (none / 0) (#46)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:01:52 PM EST
    is only going to get bigger.  

    The Senate will want to appear conscientious, and have the Rules Committee investigate the situation.

    If they accept Burris now, they will look like fools.  Giving up doesn't seem like the smart thing right now to me.


    Cheney is on Bob Shieffer now rewriting his (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by Blowback on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:14:02 AM EST
    history.  First of all, I never trust a public person who uses the stupid term, "Going forward."

    Shieffer seemed to be asking all the questions we all ask about this failed administration except the follow up to the most important question.

    Cheney said, when talking about turning over this mess to Obama, not a quote, but, he said Obama will have to deal with a host of issues like we did "coming in having to have to deal with the AFTERMATH of  9/11."

    Excuse me, 9-11 happened in the year of 2001, not 2000 or 1999. Yes, you had to deal with the aftermath of 9-11, as Obama will, but you also had to deal with the beforemath!  What were you doing from January, 2001 through August, 2001 when you were told "Bin Laden is coming?" What wee you doing on September 10, 2001?

    "Dick, you had to deal with the "AFTERMATH OF 911" but please tell me why did you fail to PREVENT 9-11 from happening?" is what Bob should have asked. Such a waste of my time to listen to these blabber mouths.

    Going forward, I think I will take a hike in the woods instead of listening to these old commercials. (But I can't. That's a different story all together.)


    The mistake we all make... (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by santarita on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:31:33 AM EST
    in watching these interviews with the Old Guard is thinking that the media is interested in doing anything resembling a news interview.  These interviews are just rolling retirement parties in which the interviewers pretend to ask serious questions. I  doubt that they really expect serious answers. The Candy Crowley interview with George Bush was notable (according to Candy) because George held her hand for awhile.  

    The only good that comes out of these interviews is to see how delusional people like Bush and Cheney are.  Of course, the fact that we have been governed by delusional people explains why we are in such a state of decline.

    I started to watch Wolf Blitzer on CNN this a.m.  First up was Benjamin Netanyhu who I am sure would give us a fresh look at the Israeli perspective.  Not.  Then an interview with Mark Sanford and Jon Corzine talking about what needs to be done for economic recovery.  Blitzer just lets them talk.  Doesn't challenge them.  Needless to say, the tv is off until football starts.


    Bush! Oh, God. Holding Candy's hand? Really? (none / 0) (#50)
    by Blowback on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:09:06 PM EST
    Kind of like Shrub rubbing that German lady's neck.  Please, just go away.

    Frank Rich today said it best: (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by Blowback on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:04:30 PM EST
    "Bush kept America safe (provided his presidency began Sept. 12, 2001)."

    Richardson is out as Commerce Sec (5.00 / 3) (#58)
    by NJDem on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:27:40 PM EST

    I probably shouldn't be enjoying this that much...

    Wow, that is really enjoyable news! (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:29:30 PM EST
    heh (none / 0) (#70)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:17:10 PM EST
    Everyone knew that Richardson was a walking scandal waiting to happen. I have no idea why Obama selected him in the first place.

    Why? His endorsement (none / 0) (#109)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:28:50 PM EST
    from Richardson; as you probably recall, it came at a crucial time and was a big setback to Clinton.

    That's good news. Richardson wasn't (none / 0) (#72)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:23:27 PM EST
    qualified for such an important position.

    Funny (none / 0) (#75)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:25:17 PM EST
    Commerce is usually the appointment for hacks and big donors, apparently.

    Hopefully they can find someone competent.


    Richardson wasn't even qualified (5.00 / 2) (#78)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:30:37 PM EST
    to be considered a hack. "Let's drain the Great Lakes to provide water for Las Vegas". Moron.

    Yup (none / 0) (#81)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:33:33 PM EST
    Richardson is a gaffe machine, and I have a strong suspicion that he's just not smart.

    That he's also corrupt does not surprise me one bit. He's a southwestern Blago +100 LBS.


    Doesn't anybody... (5.00 / 0) (#79)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:31:28 PM EST
    ..."vet" these people? I mean, the Dems had a major near-miss with Edwards who could have conceivably gotten the nomination, and now Richardson. Doesn't reflect particularly well on the much-vaunted competence of the Obama team to invite someone like that into their cabinet.

    I really dunno why they selected him (none / 0) (#82)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    Anyone in Washington could have told you that Richardson is bad news.

    high rofile Latino pol (5.00 / 1) (#84)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:35:27 PM EST
    who endorsed Obama?

    And outside of Washington ;) (none / 0) (#90)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    aww wth party down! (none / 0) (#159)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:35:39 PM EST
    a bit of schadenfreude with my morning cuppa! loves it!!



    Richardson withdraws from Commerce nomination (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by magster on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:28:10 PM EST
    after being implicated in investigation of political contributor who was the beneficiary of lucrative contracts awarded by the State of NM...

