home

Sunday Open Thread

Your turn.

This is an Open Thread.

< Will Bush Issue Torture Pardons? | The Faces Of A New Administration >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


  • Display: Sort:
    Krugman's not ready to make nice... (5.00 / 1) (#12)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:57:17 PM EST
    Perhaps this Krugman column, "Forgive and Forget?", was already discussed earlier this week at TL; if so, sorry I missed it. Krugman wants investigations of numerous misdeeds perpetrated by Bush and his cohort:
    Meanwhile, about Mr. Obama: while it's probably in his short-term political interests to forgive and forget, next week he's going to swear to "preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's not a conditional oath to be honored only when it's convenient.

    And to protect and defend the Constitution, a president must do more than obey the Constitution himself; he must hold those who violate the Constitution accountable. So Mr. Obama should reconsider his apparent decision to let the previous administration get away with crime. Consequences aside, that's not a decision he has the right to make.

     
    Seems Pelosi got behind that idea this week - now it's all on Obama.

    What did Pelosi (none / 0) (#17)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 02:12:07 PM EST
    get behind this week?

    Parent
    I remember listening to (none / 0) (#19)
    by SOS on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 02:31:41 PM EST
    the Iran Contra hearings on NPR.

    When it ended I recall thinking oh boy we're screwed now. So much for justice.

    Basically the past 8 years was . . Revenge of The Iran Contra Gang . .

    Parent

    It still burns me (5.00 / 3) (#23)
    by BernieO on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:05:08 PM EST
    that Poppa Bush got away with pardoning Caspar Weinberger for lying to the Iran Contra investigators. He denied having kept a diary of the meetings, notes which would have proved that Bush was not only in the loop, but was a major player in this illegal mess. You rarely hear that Colin Powell lied to investigators and backed Weinberger up, even though he was Weinberger's right-hand man and knew full well that Cappy had kept a detailed account. I remember reading somewhere that Powell said he had been asked about a diary, but that Weinberger had kept a journal, or some such doublespeak.

    This pardon infuriated Lawrence Walsh, the Iran Contra independent counsel (a respected Republican) because it cemented the coverup, which would have surely implicated Bush. According to Walsh, he had learned that Bush had also failed to turn over his own contemporaneous notes of the Iran Contra meetings,(which according to Bush he had never attended, being "out of the loop"). Walsh's book, "Firewall, the Iran-Contra Conspiracy and Coverup" is quite an eye opener.

    Compare the lack of outrage about this pardon to the uproar over the pardon of Marc Rich, which Clinton did after being lobbied by the Israelis who he was pressuring to agree to a peace agreement with the Palestinians. Ah, yes, our mainstream media has a liberal bias. If only.

    Parent

    GWBush put out an executive order (5.00 / 2) (#65)
    by hairspray on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:51:43 PM EST
    to seal the records on Reagan and Bush and even some Clinton papers which were all up for publication according to laws passed by congress.  GWB sealed them so that no one could see what happened especially those associated with his father and some of the people GWB put in his cabinet, such as Rumsfeld and Cheney.  Clinton objected to his being sealed and said so, but Bush prevailed.  Now is the time for these papers to be released.

    Parent
    Not revenge - It's been a time to collect the (none / 0) (#54)
    by mogal on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 05:17:03 PM EST
    money they didn't get to make in GH Bush's second term.

    Parent
    Pelosi calls for investigations - tepidly (none / 0) (#24)
    by FoxholeAtheist on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:12:10 PM EST
    From HuffPo, text and video of Pelosi on Fox News Sunday, 01/18/09. Last week John Conyers and House Democrats issued a report and recommended a criminal investigation to see if administration officials broke the law in the name of national security.

    The  report cited the interrogation of foreign detainees, warrantless wiretaps, retribution against critics, manipulation of intelligence and the fired prosecutors.

    Pelosi stated vague support for investigating the firing of federal prosecutors. However she pleaded ignorance on the specifics of the recommendation for a national security investigation. Imo, most likely, because House Democrats were complicit in the matter.


