I had always thought that among other reasons, our Founding Fathers broke away from England to get away from a monarchy and government where power was too often concentrated in the king and his heirs. Our Constitution was designed to prevent this as much as possible.

So enough of these senate or other political candidates who believe they should hold office because of Daddy. This country has had enough of one family rule for way too long. The Clintons in the White House and New York. The Bushes in Texas, Florida, and the White House. The Kennedys in Massachusetts, the White House, and now maybe New York. The Bidens in Delaware. These are just some examples of voters not being able to choose from their own pool of nominees or candidates.

We've got Biden now not resigning until after he's sworn in as Senator next month so that his replacement in Delaware can take office a late as possible after agreeing to vacate the seat at the next special election so that Biden's son can take over. We've got Caroline "Kennedy," who suddenly has rediscovered her family name after using Schlossberg for so long, now trying to convince Gov. Patterson to appoint her because, well...she's a Kennedy. We had Hillary moving to New York and pushing out of the way a respectable Congresswoman. We had Daddy Bush grooming Georgie, helping him get rid of McCain in 2000 so W. can win. Add Jeb Bush to the mix, and now HE'S considering running for president.

Hell, even in Crook County, IL. they had a county board president who had a major stroke, was completely immobilized, but kept out of public and left ON the ballot so he'd win renomination. Then the party waited for a few months until it was too late to have a special primary election, which meant the party officials were able to appoint his replacement. And who was that? Why, it was his totally ineffective, brainless son! Because no Republican ever wins a Crook Countywide election, this meant Stroger Jr. was guaranteed to win in the subsequent general election.

Why do these people believe that a public office is theirs? They act like they're entitled to the office that their daddy or uncle or brother held; and shame on many of US for willingly electing these boobs when they eliminate their opponents and run for the office.

I've pretty much adapted this philosophy, as stupid as it may sound, that I just won't vote for someone who's a member of some political family, even if I agree with that person's policies more than his/her opponent's. I'd rather skip that office altogether on the ballot.

Enough of this familial revolving door crap!

The vast difference between those monarchies and what we've got is that we have a choice. People can choose family members, it's their vote. Sometimes people just like the family name, just like they prefer a brand name for a product. Doesn't make it right, but it's how a lot of people feel. When it's a special appointment for special cases (vacating a senate or other seat because of being chosen for a cabinet position) and it's not left up to a vote, then I could see it...but even that person making the appointment has to answer to his or her constituents.




Or because of Hubby. Yes Hillary, I never thought you were qualified for political office, not senator, let alone president. Caroline just deciding one day "gee, I'd like to be a senator" is tantamount to Paris Hilton waking up one day and saying "Yes, I'm an actress."




Nepotism is alive in well in all kinds of professions, not just politics. Doesn't make it right, it's just there. And heaven help us when the press gets involved and falls in love with a family to the point of "Camelot." Then that sense of entitlement will last for generations, as the present is proof.



No offense, and I see your point, but that's a pretty silly stance if the family member truly is the most qualified person in the race.

Hi, TG:

It's been said that the people get the government they deserve (by virtue of for whom they vote, of course), so oftentimes it's the voter who should be blamed. I'm more ticked off by the appointment of relatives than I am the election of them. If the People wish to do it, so be it; but if a governor or a committee or some other such source winds up appointing someone who's the son/daughter of a big time politician, that frosts my wintry ass.

OK, enough of me babbling about politics. There's a reason I haven't posted in this section much.

Each state has its own procedures for deciding how to replace an incumbent who leaves office early for whatever reason. If there were one uniform rule (which might be nice, and in fact I'd like to see voting rules uniform across the nation) you'd have those people screaming about "states' rights" and "stop the federal government from having all the power" and such. All of the cases you cite, those people are following their state's laws. They're within their rights to do what they're doing. It's unfortunate, but it's the way it is until the laws are changed.