    So says MSNBC

    After keeping his cool all those months during (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by Brownell on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:34:48 PM EST
    the Clinton-Obama primaries, it's surprising to see BTD losing it over Gov. Blagojevich.  

    The facts are not public at this time, but unless they are suppressed (always a possiblity), facts will probably decide the major aspects of this issue.  Either Senator Reid is on tape pushing for non-AA candidates as "electable" or he is not.  If it's not on tape, it will not be a major factor in seating or not seating Mr. Burris. Anyway, Mr. Burris is not one of the three African-Americans supposedly non-recommended by Sen. Reid, so this part seems overblown to me.

    The larger issue, of Blago's guilt, is also to be determined by evidence not yet made public.  It's more than surprising - it's downright strange - that on a site dedicated to criminal justice, BTD would state as a fact that Blago is a criminal. No real evidence, no due process - just some tapes that show him bragging that he wants to do something illegal. That's pretty thin.  Shouldn't we wait to see if the evidence shows that he actually made a deal, or even an offer, to sell a Senate seat?  If it's true that the unreleased tapes prove that Rep. Jackson or anybody else offered actual money or favorsfor the job, or that Blago actually solicited them, well that's another story.  

    Until we really know what happened, the fact is that Senator Reid was premature in whipping up the Senate Democrats to reject anybody who might be appointed by Gov. Blagojevich.  And Gov. Blagojevich called his bluff by appointing an African American who - so far - is not provably objectionable.  Guilt by association, no matter how passionately asserted on this site, is not sufficient.  If the Senate leadership continues a crusade not based on evidence, the little strands of appearance will tie up to a credible case of racial bias against the Burris appointment. This is not helpful for the larger issues facing the Senate.  In Sen. Reid's place, I would settle for a reliable Democratic vote, at least until we get to 60.  

    On another note, I know nothing bad about Lisa Madigan, one of the candidates supposedly recommended by Sen. Reid.  But Tammy Duckworth is another matter.  In 2006, the national Democratic leadership (Rahm somebody) interfered in an IL congressional primary to push out a strong grass-roots activist in favor of Tammy Duckworth. How could Dems miss with a disabled veteran, right?  But Ms. Duckworth turned out to be bad on issues and an ineffective campaigner. The Republican won the seat.  So, regardless of his other qualities, Blago has no reason to trust national Dems' judgment in choosing "electable" candidates.

    Because Christine Cegelis was so electable? (none / 0) (#87)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:38:05 PM EST

    My cool is perefectly intact (none / 0) (#89)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:39:57 PM EST
    You seem to have lost yours.

    Blago, is, in my opinion, a criminal. But my opinion will not send him to jail.

    A jury of his peers will judge him on that.

    The Illinois legislature will judge whether he remains in office. It seems a good bet that they will decide NO.


    You Are Missing The Point (none / 0) (#93)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:43:50 PM EST
    The governor was arrested by the FBI and faces impeachment proceedings, his appointee to a U.S. Senate seat is in limbo and the state treasury is in shambles--a combination that has turned Illinois into a national punch line.

    But who's laughing around here?

    The state owes billions of dollars to day-care providers, hospitals and physicians treating the poor. Lawmakers have shelved ambitious agendas, such as fixing health care and reforming the state's method of financing public schools.

    The tortuous saga of Gov. Rod Blagojevich has put Illinois government on hold.


    Yes and with 13% approval rating I think it is fair to say that he should be impeached ASAP. This is about politics not the law, the Law is secondary to removing Blagojevich, he can no longer function as governor.


    Lisa Madigan has been elected state (none / 0) (#97)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:04:15 PM EST
    wide twice. It seems to me that she has a better argument at electability then any of the House Reps. that Reid spoke against.

    I would bet that Reid may know (5.00 / 1) (#114)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:38:57 PM EST
    or just worry about something about those three Chicago African American pols that has nothing to do with race but could come out to make them not electable.  Who knows where Fitzgerald's inquiry will lead in the months ahead?

    I am not impressed with Reid on other factors, but he and the Dems seem to have done a good job on winning elections at a lot of levels lately.  But that streak will reverse if the brand is further tarnished, and Dems will need clean candidates.


    The 5% Nation of Sunday Shows (none / 0) (#1)
    by SOS on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:14:29 AM EST
    1 2 3, 4 5 6, 7 8 9, 10 11 12.

    I did not know this (none / 0) (#2)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:52:52 AM EST
    until now just watching TV. Before the Burris pick Reid called Blago  to ask or tell him not to pick J.J. Jr, Emil Jones and some other black guy for the Senate vacancy.  He told Blago he preferred Madigan and some other white person, since he felt the African Americans did not have a good chance of winning in a regular election.

    I knows this is just politics but he can't accuse Blago and Rush of playing the race card even though Reid did not believe he was using race in his request to Blago.

