Sen. Robert Byrd, the 91-year old West Virginia Democrat and the longest-serving senator in history, has been released from the hospital after suffering a fall at his home on Tuesday.

Here's the release from his office:

Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., was released from the hospital early this afternoon following a brief 48-hour stay to monitor and treat a spike in his white-blood cell count, a symptom that is usually an early sign of an infection.

Byrd was admitted to the hospital on Tuesday, following a precautionary trip to the hospital after he fell at his home. While being examined, doctors found an increase in Byrd's white-blood cell count and then admitted the West Virginia Senator to the hospital for antibiotic treatment and observation.

Byrd will continue his antibiotic treatment at his home and convalesce over the coming days.

Byrd indicated that he "is looking forward to engaging in the upcoming debate and votes on health care reform -- one of the most critical issues facing this Congress."

Democrats wanted Kirk to run again for DNC chair when his term was ending in 1989.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) today named Boston attorney Paul Kirk, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime friend of the Kennedy family, to succeed the late Edward Kennedy in the Senate.

The Massachusetts legislature had been lobbied heavily by Democrats in Washington, who did not want the seat to remain vacant until the Jan. 19 special election. With Kennedy's death, Democrats now have (ostensibly) 59 votes in the Senate, one short of the number needed to beat back a potential Republican filibuster on health-care legislation. So Bay State lawmakers changed the law to give the power of filling a Senate vacancy to the governor.

(It's a power the governor once had ... but the Democratic legislature removed it in 2004, when they didn't want the Republican governor at the time, Mitt Romney, to fill a potential Senate seat in the event John Kerry was elected president.)

There had been much speculation on former Gov. Michael Dukakis, who was endorsed for the job this week by the Boston Globe, or ex-Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy, as potential Patrick picks. But what may have paved the way for Kirk was the behind-the-scenes lobbying on his behalf by Kennedy's two sons, Edward Jr. and Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI), plus his widow Vicki.

Kirk's ties to Kennedy go back to at least 1969, when he began working for the senator on Capitol Hill. He became chairman of the Democratic National Committee in 1985, following the disastrous presidential candidacy of Walter Mondale, who lost 49 out of 50 states to President Reagain in the '84 election. He later co-chaired the Commission on Presidential Debates with Republican Frank Fahrenkopf, himself a former RNC chair. Kirk currently is chairman of the JFK Library in Boston.

In accepting the appointment today, Kirk said he would not seek election to the seat. He is expected to be sworn into office tomorrow.

In a statement, President Obama called Kirk a "distinguished leader, whose long collaboration with Senator Kennedy makes him an excellent, interim choice to carry on his work until the voters make their choice in January."

Rob Jesmer, the executive director of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was less welcoming:

The Democrats' power play in Massachusetts has nothing to do with principle, and everything to do with politics. With their unpopular government-run health care bill on the brink of failure, Democrats in Washington desperately need another vote in the U.S. Senate, and it is clear that this Administration will stop at nothing to ram it through the Congress. By meddling in the affairs of state politics just weeks after promising to leave it up to the elected Massachusetts officials, Democrat leaders in Washington have demonstrated a willingness to put partisan politics over principle, a far cry from candidate Obama's pledge to change the way business is done in Washington.

Breaking news: It's official. It's Paul Kirk.

More to come.

Now that the Massachusetts legislature has given him the power to do so, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) will announce his choice to succeed the late Sen. Edward Kennedy this morning at 11 a.m. ET -- and that person is likely to be Paul Kirk.

Kirk, the head of the JFK Library in Boston and a former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, is very close to the Kennedy family. Before his tenure at the DNC, Kirk served on Kennedy's Senate staff. Yesterday I wrote that both of Kennedy's sons -- Edward Jr. and Rep. Patrick Kennedy of Rhode Island -- as well as his widow Vicki have been making phone calls urging Patrick to pick Kirk.

The Boston Globe's Viser & Phillips call Kirk the "overwhelming favorite."

But the Boston Herald's Van Sack & Chabot say that the choice of Kirk could raise "serious concerns":

[He] has deep ties to special interests, sitting on a board that oversees a health-insurance provider and having lobbied for the pharmaceutical industry, the Herald has learned.

"Obviously, this is a conflict of interest and raises serious concerns," Craig Holman of the non-partisan watchdog Public Citizen, said. ... "It is distressing. There were many qualified people."

Whoever Patrick selects will serve until the Jan. 19 special election. But the reason why Democrats have been so anxious to change the law and have an interim senator is clear: without Kennedy, Senate Dems have 59 votes -- one fewer than the filibuster-proof majority of 60 they would need to assure passage of health-care overhaul ... assuming that all Democrats (and the two independents) stick together, and assuming there's a bill to vote on. But that's another story.

Yesterday, the word was that the naming of former Massachusetts Gov. Michael Dukakis to temporarily fill the Senate seat of the late Edward Kennedy was just a formality.

No longer. The big news today is that Paul Kirk, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee and a longtime Kennedy family friend, seems to be topping the list.

Both houses of the state legislature (the House last week, the Senate yesterday) have passed legislation that gives Gov. Deval Patrick (D) the power to fill a Senate vacancy by appointment; the law previously called for a special election. There still will be a special election -- on Jan. 19 (primaries: Dec. 8) -- but whoever Patrick appoints will serve until then.

Kennedy's two sons, Rep. Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) and Edward Jr., are both reportedly lobbying Patrick to pick Kirk, who was on Kennedy's staff from 1969 to 1977; he currently heads up the JFK Library in Boston. Now, the Boston Herald's Hillary Chabot says that Kennedy's widow, Vicki Kennedy, is also urging the governor to name Kirk.