In some cases there are financial considerations, especially now. Special elections can be expensive. If an election for one office can be pushed back and included in the next primary or general election, they do that.

Joe,

The Constitution states that when a seat in the U.S. House becomes vacant, a special election should be held to fill it, but for the Senate, it's left up to the individual state's governor or other means as is determined by that state's legislature. I'm guessing this is partly because an election for a U.S. Representative is much "easier" and more logistical because it's more localized and much smaller, relatively speaking. Of course, for those states that have but one Congressman, such an election is no different from a statewide U.S. Senator election.

I used to have no problem with a governor filling a vacant senate seat. I suppose that because the seat is for the Senate, which is a statewide office and considered more state-like, in a sense, having the state's chief executive make an appointment is generally OK. However, in light of what's gone on here in Illinois, and with the situation in New York, maybe it's time we get the states to abolish these gubernatorial appointments and go the route of letting the PEOPLE decide. What a novel idea!

BTW, here in Illinois, everyone and their grandmother had been in favor of a special election. Even Senator Durbin advocated it. Now the Democrats who run the General Assembly have tabled it. Oh, they claim it's because it'd be too costly (never mind that they can piggyback it onto the municipal elections in April if they had to), but the real reason they don't want an election is because--gasp!--a Republican might actually win it. First of all, their total reversal of this position is insulting to the voters here. Second, a Republican ain't gonna win this seat in 2010, so I don't know why they're worried.

Just a wee observation....

I worked with 3 people in the past, 1 from one family and the other 2 were siblings they had a family member high up in the company, that's how they got in. Person A was a "know it all" he interned one summer at the company when he was a teen because his family member pulled strings. When he came back as an employee a few years later, he was still a know it all. "I know this person" "I know that person" "Oh yeah, I met the programmer who made that program" etc....he basically did his job, but with very little effort because his connection was right down the hall.

Family members B and C had the higher up VP as a father. But, that had no impact on their work ethic. They worked through breaks, they learned everything they could, and became trainers for employees. And both moved up and beyond.

Now, family connections can get you into a spot, but it doesn't dictate whether you'll be good, that's up to you. I think 43 proved that. (oops, I brought it up again, silly me....)

Anyhoo, Caroline Kennedy shouldn't be judged for what she will do if appointed Senator, because you do not know yet.

There is one and only one person who has the legitimate ability to judge her, and that is Gov. Patterson. If he chooses her and she serves, then in 2010 the residents of NY can judge her.

CT, I don't disagree that some family members who get their jobs because of Daddy cannot be good at what they do. What I don't like are such people who are GIVEN their public service jobs (meaning an elected office) because of this. I'm more understanding if it's a private company. Hell, if I ran a company I'd love to have my son take over (if I had kids, of course). Elected office is a bit different, however.

I repeat my liking of what Thomas Jefferson said: "Those who seek public office should on principle be denied it."

CC- I think you are discounting Caroline Kennedy.

Why shouldn't she throw her hat in the ring? 1- she is well educated, 2- has a history of promoting and doing fund-raising work education, 3- well versed in law

I see no reason to say that she is not qualified for this position- if this were a Kennedy with no experience, I would say nepotism was fully to blame. This is an accomplished and powerful woman who has waited until she is 51 in order to throw her hat in the ring... not some 30-something with no experience wanting to get in purely under daddy's name.

Huh? What has she done? Hell, she hasn't even voted that often in her life! A bigger opportunist I haven't seen in some time.

I agree with Crew Chief, although I don't feel quite as strongly about the issue. Is Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg the best qualified person in the state of New York to take over Hillary's Senate seat? No. But the ugly reality of all this finance "reform" (yet another reason I was never crazy about McCain) is that political fundraising has become almost a full-time job for candidates and elected officials. Raising $15 million (the average amount spent in a Senate campaign) given the obstacle course of fundraising restrictions is almost impossible unless the candidate has serious starpower, name recognition, connections, or all of the above. In Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg's case, it's all of the above, which is why she's a shoo-in for the appointment. Yes, it's ugly. No, it's not fair. But unless we make some changes to the current campaign finance laws, it's something we'll be stuck with for a long time.