    If you were watching TV (5.00 / 1) (#3)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:54:40 AM EST
    you would have seen Reid call Blago a liar about that.

    No I was too late for that (none / 0) (#5)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:03:22 AM EST
    I saw that on Fox.  Of course he would call Blago a liar that would just be natural when someone allegedly has something on you especially if it has to do with race.  But like you say either he said it or did he not.  Sometimes when people protest too much it signifies their guilt but let us wait to see what the investigation says.  However, if it is true then this just weakens his argument not to seat Burris since the whole Burris issue will look like a race issue rather than Reid having a legal argument not to seat Burris even if his argument is correct.  

    The racism thing doesn't even make sense here (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:43:46 AM EST
    I don't get this - it doesn't even make sense that Reid would use race as an argument against electability here - if there was anyplace where the 'an AA is not electable' argument doesn't make sense, it's here.

    Hmmm (none / 0) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:05:58 AM EST
    So is there anything Reid could have said that would have convinced you? Sounds like you are prepared to believe Blago on a lot here.

    I 'm just talking on how people (none / 0) (#7)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:10:03 AM EST
    react to being called racist.  They immediately deny it.  That's all.  Either he did it or not.  If there was a phone call and all the calls were taped by Fitz then this tape along with the Blago tapes needs to be heard.  You can't cherry pick which tapes to be heard.

    He denied the accusations that (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:16:00 AM EST
    he OPPOSED Jackson, Jr et al.


    He did not explain his views on electability or anything else.

    He flatly denied what the Blago camp "disclosed." He called Blago a liar about the conversation.

    Without reservation.


    Of course he did (none / 0) (#18)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:23:08 AM EST
    I would not expect him or anyone else of being called a racist to admit they were a racist especially a politician on TV.  I am not saying he is a racist and maybe he never said it but just because Reid say so does not make it so or just because Blago says so make it so.  I   We are talking normal human nature responses that's all.

    What they say on TV and under oath can be two different things.  That goes for both of these men.


    WTF? (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:29:12 AM EST
    Let me try it more slowly.

    Or by example - if I were Harry Reid and I were asked who I would prefer to be my Senate candidate, I would say I prefer Valerie Jarret or Lisa Madigan to Jesse Jackson, Jr. because I think they would have a better chance of winning the election.

    If accused of saying these things, if I had said them, I would not deny them.

    I do not think accusing me of saying these things is accusing me of being a racist.

    Reid did not deny being a racist (he was not asked if he  was a racist), he denied EVER opposing any candidate for the Illinois appointment.

    I am troubled that you seem willing to twist what was said by Reid in such a way. Very troubled. Why are you doing this?


    This is what I heard on Tv (none / 0) (#23)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:51:35 AM EST
    From what I heard explained on TV all the people   Reid  was accused of not recommending for whatever reason were black and all those he wanted were white. I did not see Meet the Press.  I saw what was being discussed on Fox on what Reid said.  It does not take a rocket scientist   to see that race implication if this is true.   Reid denied it because it was obvious he was being looked at as a racist even though those words were not exchanged.    Let's me make more clear.  It is possible that Reid is right and Blago is wrong.  It is just as clear that Blago is right and Reid is wrong. Those two possibilities exist. Neither one carries more weight.
    Again just because Reid says so does not make it so and that goes for Blago too.  
    I want to hear the tapes before I can talk with certainty who said what.  The tapes would be the ultimate proof and not what anybody says. Meet the Press or Fox.

    you should read the article (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:55:19 AM EST
    from the Chicago Tribune.  

    let's see...only Blago's office confirmed the story.  And they have a history of false press leaks (see: criminal complaint).  And nothing to lose.


    Very possible (none / 0) (#28)
    by Saul on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:02:49 AM EST
    but if this was taped I would like to hear it. Both sides need to be heard especially if it was taped.

    At this point (5.00 / 1) (#39)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:43:26 AM EST
    only one of them is going to jail. I'm less inclined to believe that guy.

    Crazy (5.00 / 2) (#100)
    by ColumbiaDuck on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:11:49 PM EST
    So an uncorroborated accusation of racism from a dirty pol who is facing impeachment, indictment, jail time, etc., is enough to tarnish someone as a racist?  Really?  And Fox News is totally credible?

    This has gotten ridiculuous - calling someone a racist or raising the spectre of race is enough to bring everything to a full stop and the clearly guilty are suddenly credible.

    Play the tapes, sure why not?  (except it would hurt an on-going investigation to release evidence at this time; maybe that's what blago wants - ever think of that?)