And as for Patrick's timetable? More Chabot:

Lt. Gov. Tim Murray said today Patrick is looking at many candidates and is ready to make an appointment "fairly soon."

Put A Sock In It. Curt Schilling, the beloved former Boston Red Sox pitcher who is less beloved in Massachusetts for his campaigning on behalf of President Bush and John McCain, says he will not run for the Senate in the special election. He made the announcement on "Joe Buck Live" on HBO:

Regardless of the amount of support and outreach that's been given to me, it just did not make sense.

The Massachusetts state Senate today followed the action taken last week by the state House. The overwhelmingly Democratic (35 out of 40 seats) Senate voted 24-16 to change state law and allow Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to name an interim appointee to replace the late Sen. Edward Kennedy. He or she would then serve until the special election on Jan. 19.

The bill first has to be re-voted on Wednesday in both chambers of the state legislature, a seemingly routine matter, and then Patrick will sign the bill, perhaps as soon as tomorrow.

And then comes the fun part, seeing whom he will select. See my earlier post today on possible appointees.

And make sure to hear the full report by NPR's Tovia Smith on All Things Considered.

Here is an update to my post this morning about Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV), who was taken to the hospital earlier today.

The following statement was just released by Byrd's office:

Senator Robert C. Byrd, D-W.Va., has been admitted to the hospital and is expected to remain there for a few days. Byrd was taken to the hospital this morning as a precautionary measure following a fall at his home which was likely caused by standing up too quickly. While having no broken bones or bruises, upon examination, doctors found an elevated white-blood cell count which can be an early sign of an infection. Therefore, his doctors have determined that Byrd should remain in the hospital for antibiotic treatment and observation. Senator Byrd is in good spirits and expressed his disappointment that he was unable to join all his Senate colleagues this afternoon for the biennial Senate photo.

POLITICO is reporting that ambulances and fire trucks were rushed to the Northern Virginia home of Sen. Robert Byrd. The 91-year old West Virginia Democrat has been missing from the Senate for much of the year because of illnesses. He is the longest serving senator in history, having first been elected in 1958.

A spokesman for the senator is quoted as saying:

Byrd apparently stood up too fast this morning in his home and fell down. To err on the side of caution his caregiver called an ambulance. He was taken to the hospital where he is currently being checked out. At this point in time there is no indication that he will be admitted.

NPR's David Welna points out that Byrd failed to deliver his annual Constitution Day floor speech last Thursday. He adds, "I think the last time he spoke on the floor was when he delivered a tearful eulogy to Ted Kennedy."

This post will be updated.

The Massachusetts state Senate is expected to begin debate at 11 a.m. ET today on a bill that would change state law ... and give Gov. Deval Patrick (D) the power to make an interim appointment to fill the vacancy in the U.S. Senate created by the Aug. 25 death of Edward Kennedy. That person would serve until the Jan. 19 special election.

Last week the state House voted 95-58 to approve the bill. The Senate vote is expected to be closer, even though Republicans are badly outnumbered in both chambers; there is some squeamishness in the Dem camp over charges of hypocrisy, given the fact that they took the power of Senate appointment away from the governor in 2004, when Sen. John Kerry (D) was running for president and a Republican governor, Mitt Romney, could have named a GOP successor. But that was then, and this is now.

Republicans have used parliamentary tactics to twice postpone the debate in the Senate, on Friday and again yesterday. They have indicated they will let allow debate today.

Assuming the Senate passes the measure, Patrick is expected to sign it tomorrow.

And he could name a Senate successor shortly after that. Names on the list are thought to include former Gov. Michael Dukakis, ex-DNC chair Paul Kirk (who is a former Kennedy aide), Harvard Law School professor Charle Ogletree, and ex-Lt. Gov. Evelyn Murphy. Massachusetts has never had a female senator.

The overwhelming Democratic majority in the Massachusetts House voted yesterday to change state law and allow Gov. Deval Patrick (D) to name an interim successor to the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The vote in the similarly Democratic state Senate has been postponed until next week. The rules say that a single senator can postpone debate until the next session, and that's what state Sen. Bruce Tarr (R) accomplished today. The Senate meets again on Monday; Republicans command just five of the 40 Senate seats.

Yesterday's House vote was 95-58. The Senate vote is expected to be closer, as some Democrats have expressed unease in changing the law -- a law they changed once before, in 2004, when Sen. John Kerry (D) was running for president, and Democratic lawmakers didn't want to give the then-Republican governor, Mitt Romney, the power to name a successor.

It is a day tailor-made for a political junkie.

First, at 10 a.m., it's Netflix for the Supreme Court. "Hillary: The Movie" is before the court (the first case involving new Justice Sonia Sotomayor), a case that focuses on the financial influence of corporations and labor unions on elections. Specifically, whether a conservative group, Citizens United, could air the anti-Clinton movie and distribute it during the primary season (when Hillary Clinton was running for president) without it being regulated as a campaign expenditure. The complaint is that by using corporate funds to make the movie, Citizens United butted heads with campaign finance laws. A classic case of money vs. free speech.

Then, at 1 p.m., there's a public hearing at the Massachusetts Statehouse regarding a proposed change in the law of Senate succession. Currently, the state must hold a special election between 145 and 160 days after a Senate vacancy -- a situation made more acute by the Aug. 25 death of Sen. Edward Kennedy. Gov. Deval Patrick (D) and many Democrats in the state legislature want the governor to have the power to name an interim appointment, to serve until the Jan. 19 special election ... if for no other reason than to make sure Democrats have the theoretical 60 votes needed to pass health care changes.