    Barack Obama has been more cautious. He has said he believes there is a need to look forward as opposed to looking backward.

    As POTUS, Obama needs to develop as much back-bone as Pelosi; and more, if he wishes to remain upright.

    Parent

    I believe (none / 0) (#72)
    by Amiss on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 11:42:33 PM EST
    she is now supporting the investigation of the Bush administration for crimes. Kinda listening to CNN as well and they are chatting about it.

    Parent
    I wonder if it might help if (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by SOS on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:59:11 PM EST
    we manage our need to have bulging closets full of clothes made in China and an energy guzzling giant TV set in every room for a while in this country.

    Speak for yourself! (none / 0) (#55)
    by Fabian on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 05:36:30 PM EST
    I'll be dragged kicking and screaming into the digital broadcast age and my christmas present to myself was smartwool thermal clothing made in....Canada.  

    Parent
    There is a wonderful book (5.00 / 2) (#62)
    by hairspray on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:24:42 PM EST
    titled 'A year without made in China' or something like that.  A young woman with 2 young children tries desperately to go without a made in china label on anything she buys.  Hilarious and sad at the same time.  But like you I do labels very carefully.

    Parent
    It's hard (none / 0) (#90)
    by Fabian on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 04:07:58 AM EST
    difficult and almost impossible.

    I was looking for a bathroom scale.  I did not run all over town checking every store, but in one single store, every scale from super cheap to loaded was Made In China.  If I had really wanted to avoid MIC, I probably would have had to go online to see if anyone still made that product domestically.

    Parent

    Should have posted this (5.00 / 3) (#69)
    by oldpro on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 07:30:49 PM EST
    yesterday under First 100 Days! Calling for bold action is nothing new as you can see from the quote below from one Democratic President's inaugural address:

    "... To renew America, we must be bold.
      We must do what no generation has had to do before. We must invest more in our own people, in their jobs, in their future, and at the same time cut our massive debt. And we must do so in a world in which we must compete for every opportunity.

      It will not be easy; it will require sacrifice. But it can be done, and done fairly, not choosing sacrifice for its own sake, but for our own sake. We must provide for our nation the way a family provides for its children. ..."

      Sound familiar?  Yup.  Bill Clinton. '93.  (I saw the excerpt on C-SPAN middle of the night!) It's a good day when RonK (who posted this last Sunday), BTD and I are all calling for the same thing, bold action from Obama.


    Pelosi and Obama put Social Security cuts (5.00 / 4) (#73)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 12:04:22 AM EST
    on the table. This is from an AP story. Benefits cuts are on the table for SS, Medicare and Medicaid.

     " Pelosi and Obama appear to be on the same page when it comes to entitlements such as Social Security and Medicare. Obama announced last week that he would convene a "fiscal responsibility summit" in February to focus on long-term problems with the economy and the skyrocketing costs of benefit programs such as Social Security and Medicare.

    "I support what he wants to do, to have a summit of that kind," Pelosi said Sunday. "We will have our own initiatives in the Congress to work with him on that."

    Pelosi said everything should be on the table, including benefit cuts.

    "The only thing we didn't want to put on the table is eliminating Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid," she said."

    When Bush wanted to privatize SS I remember Pelosi and the rest of the Dems making the point constantly that SS is not in danger. We have years to go before we dip into the reserves. And, we have reserves because we have been paying double since the '80s. That's right, the baby boomers agreed to raise the FICA withholding so there would be enough money when we retired.

    And the Medicare and Medicaid problems could be resolved with single-payer UHC.

     WTF are Nancy and Barack doing here?

    They'd be foolish to try any fiddling (5.00 / 1) (#76)
    by shoephone on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 12:20:37 AM EST
    with the three big entitlement programs. I can't imagine the House W&M committee tolerating it --  Rangel, Stark and McDermott are totally opposed to cuts.

