You put it well Jane!

So we get a thinking man’s Sarah Palin instead.

Great Tom Jones reference!

It will be interesting to see Gillibrand’s record over this next year. There is, as you say, a big difference in being from a conservative district and then going to represent a liberal state.

Thanks Jane.

digg

I don’t think it matters too much who the temp senator is- as long as they vote with the dems. If they stink- they’ll have a primary fight and lose. I am hopeful that the new pick will end up being pretty good.

Based on what? Can you provide links to places where Kennedy pledged to take a clear position that was more progressive than Gillibrand?

And in what ways is Gillibrand like Sarah Palin? I see this thrown around a lot, but it’s remarkably shy of documentation.

I did notice Gillibrand putting some distance between herself and the NRA with her “support” of Rep. McCarthy’s push for background checks and such.

Whether she was pandering to avoid a challenger or not, at least she seems to recognize her weaknesses to an extent.

Don’t buy it Jane. There are benefits to all choices. Some are benevolent, others are instructive consequence. This looks to me like an instructive consequence coming down the pike for more than Patterson and Schumer…

I suspect that in the end Gillibrand will be among the more liberal half of the dem contingent. Running for office in a conservative district requires making some compomises. Her non legislative history looks pretty liberal.

Jane. I just think it’s that you’re not from the generation of women who understand what it was like to see Caroline by her Daddy’s side. Only you are.

And I think you’re just not sufficiently in tune with DC to understand. Only, um, never mind.

At least they’re now noticing that no one was willing to call this unworthy nepotism from the start before you did.

Picking “guns” to prove her conservative bona fides is not a bad move. It’s an issue that ain’t goin anywhere no how.

I loved Aravois’ point here:

“Oh, I know little Jimmy is playing with the scissors, but if I take them away, he may go for the knife instead.”

Another Grand Canyon the CK fan club missed was the “tough love” you administered in such a timely and direct way. You and the others gave CK EVERY possible chance to turn it around. Given her parents, we ALL WANTED her to be a terrific candidate.

Yeah I was kinda miffed that I was initially left out of the “group pillory.” I feel so included now.

I’m not a gun rights enthusiast but Howard Dean certainly is. It seems to be a selectively imposed litmus test.

Check out the major Clinton derangement syndrome exhibited by Steve Clemons. According to him, this is all Hillary’s fault.

I think it’s a positive sign that she’s a. politically savvy enough to understand that she needs to move leftward, and b. is moving leftward under pressure.

What I’m not as comfortable with is massive amounts of praise heaped on people just for doing the right thing.

When State Senate Dem Leader Malcolm Smith announced the deal with the Gang of 3 was off (supposedly) because he refused to not allow marriage equality to go to a vote, everyone tripped over each other to be the first in line to praise him for doing the right thing. In reality, he threw marriage equality under the bus in the initial deal several weeks prior.

The same kind of praise is being heaped on Gillibrand, and while I think it’s important to pat people on the back publicly for doing the right thing so everyone else realizes how cool it is to be in our club, I think serious caution is warranted with her. And I think the way groups like HRC are making her out in their press release to be some kind of star candidate when other candidates have held good positions for years is wrong. I don’t really believe anyone who calls themselves an advocate for marriage equality in their press conference after switching positions the night before and opposing marriage equality for years prior.

Well said, Jane.

Democracy needs people who gather facts, assess the situation, and speak their minds. To do otherwise is to be a peon, a serf, living in fear of The Landowner.
We are citizens. People who represent us are our employees. Fear not, speak up! If she turns out not to be a good senator, there’s an election in 2010. Primary her ass.

My mom, ensconced on the North Fork of Long Island, noted that she didn’t know what Paterson was thinking. That said, I’m with Maddow – let’s just have elections and forego the gubernatorial appointment ability.

Even if I was unhappy with the Caroline Kennedy choice, I would never bring up Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum in support of my feelings on it as it would somewhat step on the point I wished to make. At least Atrios is not a mealy-mouthed faux centrist.

at least she will now have more time to get her nails done. right?

wow. wow. wow.

i’ve only read one of jane’s links – but it’s a doosey: a long open letter from james dieugenio to jane and markos. to counter the criticism of nepotism, he spends most of it, um, explaining why he thinks the kennedy family is so great.

but that’s just the point – whatever one thinks of the kennedy family, judging caroline kennedy by her blood lines is treating her as if she was horse not a person and us as subjects not citizens.

Gillibrand’s announcement-eve meeting with the head of Empire State Pride Agenda to heartily endorse complete marriage equality bodes very well for her adaptability to her new constituency. I suspect Carolyn McCarthy will either move Kirsten to the left on gun laws or mount a vigorous primary challenge. Either way, progressives already have a better Senator in Gillbrand than Hillary Clinton was, since Clinton had to take the “national” one-man-one-woman position on marriage to seek the Presidency.

Thank you for your efforts on this, Jane. You’ve proven again that the blogosphere performs best when it is fact-based and unshrill. The Kennedy myrmidons have proven that emotion, untrue accusation, and silly ad wominem attacks yield very little.

Do you people have a cut-and-paste fetish or something?

I fully expect Ruth Marcus to succeed FFFH as editorial page editor at the WaPo now, since failing upward is all they understand there.

HRC’s press releases are simply dictated by their masters in the Democratic party establishment. They have very little basis in reality or relationship to the LGBT grassroots.

It’s something they can do with one hand while the other’s occupied.

But but but. Fred Hiatt is liberal.

I have a hard time feeling comfortable with someone who changes with the wind.

Well, at least New York got a Democrat to replace a Democrat. Janet Napolitano leaves Arizona and we get a nightmare world of serious wingnut whackos!

Actually, in Steve Forbes’ world, I imagine that FFFH is a liberal.

Of course, that doesn’t say much for Forbes’ actual knowledge of the real world.

in response to 25

group think anyone?

The amusing thing is the whole idea that a) mean out-of-state bloggers sunk Caroline Kennedy and b) mean out-of-state bloggers forced Paterson to pick Gillibrand, when there is plenty of evidence to show that Caroline’s meltdown and Paterson’s selection were both driven by things that were more a product of factors that obtained within the borders of New York state.

For instance: One reason given for the alleged wrongness in picking KG is that her district is going to fall back into GOP hands once she’s gone from it. Except that New York is almost certainly going to lose at least one CD in the upcoming 2010 census, and her CD has been mentioned as a likely candidate for dissolution.

Wiping liquids off monitor.

Actually, the groupthink is the idea that anyone from outside of NYS somehow forced Paterson to pick KG, when the looming 2010 census likely was much more of a factor.

Thanks. I didn’t know that.

Maybe he means gentlemen prefer blon Democrats.

Changing with the wind when representing the same constituency is suspicious, I agree. We need to look deeper to see if money changed hands or if a personal angle is in play.

For instance, had Gillibrand suddenly announced a change of heart on marriage equality while seeking the appointment from Paterson, I would questioned her sincerity. But she surely knew she was the appointee when she had the meeting with ESPA; they apparently did as well. Helping politicians come to the correct position has to be a major part of the work we do; otherwise no one would ever support us! We’d be stuck with the supporters we have, and have to defeat everyone who opposes marriage equality.