    This is absolutely nuts. A month ago everyone in the liberal blogosphere agreed blago had as much credibility and integrity as Duke Cunningham; today we need to bow to his demands or risk being called racist.


    also btw (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:00:01 AM EST
    Tammy Duckworth self-identifies as Asian-American.  I realize this mistake is being made by many people...but I'm thinking maybe she would appreciate being called Asian-American.

    just as clear? (5.00 / 2) (#138)
    by txpublicdefender on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:12:09 PM EST
    So, either Reid or Blago is lying, and you think it is equally likely that the known corrupt politician facing impeachment and indictment is equally likely to be the one who is being truthful here?  Ooookay.

    We are taliking strictly from a technical point (none / 0) (#173)
    by Saul on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 09:02:23 AM EST
    No insert of morals.  The only TRUE way to settle who is telling the real truth is to hear the tapes. You favor Reid vs Blago that is your prerogative.    I am not judging either men both have to be given the presumption of innocence You read to much into it.

    I look forward to reading (none / 0) (#15)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:18:57 AM EST
    David Sirota's correction.

    I sent him an e-mail (5.00 / 1) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:21:19 AM EST
    asking him to write a followup.

    follow up (5.00 / 1) (#155)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 06:08:20 PM EST

    A day after my post on Harry Reid, he appeared on Meet the Press to deny the Sun-Times report that he believes - or told Gov. Blagojevich - that he believed top Illinois African American leaders were "unelectable." I'm glad Reid did this, and in the spirit of "innocent till proven guilty" and in light of what I originally noted was his stellar legislative record on race issues, I am inclined to believe him.
    That said, it doesn't negate the fundamental point of the original post, which is that in political circles, black candidates are often billed as politically inferior or "unelectable," - and that such latent racism is considered mundane. We need to get over that racism, and if this Reid controversy - whether rooted in fact or rooted in Blagojevich spin - helped forward the dialogue on that racism, then it's a good thing.

    The "fundamental" point of the original post was that AAs are seen as less electable these days - just look at Reid (the most current example).

    And that point stands how?  Reid said, I did not say that, that is not my worldview, and I do not function that way (Harold Ford for ex.).  

    If you're going to make an argument like that, about race and politics, and your only examples evaporates, then your fundamental point does NOT stand.

    I hope Sirota expands upon his original post.  Otherwise this was just very standard CYA on his part.


    I should probably leave some of these people (none / 0) (#21)
    by lilburro on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:30:15 AM EST
    alone...but the way people jumped on this story yesterday really p*ssed me off.  Ex. from Jane Hamsher:

    "I don't know who leaked the fact that Harry Reid contacted Rod Blagojevich to oppose a roster of African American candidates because he considered them "unelectable," but Blago's office confirmed it and it makes Reid look just plain awful."

    Blago's office confirmed it so it's true?  C'mon.


    Worked for Bush, didin't it? (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:05:45 AM EST
    Meet the New Media, same as the Old Media.

    Wouldn't it be on tape? (none / 0) (#55)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:17:24 PM EST
    I would expect if that call really did take place, it would have been during the period of time when Blago was being taped.

    But Fitzgerald wouldn't release a (none / 0) (#56)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:18:39 PM EST
    tape simple to resolve a political dispute.

    Which is odd, since he will release tapes (5.00 / 1) (#61)
    by ericinatl on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:36:42 PM EST
    to cause a polical dispute.  Shades of Whitewater.

    HUh? (none / 0) (#62)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:38:13 PM EST
    He is not releasing anything until the trial. Do you have other information that Fitzgerald is leaking information?

    He made a motion to release some tapes (5.00 / 1) (#68)
    by scribe on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:58:18 PM EST
    to the Illinois Impeachment inquiry, in lieu of allowing witnesses to testify.

    Ironic, though, how political people don't seem to be learning the lesson of the unreliability of snitch testimony.  Blago has every reason to lie, embellish and plain make up crap to further his alternative reality*.  And people want to treat him as someone equally deserving of ... credibility.

    Blago's subtext:  "Obama:  Listen up.  Get me out of this indictment mess and let me go or I will make Whitewater look like a tea party, regardless of whether it is true or not."


    very different (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by txpublicdefender on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:15:36 PM EST
    Releasing recorded phone conversations to assist in an impeachment inquiry is different than just releasing them willy-nilly to settle every argument in the media people have over who said what to whom.  I think Fitzgerald absolutely should release the tapes to the impeachment inquiry.  There's nothing Whitewater-esque about it, and comparing Fitzgerald to Ken Starr is virtually slanderous.

    he is fighting to release (none / 0) (#160)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:40:02 PM EST
    I think the commenter means Fitz is going to court in order to release certain portions of the wiretaps to help impeach blago in the senate....will NM AG do that on Richardson? pay to play and all, public funds roads yada yada, why is it different?

    oh? what are you referring to? (none / 0) (#63)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:38:13 PM EST
    The question is (5.00 / 1) (#9)
    by jimakaPPJ on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:12:20 AM EST
    Did he oppose them just because they were black, or because they had other problems?