Well said!

Hardly! First, she's NOT "well-versed" in the law. Second, the charitable work to which the OP referred? Well, at her "#1 charity" she spends a whopping 1 to 2 hours per WEEK working.

Yeah, that's "experience" all right. Caroline Schlossberg makes Sarah Palin look like a veteran when it comes to politics. At least the latter has actually voted in elections.

Name one thing that Caroline Kennedy has done to make you so hateful towards this potential candidacy.... this is pure Kennedy bias and nothing else. Surely you should be more concerned about Fran Drescher making a play at being a Senator versus Caroline Kennedy. I mean, purely if any politician should be hated in this country it should be Governor Schwarzanegger- that was a complete and utter ridiculous initial election and what was his experience?

Caroline Kennedy's educational background is stellar. She is a lawyer and has written about law. She is definitely well-versed in law and my question to you then is - what do you consider to be well-versed?

She has also done fundraising for education/school systems in New York. She knows how to bring money in and that is key in the position of Senator.

My guess is that she will be able to interpret policy well, write well, collaborate with others well as part of her own staff and as well in the Senate. This is no dumb woman- she is not going to go in guns ablaze expecting to make immediate change- she will be a junior Senator, she will be low on the totem pole for policy and committees. She will work her way into the position quite nicely.

I'm not hateful toward her candidacy. I'm just sick of these people who do nothing politically, who don't even bother to vote for Chrissake--then suddenly believe they're deserving of a U.S. Senate seat. Let her run for the seat when it next comes up for election!

And as I said before, her charitable work may be laudable in some respects, but putting a mere 1 to 2 hours per week into it is hardly exemplary.

One of New York's current congressmen is more logical for this seat, and I hope Governor Patterson appoints one of those. Why not Congresswoman Nita Lowey? After all, she was poised to run for the seat originally before Hillary came swooping in and pushed Nita aside. Now Nita's interested again and here comes Queen "Remember my name's Kennedy" Schlossberg.

There are people far more qualified and far more on top of the issues than Caroline is who are better suited for this seat.

P.S. I don't hate Gov. Ahnold, but I do believe he's not a good governor. Plus, I don't even believe he's a real Republican. And I hope the Constitution is not amended to permit him to be president!

1) What is her voting record?
2) Seems if she raises millions with limited hours, that she is pretty f**king impressive.
3) Who is Nita? What has she done that is so much more effective than Caroline Kennedy?
4) Name 5 and describe exactly WHY they are more effective.
5) Isn't not hating Arnold a double standard? He is a distant Kennedy relative, he got it from a list of 30+ candidates in a ridiculous election and had even less qualifications than Caroline. Why does he get the soft treatment?

Anyways- your posts are nearing uber-ridiculous. Your arguments are soft as Cottonelle, although at least their tissues are two-ply and thicker than your 1-ply arguments.

(Honestly, I bet you are truly a great guy- we just differ in our opinions)

Or Representative Carolyn Maloney, who really has earned it, as no doubt Lowey has as well.

I'm from Massachusetts; I love the Kennedys' history and legacy. But no way does Caroline Kennedy deserve a senate appointment. Her experience in the non-profit world, while admirable, is no substitute for having spent 30 years in the political trenches and come out on top; she apparently thinks she was born there.

The U.S. senate is not an entry-level position, no matter who your family is. As Crew Chief said, if she wants the seat, let her run for it and prove herself to the electorate.


Where's Katie Couric when you need her?