    Parent
    I'd like to think W&M (5.00 / 3) (#87)
    by caseyOR on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:19:24 AM EST
    would shoot this down, but how much are they willing to give in on for the new president?  This coming from Pelosi makes me wonder just how much they are willing to give away so the Blue Dogs and the Republicans fell like they are getting something from Obama.

    If Obama wants to bargain let him do it with the bank bailout funds. Hold down that deficit by not giving B of A tons of taxpayer money to cover for Ken Lewis' malfeasance.

    Bargaining with the vulnerable is despicable.

    Parent

    Nothing good (5.00 / 3) (#77)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 12:21:05 AM EST
    Wise words from (5.00 / 3) (#84)
    by andgarden on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 12:34:01 AM EST
    Jesse Jackson, Sr:

    Around noon Xernona Clayton, a friend of the King family, walked in with a birthday cake. She teased Dr. King, saying that he was "so busy you forgot to celebrate your own birthday." Slightly embarrassed, Dr. King blew out the candles. We must have eaten the cake in record time because it seemed that within moments the plates were cleared and we were back in our meeting -- with Al Lowenstein conducting a workshop about the march and how to step up pressure to end the Vietnam War.

    That's the model we should follow this week -- and beyond. We should celebrate the election of our new president. And then we should get back to work to complete the unfinished business of making America a more perfect union.



    When Jeralyn has to intervene (4.00 / 4) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:22:00 PM EST
    as she did yesterday, in addition to many others who have asked you to moderate your CDS -- when you're not claiming to have voted for Clinton -- well, yes, you're having an effect on others here (to the point of being talked about on another site, with discussion reflecting on moderators here).  

    Everyone needs to stop the insults (none / 0) (#94)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:44:33 PM EST
    I'm intervening again and deleting the insults.

    Commenters may not accuse others of being racist.

    Please address arguments and views expressed civilly and don't personally attack commenters.

    Parent

    Sorry (1.50 / 4) (#20)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 02:33:42 PM EST
    But I am sick of CC claiming that Gov Paterson is a poor weak inexperienced man who is under tremendous pressure from the Kennedy machine. He has had a long career in government, as had his father. CC is using him to grind her axe against all who supported Obama.

    Paterson can take care of himself and NYers.

    And as far as what organization I was referring to. Well considering that CC is not a NYer and complains that poor Paterson is being bullied by outside intervention namely her Kennedy machine, I posit that her organization is even more outside than Ted Kennedy's machine could ever be. If in fact Ted is lobbying for Caroline it has more to do with NYers getting their fair share than disgruntled Hillary supporters looking to settle scores.

    What organization? from the NYT article I linked to above:

    "Those women are elated with her appointment to the Department of State, but they still feel quite bruised by the political process over the last year,"



    I don't doubt the "Kennedy machine" has (5.00 / 7) (#25)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:12:15 PM EST
    put a lot of pressure on him as have women's organizations.

    I'm not going to get too upset no matter who he picks if it's a hard working person who will be a fighter for all of us. I don't live in NY, but look at who represents me. Not the Senators I have. I can't vote in NY, but I care who your Senator is because his or her vote counts on issues I care about just as much as the votes of the crappy Senators who represent me.

    As a woman who worked hard in a corporate atmosphere and got where I did on my merits, I would like to see someone who has worked their way into a position where they should be considered for a position like this one. I know CK has done a lot for education, etc., but it does kind of give me the same vibes I had when the CEO's daughter got a highly paid job at my company with very little experience. Or his son who rose from gofer to Executive VP in five years. Those kind of things bother me. And I think there must be many women (and men) like me who have seen this situation in our own environments even if it might be unfair to CK to judge her on our experiences.

    The last two polls I saw of New Yorker's shows that many of them don't feel she is the right choice. It's not just the "outsiders" or Hillary supporters who feel this way. Shoot, on Daily Kos, some of Obama's biggest, earliest supporters don't want her to be chosen. It's not just disgruntled Hillary supporters and you always bring it back to that.