    I wouldn't pour water on Reid's shoes if his socks were on fire but I have trouble believing "just because."


    What if (none / 0) (#4)
    by SOS on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:57:12 AM EST
    people tell the Television industry we want to be paid to watch TV?

    You want me to watch your stuff I expect to be paid!

    The reply is that you get free tv (none / 0) (#32)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:18:51 AM EST
    supported by selling you, the audience, to advertisers who make it free.

    Compare this to newspapers, which are supported by advertisers but still charge you to buy a copy.  (And btw, newspapers' profit margins have been much higher than those of most other businesses, so now that newspapers are declining to the more standard margin, they're suffering serious stock losses.)


    Who gets TV for free? (none / 0) (#57)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:19:31 PM EST
    If I don't pay $60+ a month, I can't watch any TV. And, there are no rabbit ears powerful enough to bring the signal in. I live in a large metropolitan city, so it isn't a matter of being too far away.

    You pay for non-cable TV? (none / 0) (#111)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:31:53 PM EST
    Wow, that's weird.  Where do you have to pay to get ABC, NBC, CBS, PBS, etc.?  Because of bad reception in, what, a big apartment building in a big city?

    That's hardly the norm, though, I would think; most of the country can get the basic channels for free.


    You might want to borrow... (none / 0) (#121)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:58:29 PM EST
    ... a cheap ($50 or less) digital converter box from a friend or co-worker and test it overnight.  I bet you'll be pleasantly surprised.  

    Digital reception is nice in urban settings because it filters out the sort of ghosting video problems that over-the-air signals usually have when they're bouncing around tall builings like a pinball game.  And rabbit ears usually work pretty well in the city for digital reception.

    Plus, digital over-the-air digital TV is free.  I'm not sure that the cable and satellite companies are too keen to spread that bit of knowledge around.


    When I did some tests 6-7 years ago (none / 0) (#136)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:58:29 PM EST
    in Center City Philadelphia, multipath was deadly for digital reception. In other words, what would have been pretty annoying ghosting in analog was a blank screen in digital.

    Presumably the equipment and technology have improved since then, but I'm frankly not hopeful. It was bad enough to make me think that the digital TV transition must have been a plot by the cable TV industry. ;-)


    I'm guessing that the technology's... (none / 0) (#156)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 06:37:37 PM EST
    ... gotten a lot better in the past 6-7 years.  My cheap converter box has a "signal strength" button that gives a 0-10o% level indication even if there's not enough of a signal to lock on to for program display.  The converter box registered digital signals for every analog station I was used to getting, plus a couple of new digital feeds. I had to adjust the rabbit ears to get them positioned for decent reception that would work on all of those channels to my old Magnavox TV, but overall it's been a lot more consistant than the analog reception ever was.  If it's been a few years, you might want to try a fresh test.

    I think the technology is good.  I haven't seen much in the way of media "how-to" support for over the air free digital TV reception, but I think that's possibly because it represents a free alternative to cable and satellite subscriptions, and there's not much ad revenue in that.  


    Not so thrilled with digital. (none / 0) (#143)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:40:53 PM EST
    I live in an apartment in the city center. It is a small building in a neighborhood of single-family homes. With my rabbit ears I was able to get excellent to decent reception for every station in town. With my digital converter box I no longer get either the CBS or the FOX affiliate.

    I have been given a number of reasons for this.

    ---If I just wait until Feb. 17, everything will be fine because all stations will be digital. Okay, but all stations here are already broadcasting in digital.

    ---The trees in my neighborhood are blocking the digital signal. We have a lot of trees in this town. If digital is so superior to analog, why is it so easily defeated by trees?

    It was, also, suggested to me that I just give in and pay for cable. Not likely.

    So far, not so happy with the digital TV revolution.


    Good lord. Trees? Digital is great here (none / 0) (#144)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:48:14 PM EST
    and we've got lots of massive, old, tall trees in neighboring yards.  And although I'm in a single-family home, we are in a very population-dense area with tall buildings nearby, one half a block away.  And, and, and . . . but digital has greatly improved our reception, getting rid of those "ghosts" on a channel that has a tower nearby, etc.

    I think you're being given a load of garbage. :-)

    Btw, I also would note that the best picture improvement came on our only HDTV.  It's terrific.


    But it's true about the trees (none / 0) (#169)
    by DFLer on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 10:13:24 PM EST

    Whether you'll need an antenna depends largely on the terrain and other buildings in your area. Digital TV signals can be a bit more difficult to receive than analog signals because they are more sensitive to barriers such as hills, trees and buildings.


    Some viewers could also lose signals because of what's known as the digital "cliff effect." Unlike analog signals, digital broadcasts either come in clear or not at all, meaning that those on the fringes of analog coverage areas will lose that reception entirely after the transition. Currently, they can still get fuzzy analog signals.