And finally, there's the address before a joint session of Congress tonight at 8 p.m. by President Obama, focusing on health care. With the White House losing control of the debate in August -- witness Obama's tumbling approval numbers -- the speech is another opportunity for the president to reassert his role in trying to overhaul the nation's health-care system. It's a challenging balancing act for Obama, who not only has to clear up the confusion over what "change" would mean while reassuring Americans that change is better than the status quo, but he has to soothe differences among his Democratic brethren, the progressive wing and the fiscally conservative Blue Dogs -- not to mention differences among House and Senate Democrats. (Plus, what if any sweeteners he should throw in to attract a Republican or three.)

Somehow, someway, we'll try to wrap it all up during today's Political Junkie segment on NPR's Talk of the Nation at 2 p.m.

According to a release from his office, Sen. Mel Martinez (R-FL) will resign his seat at the close of business on Wednesday, Sept. 9.

His successor, George LeMieux, is scheduled to be sworn in on Thursday, Sept. 10, at 2:45 P.M. ET.

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist (R), who is running for the Senate, appointed LeMieux to fill the remainder of Martinez's term on Aug. 28.

LeMieux becomes the fifth appointed senator since last November's elections. He joins Democrats Michael Bennet (CO), Ted Kaufman (DE), Roland Burris (IL) and Kirsten Gillibrand (NY). A sixth will be appointed by Texas Gov. Rick Perry (R) when Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison (R) resigns this fall to run for governor.

The trial balloon of Vicki Kennedy either being appointed to, or running for, the Senate seat of her late husband is not happening.

Earlier today we wrote about the possibility of Kennedy's widow serving in the Senate. ABC News' George Stephanopoulos says the scenario "isn't going anywhere":

A solid source assures me that Vicki Kennedy won't run in a special election to fill the Massachusetts Senate seat. She's not interested in an interim appointment if it becomes available.

The host of ABC's "This Week" also reports that a joint committee of the Massachusetts state legislature will hold its first hearing on the succession legislation September 9.

Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick (D) is planning an announcement at 3 p.m. ET today regarding the Senate seat left vacant last week following the death of Edward Kennedy.

Currently, state law calls for a special election to be held between 145 and 160 days following a Senate vacancy. Patrick supports a change in the law that would give him the power to appoint an interim successor.

The state legislature, which reconvenes after Labor Day, is expected to begin deliberations that would attempt to change the law.

More after 3 p.m.

Last week's death of Sen. Edward Kennedy seemed to spell the end of the so-called "Kennedy dynasty." With Ted's passing, we are faced with no Kennedy in the Senate or the White House for the first time since 1952. We are headed towards a new, uncertain future.

Maybe.

The Boston Herald is reporting that there is serious pressure being put on Vicki Kennedy, the senator's widow, to consider accepting appointment to the vacant Senate seat, and that she is "very much interested" in it.

Continue reading "Who Will Fill Kennedy's Shoes? How About Another Kennedy?" >

Florida Gov. Charlie Crist has chosen George Lemieux to replace resigning Sen. Mel Martinez.

The announcement came late this morning. Lemieux is Crist's former chief of staff.

According to Beth Reinhard and Marc Caputo of the St. Petersburg Times:

In choosing LeMieux, Crist signaled that personal loyalty and political instincts mattered more than any potential perception of cronyism.

What's more, the clean-cut, well-spoken, 40-year-old LeMieux could serve as an effective surrogate for Crist on the campaign trial. LeMieux was born and raised in Fort Lauderdale and served as chairman of the Broward Republican Party from 2000 to 2002.

The two men have been in lockstep since 2002, when Crist was elected Florida attorney general and made LeMieux his deputy. LeMieux went on to earn the nickname "the maestro'' for orchestrating Crist's successful gubernatorial campaign and served as his right-hand-man for one year. Even after he left the Capitol for the Gunster Yoakley & Stewart law firm, LeMieux remained one of Crist's most trusted confidantes.

In a sign of how fast LeMieux's star has risen, he beat out former U.S. Rep. Clay Shaw -- his former boss during a college internship -- for the Senate post. The other names on Crist's shortlist were former Secretary of State Jim Smith, former U.S. Attorney Roberto Martinez, former U.S. Reps. Mike Bilirakis and Lou Frey, state Rep. Jennifer Carroll, former state Sen. Dan Webster and University of North Florida President John Delaney.

Lemieux will serve only until January of 2011, when Martinez's term would have expired. Lemieux agreed to be the caretaker appointee while Crist is campaigning for the full six-year Senate term. He will face former state House Speaker Marco Rubio in next August's primary.

Democrats in the race include two sitting members of Congress, both African-American: Kendrick Meek and Corrine Brown. Meek is clearly in the contest to stay; I'm not sure the same can be said about Brown, who officially is just "exploring" the race.

The fact that a list of potential successors to Sen. Edward Kennedy surfaced within hours of his death is not as grotesque or insensitive as it sounds.

Yes, his body is still warm. But ever since he was diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in May of last year, the conversation about his future was never "if," only "when." An imminent Senate vacancy was always staring us in the face, and so discussions about who might replace him were never far from our minds.

Of course, nobody on the list of prospective candidates will comment on the record. Certainly not this soon. But before we get into naming names, an update on where state law stands.

Shortly before his death, Kennedy made clear that he wanted to change how senators are replaced in Massachusetts. Currently, a special election must be held between 145 and 160 days after a vacancy. Kennedy wanted the governor -- in this case, Democrat Deval Patrick -- to be able to name an interim appointee to serve until the special election, with a promise that he or she won't run for the seat.