I'm somewhat ambivalent about Caroline Kennedy. First of all, political experience is NOT a pre-requisite; I think that's far more important when you are looking to be a chief executive such as Mayor, Governor or President as opposed to being one of a hundred members of a legislative body. There is a long record of people going to the Senate without prior political experience, and doing fine. And in New York, there's Mike Bloomberg, who had zero political experience, yet did become chief executive of NYC, and has done an outstanding job. So there is definitely precedent for this. I don't get the opposition to the fact that she'll be appointed rather than elected - that's simply the way NYS law is written. Whoever get's the job will have to be appointed, but will have to stand for election in 2010 to finish out the term, then again in 2012 for a full term. So whoever is appointed will be running almost immediately, and will have to raise a huge amount of money in a short time , then immediately have to do it again. No offense to Nita Lowey, but people aren't gonna line up to donate to her twice in a tough economy the way they will for Caroline Kennedy.

I also don't think anyone can deny she is exceptionally bright. She's been admitted to the NY and DC Bars - the 2 toughest in the nation, and she has written five books, including two about constitutional law and the Bill of Rights, and she is on the Board of the JFK Library, the Kennedy Center, ABT, and numerous other philanthropic and cultural organizations - no doubt her mother's influence, but huzzah to any public figure that cares so much about the arts. And, in fairness to her, she has never changed her name to Caroline Kennedy Sclossberg (who would?) She's always officially been Caroline Kennedy. Period.

I'm not sure that she has the stomach for a political campaign; I sense she is very reserved and private and will be uncomfortable in the media glare. I wouldn't be surprised to see her withdraw and go back into her shell. But whatever happens, I respect her tremendously for living an exemplary life devoted to greater good and public service, and for coming out forcefully in favor of full gay marriage rights in this weekend's NY Times - that requires a profile in courage in thse times.

That said, I do think this "deal" was cut back in June when Hillary finally withdrew from the primary race, and that's just plain ugly.....

Interesting take.

One of yous (as they say in ChiCAHgo) sent me this: Kennedy's record on education disputed.

Interesting.

Caroline Kennedy strikes me as very smart, not so politically savvy (though well-connected), and diligent enough at whatever she focuses on. She'd be the big-name, more intellectual and wonkish of New York's two Senators if she were appointed, sort of in the Daniel Patrick Moynihan mold, while Chuck Schumer is the state's really hardcore Senate pol, and party bigwhig. The other benefit of a Kennedy pick for New York State would be to have a junior Democrat who'd be very close to the new president. Not a single of the other folks being named could claim that.

Almost all the other Democrats hopefuls, do however have more political experience. I don't think that's always the best thing, but really, it depends upon the candidate. Hillary Clinton had ZERO legislative or executive experience but was a high-profile figure for New York, and that celebrity and influence did help at times. (Though neither she nor her supporters were ever able to demonstrate conclusively how her Senate career outshone Barack Obama's briefer one.)

Then there's Caroline's uncle, Teddy. He has even less smarts and had less experience than she when he took office, after a benchwarmer took over for his (late) brother, and he has turned out to be one of the best and most effective Senators in US history. Liddy Dole, touted as having tons of experience, has been a JOKE for North Carolina's interests.

Let's hope Paterson thinks this through. But whatever he does, whoever holds the seat will have to run again in 2010 (and 2012, right?), so Kennedy, Lowey, Maloney, Cuomo, Suozzi, etc., could establish some sort of protocol and just go for it. And who's to say Bloomberg might not get the itch, thus handing the seat to a Republican?

Hi, fantomas. Merry Christmas.

I was visiting my folks today and browsed through the Chicago Sun-Times (at least I think it was the Sun-Times) and came across an article that stated many Democratic officials in NY are not too happy with Caroline being considered. It seems the idea of her being appointed has angered a lot of Democrats there. I wonder if this will affect Gov. Patterson's decision at all.

You'd think the guy really pissed about Caroline's interest in the appointment would be NYAG Andrew Cuomo. First dicked by former wife (Caroline's cousin) Kerry and now this! Man oh man, sometimes it just must feel like its raining Kennedys on that poor bastard.

Paterson doesn't intend to pick a replacement until after Hillary's confirmation an event that may out-poll the primetime shows for the potential drama.