    Some viewers may therefore need more powerful antennas -- in addition to converter boxes -- to continue receiving certain channels.


    many television stations will shift their broadcast footprints with the mandatory transition by changing transmitter locations, antenna patterns or power levels. The FCC is not requiring television stations to replicate their analog coverage

    go cable if available


    Both Fox and CBS have (none / 0) (#157)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:22:24 PM EST
    gotten better for me (off cable) on my new TV. I think the stations are all switching over now. ABC and NBC seemed ahead of the others. I did hear a few say "now in HD!" in the past few days, and I think one was CBS.

    I was wondering if the networks had an earlier deadline to comply (the 1st) with whatever they needed to do and our deadline was later? I'm looking at absolutely great reception from Fox right now off cable. Makes me love my new TV even more!


    Did Reid say anything about MN? (none / 0) (#40)
    by magster on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 11:47:44 AM EST

    Political malpractice.....WTF? (none / 0) (#67)
    by vml68 on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 12:55:23 PM EST
    From the Financial Times...

    "Facing one of the most nail-biting choices since the presidential election, David Paterson, the New York governor, has been told he would be guilty of "political malpractice" if he named anyone other than Caroline Kennedy as the state's new junior representative in the Senate.
      In the latest development in a political saga that has gripped New Yorkers for the past month, Kevin Sheekey, senior political aide to mayor Michael Bloomberg, said this week: "The idea that we would pass up appointing someone to the Senate who is both a friend and a critical supporter of Barack Obama is political malpractice."

    I somehow doubt that this statement... (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by EL seattle on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:24:59 PM EST
    ... will convince all of the voters in New York state who were Hillary Clinton supporters that they wasted everybody's time by not joining the bandwagon last year.

    "The idea that we would pass up appointing someone to the Senate who is both a friend and a critical supporter of Barack Obama is political malpractice."  


    WTF is up with Kevin Sheekey? (5.00 / 1) (#77)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:28:48 PM EST
    I thought he was muzzled by the CK "people"?

    Thought this was interesting

    Does he perhaps hope to be the next Axelrod? Get her in the senate and then run her for Pres?


    Is this fellow being pd. by (5.00 / 1) (#80)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:33:32 PM EST
    NYC taxpayers?

    Yet the campaign Sheekey has been pushing hardest lately involves Caroline Kennedy. She may be a political novice, but he is putting his strategy to work for her - rounding up key figures in unions, the business world and politics to support her early, trying to make her look like the winner when the game has barely started.

    Yup. (5.00 / 1) (#85)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:36:49 PM EST
    If Sheekey is for real, he's not just turning down the hottest game in town - he's turning his back on half a million bucks. He was paid $700,000 to run the 2005 campaign, but his city salary is just under $200,000.

    Wonder what he traded that half mil for?


    Bloomberg (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:02:57 PM EST
    Moron. Can't wait to vote him out of office.

    That's absolutley true. As I wrote yesterday, (none / 0) (#76)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:27:09 PM EST
    the pressure from Obama and much of the rest of the party must be huge. And Paterson might not just be thinking of himself here, he needs Federal support to help New York State.

    Not Thinking Of Himself? (none / 0) (#86)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:37:55 PM EST
    And Paterson might not just be thinking of himself here, he needs Federal support to help New York State.

    Isn't it his job to be thinking how best to serve his constituents. In fact one of the reasons Kennedy said that she would be great as NY Senator is that she believes that could get NY's fair share of federal funds.

    One of the main assets she could bring to the Senate, Ms. Kennedy suggested, was her celebrity itself. It would be useful, she said, in bringing attention to New York's needs and fighting for a bigger share of federal stimulus money.

    "We are losing a very visible, very strong, very powerful advocate in Hillary Clinton," Ms. Kennedy said. "This is not about me, this is about what I can do to help New York get its fair share, help working families, travel the state, bring attention to what is going on up there. So that's why I think I would be good."



    Yeah, that's what I wrote. Although I think (none / 0) (#96)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:02:11 PM EST
    (from what I've seen of her so far) that Kennedy  isn't likely to be a very visible or very strong advocate.

    My thoughts also (none / 0) (#102)
    by nycstray on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:15:45 PM EST
    I mean, as a state, we can tell her what we need, but does anyone really think she can just go and it it? Is Obama really just going to give the green light that CK (and NYS) has preferential status? On the other hand, does anyone see her making a convincing argument as to why NY should get funds over another state? "NY deserves the money because my last name is Kennedy!" just may not fly.

    Can't wait for her first floor speech . . .


    Yes Many Think She Can (none / 0) (#107)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:27:07 PM EST
    I mean, as a state, we can tell her what we need, but does anyone really think she can just go and it it?