Of course, until 2004, governors here could name a successor. But the Democratic state legislature changed it, fearful that if Sen. John Kerry (D), then running for president, won, the choice of succeeding him would then be left to Mitt Romney -- a governor who happened to be a Republican. So they decided to take the power of appointment away from the gov and throw it to a special election.

Gov. Patrick said today in an interview with member station WBUR that he supports the law being changed, though nothing can happen until after Labor Day, when the state legislature returns from its break.

So if or until that happens, we are looking at a January special election. Sitting members of Congress will not have to give up their seats to run, so the field could be huge. The last time the state had an open Senate seat was back in 1984, when Paul Tsongas (D) was retiring and John Kerry (D) won it.

Roll Call's Shira Toeplitz has assembled this list of potential Democratic candidates:

State Attorney General Martha Coakley -- the sole woman on the list and the only one who has run statewide, but one with less of a "financial advantage" that other candidates possess.

Former Rep. Marty Meehan -- now chancellor at the University of Mass. at Lowell, Meehan still has $4.86 million in his campaign account from when he was still in the House.

Former Rep. Joe Kennedy -- Bobby's son (Ted's nephew), who left the House in 1998 after serving six terms.

Four sitting members of Congress -- Richard Neal, Stephen Lynch, John Tierney and Mike Capuano.

Rep. Ed Markey, who had long been on the list of potential Senate candidates, is apparently "not interested in running" since he chairs a key Energy and Commerce subcommittee. We'll see. Rep. Barney Frank took himself out of consideration today.

There are some Republican names in the mix, but this seat is not going to be won by anyone in the GOP.

For the record, no Republican has succeeded a Democrat in the Senate from Massachusetts since 1946, when former Sen. Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. came back from World War II and unseated Democratic incumbent David Walsh.

Sen. Edward Kennedy, first elected in 1962, died late last night at the age of 77. He had been suffering from brain cancer, which was first diagnosed in May 2008.

Kennedy served longer in the Senate than anyone else other than Robert Byrd (D-WV) and Strom Thurmond (D/R-SC).

Here's a quick look at his political career, as told in campaign buttons.

FIRST ROW:

(1) Kennedy was too young to succeed his brother, President-elect John Kennedy, in the Senate after the 1960 election. So JFK had the lame-duck governor of Massachusetts, Foster Furcolo (D), appoint a Kennedy college pal, Benjamin Smith II, as a caretaker senator until 1962, when Ted was old enough to run. In '62 he easily defeated Ed McCormack, the nephew of House Speaker John McCormack, in the Democratic primary, and beat George Cabot Lodge, the son of former Sen. (and 1952 JFK opponent) Henry Cabot Lodge, in the general election.

(2) After Bobby's assassination, there was a move to draft Ted for president at the 1968 Democratic convention in Chicago. Kennedy turned down all entreaties.

(3) With Jack and now Bobby killed by assassins' bullets, much attention (and pressure) was placed on the third Kennedy brother.

SECOND ROW:

(1) Kennedy was clearly on the rise in the Senate, and in early 1969 he was elected Democratic majority whip, toppling Russell Long (D-LA). But the accident later that summer off Chappaquiddick Island -- where the car Kennedy was driving plunged off a bridge and the female passenger in his car, Mary Jo Kopechne, was left to drown as Kennedy swam to safety -- irreparably damaged his political standing. Kennedy said his actions at the time were "indefensible."

(2) Kennedy still remained popular at home. He ran for re-election a year after Chappaquiddick and won with 62 percent of the vote. But his standing in the Senate suffered; he was ousted as majority whip by Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) in 1971.

(3) Kennedy was still the presidential dream candidate of many Democrats. They wanted him to run in 1972 ...

(4) And 1976. But he kept saying no.

THIRD ROW:

(1) Kennedy finally did run, in 1980. Ironically, the one time he decided to run it was a challenge of a sitting president of his own party, Jimmy Carter. But his effort was hampered from the beginning. In a memorable 1979 interview with CBS' Roger Mudd, Kennedy had difficulty articulating why he was running. He was also at a disadvantage when Iranians took 53 Americans hostage in Tehran, and many Americans rallied behind Carter, who refused to debate Kennedy or overtly campaign during the crisis. But Kennedy gave a memorable concession speech at the Democratic convention that summer in New York City (the famous "dream shall never die" speech).

(2) His presidential aspirations finally put aside, Kennedy focused instead on being a great legislator. And he was. Plus, he was unbeatable at home: 61% in '82, 65% in '88, 58% (against Mitt Romney) in '94, 73% in 2000, and 69% in '06.

(3) Diagnosed with terminal brain cancer in 2008, he nonetheless brought delegates to their feet (and tears to their eyes) with a dramatic appearance at that year's Democratic convention in Denver. Delegates there nominated Sen. Barack Obama for president, the candidate Kennedy endorsed for the nomination early in the process in his battle against Hillary Clinton. It proved to be a most valuable endorsement.

Sen. Edward Kennedy's voice has been sadly missing in the debate on overhauling the nation's health-care system. The 77-year old Democrat, who is suffering from brain cancer, has missed nearly all of the Senate business this year.

But one instance where his voice has been heard -- his recent suggestion on how best to succeed him in the Senate (should it be necessary) -- is one that, frankly, smacks of politics as usual.

And not in a good way.

Continue reading "Kennedy Successor Plan: Politics At Its Worst" >

A follow to our earlier post about who is on Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's "short-list" to replace about-to-quit Sen. Mel Martinez.