    Parent

    My Point Has Always Been (none / 0) (#28)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:27:42 PM EST
    That it is up to Paterson and I trust him to make the right choice for me as one of his constituents. Everything I have read about CK makes her a fine choice, same with Maloney, and others whose names have come up.

    Some here have hated the Kennedy's ever since he/they endorsed Obama. It is clear that many here, namely Cream City, are continuing a vendetta against Caroline Kennedy and her so called machine. To toss out one of our best senators because he endorsed Obama is about as petty as you can get, imo.

    I have heard relatively zilch about Salazar's choice from the Hillary payback crowd, Why is that, do you suppose? He is also a representative of all of us and will be making votes that affect us,  as you point out.

    Parent

    I think it's because most of us have (5.00 / 1) (#31)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:39:53 PM EST
    heard of all your candidates. We don't know as much about Colorado's and I guess part of it is because of the Senator he/she will be replacing. I had the same interest in the choice for Obama's seat even before the Gov.'s actions were public.

    I think Senators from NY have a lot of power based on the history of who you have had representing you (and me, too, even though I'm an outsider). Plus, in this case, you have well known people publicly lobbying for the job. Most people probably can't name the Senators from Colorado but I'll bet they can New York's and California's.

    If Ted Kennedy has to leave his seat, there will be a lot of interest in his replacement don't you think? Especially if someone famous decides they want the job.

    Parent

    OK (none / 0) (#33)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:53:08 PM EST
    So much for your argument that each senator votes and therefore represents all of us. Hillary came to NY as a carpetbagger on the coattails of Bill, and yes her loyal fans are making this about Kennedy, not Paterson, and not about NY. That is my point exactly.

    Parent
    So, I guess we know where your viewpoint (5.00 / 5) (#36)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:04:51 PM EST
    comes from. The carpetbagger worked hard for that seat and she won it in an election. And a re-election.

    Hillary came to NY as a carpetbagger on the coattails of Bill

    I don't know the candidates in Colorado, Squeaky. I hope the most liberal fighting Democrat was appointed. He's so unknown, who knows? He may end up my favorite Senator or he may be a conservative one. We don't have a way to judge him. If his last name had been Clinton, Kennedy or Cuomo, we'd probably know a lot more about him.

    Parent
    Huh? (none / 0) (#38)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:11:54 PM EST
    So, I guess we know where your viewpoint comes from.

    What are you implying here? I voted for Hillary at least the first time around, but I guarantee you that she would have never seen the light of day as a carpetbagger in NY had not Bill been President, that is a fact.

    My viewpoint comes from one place only. I think highly of Paterson and will support whoever he picks to replace Hillary. Unlike the die hard Hillary cultists here I could care less who Paterson's appointee endorsed in the primary.

    It is clear that this is the same strain of resentment by the same people here, who trashed Ted Kennedy for endorsing Obama, and continue to trash him to this day.

    Parent

    So Hillary didn't earn it on her merits? (5.00 / 8) (#43)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:26:59 PM EST
    Then how the heck has CK? You are the one who keeps bringing up Hillary. Who is bringing up Ted Kennedy other than you?

    Hillary could have run for the seat from Arkansas even if Bill had never been President. I didn't necessarily like them retiring to NY so that she could run for that seat. She proved herself worthy to me by her actions.

    I also think highly of Paterson. I like him a lot. I hate that he is getting pulled in so many directions, if he is, but I think he'll do what he thinks is right.

    I'm not going to argue anymore because we'll be chattering. I just couldn't read you imply that CC's views were bordering on racists and keep my mouth shut.

    Parent

    I Thought Sqeaky's Point Was (5.00 / 0) (#58)
    by daring grace on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:03:35 PM EST
    that HRC was even in the running as a (then) new resident of New York was because of her record and recognition as First Lady. Therefore, without WJC as president she would likely have not been considered as a senate nominee.