In this case, facing the reality that her constituency was about to vastly expand to encompass the entire state, Gillibrand made a principled conversion. Being appointed by a marriage-equality Governor had to help as well — note Caroline Kennedy’s early statement that she favored marriage equality. I imagine it was a deal-breaker for Paterson.

Bullseye.

PW, Are you trying to make sense of this whole thing? That just is not “group think”! And you are an out-of-stater too. So this has to all your fault!!! ;>

And that it would be very impolitic to eliminate a strongly GOP congressional district while that district was represented by a Democrat. Now, it won’t be difficult at all. *poof*

Yeah, their ability to follow the “everyone get in line NOW!” order is unparalleled.

For me, I think the most jarring moment of the announcement of Gillibrand yesterday was seeing D’Amato standing on the stage.

Talk about a turd in a punchbowl aspect.

Exactly.

Slightly OT, but to a western New Yorker,
the sight of Kirsten Gillibrand framed at her rollout by Alfonse D’Amato
and Maggie Brooks (Republican Monroe County Executive
and up to her elbows in sleaze) was unsettling, to say the least.

Yes, I can visualize that…

To steal and alter a line from the film Gettysburg, “Follow sleaze trail, find Republican there.”

Word

It has the advantage of ringing a bell with “conservatives” while not really requiring a senator to do anything much. There aren’t many active bills on the issue as far as I know.

Apparently Gillibrand’s GOP parents are friends of D’Amato’s.

But the governor should have advised her to have him stand to the side. It was awful having Da Fonz on stage. Just awful. The stagecraft of that event was awful from start to finish, as if it was crafted for the blind.

Ditto …. Yes Margot! Right on! When you meet with your representative and you establish that you know more than them, and they realize it, they are intimidated and remember you. Apply critical reasoning skills and think for one’s self , outside toxic sandbox and avoid drinking contaminated ground water!

Thomas Friedman Unit, the 4th most dangerous liberal. Even more liberal than John Stewart! The Fascist Forbes and Hoover Institute should know.

But sadly Jane, you are not on their list.

That’s why we have primaries, my good man. And don’t kid yourself — there were and are far too many people interested in that Senate seat for CK to escape unprimaried. In fact, the more she exposed herself and her beyond-glass jaw to the public, the more likely it would have been that she would have faced at least one serious primary opponent. In fact, her only hope at that point would have been if two or more equally-matched, strength-wise, opponents wound up splitting the anti-CK vote in order to let her go on to be creamed by her Republican foe.

Book Salon upstairs The Progressive Revolution by Michael Lux and hosted by Congresswoman Jan Schakowsky

Jane Hamsher preaching against “groupthink”?? Freakin hilarious. Like Ayn Rand against the free market.

And shit, why not come clean already with the “I never supported Clinton” crap? The only thing more obvious than your ambition-driven shilling for Clinton was the hypocrisy of your anti-”misogyny” witch hunts, as most recently revealed by your “princess” and “pony” tirades against Ms. Kennedy.

Yeah, sure, you kept up the facade of “neutrality” with a straight face. Some achievement. But are you actually asserting that someone as, um, committed to social change as yourself had NO PREFERENCE AT ALL about who the next president would be? That’s a pretty brazen insult to people’s intelligence even for you.

Sure is funny that the latest crop of trolls have so many screen names….. don’t get the response from the first one, sign in with the second one…… same screed…. different name….

We have such clever trolls.

How are you feeling today?

I know just the bridge you can stick that one under.

Thanks, Jane, for the well-reasoned piece.

I blame the second paragraph of the 17th Amendment. It allows for this appointment process.
Vacant House seats go to special election. Vacant Senate seats should be treated in the same manner.
This system gets you the Ill and NY mess, plus it prevents Senators with Governors from the opposite Party from serving in the Executive Branch.

NY and Delaware are having special elections in ‘10 for the remainder of the term (2 years for NY and 4 years for Delaware). Illinois and Colorado are not having special elections as the seat would normally be up for election in ‘10.

OT – Hope you are feeling better today. I saw some of last night’s discussion on Ginger and such. There was an article a few years ago in Travel and Leisure magazine about ginger root capsules as a treatment for motion sickness. As a lifelong sufferer of motion sickness, I can attest that ginger ale helps settle the stomach.

FWIW.

I have a hard time feeling comfortable with someone who changes with the wind.

I don’t believe anyone actually feels comfortable with politicians.
;)

This article is about the most unintelligent
piece of psycho babbel, I have seen in some time.
It is definitely unobjective and loaded with
phrases and euphenisms that are meaningless.

Another bottom feeder. There must be little slug heads imploding all over the place.

They must all be coming from under the Bridge to Nowhere … that’s certainly where they’re heading.

BTW, I can’t be mad at anyone right now on account of I’m watching Colbert make a fool of Chuck Todd … or perhaps a bigger one …

Yes, I know that. I am for a special election within 60 or so days of the vacancy occurring.
This appointment process is nothing but a cluterf*#k waitng to happen.
And, this year it has happened in two states.

Sometimes I feel like I’m reading a foreign language with some new idiomatic expression that I haven’t learned yet. Then I remember I’m reading plain old English like I have heard all my life.
What the hell is “instructive consequence”? Why is it contrasted to benevolence? And is it a good thing that it is coming down the pike for Patterson? What form will it take? Is it the chupacabra?

It’s pretty telling that your only defense of Caroline Kennedy is an ad hominem attack on someone else, and you have nothing to say to recommend her personally. Unsurprising — there is nothing to be said.

I didn’t support Clinton, but I understand the Stalinist impulse perceives insufficient obsequiousness to your chosen cult figure as support for someone else.

What I don’t get is how someone could support Obama, whose candidacy is based on pure merit and rising up through the ranks in spite of a lack of family ties and political connections, and rail against the dynastic impulses of the Clintons, then jump seamlessly onto the Kennedy bandwagon as if there was no cognitive dissonance.

I know it’s a stretch to ask someone who is fulminating out of pure emotion to make that hemispheric leap and explain themselves rationally, but I’d genuinely like to know.

Well, good luck with that. The precedence allowing the governor’s to appoint for the two year period leading to the next general election has long been established.

It is the reality, compounded by the cost of holding a special, state-wide election, so unless you want to fight to make every state do this every time, it ain’t gonna be happening.

Seeing as how the only qualification for being a “troll” here is the capacity for independent thought, I happily embrace my trolldom. Flame on, bleating sheep.

Hi everyone….. sent to do shift the laundry……feel good today…… going out to look for ginger stuff…… tea, the root capsules and bought two boxes of gingerbread at trader joes…… The ginger snaps did the trick last night….. knocked out the nausea and could go to bed …….

{{{ katymine }}}

That’s also for everyone who missed your presence here !