The only incumbent member of Congress on the list, Rep. Bill Young, says he no longer wants to be considered for the job. And that's good news for the GOP, according to Roll Call's John McArdle:

The 20-term Congressman's decision is sure to come as a relief to Republicans as a move by Young could have set off a special election battle in the competitive St. Petersburg-based 10th district.

Continue reading "Florida Update: Rep. Bill Young Rules Out Taking Senate Seat" >

There may still be several Republicans who are not on Florida Gov. Charlie Crist's list for a possible caretaker replacement to succeed resigning Sen. Mel Martinez, but that list is slowly dwindling.

According to St. Petersburg Times' Adam Smith, the list of Sunshine State Republicans who are being considered has reached ten.

Martinez announced in December that he wouldn't seek a second term. But he threw a monkey wrench into the plans of Crist -- who wants to be senator -- by subsequently announcing he wants to resign, and soon. That means Crist has to name a successor who will fill the remainder of Martinez's term (Jan. 3, 2011).

Complicating the governor's task is that he is does not have a free ride to the GOP Senate nomination; former state House speaker Marco Rubio is also running, and he's far more conservative than Crist. And while Crist is the clear favorite for the nod -- he has far more money and endorsements and a better organization than Rubio -- he knows he will be judged on whom he names to fill the Senate seat.

Continue reading "Crist's 'Short List' Of Potential Martinez Successors Up To 10" >

The political news for Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) has not been good lately, with a former official at Countrywide Financial contradicting Dodd on a sweetheart mortgage deal the senator allegedly received and polls showing more and more people questioning Dodd's honesty and integrity.

Today, at 2 p.m. ET, Dodd is holding a news conference at his Hartford office to announce he has been diagnosed with prostate cancer and that he will undergo surgery during the August congressional break. And, according to the Hartford Courant, Dodd "said he feels fine and intends to run" for a sixth term next year.

More after 2 p.m.

Here are two things we have long assumed about Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison.

One, she will challenge Gov. Rick Perry in next year's Texas gubernatorial primary. Yes, I know, it should be more than just "assumed," but she made similar statements in 2006 and never followed through with it. But this time she appears serious.

And two, because of the challenge, she has been expected to resign from the Senate, perhaps later this fall.

Now the story gets confusing.

Continue reading "Sen. Kay Bailey Hutchison Clarifies Resignation Talk, Kinda Sorta" >

What was unusual about my trivia question in Wednesday's Political Junkie segment on NPR's Talk of the Nation was that nobody called in with the correct answer. And while we revealed it during the program, I thought it might be worth to repeat it here.

I thought of the question watching the American League's victory in Tuesday night's All Star Game. It was the 13th time in a row that the National League failed to win.

So with that in mind, my question was: Which states currently have a winning streak of at least 13 by one party in Senate races?

And here are the answers:

Continue reading "Senate Winning Streaks: Kansas GOP Leads With 28 Straight" >

It's official: Vice President Joe Biden has sworn in Al Franken as Minnesota's junior senator.

There are 100 senators: 60 Democrats, 40 Republicans.

For some Republicans with a vested interest in what happened in the ongoing Minnesota Senate race, a rejection by the state Supreme Court was not necessarily going to be the last word. Texas Sen. John Cornyn, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee, was reportedly behind a move to get Norm Coleman -- who had already been rebuffed by a special three-judge panel of state justices -- to take his case to the federal courts in the event the state Supreme Court turned him down. Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele also endorsed that strategy.

But all that changed today. The court, in a unanimous decision, rejected Coleman's argument that previously rejected absentee ballots should be counted. The justices said Al Franken (D) won the election, and that the 238-day saga needed to come to an end.

Coleman agreed, conceding the election and congratulating Franken.

Continue reading "It's Over. It Really Is Over. Republicans Even Agree." >

Norm Coleman (R) has conceded the Minnesota Senate race.

Al Franken (D) wins.

It's over.

I've been wrong before, starting with predicting Coleman over Franken back in November -- an election that took place 238 days ago.

But I say Norm Coleman concedes the election to Al Franken at his 3 p.m. Central/4 p.m. Eastern news conference.

Anyone think otherwise?

Early reactions to the Minnesota Supreme Court's unanimous decision that Al Franken should be the next U.S. senator show that Democrats who live on Twitter are thrilled, many Minnesotans appear relieved, and the White House, according to press secretary Roberts Gibbs, is "pleased."

But no word yet from Norm Coleman (R), who has been thwarted once again by another legal ruling. Late word says he will have a statement at 3 p.m. Central time (4 p.m. Eastern).

Continue reading "Reax To Minnesota Court: WH 'Pleased,' Coleman Talks At 4 ET" >

Love him or hate him, Al Franken will be the next senator from Minnesota.

The Minnesota Supreme Court has ruled that Al Franken, the Democrat, is the rightful winner of the protracted Senate race that was held last November.

The court, in a 5-0 ruling, rejected the case made by Norm Coleman, the Republican and former incumbent, that thousands of rejected absentee votes should be counted.

By rejecting the appeal, the court says that Franken's 312-vote lead holds and he should be certified as the winner -- giving the Democrats a 60th vote in the chamber. Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, has said in the past that if the court directed him to do so, he would certify Franken.

The office of Sen. Robert Byrd (D-WV) says the 91-year-old Democrat, the longest-serving senator in history, has been released from the hospital after a prolonged stay because of a staph infection.

The statement from Byrd's office says he

is resting comfortably at home, where he will continue his recuperation and physical therapy following a bout with a staph infection, which he contracted during his stay in the hospital for a minor infection.