    No doubt she earned it once she was the nominee and ran easily the second time because of her record with constituents.

    But it's hard to imagine her getting the nod in the first place if she'd come here as the former First Lady of Arkansas...

    Parent

    I got that point and don't necessarily (5.00 / 2) (#60)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:16:19 PM EST
    disagree with the moving to NY point. It's comparing her record to CK's when I don't think there is any comparison where CK comes out on top.

    I don't think anyone who knows of HC's work long before Bill was President or even Governor could argue that she wasn't involved in public service. They both had famous last names but they both also have a record on their own. That's the only comparison I can see, but I still don't think this is about Hillary. I know it isn't to some people because they didn't even support Hillary in the primaries.

    I'll just be glad when the appointment is made and we have a new Senator to get to work. I'll support any of them because they are all way above any Senator I've had since Al Gore became VP.

    Parent

    Agreed (5.00 / 2) (#67)
    by daring grace on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 07:14:46 PM EST
    I wish Paterson had announced his choice as soon as HRC was confirmed.

    We have too many unknowables hanging over our heads in New York state at this time (like so many in all the states do).

    The melodrama around this appointment needs to cease.

    Parent

    Well (none / 0) (#68)
    by jbindc on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 07:16:09 PM EST
    Technically, she hasn't been confirmed yet.

    Parent
    That is correct (none / 0) (#71)
    by CoralGables on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 08:09:07 PM EST
    and it was stated early on that a replacement probably wouldn't be chosen until she was confirmed as SOS, and technically I believe she is still the Junior Senator from New York.

    Parent
    Oops (none / 0) (#91)
    by daring grace on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 10:57:05 AM EST
    Okay, I guess I'm not paying close enough attention. Too tightly screening my consumption of media right now with all the attendant hoopla...

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#45)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:42:49 PM EST
    Just as I would have never voted for Hillary had Bill not been president, I would not know who Kennedy was had she not been from a famous family.

    The fact that Hillary performed well as Senator suggests that just because you have a famous name does not rule out that you can be an effective leader.

    Paterson, knows this, and seems unbridled by any of the baggage people here are laden with. He will do just fine in picking the right person to represent NYers, and, contrary to Cream City's concerns about the poor man's unbearable pressures from the Kennedy machine, I think he is having a great time with this. Not to mention all the publicity it is generating for him.

    Parent

    She performed well long before Bill (5.00 / 7) (#48)
    by Teresa on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:55:13 PM EST
    ran for any office. She had a track record. Caroline may end up being a wonderful Senator and I'll be a huge fan if she does. But, you can't compare her actions to date to Hillary's before she ran including before Bill was President.

    This isn't even about Hillary. It's about other people who might be better qualified. I wish you would go read one of the front page posts on DK about this appointment so you would see that it isn't just Hillary supporters that are opposed to CK.

    Parent

    There You Go (none / 0) (#49)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 05:00:08 PM EST
    Is Paterson qualified? Seems like that question, here at TL,  rides entirely on whether or not he picks Kennedy, to Hillary fans, for others it is a snooze.

    This is about Paterson. And I do not see his popularity sinking despite the rumors commenters here are circulating.

    Parent

    The publicity he is generating is not (none / 0) (#47)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:47:34 PM EST
    positive. Many people seem annoyed by his waiting to announce.


    Parent
    As a New Yorker (5.00 / 3) (#64)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:46:23 PM EST
    I take issue with the description of Hillary Clinton as a carpet bagger.  A year before declaring her candidacy, she campaigned with Schumer all over the State, and again, once she announced, she toured all over the State, listening to residents tell her their issues and concerns.  I believe she was elected as Senator for the first time with the highest percentage of the upstate vote of any Democrat running for state-wide office until then.  Her move with WJC to Westchester and WJC's locating his business on the main drag in Harlem evidenced their firm commitment to New York.  Anyone who listened to Bill's stump speeches in Iowa about what Hillary did as a Senator for NY farmers learned how much she has been a representative of all New Yorkers.  I am proud to have called her my Senator, and I believe she is a very tough act to follow.
    Although I do not support the naming of CK to NY's about to be open Senate seat, I hold CK in the highest esteem.  Last weekend I read Anderson's biography of her to find out what makes her tick; I could not help but be moved by the description of how much she adored her father and was aware of what happened to him, even at her very young age. The bio, however, confirmed my impression that she is more her mother's daughter in her interests and in her steadfast insistence of her privacy.  The book indicates that the only times she and Teddy have disagreed have involved her insistence that family matters, however interesting to the public, remain private.  