Comment about trolls

KIRK: Captain’s Log. Encountered a baffling object today. It lacked internal coherence and did not offer any recognizable attempt to communicate. Scotty swears that the sensors are accurately reading this…phenomenon. We have absolutely zero relevance across the sensor board, and most of the crew evinces that we are wasting our time investigating something with so little to offer. Spock merely calls the whole business “without a shred of logic”.

BTW, are you doing any yoga/meditation to counter the side effects of the treatment ?

Your remarks rival the xmas turkey for most stuffing. The Clintonites came here moamed and whine stopped there feet all over these pages. Nope nuetrality was the lurking mods caveat.

I lurk a lot ….. so many times I just don’t have anything to say….. actually lurk way too much…… ok…. off to the stores….

(((katymine)))

Glad you got some sleep. Gingersnaps should be a prescription for everything!

LOL … loved McCoy’s remark

You have a point, but given the Ill disaster and the NY mess, plus
just missing Palin possibly appointing herself as Senator, I think it is worth taking a good look at.

Not everybody born in ‘46 is as old as you. I’m younger than that now.

I don’t see Gillibrand as being a “thinking man’s Sarah Palin.” So what if she’s 180 degrees from the standard liberal position regarding gun control and just try to find anyone who agrees with all your positions. I honestly don’t see what the fuss is all about. I’m not necessarily happy to see Gillibrand get into the Senate yet neither do I see how it’s worth screaming about. You’re bound to have some Blue Dig Dems who are right of center moreso than guys like Kucinich or Ted Kennedy. What Gillibrand is is almost a cliche of New York politics: She’s a New York Democrat who’s fiscally conservative and socially liberal.

Now before you attack that, lemme remind you that what impresses me about Gillibrand is her consistent support of gay rights, which to me is a deal-maker/deal-breaker. We all have our hot button causes. To some it’s gun control. To others it’s gay rights. As a bisexual, that’s my pet cause and on that basis alone, plus her fiscal conservatism (desperately needed on the Hill), I’m glad to see this young woman go to the Senate.

it sure beats all those anti-nausea drugs they could be giving me…… cookies solve a lot……

Love it Katy! Especially Spoke…
Glad to hear you are feeling better today!

Actually, I htink Alaska is one of the state’s that made recent changes (since Palin got herself elected Governor because Murkowski had appointed his daughter to replace him). IIRC and understood, Alaska now DOES require a special election within 60-90 days or so.

I support special elections to fill Senate seats too. They’re expensive but if there’s one thing we should be spending money on it’s safeguards for democracy.

Ok heading out…… have a good afternoon….

Seeing as how the only qualification for being a “troll” here is the capacity for independent thought, I happily embrace my trolldom. Flame on, bleating sheep.

this is how i know you haven’t been paying attention. because otherwise you would know that some of us who agree with jane on this issue have disagreed with her big time on other issues. how can i be both a pain in the ass when i disagree and a bleating sheep when i agree?

here’s the thing, thoughtful people of good will do, you know, disagree on stuff – lots of stuff. maybe even especially progressives. we argue about it all the time. but that’s supposed to mean we argue with evidence and reason – not personal attacks. every time you try to make your case with a personal attack instead of an argument, you undermine your own position.

(((katymine!!!)))

Well said.

I never said I supported Kennedy. You drew that conclusion, like you draw so many others, based on nothing remotely resembling objective evidence.

I had no strong feelings one way or another about Kennedy’s possible appointment. In fact, as a general matter I would have agreed with the substance of some of your criticisms regarding dynasty, entitlement, etc.

But what I, like others condemned as “trolls,” was reacting to, was the incomprehensible fury with which you lashed out at her — and in terms ill-befitting your former status as anti-sexist warrior queen. You displayed similar irrational fury in your many anti-”misogyny” purges of the primary season — so, please, don’t come at me with your “pure emotion” bullshit. That, in fact, is all you’ve got in response to what I said.

In particular, I notice you haven’t explained how someone as politically engaged as yourself could have been completely indifferent to the outcome of the Democratic primary.

Trashing a Kennedy might be fun but why is Caroline out and a 2 year member of Congress in a victory?

I wasn’t born in ‘46. Just old for my age.

Not everybody born in ‘46 is as old as you. I’m younger than that now.

As sad as it may be, some folks are old at 46.

I proposed last night on Eli’s thread that the federal government should foot the bill for the special election if the vacancy is created because the Senator was plucked for Administration service.

The whole Caroline Kennedy issue is the only one I disagreed with Jane Hampsher on. Other than that, Jane is a huge voice for real liberal progressives in this country. I’m saddened by the pick of Gillibrand, because I think she’s going to buck President Obama (as Hillary would most likely have if she stayed in her Senate position). She has two years to prove herself a reliable liberal voice or we will have Carolyn McCarthy in there in 2010.

*Hamsher. ;-)

Lotsa firepups are failing to take the hard look at Mme. Gillibrand. I live close to her district and watched closely as she took apart incumbent Brooks Brothers’ Riot Leader – John Sweeney in 06, and then creamed Lil’Richie Rich – “Sandy” Treadwell in 08. All this in a district with about 200K of R’s 119K of D’s and 108K of blanks. She just f’in crushed those two old white guys. It was a beautiful thing to watch.

Mme. Gillibrand is a whip-smart lawyer with genuine charisma and excellent political instincts. Even with two small children she is a campaign machine that can match Chuckie S. move for move. She’ll tack hard left where necessary and raise wtever’s needed to scare off most primary opponents and gut any R who thinks they can beat her. Rudy? Bring ‘em on. Mikey Bloomie? He don’t get out of Manhattan much. Rick LAZIO? Don’t make me laugh. Mme. G’s gonna be a rising star in the old white dude millionaire’s club of the U.S. Senate.

Keep underestimating her. By June 2010 she’ll have talked to every county, town and city chair in New York state five times and raised between $20 and $30 million. CK’s never gonna be able to beat that back.

Here Here!

No, actually Jane, it was the cattiness bordering on viciousness that pissed a lot of people off, including people who wanted her to be chosen, people who didn’t, and people like me, who didn’t have a position either way since they don’t live in New York.

Your immediate descent into “Caroline eats bonbons all day” territory reeked of meanspiritedness. Your dismissal of Ms. Kennedy as a non-achiever was absurd, and it’s come to characterize my view of you since then.

Nice job. You must be so proud.

A ha, you’re still licking your wounds for being called out as a sexist for your rage-a-thon against Hillary Clinton. I get it, this isn’t about Caroline, this is about you.

As I’ve said many times, but obviously never to your satisfaction, if I had a preference in the race it was slightly for John Edwards, but we were concerned enough about his candidacy never to endorse him (and those worries turned out to be well-founded). I did not perceive a big enough difference between Obama and Clinton’s voting records (there was virtually none) in order to justify a preference for one over the other, certainly none that was worth wading into the pie fights, and announced that I would support whoever won. That’s what I did.