    I do not know what will happen, but I do think that whoever Paterson chooses, it will be who he believes will best serve NYers.


    israel (none / 0) (#162)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:42:37 PM EST
    speaking of Bloombergs diehard support for Caroline, when will she tell the press what she thinks of Bloomberg and Ray Kelly and Gary Ackerman flying to Israel to give them unconditional support? yeah cricket-cricket-

    I didn't hear that Kelly and Ackerman were (none / 0) (#170)
    by nycstray on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 12:58:53 AM EST
    there also.

    I have no problem with Bloomberg supporting Israel. To me, it's rather a "duh". I would be interested to hear Caroline's view. Do you know Paterson's view?


    Peterson: (5.00 / 1) (#171)
    by squeaky on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 02:11:54 AM EST
    "Over the past few days, I have closely monitored the current escalation of violence in Israel and Gaza. I hope and pray for a peaceful solution for both sides and I strongly condemn Hamas for breaking the current ceasefire. I believe the Israeli people, under constant attack from the Palestinian territories, have a right to protect themselves and I stand with them as they fight to defend the basic rights of humanity.


    And Kennedy:

    But Kennedy's generally cautious with regard to foreign policy; for instance, she echoes Clinton's relatively uncritical view of Israeli government actions with regard to Palestinian proposals for resolving conflicts over issues such as the status of Jerusalem. Specifically, her camp tells The New York Times: "Caroline supports a two-state peace solution for Israel, so long as there is a true partner for peace in the Palestinians, and so long as Israel's security is assured."

    She also supports Jerusalem as undivided capitol of Israel.


    seems to me there is a big (none / 0) (#88)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:38:15 PM EST
    difference between Reid "preferring" certain potential appointees to U.S. Senate compared to Reid telling the IL Governor whom Reid should or should not appoint in Reid's opinion.

    I'm beginning to wonder (none / 0) (#95)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:59:59 PM EST
    just who has input into the process.

    The governor has the actual power.  I expect the state party to be consulted and the national party as well.  But Reid?  Who all gives their input and how much of it solicited and unsolicited?

    Cigar smoke and back room deals.  It's certainly a golden opportunity for someone(s) to get "their" candidate in without the fuss and risk of an election.  


    On the other hand, it's the only way (5.00 / 1) (#134)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:44:24 PM EST
    that my state got its first woman high court justice -- eventually chief justice and still there after 30 years.  And the only way my state finally got a woman lieutenant governor, clearing the way for the current one to get elected.

    It hardly seems hard for African Americans to get ahead in Chicago, or even statewide since Burris broke that barrier . . . but there does still seem to be difficulty in getting more into the Senate.

    As is noted by the black press, which would like to see two in the Senate for a change, as Paterson could do in New York; the push is for, among others, Meeks.  I found him very impressive in the campaign and marked him as an up and comer, I hope.


    Firedoglake Blogger (none / 0) (#94)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 01:59:23 PM EST
    Sion posted this blog which looks into the possible use of Cluster Bombs in Gaza. Take the time to look at the links in the story as well!

    Love this quote... (5.00 / 1) (#98)
    by pmj6 on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:10:39 PM EST
    Last night, the US blocked - once again - a call for a cease-fire at the UN Security Council, today Senate "leaders" Harry Reid, Dick Durbin and Mitch McConnell were "standing solidly behind Israel's ground operation against Hamas."

    I'm sure Obama's sentiments are no different.


    Obama is well-informed (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:58:11 PM EST
    on issues regarding the Palestinians.  In fact, he was criticized during the campaign for being too pro-Palestinian and not solid enought in support of Israel.  Hoping he will refrain from the rah-rah Israel position.  

    In Case You Missed It (5.00 / 1) (#103)
    by CDN Ctzn on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:18:42 PM EST
    there is another informative commentary by Glenn Greenwald over at Salon.com this morning. Once again, Glenn views the issue from a perspective rarely acknowledged.

    Also see this GG op-ed (5.00 / 1) (#142)
    by Alien Abductee on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:24:35 PM EST
    It's a concise version of his pushback against the Dem leadership for their failure to represent the views of their constituency on the Gaza situation, connecting it with their similar actions in supporting the war in Iraq. In the Chicago Sun-Times:

    While some Democratic politicians who are marginalized by the party's leadership are willing to express the views that Democratic voters overwhelmingly embrace, the suffocating, fully bipartisan orthodoxy which typically predominates in America when it comes to Israel is in full force with this latest conflict.

    Is there any other significant issue in American political life, besides Israel, where citizens split almost evenly in their views, yet the leaders of both parties adopt identical positions which leave half of the citizenry with no real voice?

    Great job from GG.


    BTD, a CB for Oklahoma (#15 I think) (none / 0) (#99)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:11:17 PM EST
    said that Tebow would be the 4th best QB in the Big 12 and he is tired of the hype.

    lol, I'll bet Tebow runs over him like a truck. Stoops is probably putting duct tape on the guy's mouth.