    Parent
    In This Sense (none / 0) (#66)
    by daring grace on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 07:08:29 PM EST
    Carpetbagger refers to someone coming to a state where they were not previously a resident and running for political office.

    Prior to establishing residency in New York, HRC had lived in Washington D.C.and in Arkansas, hadn't she?

    The term has nothing to do with the heavy lifting she did during the campaign to win her first victory   or the work she did as senator which earned her her second.

    Parent

    I'm guessing you mean Salazar's (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:41:25 PM EST
    replacement, not his choice. Michael Bennett has been discussed here at TL, although not as much as either Burris or Kennedy. And I'm thinking that is due to a couple of things:

    -- The Illinois and New York seats are replacements for two very high profile politicians who have dominated political news for most of the last two years.

    -- In Illinois we have the added drama and excitement of Blagojevich and his antics. In New York we have the very public efforts by a very powerful political family to secure the seat for one of their own. Given all the outrage during the primary about the evils of political dynasties, it is not surprising this would spark a lot of interest.

    Personally, I would have preferred DeGette get the seat in Colorado, but she took herself out of the running.

    Parent

    Disagree (none / 0) (#34)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:55:47 PM EST
    The discussion here at TL has been centered around Kennedy not about Paterson.

    The loudest and most frequent voices are the same voices who were staunch Hillary supporters, and the same voices who threw Ted under the bus once he endorsed Obama.

    The Kennedy issue has only to do with payback, imo.

    Parent

    No Payback involved (5.00 / 2) (#41)
    by BarnBabe on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:16:53 PM EST
    I am a political person because my Mother was a ardent supporter of JFK. I always loved the Kennedy's. I remember my Dad picking me up from school and telling me the President had died. I loved Bobby and Teddy and Jacqui and the rest of the family. I made excuses for Ted's car accident. I read the book on Rose. I cried when John Jr was killed. I was not even mad when Teddy did not endorse HRC. I understood it all. It was all about power. So even growing up with the Kennedy's and their life does not mean I just accept every Kennedy because of their name. If CK had held any public office before, then I believe she should be in the running. If she was running for office and won by popular vote, then the people wanted her fair and square. So don't label us just because we raise some objection of her selection. On Salon in December
    The Associated Press revealed that Kennedy hasn't voted in at least six major elections in the last 20 years, including the 1994 election for the seat she wants to claim.
     

    Parent
    That Is Fine (none / 0) (#42)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:22:05 PM EST
    Although your claim to represent other Hillary supporters in your devotion to the Kennedy's may be a stretch.

    But this is not about Kennedy or Hillary or those who are looking for political payback. This is about NY and Paterson. The fact that is has become about Kennedy, led by those who felt betrayed by her and Ted is what I have a problem with.

    If Paterson picks Kennedy fine by me, I think he is up to the task of making the best choice, same if he chooses Maloney or anyone else for that matter.

    Parent

    Squeaky, I know this may be a hard concept for (5.00 / 5) (#59)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:09:56 PM EST
    you to grasp, given that you seem incapable of breaking out of your odd little mindset, but support of Hillary in the primary does not preclude one from being able to view other politicians on their own merits, nor does it define one's politics forever.

    I recognize that you are still trapped in the Democratic primary. It is always sad when someone is unable to break free of the past and move on with their life. I hope you recover soon.