There were legitimate reasons for opposing Hillary Clinton. There were also a lot of people who were just women hating pigs, too. You could be a critic (as both Digby and I were) and still defend her against the open misogyny of people such as yourself. No wonder the cultists made you happy when they told you that comments about “ponies” and “nails” were sexist, and you could hurl that back. It’s silly — there’s nothing about “ponies” that is sexist, and I’m going to leave you right now and do my own nails — but it obviously salved your wounds and applied a bandaid to a seriously injured and inconsistent world view.

The primaries are over. Obama was the stronger candidate, he won, and the country is a better place for it. If you want to keep fighting them I’ve seen several sites that still cater to that sort of thing, but most people have no interest and have moved on.

I agree with your statements. I could see treating Joe Lieberman or Michele Bachmann would this kind of contempt, but to use the same kind of rhetoric against Caroline was way over the top and wasn’t needed. We have no idea how the next two years would have worked for Caroline had she been put in Hillary’s seat, but it would have given us a progressive voice until the next election in the meantime. Carolyn McCarthy would have been waiting in the wings if Caroline wasn’t up to par.

That makes some sense. If there’s just the one item on the ballot, you’d think it could be done quite cheaply.

I agree with you 100%.

I had always admired JH.

no more. the nails bit did it for me

Have you ever, and I ask this in all seriousness, read a single other post I’ve written in four years?

I mean, seriously?

Hey, Jane, you missed linking to Al Giordiano’s screed similarly declaring “we’ve got a Blue Dog instead of a progressive because of blogger attacks on CK.” Never mind that it makes about as much sense to say that CK boosters are responsible because they didn’t have a backup plan when she proved less than impressive on the introductory tour. (I’m not saying that’s true, just that both are equally ridiculous.)

I was never particularly against CK, just vaguely uncomfortable with the dynastic argument, but Al’s initial anti-anti-Kennedy rant was what finally drove me away from reading The Field. He has some good insights sometimes, but other times he goes full-on Hitchens: “My argument is that I’m right and everyone who disagrees with me is an idiot.”

Don’t let them bother you, Jane. Some are here from other blogs who are jealous that you’re getting more air time than they are. We Firepups support you and think you’re a huge liberal progressive voice…even if you pulled CK’s legs & arms off and then beat her over the head with it. See? LOL

By the way, Jane, since John Aravosis’ name has been put into play here, check out the comments on his post. You are taking some lumps out there for the snippy nastiness you figured you could foist on an adoring audience. It was shameful, and if you try to paint all of us who think you were horribly off-base her as thinking it was all over Hillary-love, you’re either insincere or deluded. I will say, however, that it seemed like some sort of personal problem. Whatever, it did not serve you well.

But don’t take credit for singlehandedly bringing down Caroline Kennedy. That effort would probably have imploded anyway; there are plenty of people who thought she was less than excellent as a candidate, and they didn’t all stoop to the level of pedicure talk.

I admire Caroline Kennedy. But obviously, she was ill-prepared, did not vote often, and would have been torn apart by almost any tough campaign. There is the issue of still another millionaire and their friends in the plutocracy ruling over us.

Where was Caroline during the the last few years? Did she fight the neo-cons? Did she fight against phony oil wars of the Bushies? Did she fight against the corruption, torture, and Homeland Spying on Americans?

Who did take a stand? Jane, Christy, Marcy and many others did.

Fun times!

Sure. Frequently.

This was way over the top, and I know I’m not alone in that assessment.

We’ll always have bon-bons.

So I’m a group-thinker, am I? I never read those articles you’re linking to, nor was I likely to. Most of the folks on my blogroll seemed to agree with you, at least in that Caroline Kennedy wasn’t a good choice.

It’s ironic that yesterday I wrote two articles, one lamenting this mess, and the other talking about a show where the lead character starts the series by saying “Sooner or later, the day comes when you can’t hide from the things that you’ve done anymore.”

Right or wrong, you decided what your position was on this issue. As Apphouse50 points out at #104, you did it with a tone that was best reserved for people who really have done nothing in their lives. Instead of blaming us for having differing opinions, why don’t you remove the snot from some of your articles and be substantive? Events proved you were right that she wasn’t ready for prime time. That was a good and useful point. All the ad hominem just detracts from it.

Why not learn from your mistakes for the next time instead of treating those of us who disagree with you like we’re congenital asslickers? I had my reasons for supporting Kennedy, and they turned out to be good ones, too.

Fox news’ take:
BILL O’REILLY, HOST: Our lead story tonight is the mystery surrounding Caroline Kennedy dropping out of Senate contention.
“The Factor” has learned that New York Governor David Patterson was told by that Caroline Kennedy was having an affair with New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger. Upon hearing that information, Governor Patterson got a bit nervous, as you would imagine, because both Mrs. Kennedy and Mr. Sulzberger are married, although Sulzberger is apparently separated from his wife. And around midnight last night, Caroline Kennedy pulled out of the race for “personal reasons.”
Now, a spokesperson for The New York Times says Sulzberger does not, I repeat, does not have a relationship with Mrs. Kennedy. But this is one huge mess.
Joining us now from Albany, New York, is New York Post reporter Fred Dicker, who has been way out ahead on this story.
I’m going to be real careful here, Mr. Dicker. Unlike The New York Times, which at times prints gossip, innuendo, and you know, terrible stuff to hurt people with whom they disagree — they did it to me on a number of occasions — I don’t want to do that. But we do have it on very reliable information that this is why Caroline Kennedy pulled out. What do you have?
FRED DICKER, NEW YORK POST STATE EDITOR: Well, I tell you, just backing up, what you’re talking about was a remarkable statement that I and other members of the press were given today by a source very close to the governor, who claimed that questions about Caroline Kennedy’s marital status were among the reasons that she did get out, the personal reasons that she cited. Also mentioned were supposed tax problems and a nanny problem. We don’t know if it’s true, but it was interesting that someone close to the governor, who was considered authoritative, would bring it up.
O’REILLY: There’s no doubt in my mind, because we did also report the story, I can’t verify any relationship Ms. Kennedy has had. I cannot verify. I want the audience to be very crystal clear on that. I can’t verify anything along those lines.
What we can say with certainty is that Governor Patterson received a boatload of information from a political source, a source very high that the governor takes seriously, that Mrs. Kennedy had a number of personal problems, not just one. So you seem to be confirming that, Fred?
DICKER: Well, I’m confirming that someone close to the governor makes that claim. We haven’t seen any evidence of that.

But don’t take credit for singlehandedly bringing down Caroline Kennedy. That effort would probably have imploded anyway

What in this post do you read as Jane’s taking credit for bringing down Caroline Kennedy? The entire first paragraph is a description of the “implosion,” and takes credit for nothing.

Jane, with plenty good reason not to, you and everyone at FDL did a superlative job in maintaining neutrality and sticking with the facts during the primaries (unlike so many other superstar sights of left blogostan.) kudos to all.

Let me be clear. Anytime someone wants to knock Michelle Bachmann (or La Secessionista up there in Alaska) for time spent in front of a mirror or eating bonbons, it’s fine with me and I’ll take great pleasure in it.

But I don’t see why we would want to eat our own, which is something Democrats frequently have been accused of.