These two are so qualified for the position - at least in my opinion - that they could, and perhaps should, run for the office in 2010.

As risky as it is for the state of New York, would Paterson pick a placeholder and avoid antagonizing either by equally antagonizing both of these illustrious families - a kind of Solomon's choice, or blind justice if you will?

I am not familiar with New York politics but there must certainly be others who could serve the interests of the state over the short term. Picking an African-American might soften the shock for the party and put another one in the Senate where Obama's seat as the only black in the senate is looking less and less likely to be filled by another.

Personally I would not be upset to see Paterson himself as the senator, though I believe he has ruled that out. Is it legal? The Dems are certainly suffering from an over-abundance of good fortune in this case, IMO.

Merry Christmas, Crew Chief, and happy holidays to everyone else!

I bet if Caroline Kennedy had kept quiet about her intentions she might have eluded the vocal opposition. But by openly campaigning for the seat, she has ruffled feathers. I think she'd be fine, but hey, I'm not a New Yorker and definitely not a New York pol. Non-political folks in NYC that I've talked to think highly of her, though, and she's still leading in the polls.

Well it's the Kennedy way. I don't agree with it. She has been in the political closet for way too long. I just watched the video clip of the day on her, and she says "you know" at least 40 times in a 2 minute clip. That may seem trivial but makes her sound like a bimbo. If she is serious about political office, someone is going to have to train her to speak more inteliigently.

Also, the US House was supposed to parallel the House of Commons with each Representative *directly* representing a portion of the population. This is why the House has elections every 2 years, so that the people can, if they see fit, regularly retain or replace their direct representatives in the government. The power of money and incumbency have made the latter more difficult to do, but it's part of the House's political design.

The Senate is by design the less democratic chamber, with each state getting equal respresentation and each of the two representatives chosen to 1) speak for entire states and 2) with particular constitutional powers, including advise and consent. They serve for longer terms, so it is less easy to dislodge a Senator, but keep in mind that during certain periods of American history Senate seats have changed hands (or butts) frequently. Look at the Class 2 seat Obama held until this month: before him was held by Peter Fitzgerald (wealth Republican), 1 term; Carole Moseley Braun (first black female Democratic Senator in US history) 1-term; Alan Dixon (Democrat) 2 terms; Adlai Stevenson III (Democrat)--won special election, then 1 term; Ralph Smith (Republican)--appointee, lost special election; Everett Dirksen (Republican)--3 terms; etc.


The Constitution leaves it up to the state legislatures. In all cases, however, the appointee MUST run for the seat at some point, because the Constititution requires this. What I don't get about the Kennedy hooplah is that she would have to run in two years. It's not an appointment to the Supreme Court or even an appointment that would allow her to hold the seat for a long time. If she isn't qualified and isn't able to retain the seat, someone else will get it. Lord knows, New York Democrats will go for the jugular, as will the state's Republicans, if they smell any blood in the water.


Well, on this account I agree with the General Assembly Democrats. There are FAR too many crucial pieces of legislation that must be passed over the next two years for some right-wing Republican like Jim Oberweis (Lord, talk about Illinois unleashing a nightmare on the country!), Jack Ryan, Andrew what's-his-name, or any of the usual Republican suspects in Illinois, etc. to be elected to make Obama's and the Congress's--and the American people's life--business a living hell. Just imagine. And I can assure you, unless the Republican is Judy Baar Topinka, Jim Thompson or Peter Fitzgerald (who will not run again), she or he would make it a point to challenge Obama and the Democrats just for the hell of it. Is that what you want? I sure don't. Maybe in 2011, after we've started the process of turning around the economy, passing universal health care, ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, and reversing so much of the W Bush destruction this might be possible, but let's not do this the country right now.

There's no way Oberweis would win the race, so there's no need to worry. He's a perennial loser. BTW, he's not that right-wing; he just acts like it to get conservative votes, which makes him less principled than even true right-wingers.