    That is great (5.00 / 1) (#101)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:12:54 PM EST
    I'll have to blog that.

    Bulletin board material.


    Here's the ESPN link (none / 0) (#106)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:27:04 PM EST
    four the 4th best comment. I'm still looking for where I read the hype one.



    With... (5.00 / 2) (#110)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:31:15 PM EST
    Dominique Franks 6'0" 189
    Tim Tebow         6'3" 240

    I do hope Franks has his health insurance premiums up to date.


    Sophomore speaks from spa. (none / 0) (#122)
    by oculus on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 02:59:48 PM EST
    I'm torn on Tim Tebow (none / 0) (#139)
    by ericinatl on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:14:29 PM EST
    As a gay man, I find him incredibly attractive.  But he's so damn socially conservative.  I can't bring myself to root for him.  Plus, Florida fans have had enough success over the past 5 years or so, and they are sooooo arrogant about it.  No offense BTD.

    Good News (none / 0) (#131)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 03:33:15 PM EST
    Bloomberg reports that the first female deans of the Harvard and Stanford law schools -- Elena Kagan and Kathleen Sullivan -- "are the top candidates to serve" as Barack Obama's Solicitor General. No woman has ever served in that position on a permanent basis.

    think progress

    Doesn't do much to counter the fact that (5.00 / 2) (#146)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:08:52 PM EST
    only 25% of his cabinet is made up of women.

    Inconsolable? (5.00 / 1) (#147)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:14:55 PM EST
    Seems that nothing from the Obama camp is good news for you.

    I'm sorry that I have disagreements (5.00 / 3) (#149)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:17:34 PM EST
    with the way our President is doing his job. I'm a terrible person.

    I'm glad he didn't make Lugar his SOS or Hagel his SOD.


    Tigercourse, (5.00 / 5) (#153)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:28:17 PM EST
    See Dr. Molly above. It is just not worth the effort to engage with Squeaky. Squeaky is a whole lot of "Blah, blah, blah you're a PUMA if you don't just love all that is Obama."

    Save your energy.


    great news (none / 0) (#141)
    by txpublicdefender on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 04:23:40 PM EST
    That is great news, and either one of them would be wonderful.  Both are superb legal scholars and skilled advocates.

    New DNC chair (none / 0) (#148)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:15:07 PM EST
    Tim Kaine is the new chair of the Democratic National Committee. According to WaPo, Kaine will serve part-time at the DNC until his term as Virginia governor ends in two years. Then he will work full-time for the DNC.

    Does this mean they are moving the DNC back to Washington, DC?

    Oops, just 1 year left (none / 0) (#152)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 05:24:48 PM EST
    for Kaine in Virginia. Kaine goes full-time as DNC chair in January 2010.

    Interestingly, Terry McAuliffe has announced his intention to run for governor of Virginia.

    Politics is a lot of things, but it's hardly ever dull.


    well (none / 0) (#163)
    by jedimom on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:44:54 PM EST
    well at least it isnt "Stop the Hate, we dont need no stinking blue collar voters" Donna Brazille....

    cant wait to send Terry some dough for his run for VA GOV!! LOVE TERRY!!!


    Reid (none / 0) (#158)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 07:27:21 PM EST
    Reid is an embarrassment.

    After seeing this it is hard to believe anything he says.

    What are you talking about? (none / 0) (#164)
    by ThatOneVoter on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 08:14:40 PM EST
    David Gregory is an utter embarrassment in that segment, being an apparatchik for the war machine. Reid is fine.

    Maybe and maybe not (none / 0) (#172)
    by Abdul Abulbul Amir on Mon Jan 05, 2009 at 07:53:44 AM EST

    It is almost certain that Reid's performance will be part of a commercial feom whoever runs against him.

    President Elect (none / 0) (#168)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 04, 2009 at 09:39:22 PM EST
    President-elect Barack Obama arrived in DC at AFB at 7pm EST after leaving Midway airport at 4:45 pm CST.

    He left his Hyde Park house at about 4pm and arrived at Midway about 30 minutes later.

    As he boarded plane, he waved to press and said he would see us in DC. He came to back of plane and said the following:

    "Well guys, I am looking forward to seeing you guys in Washington.....I gotta say I choked up a little bit leaving my house today."

    " Malia's friend had dropped off an album of the two of them together. They had been friends since pre-school and I just looked through the pages and the house was empty and it was a little tough, it got me."

    He ordered a cheeseburger on the plane, which is a
    Boeing 757 with big leather seats. He met Col. Scott Turner, who will be his Air Force One pilot.

    Obama said he had taken a government plane before. Said Michelle and the girls were "having fun" and that he was looking forward to going to Washington.

    "Although living in a hotel for two weeks, we kind of did that for two years."

    war & piece