Gracious Jane, the lace hanky brigade appears to be out in force today.

For my part, I thank you from the bottom of my heart for doing so much to point out the absurdity (in a hilarious fashion imo) of the restoration of the landed gentry in these United States. Bush & Cheney have done their bit in restoring the monarchy, do Dems really need to follow their lead and bring back the House of Lords? Lets hope as the current flurry of activity subsides, we can really address how awful gubernatorial appointments are, and press for special elections to fill vacancies.

There’s noting like quite like being scolded for being vicious by people who feel compelled to outdo you on that front.

The only thing better is when they hike up their skirts and harumph about how “other people agree with me, too!”

Well that shows me.

Look, dearie, I understand your need to engage in these verbal gymnastics to prevent your adoring sycophants from noticing that the empress has no clothes — but get one thing straight: You. Know. Nothing. About. Me.

Do NOT publish unfounded accusations about persons who, unlike the hapless Caroline, are not public figures. A little further down this road, you could be looking at a libel suit.

CK was a poor candidate because she has never been involved and obviously didn’t know the first thing about politics – it doesn’t just rub off, you know, or come through the DNA. She’s an accomplished person and I’m sure very nice but she certainly doesn’t have the “killer” instinct to be a Senator. I am very fond of the Ks and remember her as a child. Wish her well – just not in that position.

LOL Me too. I’ve spent many hours lambasting that “mouth with a head” and will never ever apologize for it either! ;-)

And yes…*sigh*…we Democrats do eat our own quicker than eating the opposition for sure. It’s very disappointing. If fact, it’s happening now with the Jane Hamsher v. Caroline Kennedy debacle. It’s the left blogosphere that is going after Jane now. It never ends.

*g*

Hee. I look forward to your arguments explaining to a judge the damages you are due because of insults to your blog pseudonym.

(Is there an Internet “Law” — a la Godwin’s Law — referring to threats of legal actions over online arguments? If not, there should be.)

But what do I know, I’m just a sycophant…

Is making threats how you usually like to end your arguements? I haven’t seen you here today and know nothing about you. Did you have a dog-in-the-fight over who was going to be the senator in New York?

There’s a thin-skinnedness (is that a word?) apparent all of a sudden, don’t you think?

If a person dishes it out, they have to be able to take it. It’s always been my impression that Jane could take it, so her reaction to the hubbub her remarks has caused is surprising. Sucks being on the receiving end, evidently.

If CK was somehow derailed by her too tough treatment here, I can’t imagine how she could have possible done well in the Senate. If she exhibited any toughness, or showed any smarts at overcoming obstacles, I missed it. I’m sure her heart is in the right place, but, WTF, is it beating?

Not at all! In fact I nominate you to write the “blog civility” manual we’ve been in need of for all these years.

I think you have demonstrated that you are imminently qualified, and it would be a marvelous use of your time.

You’ll get no argument out of me on that one. I was never one ranting that she ought to be chosen.

But she being a woman who has some pretty nice achievements under her belt and who has worked in efforts I admire, I thought the dismissal of her as nothing more than some social xray was something we might expect from Rethugs. Live and learn.

There there dear, dab your eyes and breathe slowly into a paper bag, you’ll feel much better after a rest.

Sheesh, is this high school or politics here? “Oooo, you were sooo mean, and catty and not nice…”

Like dick c says, if you though Jane was too unkind, how on earth could your porcelain doll have survived the Senate?!?

LOL Jane. Well, if it makes you feel better, I’ve gotten the death threats from right wing trolls and former republicans calling themselves ‘liberal progressives’ now. In fact, some of them have set up blogs to go after me and while doing so, proved to everyone that they are the ones who have the problem and not me!

Jane, you had a right to voice your opinion about CK, even if we disagreed with it or the way you went about it. Anyone who is threatening you now over it or is now going to use the moment as a way to take you down will prove in the end that they are no better than what you did. See? It’s all good. ;-)

I for one am gleeful in my ugliness.

Actually, that would be “eminently.”

I’ll let the Rethugs play the party uber alles games. I don’t see any of these people shittin’ on us for hammering Short Ride. Oh, we can say unflattering things about this pol but not this one? Bullshit. Eat our own? When necessary, you betcha. Cleans out the gene pool.

We need to stand up for the things we believe are right within OUR OWN party – we know what the Republicans are – and make sure that we get the very best.

See? Already on the job!

You’re perfect.

Well! — get going on that manual! Good to know you’re qualified to handle the spelling and grammer too.

Do NOT publish unfounded accusations about persons who, unlike the hapless Caroline, are not public figures. A little further down this road, you could be looking at a libel suit.

So you are making threats against your intellectual and moral superiors. Cry baby, whaaaaa whaaa…people are being soooo..mean….to…you…

Yes, there are times when it’s good when the Democrats go after others, such as Joe Lieberman. I’m talking about the lefties online who go after each other viciously in an attempt to better ‘their position’ online which is what I’m seeing right now in terms of Jane. Jane couldn’t stand the idea of CK getting the seat while others like myself thought it would be good to have a progressive in there until the next election, but no way in hell would I dismiss everything Jane says from now on because of what she said. No way. She’s a great voice for us and makes us proud.

**********************

Jane, one of my online haters has a blog against me and does posts when I make a spelling mistake. LOL

Hang on a sec while I call whine-one-one for the poor thing. Perhaps they’ll send a whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaambulance for it.

So in your mind, being able to “take it” means not responding when people say things about you that you think are way off base?

Weird.

Teddy and I would like to take this opportunity to thank our commenters for engaging in this lively exchange.

We’re partying like it’s 2005.

*big g* My pleasure.

It’s sweet to think we no longer have to behave.
FDL could actually return to its nasty old gay wimminfolkin’ self.

Gawd, hope is back – but for the person that was chosen. That she to is hiding out a secret progressive agenda.

Re-read some of the threads, all this is group-think on all sides. Arguments used against Hillary but no problems with Kennedy and vica versa and on and on. A bit of a circle jerk (and I do not exclude myself) all around.

Nobody is or ever will be.

this entire issue, and this post and comments are hysterical.

Jane, ONE OF YOUR BEST.

CK was and is outrageously presumptuous and has forever popped any Kennedy bubble I may have entertained!
May she go back into her life, vote for a few cycles, then come out again willing to actually TALK to PEOPLE.
I just keep thinking, poor Jackie. She’s probably feeling like a cotton candy cone by now.
LOL!

The Republicans 11th commandment is: “Thou shalt speak no ill of your fellow Republican,” and the Democratic congugate is “Thou shalt not speak well of your fellow Democrat.” Even hewing to this commandment, many anti-Kennedy forces went too far.

Nor should you confuse CKs flaws as extra armor for your argument: it is altogether possible (and increasingly plausible) that CK was a bad candidate and that you have behaved abominably towards her, however correct your assesment: and have insulted her and your fellow Democrats in the process. As an added bonus, you’ve given the circular firing squad a rather strenuous workout. Way to go there… that’s a skill we don’t wish to let rust,now…

I’m not surprised Howie Klein endorsed Gillibrand. Howie’s only criterion for judging whether someone is a progressive is what type of music they like. I could name a bunch of others Howie has supported who turned out to be the opposite of progressive.