The whole process is way too tainted now, fantomas, and I have to disagree with you. I can't agree with the corrupt Democratic leaders who are playing politics with this. Why is a special election so critical, demanded by everybody, one week, then suddenly it's not necessary the next? Illinois is 50% weaker in the Senate thanks to these idiots. If these Democratic leaders aren't careful, many of them are going to find themselves out of a job, replaced by Republicans who just may get the people rallied against these Dems.

Crew Chief, if you can propose a Democrat who could win the special election with ease, I'd be all for it. Could Jan Schakowsky win the state? Perhaps but there's no guarantee. Jesse Jackson Jr.? It would depend upon whom he's running against. Blair Hull? Dan Hynes? Alexi Giannoulis (he'd be pretty good, I think). I just don't know.

And if people are angry enough, even Oberweis could get in there. I also think he's pretty far to the right, at least on some issues. His immigration stance is the kiss of death in Illinois, but say he ended up running against Jesse Jackson Jr. in a general election. I mean, who's to say people wouldn't react very badly against both of them, but end up giving Oberweis the edge in southern Illinois? I just don't know. Overall, though, I agree that in this case especially, Illinois voters should have a direct say. I'm just worried about what that'll be, but then again, such is democracy, and I'd rather have it than any other system.

I do think Jesse Jr. would fare better than Schakowsky, but with all the corruption surrounding this whole mess, a Chicago-based Democrat might not fare well downstate and in the collar counties. Plus, there are some who are upset that Jackson himself was even mentioned in the Blago scandal.

Other than Topinka, I don't know which Republican would stand a chance. There's a big part of me that's willing to accept even a GOP winning this seat if it means letting the people decide. Perhaps this is because I'm so fed up with the politics in this state.

Caroline Kennedy is quite capable of holding political office. She is intelligent. She holds degrees from prestigious universities. She is the author of several works on the law. Ms. Kennedy has worked under Joel Klein for educational concerns in New York City. Ms. Kennedy has also worked on behalf of other social and charitable concerns. In short, Caroline Kennedy has a public record.

Let her run on that record for public office in a primary and, then, general election. Ms. Kennedy should not be appointed to serve out the term of the junior senator from New York should that person be confirmed as Secretary of State.

If she is appointed to fill out that term, the message sent by the governor of New York would smack of elitism and entitlement, which are qualities that the party she and he represent find to be anathema. In addition, her appointment would not serve her political party well.

Though Mrs. Clinton was a carpetbagger, at least she ran for her Senate seat...twice.

Um, that's not an option. The law in NYS calls for the Governor to appoint someone who fills the seat until the next statewide election, which would be in 2010. The winner of that election would only serve until the natural end of that Senate tenure, which would be 2012. So whoever it is will HAVE to be appointed, then run in 2010, then run again in 2012.

Patterson will be running in 2010, so he'll want a strong name and fundraiser running with him, and that person will also need to raise money non-stop to run again in 2012.

Yes, it is an option. If Caroline Kennedy wishes to be a senator from New York, she can run for it in 2010. Whoever wins will serve the full Senate term of six years.

My point was that Ms. Kennedy should not be appointed by the governor. Have others who have not served in public office been appointed by executives to fill out terms? Of course, there have been such. The appointment of widows to serve out the terms of their husbands is one example. But Kennedy's sudden desire for this seat and her lobbying for it by cozying up to those whom she had never bothered to cozy up to heretofore, makes one believe her only motivation is an overabundance of a sense of noblesse oblige.

There is a wide range of people Patterson may choose, who have either served in public office and have more experience than she. Politically speaking, there are many others too, who are better able to help the governor with his own election plans.

Really? Who? Cuomo? He and the Governor despise each other, and have for years - Patterson will never appoint Cuomo to anything. Lowey? Slaughter? Do they have more name recognition than Kennedy? Will they have more name recognition in '10? will they drive turnout the way the Kennedy name - rightly or wrongly -does? Will they have access to the deep-pocketed donors needed in '10 and '12? I don't think so. Neither do most political spectators in NYS. So who exactly are these people who are better able to help the Governor with his own election plans?