"I am pleased to be home in anticipation of celebrating our Nation's birthday with my loving family. I also thank everyone who sent me their good wishes and prayers."

Thursday is the day when the Minnesota state Supreme Court usually releases its decisions. Well, its rulings came and went this morning, and there's nothing to report regarding the still unresolved Senate race between Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D).

Franken, as you all know, leads Coleman, the former incumbent, by 312 votes. A three-judge panel has turned down Coleman's challenges, and the Republican took his case to the entire state court.

A rumor last week that a decision was imminent got everyone -- including most of us at Political Junkie -- quite excited. But alas, nothing came of it.

Doesn't look like it will happen this week either.

Elizabeth Stawicki, a reporter for Minnesota Public Radio who follows this closer than anyone, says that the court usually lets the attorneys on both sides know in advance when a decision is coming, and had that been the case this week, "the campaigns would have been going nuts on this. I suspect that if a decision was about to come down, it would have already been leaked by at least one of the campaigns."

We all got a jolt this morning over the widespread speculation that the Minnesota Supreme Court was going to announce a decision regarding the still-inconclusive Senate race between Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D).

It may have been premature. Or not. Here's a very good read from The Plum Line, a blog by Greg Sargent:

The rumor out of Minnesota is that the Supreme Court is going to hand down a decision on the Norm Coleman-Al Franken mess today, which would be a huge deal.

But I just spoke with a spokesperson for the Minnesota Supreme Court, and she told me that no notification has gone out to either side that a decision is coming. That makes it less likely, though not impossible, that the court is ruling today.

The basis for the rumor is a local blog posting that claimed that a decision was coming today, according to "two sources on different sides of the Minnesota U.S. Senate race recount scene."

According to Minnesota Supreme Court spokesperson Lissa Finne, there are two ways the court indicates a decision. Either it notifies counsel on both sides early in the week that a decision is coming on Thursday, or, in time sensitive cases, notification goes out right before a decision is released.

Finne tells me that no notification has gone out from the court to counsel on either side, which makes it unclear how it is that the blog's sources would have heard this. "I don't know where they got that from," Finne says.

That said, it's still possible that the court will issue sudden notification that a ruling is coming. But if this is going to happen, there's no way anyone would know about it. At any rate, stay tuned.

A decision today?

 

Politics in Minnesota, the excellent political Web site covering the Gopher State, has now "heard from two sources" that the Minnesota Supreme Court may announce its decision TODAY on the stalemated Norm Coleman-Al Franken Senate race. PIM says an announcement today is "likely to happen."

The timing is less than certain. PIM says the ruling could arrive any time between 8 a.m. and 4:30 p.m. Central.

The state court is hearing an appeal by Coleman, the one-time Republican incumbent whose argument that absentee ballots that could have given him a second term were wrongly rejected was turned down by a three-judge panel. The way things stand now, Coleman trails Democrat Franken by 312 votes. The expectation from the beginning was that the full court would verify the panel's decision.

What happens next is anyone's guess. Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) has said that if the court rules he should certify Franken as the winner, he will do so. Some Republicans, like RNC chair Michael Steele, have suggested that Coleman, in the event of an unfavorable ruling, should fight the decision in the federal courts. My gut is telling me that if the court rules against Coleman, he may very well take a day or two and then concede the election.

More to come.

I have long expressed my ambivalence about reporting on the private behavior of elected officials, whether it's sexual preference or sexual dalliances. There is a public life and there is a private, personal life, and I think there is a line that should be respected. And I don't deal in rumors, which have somehow permeated the mainstream media in ways I find deeply troubling.

For the same reason, I'm strongly opposed to "outing," the seemingly vigilante practice of exposing who is gay -- especially those officials who are accused of hypocrisy: being gay while voting against issues important to the gay community.

At the same time, there comes a moment when something happens and the issue can no longer be ignored.

Continue reading "The Ensign Affair -- Morality, Privacy & The Media " >

Sen. Robert Byrd, the 91-year-old West Virginia Democrat who has been a senator longer than anyone in history, has been hospitalized the past month for an infection. His office has not returned calls asking for specifics about his health.

But Democrats back home are discussing what-ifs.

Continue reading "With Byrd Still In Hospital, W.Va. Dems Talk About Succession " >

Every now and then we hear stories that need to be repeated. We just love the tale told by Time reporter Karen Tumulty that appears in the magazine's Swampland blog.

The Washington bureau of Time magazine is moving to a new locale, and Karen is trying to decide what to keep and what to toss. Her notes from the '96 Bob Dole campaign? A Lyndon LaRouche pamphlet?

But there are some artifacts that you come to realize are real treasures. Like my favorite press release of all time. It is dated July 19, 1994, and was issued by then-Senator Howell Heflin's office. That morning, the Senator had been dining in the Capitol with some Alabama reporters, and suddenly felt a sniffle coming on. The reporters were aghast when the Senator reached into his pocket, pulled out a bit of fabric and began to wipe his nose with ... a pair of ladies underwear. Hence the following:

STATEMENT OF SEN. HOWELL HEFLIN
HANDKERCHIEF
JULY 19, 1994

I mistakenly picked up a pair of my wife's white panties and put them in my pocket while I was rushing out the door to go to work.

Rather than take a chance on being embarrassed again, I'm going to start buying colored handkerchiefs.

Yep, that's one press release that I'm hanging on to.

A blogger on the Gawker Web site rakes Sen. Charles Grassley (R-IA) over the coals this morning for a recent tweet on Twitter.