He may be a nice guy, be he’s gullible.

OK, that was awesome. Very Gertrude Stein.

I don’t know what it means, but it was awesomely post-modern.

I don’t disagree. I think there are ways we treat family, however. No one had to clap hands at the thought of Senator Caroline, and surely no one had to refrain from criticizing her qualifications. But suggesting she is nothing but a wealthy, silly (and LUCKY!) lotus eater who has no accomplishments to show for her time on the planet is, I think, best left for dishing on the enemy, which Caroline Kennedy is not. Sarah Palin gets my vote.

Actually, that would be “vocabulary.”

So in your mind, being able to “take it” means not responding when people say things about you that you think are way off base?

No, actually it’s the suggestion that I return viciousness with same that was way off base. But that’s okay, I can take it (not having had any of my goddesses challenged). It’s actually been pretty amusing and reassuring. And the fact is, Jane brought this whole thing up, not me. If everyone was supposed to affirm everything she says, sorry, I didn’t get the memo.

At the end of the day, I think we owe it to ourselves to shoot for a little civility while we’re speaking our piece, particularly when it comes to decent Dems. That said, have at Lieberdolt all you want. He doesn’t count.

I’m off to get a bonbon and take a bubblebath now. Gotta get the maid to warm the towels for me.

I would like to apologize for the comment I made about Howie. It’s just that this is the third or fourth Blue Bush Dog that Howie originally promoted as a progressive.

Gillibrand is a member of the Blue Dog caucus, supported the renewal of the Bush tax cuts, would probably vote against an economic stimulus package (and probably for the inane tax cuts the GOP is proposing). She wants the military to be used for border patrol. She has a 100% approval rating from the NRA.

Progressive, my ugly pimply posterior.

Yes, your initial comment ignores the plain reality – you often find Progressives by elimination, and Howie’s efforts are nothing short of heroic and selfless in ferreting them out.

Howie’s record, considering the odds and the corrupt state of electoral politics at this time, is remarkable.

This shit takes time and persistence in the face of very long odds.

They may be heroic and selfless, but they have not been very successful in ferreting them out. Perhaps hindsight is 20/20, but learning about Gillibrand’s past shows someone almost certainly not progressive before her 2006 run. Her upbringing, who she worked for etc show a conservative Dem at best.

Perhaps what is being missed in the vetting process is proof of past progressive stands on issues. And proof of staying strong by those convictions on principles in the face of adversary and group think. This is what Howie Klein may consider focusing on in the future.

Consider some of the other defectors – Chris Carney for example, lied like a rug – we learn lessons every time we get one.

This has never been done, and will never be a perfect process.

Speakinf of fawning, obsequious followers, Jane, virtually your entire comments section on this blog is a dead ringer for fawning obsequious followers. Own up to this: you went headlong after Caroline Kennedy and when you got your trophy it developed that her replacement wasn’t exactly your ideal candidate. So like Bush in Iraq, Jane, you just didn’t pay attention to the end-game. Now, luckily for you and your merry band of followers, it appears that the Senator-nominee has an astounding ability to twist herself into a pretzel and come out looking like a liberal. Plus she is bright and charismatic and well-educated. But Jane, you dodged an ideological bullet here with no credit to you for doing so.

Oh yeah, that “we are neutral here” meme sinks of its own falsity the minute you throw it out there.

Non-obsequiously yours,

Douglas

I just finished conducting a search for Jane’s supposedly over-the-top Kennedy remarks and couldn’t find them. Would appreciate the Jane bashers actually linking to the comments they’re finding fault with. I personally was ambivalent about Jane’s original post but could clearly see where she was coming from. As this whole issue progressed, though, I found I had to agree with her assessment. Jane is known for her acerbic wit (aka snark–one of the reasons we LIKE her) and she wielded it rather gently in CK’s direction. So, she was right again. What’s the problem?

I read the links at the top and found the vitriol against Jane on this issue was not fair, especially Dave from Queens who said she was a Hillary supporter. I was proud of Jane for being neutral in the primaries. Whatever preference she held was never allowed to bleed over into her blog posts. Her posts on sexism were all about the sexist media and not about Hillary.

So those who showed up here to tear her apart for it are demonstrating exactly the “We eat our own” bad behavior they’re complaining about.

I admit that I have a special fondness for Jane. What I’d like to know is, does your comment actually have anything at all to do with Caroline? Or do you just dislike Jane so much that you’ll not only come to HER blog to insult her but all her regular readers as well?

Otherwise your post makes no sense.

So you think CKS is a good choice? Yeah, I’ll bet they would really love her upstate (oops, been there, done that, failed miserably and catastrophically). And CKS is so good at running, because you know, she has had the taste for electoral politics all her life, as her record shows… oh, wait.

Gillibrand is another bad choice. And it is too bad that Governor Paterson left the decision to the Lefty Blogosphere to make. Swell Governor, that, putting a Senate seat in them hands of Jane and company. The only thing missing is the tick-tock – you know, I want to see the call log and figure just when Paterson called Jane and asked who he would be allowed to appoint.

The truth is that Paterson let himself get hustled, not once but at least twice. Rolled. He shit his own bed.

Audrey, and Jane’s other fellow-travelers (obscure sarcastic reference to McCarthyist terminology from the 50’s), the point was that a great many of the commenters on Jane’s blog about CK displayed the same blind loyalty that Jane was bashing those disagreeing with her about having. I like a lot of Jane’s stuff, but every now and then this sort of high-school mean streak comes out in a very unbecoming and unhelpful way.

newtonusr, there you go again, unthinkingly swinging into Jane’s orbit by repeating her unqualified Caroline meme. I won’t bore you with all the details, but think bright, extremely well educated, public spirited, and from a family that has shown a remarkable ability to grow in office (remember Bobby?). It can be very useful to have someone who attracts many people because of her pedigree when that person is also on the right side of issues.

Actually qualifications are the least of my concerns wrt CKS – there are many sitting Senators who are much less qualified to be there than Caroline.

However, setting aside your suggestion that I am a HamsherZombie, let me suggest this – CKS has never, ever, once run for elective office. She has never stumped, she has never shaken a wide swatch of hands, she has never been asked (nor answered) questions about her views on the huge number of issues that a United States Senator will confront (except her particular interests, and I mean no slur on these very important matters).

There is such a thing as a gauntlet in politics, and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg has never run it, shown a taste for it, seemed remotely inclined to try.

She is not unqualified – she is, by virtue of lack of effort, will, whatever you want to describe it as – not entitled to a seat in the United States Senate. Those seats are for those who show the inclination, grit, balls. She has not.

The name Kennedy has been revered in my household for as long as I have been alive. And even then, she is not entitled to that seat by virtue of her name. She is perhaps worthy, and possibly able, but she is not willing.