    In the meantime, people would be well-served to read Squeaky's comments with an eye toward their source.

    Parent

    I don't agree. (5.00 / 9) (#63)
    by hairspray on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 06:42:31 PM EST
    Caroline Kennedy is not a political person.  Her record speaks for itself.  She didn't even vote in many elections over the last 10 years as I read in some reports. She also gave very little money to Democratic candidates.  Her support on that score was extremely thin.  She has been a retiring and reticent individual who has conducted herself in a private and non political way.  What concerns me is that many other women, Louise Slaughter and Caroline Maloney for example, have worked hard for their constituents and done the grunt work over the years and are being slighted in this selection.  You need to ask yourself who has pushed Caroline forward?  And why?
    And while I adore Hillary, this has nothing to do with her and everything to do with privilege.

    Parent
    I'm going to make a prediction (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:00:39 PM EST
    out of my rear end: Governor Patterson will appoint Carolyn Maloney to take Hillary's seat.

    Maloney would be great. (5.00 / 2) (#29)
    by caseyOR on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:29:15 PM EST
    Everything I've heard and read about her leads me to believe that she would be a forceful advocate for liberal policies. I have a vested interest in who occupies every single one of those 100 senate seats. I only get to vote for two, but my life is affected by all 100. By all accounts, Carolyn Maloney not only agrees with me on all major issues, she is a proven fighter. Excellent choice. I hope Paterson agrees with me, too.

    Parent
    Rear End? (none / 0) (#2)
    by squeaky on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:06:39 PM EST
    Is this from digesting some bit of news or is she your dream pick?

    Digby did a great interview with her here. Worth a read. She is certainly a solid pick.

    I am resolved to trust Paterson's judgement, in any case.

     

    Parent

    I'm applying my political instincts (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:10:25 PM EST
    Mostly, I think CK is a hot potato at this point, so she can't get it. And Cuomo would likely seem brazen (though I think he's still a possibility).

    Mostly, I'm pretty sure that Maloney has the political skill to win in two years (having fought competitive elections before), and she doesn't seem to have pissed anyone off or have any turnoffish characteristics. She's a political workhorse, which is both what New York needs right now (given the economy) and what Patterson needs later (given that he'll be sharing a ticket with this person soon).

    Parent

    No blue Dogs allowed! (5.00 / 1) (#27)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 03:24:44 PM EST
    Whoever he picks, I just hope it's a real Democrat and not another blue dog in the group. Between getting Gitmo closed, finally ending the war, stopping torture and going after "entitlement" programs such as S.S. and Medicare, we're going to need an advocate in the Senate.

    Parent
    Paterson is quite liberal. I very much doubt (none / 0) (#46)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:44:56 PM EST
    he would pick anyone much to the right of him.

    Parent
    Good! (none / 0) (#52)
    by mmc9431 on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 05:02:46 PM EST
    We need them if there's going to be any hope for a progressive agenda. We certainly can't expect it from the leadership.

    Parent
    The thing with Cuomo is I'm sure he (none / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:14:06 PM EST
    doesn't want the job, he just wants to be considered for it. And Paterson has no real reason to want to send Cuomo away to Washington. He isn't going to primary challenge Paterson in 2010.

    I think (with the exception of Spitzer) anybody could beat King in 2010.

    Parent

    Anybody would likely beat King (none / 0) (#7)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:17:09 PM EST
    The question is, how much effort is it going to take?

    Parent
    I don't think even the weakest candidate will (none / 0) (#10)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:32:25 PM EST
    have to make that much of an effort. "I'm a Democrat and my opponent is a Republican" will be a sufficent campaign theme.

    Though clearly Cuomo would be the easiest to get elected.

    Parent

    At this point, Kennedy might be the hardest (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:35:15 PM EST
    because there's already a narrative launched against her, and it's taken hold with Democrats.