The Cajun Boy, the blogger's nom de plume, writes that Grassley made a "Herculean ass of himself by ragin incoherently on Twitter": "Seriously, it looks as though these rants were composed by a third grader:"

There's no reason to insult Grassley or third-graders here, so we'll let you see one of the senator's tweets yourself. I type, you decide:

Pres Obama you got nerve while u sightseeing in Paris to tell us 'time to deliver' on health care. We still on skedul/even workinWKEND.

It may be a while before we truly grasp the meaning of Sen. Arlen Specter's switch to the Democratic Party.

In the meantime, we thought it might be the right moment to quickly review his electoral career.

The early, pre-Senate years.

 

Continue reading "Recapping Arlen Specter's Political Career" >

While we try to catch our breath over Arlen Specter's stunning switch to the Democratic Party, here's a list of the other Senate party switchers in the past 50 years:

Continue reading "Senate Party Switchers Of The Past Half-Century" >

Arlen Specter's departure from the GOP gives Pennsylvania two Democratic senators for the first time since 1946.

The news makes sense but was shocking all the same.

Sen. Arlen Specter, a liberal Republican from Pennsylvania facing a conservative primary challenge in 2010 that many think he will lose, today announced in a statement he is switching to the Democratic Party.

Sen. Arlen Specter, D-PA, sits on the Democratic side of the aisle during a subcommittee meeting on Tuesday, April 28, 2009 in Washington. AP Photo/Evan Vucci

 

Continue reading "PA Sen. Arlen Specter (R) Switches To Democratic Party" >

A new poll conducted by the Minneapolis Star Tribune shows that 64 percent of those responding say Norm Coleman should concede the Senate race he waged with Democrat Al Franken, who has been declared the winner by a three-judge panel.

Coleman, the one-term Republican senator whose term officially ended on Jan. 3, trails Franken by 312 votes. Following the panel's ruling, Coleman appealed to the state Supreme Court. The poll shows only 28 percent calling the appeal "appropriate."

Should Coleman win his appeal? Fifty-seven percent say Franken should then concede. And if the full court turns Coleman down? Seventy-three percent say he should give up.

The delay in Minnesota having two senators continues.

The state Supreme Court announced today that it will not take up the appeal of former Sen. Norm Coleman (R) until June 1. Coleman went to the court following the ruling of a three-judge panel that Democrat Al Franken was the winner of their hotly contested 2008 Senate race by a 312-vote margin.

Continue reading "Minn. Supreme Court Won't Take Senate Case Until June" >

On Friday, we put together a list of the five Senate seats that are most likely to be won by the opposite party in 2010.

We already have a list of those senators who aren't running to keep their seats next year: Ted Kaufman (D-DE), Mel Martinez (R-FL), Sam Brownback (R-KS), Kit Bond (R-MO), Judd Gregg (R-NH) and George Voinovich (R-OH).

And now people in Oklahoma are wondering whether Tom Coburn will join that latter list.

Continue reading "He's Raising Little Money; Will Sen. Tom Coburn Run Again?" >

It's a bit early to be predicting winners and losers for the 2010 elections -- remember how right on we were in casting Hillary Clinton as the Democratic "frontrunner" well in advance? But with lots of polls already out and fundraising figures being monitored daily, we thought it would be a good time to post our inaugural list of the top five Senate seats that are most vulnerable to switching parties in 2010.

And they are, in order:

Continue reading "Top 5 Vulnerable Senate Seats" >

The three-judge panel that has been looking into the still-unresolved Minnesota Senate race ruled unanimously on Monday that Al Franken, the Democrat, has won more votes than Norm Coleman, the Republican and former occupant of the seat.

This was not entirely unexpected. Last week, after the judges allowed some 351 previously rejected absentee ballots to be counted -- far less than the Coleman camp's request of more than 1,000 -- Franken's lead of 225 votes increased to 312. That's where the margin stands now, and that's what led the panel to declare Franken with the most votes. (Click here for our last report on the race.)

There was no official response from the Coleman camp today, but Benjamin Ginsberg, his attorney, has said for a while now that with so many voters being "disenfranchised," they are likely to appeal to the state Supreme Court. They have 10 days to file their appeal.

Tuesday marks 23 weeks since the election.

The hope all along for Norm Coleman in the still-unresolved Minnesota Senate race was that he would get enough of the votes counted today by that three-judge panel to erase Al Franken's 225-vote lead.

Not only did that not happen, but Franken's lead is now up to 312.

Continue reading "Minn. Count Increases Franken Lead Over Coleman To 312" >

Sometimes you can't even make this stuff up.

And actually, I thought I had.

Yesterday, in what I clearly labeled as an April Fool's joke, I wrote that the Department of Justice,

in the wake of its humiliating decision to drop the corruption conviction of former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), has agreed to throw out the results of the 2008 Senate race, in which Stevens was narrowly defeated by Democrat Mark Begich. ...

The decision to throw out the election results puts Alaska in the uncomfortable position of having only one senator -- a situation endured by Minnesota in the wake of its still-unresolved battle between Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D). And it has outraged Democrats. ...

Begich is said to be "livid" about the decision but has yet to formally comment. Stevens' campaign manager said the ex-senator feels "vindicated," but there is no indication that he would consider running in a special election.

OK, yuk, yuk. Some fell for it, some knew it was bogus from the start. Anyway, just one of many pranks during the day.

Well, here's something that apparently is not a prank.

Continue reading "Alaska GOP Wants New Senate Election (This Time I'm Serious)" >

A drizzly, dreary day in Washington. Perfect time to freshen things up with some readers' e-mails.