Yes. my friend, all the names that you mentioned can expend more political capital than Ms. Kennedy. It appears that you are arguing for her on the basis of her name, not her own accomplishments. Despite what Ms. Kennedy herself hoped for in her endorsement of Obama, it appears amongst her advocates as if it is politics as usual...what the machine will get done.

I think you need to go back and re-read. What I said very clearly and unambiguously is that RIGHTLY OR WRONGLY Kennedy has huge name recognition and access to deep pocketed donors who can bankroll two Senate races two years apart. The others do not, as is widely acknowledged.

Others have mentioned this, but Caroline Kennedy, Roland Burris, Bennet (the Colorado appointee), and Biden's caretaker will be four very liberal votes to counterbalance the increasingly strident wingnuttery arising from what remains of the GOP caucus. It looks like Franken is also going to win, so he'll be in there for 6 years, but the other four might only have a short stay, so Reid and Obama had better figure out what to do about the Burris mess ASAP and get everyone on board to defeat any GOP filibusters, pass the stimulus, health care and other major bills with the thin 59+Snowe/Specter/Voinovich/Collins margin, and just get the country on the right track as fast as possible, then worry after the fact about what the Republicans and its mainstream media appendix will say.

How about Carolyn Maloney for US Senator and Caroline Kennedy for her replacement in the NY State house of Representatives? This was suggested by Gloria Steinhem- sounds like a fair idea to me.

The New York Times is reporting that Kennedy has withdrawn her name from consideration for the Senate seat. But NBC News reports that a Kennedy family spokesperson says that she has not withdrawn.

Perhaps she didn't offer Gov. Paterson enough cash for the seat.

Oops! Wrong state. My bad.

Conflicting reports on "the withdrawal" right now.

The Senator-designate sounds like a conservative Democrat on many issues, but she is avowedly pro-same sex marriage. When pressed about it today, a spokesperson affirmed that yes, she is for same sex marriage.

If the New York State legislature can get its act together and find a few Republicans to neutralize that creep Ruben Díaz Sr., the state very well could join Massachusetts and Connecticut (and let's hope California once again) as one of the few in the country with same-sex marriage. The four together would mean that a population larger than a number of countries would be able to enjoy what should be an equal right under the law.

Lawrence O'Donnell's take on New York's newest senator, Kirsten Gillibrand:

----------
The accidental governor of New York ended his relentless daily display of incompetence in choosing a successor to Senator Hillary Clinton by offering this praise for his choice, Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand: "She also introduced legislation that would require that our federal budget be balanced annually. Our state budget is balanced annually, our federal budget is not."

The governor obviously has no idea that this means he has just delivered a Democratic senator who is committed to voting against the first Obama bill to come her way -- the stimulus package that will push the federal budget at least 800 billion dollars farther away from balance. Indeed, the Gillibrand simple-minded devotion to balancing the federal budget above all else means that she must oppose everything on the Obama agenda. Everything President Obama wants to do costs money, money that the federal government doesn't have. Obama, as he made crystal clear in the campaign, plans to do it with deficit spending, something that Congresswoman Gillibrand opposes and something we now discover the governor of New York opposes even though New York state will be one of the biggest beneficiaries of that spending.

Introducing "legislation that would require that our federal budget be balanced annually" is as childish as Congressional behavior can get. If Gillibrand had her way, Obama would have no tools to use to get us out of this recession/depression. Nor would we be able to continue paying soldiers in Iraq or buy the jet fuel to fly them home or enact any version of health care reform.

All the adults in Congress agree that we need a deficit-financed stimulus package--the Democrat v. Republican disagreements are only over the precise size and shape of the package. How long will it take Kirsten Gillibrand to grow up?
----------