And Reid also ticked off Julian Bond and the NAACP, and in its centennial year when it already is slated to get even more publicity than usual.

Unemployment is at a historic high and getting worse. The bank bailout is doing little if nothing to stimulate the economy, the senate and the house have more significant issues with the economy, job  loss, healthcare, social security, medicare and two wars that are quagmired.  

Let the republicans rant about Burris and Blago and let the democrats who are basically in charge, start to prove that their platform has some meat to it.  

I would say this is a pimple on an elephant's arse comparatively speaking but even that may be an overstatement.  

But, I think the Gallup poll is not being read correctly.  52% of those polled think that a special election should be held.  My opinion is that people care less about whether Burris should or shouldn't be seated, but rather are (rightly, IMO) annoyed at the whole idea of senate appointments, as opposed to elections.  Sure, Blago may have tried to sell the seat, and that is a crime, but is it really much better for a few Democratic leaders to make the decision behind closed doors though promises of political favors or through political threats, as is probably the typical course of action?

Don't worry - Reid said he'll be around as Leader at least until 2015.

Why let this carry into mulitple news cycles.

He is GOING to be seated.  It could be months or longer before Blago is replaced.  All the while Illinois will have 1 Senate representative.

It's funny.  Democrats keep trying to co-opt GOP stances on policy issues like national security and crime so that they can "look tough."  What they don't seem to realize is that many voters - including, of significance, a disproportionate amount of undecided, or swing voters - don't know beans about policy or give two hoots about it.

What voters DO recognize is the signs that politicians (and parties) emit that show what kind of people they are.  And Democrats consistently emit signals showing, verifying, and confirming that they are the hog-nosed snakes of American politics: first they threaten, then they play dead, and then when all else fails, they turn tail and run for it.

Second, although the Democrats come out looking pretty stupid and petty in this situation, they did it for a much bigger picture. As I have argued, it is not a coincidence that the Democrats' softening on Burris began the same day that Richardson announced he was pulling out of the confirmations process.  What do these things have to do with each other? Richardson had to pull out because the Republicans were going to make a big stink out of the investigation.  Even if there are no facts connecting Richardson to wrongdoing, the Democrats had just spent weeks arguing about "taint" exists even in the absence of any established facts. And this taint was so strong, it made Burris, whom no on has ever suspected of wrongdoing, an innappriate selection.  With this history, how on earth could the Democrats defend Richardson? More importantly, how on earth could the Democrats defend other persons who might get into hot water without "facts"?  So they caved in on Burris in order to silence the "taint" arugment which had become way too expansive and a potent tool for the GOP to stir up trouble during the confirmations process.