First: Audrey, and Jane’s other fellow-travelers (obscure sarcastic reference to McCarthyist terminology from the 50’s),

Most of us here are old enough to remember. No need to explain.

the point was that a great many of the commenters on Jane’s blog about CK displayed the same blind loyalty that Jane was bashing those disagreeing with her about having

So, you really don’t like us? If you read her original posts on the topic, you’ll find many who disagreed with her. I don’t understand who Jane was bashing that disagreed with her about CKS–or are you talking about those who were bashing Jane?

Your last sentence is rather mild compared to your original post about “fawning, obsequious followers”. I disagree with it completely, must be my “blind loyalty”. Hmmm…

Well said. I agree. (Just to be clear, I’m not fawning.) ;)

Being a HamsherBot, I could do with a little fawning.
Gimme please.

Now I’m not understanding what you are writing. Do you agree or disagree that with Jane one occasionally gets a very nasty, childish tone that contributes nothing to substance?

Audrey, Audrey, Audrey, You want some opposition-bashing from Ms. Jane? Here’s just a little taste from this sequence of comments:

“It’s pretty telling that your only defense of Caroline Kennedy is an ad hominem attack on someone else, and you have nothing to say to recommend her personally. Unsurprising — there is nothing to be said.

*** I understand the Stalinist impulse perceives insufficient obsequiousness to your chosen cult figure as support for someone else.
***

I know it’s a stretch to ask someone who is fulminating out of pure emotion to make that hemispheric leap and explain themselves rationally, but I’d genuinely like to know.”

Note to Jane: why not skip the name calling (Stalinist!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!) and calmly explain how you disagree with the commenter who disagrees with you. So much more effective and life-affirming.

newtonusr, you are a top God in my pantheon, I live to read your comments, I dream of being able to write even 1/100 as well as you do. You also must be the most hip commenter on this site.

How was that for starters?

LOL! In that case, I live to see your wonderfully astute comments as seen above at 168! You’re teh awesome!!
*g*

ROTFF!

Did you folks come here from some other blog that was dissing Jane in order to pile on in the comments section, or not? The trollish posts deserve what they get. Is that the bashing you’re talking about? What did you expect, nice? Read the comments she’s responging to. They weren’t polite, either.

“I know it’s a stretch to ask someone who is fulminating out of pure emotion to make that hemispheric leap and explain themselves rationally, but I’d genuinely like to know.””

Why should her responses conform to your expectations about what’s life affirming and what is not? Perhaps if you’d asked your questions politely, earlier, she or many of the commentors on this site would have been happy to help.

At 172 “Now I’m not understanding what you are writing. Do you agree or disagree that with Jane one occasionally gets a very nasty, childish tone that contributes nothing to substance?”

I disagree completely. What she offers is of value to make us laugh at the things that really offend us. That is substance.

Can we not agree that there are multiple reasons why CKS is not Senator material? If not, so be it.

But you have nothing but contempt for the author it seems, and that has really nothing to do with the point of the post.

And I notice this morsel missing from your recitation of Jane’s words, and this is the point:

What I don’t get is how someone could support Obama, whose candidacy is based on pure merit and rising up through the ranks in spite of a lack of family ties and political connections, and rail against the dynastic impulses of the Clintons, then jump seamlessly onto the Kennedy bandwagon as if there was no cognitive dissonance.

Merit. Drive. Seeking the plateau instead of expecting it to be handed over. I would read the posts about CKS again and see if that is a common thread.

Thank you for the excellent posts. I have to go to work now. I’d rather hang out here, but if I want to eat, I have to work. ;)

Good night, newtonusr, douglas.

nite audrey. go earn

Jane Hamsher was NOT the reason why Caroline Kennedy dropped out. I believe it was a coordinated effort between the Clinton Camp and Governor Paterson and here’s how I think it went down:

When Caroline Kennedy announced she wanted to be in the running for Hillary’s seat, I’m sure Hillary Clinton was miffed because CK backed Barack Obama over her during the campaing. The CC contacted the governor to express their views and told him to hold on in announcing his pick (which it’s rumored that Hillary wanted Gillibrand from the start) until she was confirmed as the SOS. When she was confirmed as the SOS that is where the ball started rolling….

There was rumors out there about CK that were boiling.

The New York Post reported the next day (after CK announced at midnight that she was officially out) that CK had tax/nanny issues and was having an affair with Arthur Sulzburger of the NY Times. I was listening to Howie Carr out of WRKO/Boston on the radio when he reported the same thing shortly after the story appeared on the New York Post. Within minutes, Howie announces that Arthur’s name has been scrubbed from the original post on the NYP.

Someone wanted these rumors to get out to drive the final nail in Caroline Kennedy’s coffin.

Who was the unnamed source who started the rumor (which, they could be true…that’s not the point)? I bet it was Hillary’s Camp who told the governor, who in turn told the NYP in a coordinated effort to get Kennedy out, so the governor could pick Gillibrand who was Hillary’s first choice to begin with.

So, you see, it wasn’t Jane’s comments about Kennedy that got Kennedy to drop out. It was Hillary’s camp who did. Many of us in the left blogosphere were upset with Jane’s vicious comments about Kennedy, but in the end, her comments didn’t have the weight or was the reason as to why CK was sent packing.

This is how I see it. Anyway…

We’re stuck with Gillibrand in the Senate now. She may be great or she may be meeting Carolyn McCarthy in 2010 to fight to keep her seat. We don’t know at this point.

Is it your contention that a high minded guardian of civility such as yourself would never stoop to name calling?

****

“Agent provacateur?” My God man, you sound like one of the Trotskyite sects of the American communist party in the 30’s; so eager to label and drum out of the organization anyone who disagrees with you, especially when they write with the wit and intelligence of someone like Juno. Why don’t you give a substantive points that Juno and I are making in this thread about how much Obama still needs to explain, and how this mess is not just going to go away by Obamaites stomping their feet and holding their breath.

****

My God, the level of hatred and pure anti-semitism in these responses is exceeded only by the ignorance displayed. The Israelis are fighting people who have the declared goal of driving them into the sea, in short, exterminating them and taking over all of their land. The Israelis have taken a barren, arid desert, and turned it into a garden. Israel is the only real democracy in the region. Every time Israel gives back some land taken when it defended itself against sneak attacks by its Arab neighbors, the occupants start firing rockets indiscriminately at Israeli towns. Yes, many civilians are dying in Gaza, but the difference is that Israel is not deliberately targeting them. Heard of any Israeli suicide bombers lately? Months of indiscriminate rocket attacks on Israel by the occupants of Gaza, and I have not seen any great public outcry. Sarkhozi was not hitting the limelight in defense of Israel or in an effort to stop this barbarism. Damn it, sometimes there is a right side and a wrong side, the Palestinians are on the wrong side of this one.

****
KayinMaine, So many of us are tired of the namecalling. “Racist” is a big flaming rocket, and you really should be careful at whom you launch it. Even Obama has denied that he believes Ferrarro’s comments were racist. And to call Hillary a racist is to discount her entire life of public service, as well as that of her husband. Disagree with them; point out where you think they are wrong. But for Gods sake leave the juvenile and inciting insults behind.

