Winners And Losers In The Roland Burris Saga

There was a time, not long ago, when Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said without hesitation that if Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich dared to appoint someone to fill Barack Obama's now-vacant seat, the Senate would promptly reject him/her.

On Dec. 30, the governor went ahead and named Roland Burris, the former state attorney general, to fill the seat. Fuggeddaboudit, said Reid. No way, agreed the president-elect.

That was then. This is now.

A 45-minute meeting between Burris and Senate Dem leaders Reid and Dick Durbin on Wednesday has seemingly resulted with everyone on the same page: Burris will be the next senator from Illinois, apparently; it's just a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's.

When Burris showed up at the Capitol the other day, he was turned away by the secretary of the Senate because of incomplete credentials. His certification from Springfield included the signature of the governor but not that of Illinois Secretary of State Jesse White. White refused because Blagojevich is under federal corruption charges.

(Still, that didn't keep White from adding his signature when Blago the other day proclaimed the date of a special election to fill Rahm Emanuel's former House seat. White is, if nothing else, pro-choice.)

Following their meeting with Burris, Reid and Durbin did a CYA by saying that of course they would love to have Burris join the club, but a rule in effect since 1884 requires both signatures for a senator to take his/her seat, whether it's by election or appointment. It's not about Blago making the appointment, they now said. It's about that missing signature from the secretary of state. The rule has never been waived, they said. 1884! 1884!

But is it ironclad? First of all, the Senate language only says the signature of a secretary of state is "recommended." White himself is quoted as saying, "My signature is not required. My signature is mostly ceremonial, rather than being a point of law." So much for Reid's new argument. In any event, the Illinois Supreme Court is expected to rule on that today. Burris also appeared today before a state House committee discussing the possible impeachment. Illinois lawmakers grilled him on how the appointment came to pass and stuff about his relationship with the governor. Both sides of the Burris struggle have indicated that once the court rules, and once Burris testifies, the roadblocks to his taking the Senate seat should vanish.

The beginning of the end of the Democratic wall against seating Burris came Tuesday when Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), the outgoing chairwoman of the Rules Committee, said this: "If you don't seat Mr. Burris, it has ramifications for gubernatorial appointments all over America. Mr. Burris is a senior, experienced politician. He has been attorney general, he has been comptroller, and he is very well-respected. I am hopeful that this will be settled."

Feinstein had also raised eyebrows the day before by questioning the apparent choice of Leon Panetta as Obama's next director of the CIA. The new chairwoman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, she was apparently peeved that Panetta's name was leaked without her having been first consulted.

Her back-to-back, off-the-reservation comments surprised many political watchers, and some are wondering if this is not the prelude to a potential announcement that she has had enough of Washington and wants to go back home to run for governor. She ran once before, in 1990, losing to Republican Pete Wilson, and some think she never lost the bug. But she's 75 years old, and California state government is currently in a mess. Something perhaps to watch for.

Whatever, her words indicated that Democratic solidarity against accepting Burris might be melting away.

And there is the race factor.

Both Reid and Durbin expressed unhappiness over how race has become part of the conversation. Both stated that race had nothing to do with this, and Durbin quoted Burris, who is African-American, saying the same thing. I agree. I don't think for a second the legal roadblocks for Burris taking a Senate seat have anything to do with race. It's been all about Blagojevich, no more, no less. Yes, it should be noted, that with Obama departing the Senate, there is no longer a black senator, but that is secondary. Some have speculated that Blago named Burris for this very reason, daring the Senate to reject a black candidate. And Rep. Bobby Rush (D-IL) pitched in on the topic, urging the Senate "to not hang or lynch the appointee as you try to castigate the appointer" and daring lawmakers "to go on record to deny one African-American from being seated in the U.S. Senate."

Rush's playing the race card was unmistakable, and unsurprising. And if he made the Democratic establishment uncomfortable, so be it. Perhaps he was also taking a jab at Obama as well. Remember, back in 2000, when Obama was a relative political unknown, he decided to take on Rush in the 2000 Democratic primary. Obama may have figured that Rush, coming off a disastrous challenge to Mayor Richard M. Daley in 1999, was vulnerable. Obama figured wrong; Rush clobbered him.

And maybe there was something sad about Burris being so eager to serve in the Senate that he would accept the nomination from someone so discredited. Rep. Danny Davis (D-IL), long thought to be interested in the Senate appointment and who is also African-American, said Blagojevich offered him the seat first but he had turned it down. Good for him.

But Davis is happy for Burris and wants him to be senator; in fact, as he said to NPR's Neal Conan during the Wednesday Junkie segment on Talk of the Nation, when he turned down the offer from Blago's emissary he urged Burris be picked in his stead.

And it was a bit surreal watching Burris, a diminutive and unassuming man, try to bring his credentials to the Senate, only to be turned away. And then have to hold a news conference outside, in the rain. He almost appeared sympathetic.

And that photograph, of Burris speaking to the press in the rain under umbrellas, which was on the front page of so many newspapers across the country, may have been what changed the dynamic here and what forced Reid and the Senate leadership to back down. Reid ultimately looked bad in the process, but I sense it's a temporary blip. The pressure, should he finally get the seat, will now be on Burris. If he wants to hold on to the seat in 2010, he has only 14 months to make a strong impression before the Democratic primary ... a primary that, as of late, has not done him any favors.

Let's look at the record:

1976 -- got crushed in the Democratic primary for state comptroller by Michael Bakalis, 72-28%.

1978 -- with Bakalis leaving for a gubernatorial bid, Burris again ran for comptroller. He defeated John Castle (R) to become the first African-American to be elected statewide in Illinois history.

1982 -- re-elected comptroller over Cal Skinner Jr. (R).

1984 -- ran for the U.S. Senate, finishing second in the Democratic primary to Rep. Paul Simon, who won the seat.

1986 -- re-elected comptroller over Adeline Jay Geo-Karis (R).

1990 -- elected attorney general when the incumbent, Neil Hartigan (D), sought the governorship. Burris defeated Jim Ryan (R).

1994 -- ran for governor, finishing second in the Democratic primary to Dawn Clark Netsch.

1995 -- ran for mayor of Chicago, losing to incumbent Richard M. Daley, 60-36%.

1998 -- ran for governor, finishing second in the Democratic primary to Rep. Glenn Poshard.

2002 -- ran for governor, finishing third in the Democratic primary won by Rep. Rod Blagojevich.