    Parent
    Don't be so sure (none / 0) (#14)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 02:09:09 PM EST
    Paterson may be blamed -- rightly or wrongly (and probably the latter) for NY's financial woes.  He may be easy to beat in next gubernatorial election.  If Dem-controlled Congress is not viewed as having done a good job dealing with our financial crises, the anti-Dem vote could be stronger in NY than we now imagine.

    I agree with Andgarden on Carolyn Maloney.

    Parent

    I still think he'll stick with Kennedy, but (none / 0) (#3)
    by tigercourse on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:06:50 PM EST
    it's not nearly as certain as a month ago. Whoever he picks better start grabbing for stimulus money on their first day in office.

    Parent
    I think Kennedy is pretty unlikely at (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:12:17 PM EST
    this point.

    Parent
    Good. It still is likely, though, (5.00 / 4) (#9)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:32:22 PM EST
    that New York and Paterson, new to the job under difficult circumstances and with marital confessions of his own, did not need this outside intervention.  From what I can see from Clinton and Schumer, New Yorkers pick better members of Congress than do a lot of our states.  And with its leading role in this economy, we all need to see more of the best and brightest from the Big Apple.

    Caroline Kennedy is just not in that league.  She's smart enough to learn on the job, but why, when there are many pols in New York ready from "day one"?

    Parent

    Not only are CK's (5.00 / 1) (#16)
    by BackFromOhio on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 02:10:44 PM EST
    poll numbers way down, but Paterson's numbers have fallen 10 points since public discussion of CK's potential appointment began.

    Parent
    Paterson's poll numbers (5.00 / 2) (#44)
    by Politalkix on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:39:50 PM EST
    Paterson's falling poll numbers may have nothing to do with who he selects as Senator from New York. It seems that many New Yorkers are very unhappy with his tax increase plans [link].[link 2]

    Parent
    Yup, it's all about the economy (none / 0) (#51)
    by andgarden on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 05:02:17 PM EST
    Ouch. That's the key for him then. . . . (none / 0) (#35)
    by Cream City on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 04:02:59 PM EST
    Sure hope you are right (none / 0) (#21)
    by Radiowalla on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 02:49:16 PM EST
    Perhaps we will know by Wednesday.

    Parent
    Oh I hope so. (none / 0) (#53)
    by mogal on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 05:04:49 PM EST
    I'm rooting for Pittsburgh and Philly (none / 0) (#8)
    by indy in sc on Sun Jan 18, 2009 at 01:26:39 PM EST
    even though that would give us an all PA superbowl.  I'm mostly rooting for good games today.

    Thank you (none / 0) (#88)
    by Cream City on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 02:07:49 AM EST
    in future for heeding the following:

    Name-calling, personal attacks and insults, racist comments or use of profanity by any commenter, whether they are by persons who agree or disagree with the views expressed by TalkLeft will not be tolerated and will result in the deletion of the comment and the banning of the commenter's ISP address, without notice.


    I'm not talking about the other day... (none / 0) (#95)
    by MileHi Hawkeye on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:45:21 PM EST
    but you already knew that.

    As far as the "sidekick" crack, I am simply tired of the martyr act of yours.  

    1.  I've seen you jump on comments made by Squeaky just as much as the other way around.  Nobody is stalking you.  Although, given your self-confessed predilection for keeping an "enemy's list", no doubt you've convinced yourself of that fact.  

    2. Jeralyn was speaking to both of you when she told you two to "get a room" the other day.  

    3. Let's have the links to these other blogs that you keep bringing up.  Or are you afraid that we might find over there?

    You share the blame, so your trying to portray yourself as some kind of victim around here is a bit much.

    yes I was addressing everyone (none / 0) (#96)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:50:07 PM EST
    Not just one commenter.

    Parent
    This thread is closing (none / 0) (#97)
    by Jeralyn on Mon Jan 19, 2009 at 01:53:25 PM EST
    It's no longer Sunday and the insults have ruined it. I've cleaned most but I'm not going to spend any more of my time today playing comment cop.