****

Jane, just curious if you knew half of what Ann in AZ wrote in her comments before you decided to whale (and wail) on Caroline. We won, take a breather, go ogle Barack in Hawaii.

While I’m happy to have people here arguing alternative points of view, and value the time and effort you put into commenting on the site, it is a bit much to stomach lectures on decorum from a troll.

Mrs Schlossberg’s (neé Kennedy) appointment was not derailed by Jane or anyone else in the blogosphere, no matter how negative and/or over the top their crusade against her might have been. I sincerely doubt that Hillary derailed the appointment either.

Caroline herself derailed her appointment through lack of preparation, lack of skill in dealing with the media, and a remarkable inability to speak well and defend her — generally fine progressive — positions.

Caroline was ill-advised to attempt to gain a Senate seat in this manner without thorough preparation, including intensive training in how to speak convincingly on the teevee. That’s just basic skill-set for a Senator, and she couldn’t do it.

Ill-will toward dynasties likely had nothing at all to do with her ultimate failure, despite the fact that the dynastic aspects of her potential appointment were heavily featured in the anti-Caroline blog posts here and elsewhere. Since it is an appointed position, it’s hard to tell how much her declining poll numbers among the public played in Paterson’s decision. But her polling declines came after she botched her public appearances and press availabilities (or lack thereof.) She just wasn’t ready to deal with that side of public service.

We’ll never know whether she would have been a good appointment (despite her disabilities).

Gillibrand, however, doesn’t seem to be anything close to a progressive- ideal appointee.

This is where “be careful what you wish for” enters the picture.

Gillibrand has many of the skills and experience Caroline so badly lacks, but her policy positions are hardly progressive at all. To someone like me, they’re reactionary. Why would anyone who claims to be progressive want that instead of Caroline?

Clearly somebody did want that and not what Caroline had to offer, regardless of what Jane or other blogospheric advocates wanted or didn’t want. It was Paterson’s choice to make, he made it. Oh well.

There’s a lot of bile and venom — plenty enough to drown in — being spewed around the blogosphere because this whole affaire de Caroline K started ugly and ended ugly here and elsewhere. Not wanting Caroline — for whatever reason — is one thing; but who is ultimately going to be in the Senate is the important thing, and I, for one, have no reason to believe that Gillibrand is going to be a more progressive Senator than Caroline would have been.

Here’s how Jane kicked this thing off.

Talk of oozing entitlement. Ponies. “I guess it was either that or get her nails done.”

‘Scuse me, but when has Caroline Kennedy been so belligerently indolent and trivially “entitled” that she deserved this kind of hash slung at her? I’m not talking about legitimate questions about her positions on issues and a suggestion that going out and talking to the public would be called for. Those things made all kinds of sense. But that stuff about “You know, those little people whose ordinary lives she hopes to enrich by her presence?” suggests some sort of “let them eat cake” attitude I’m more inclined to attribute to Barbara Bush than Caroline Kennedy.

It didn’t take long before this kind of talk evolved throughout the blogosphere as “She didn’t write those books. She’s done nothing of substance,” quite often accompanied with “hats off to Jane Hamsher” for showing this woman for what she is: a spoiled brat.

You asked, so I’m answering. I think a lot of the irritation that’s been expressed over all this comes from a) what seems to many as gratuitously insulting to someone a lot of people like (whether or not they have a position on her candidacy), and b) having anyone who disagrees lumped into some monarchy-loving swarm who drank the Kennedy Kool-Aid a long time ago and still yearns for a return to Camelot (which most of us know never truly existed).

For the record, I’m also appalled about what I keep seeing as support for her because she was wealthy enough to have no campaign financing concerns down the road. I’ve seen comments by some that this was, for them, the deciding point. Yet in other conversations I’m sure a lot of the folks expressing that sentiment about CK now have at other times in the past griped about the Senate being a millionaires club.

And I love how Douglas’ analysis of me that day was wrong and off base…and…he ended up being wrong on all fronts too! Bah hahahahaha! Oh well. It’s difficult these days to find a neocon troll or a PUMA who is correct.

This decision was not an either/or proposition: Patterson was not constrained to limit his selection to Caroline Kennedy or Gillibrand, and nobody else. There are many good choices that could have been selected. Many proven progressive congresscritters who could have been chosen.

I agree with Jane that CK was not a good choice, but that doesn’t mean Gillibrand was the only choice left. And just because Gillibrand may have been a poor choice doesn’t mean CK should have been supported.

Patterson and the Dem elite who promoted this decision (most likely Rahm Emanuel) are the ones to blame if Gillibrand bucks any needed legislation, such as an economic stimulus.

At this point, I’ll keep my fingers crossed that somehow Gillibrand changes her stripes.

Well now, KayInMaine, If Hillary was so racist, as you put it, why did President Obama select her for one of the most powerful cabinet posts there is? Can’t really see how you were right on that one.

I was a strong Hillary supporter during the primaries, and some of that was based on admiration for her and some of that was based on a fear of what the Republicans would do to Obama in the fall campaign (24-7 Reverend Wright film clips, anyone?). Obama one and I immediately switched my allegiance, my money, and my time to him. Either because McCain is a better man than I thought, or because it just was not gaining any traction, McCain did not engage in a scorched earth campaign against Obama and Obama displayed masterful campaign skills. I watched the inauguration in tears with millions of others. I guess the point is, my candidate lost and I supported the winner with no whining and no vitriol. And now we have a really really good shot at getting things right in this country.

p.s. I have a very good friend in Maine, a long-time divorced bachelor in his early 60’s who is financially independent, active, smart, on our side of issues and social policy, and supportive. I don’t know if you are looking…..

Ah, sweet Jane,

I am disappointed in your research abilities. The very quotes from me which you dug up illustrate that my comments are substantive and they document and back up any snark I throw in.

On this “troll” name-calling. I think you and others have wrung all you can from that ambiguous term. I believe it originally referred to folks who were not regular commenters on blogs, but who would pop up with vicious comments calculated to either divert the debate or inflame the debaters. But the way you use it now is redolent of simple name-calling against those who substantively agree with you. Maybe we can get back to when trolls were those hideous little dolls with straight red hair, and use this forum to engage in real debate. Shall we try?

That over with, many of us are waiting for your comments on the serious calling-out and thrashing administered to you by Apphouse50 (#184). What rational point are you attempting to make when you compare Caroline Kennedy seeking office to wanting a pony, or when you refer in a sexist manner to her getting her nails done?

douglas and Apphouse50: kudos to you for trying, but the fact is nobody is ever going to get a straight answer to that simple question from Jane Hamsher or any of her groupies. It’s been asked over and over again since the beginning of this thread, and each time it’s been met with sneers, evasions, subject switching, and ad hominem abuse of the asker.

This place is the left-wing equivalent of a Sarah Palin rally, folks — mindless followers cheering on an anointed queen who pursues her own ambition as single-mindedly and viciously as Sarah does. Lucky she’s on “our” side, huh?