Lynda Rothschild of Gaithersburg, Md., asks a question that we're all asking:

Please settle a bet for me. Who won the Minnesota Senate race: Al Franken or Norm Coleman? I say it was Franken.

I say you can't collect your money just yet. But the odds are looking good that ultimately it will be Franken.

Continue reading "We May Not Be Close To Resolving The Minnesota Senate Race" >

The Justice Department, in the wake of its humiliating decision to drop the corruption conviction of former Sen. Ted Stevens (R-AK), has agreed to throw out the results of the 2008 Senate race, in which Stevens was narrowly defeated by Democrat Mark Begich.

Stevens, the longest-serving Republican senator in history, was thought to be favored to win re-election last year against Begich, the mayor of Anchorage, until the 85-year-old Stevens was indicted for lying on Senate financial disclosure forms about renovations done to his home by a contractor friend. He was later convicted of seven felony counts.

But the decision to throw out the election results puts Alaska in the uncomfortable position of having only one senator -- a situation endured by Minnesota in the wake of its still-unresolved battle between Norm Coleman (R) and Al Franken (D). And it has outraged Democrats.

Democrats charged that the Justice Department had no right to invalidate the results of an election just because it botched the corruption case. Begich is said to be "livid" about the decision but has yet to formally comment. Stevens' campaign manager said the ex-senator feels "vindicated," but there is no indication that he would consider running in a special election.

The opening may give rise to a Senate candidacy by Gov. Sarah Palin (R), who has been besieged by budget problems at home and who has been rumored to be eyeing Washington in preparation for a 2012 White House bid. Another possibility is her lieutenant governor, Sean Parnell.

And yes, in response to several inquiries, this is written totally with April 1 in mind.

A result by next week?

 

Here's the latest on the still-unresolved Minnesota Senate race between Norm Coleman (R), who sought a second term last November, and Al Franken (D), who currently leads by 225 votes:

The three-judge panel that has been hearing the case has just ruled that up to 400 previously rejected absentee ballots should be opened and counted -- a much smaller number than the Coleman camp had been asking for.

The 400 or so ballots may also include those that favor Franken.

The ballots will delivered to the secretary of state's office next Monday, April 6, and opened and counted the following day.

A question about the disputed Minnesota Senate race from Pamela Matthews of Albuquerque, N.M.:

Sen. Al Franken -- where is he now? I'm astonished that more isn't being said about the injustice of having his election win hijacked by a sore loser. Things are fairly backward here in New Mexico, but after four months, most losers here admit defeat and move on.

I still think, when all is said and done, that Al Franken will be the next senator from Minnesota. But it hasn't happened yet, and there's no telling when it will happen.

First of all, he is not "Sen." Franken. The Minnesota Supreme Court today rejected his petition to be certified the winner. Franken sued both Gov. Tim Pawlenty, a Republican, and Secretary of State Mark Ritchie, a Democrat, to sign an election certificate but they refused, citing the legal process, and the court agreed.

Continue reading "Court Refuses To Seat Franken In Minn.; Voters Split On Do-Over" >

It once seemed like Jim Bunning could get anyone out. Now, Republicans may be trying to force him out.

It would be fair to say that, no matter how you look at it, Sen. Jim Bunning has not had a good couple of weeks.

The Kentucky Republican, who is 77 and whose term expires next year, seems to be making the wrong kind of headlines with whatever he says or does, a la Alex Rodriguez. Bunning, a former baseball player himself -- he's a Hall of Fame pitcher to be more precise -- has been batted around lately for an assortment of reasons, almost all of them self-inflicted:

Continue reading "Is The GOP Looking For a New Pitcher To Relieve Bunning? " >

This just in: Following a closed-door meeting with his fellow Illinois Democrat, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin told Roland Burris that if he were in his position, he would consider resigning. According to Durbin, he was rebuffed.

Burris has been in hot water since admitting he met with representatives of then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich and in fact attempted to raise money for him, as per the governor's request. This while Burris made it clear to the governor's people he wanted to be considered for the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama. Burris' belated admission came after assuring Durbin and other Democrats that his conversations with people associated with Blagojevich -- who was removed from office on Jan. 29 -- were far more limited than he later let on.

Unlike Burris, who has not been heard from since the meeting, Durbin came out late this afternoon and spoke to reporters, who were camped outside the meeting room on Capitol Hill. He talked about how disappointed he was when he learned about Burris' conversation with Blagojevich's brother about raising funds for the gov and his less-than-frank initial declaration about whom he spoke with.

If Durbin told Burris flat out that he should resign, I didn't hear it. Durbin did say, "If I were in his shoes, I would consider resigning." Which, politically, is just as damning.

Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn (D), two Democratic members of the Illinois congressional delegation and the editorial page of the Chicago Tribune, among others, have called on Burris to resign.

At a press conference, Illinois Gov. Pat Quinn calls for the resignation of Senator Roland Burris.Scott Olson/Getty Images

 

Add Pat Quinn to the list.

The Illinois governor is the latest to call for Sen. Roland Burris, his fellow Democrat, to resign. The growing chant comes in the wake of Burris' admission that he was in contact with emissaries of then-Gov. Rod Blagojevich about the Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama, an appointment that Burris wanted. Burris also conceded that he was asked to raise money for Blagojevich and that he tried, though coming up empty-handed.

Blagojevich, arrested on corruption charges Dec. 9, appointed Burris to the seat on Dec. 30. The governor was impeached by the Illinois state House on Jan. 9 and convicted and removed from office by the state Senate 20 days later.

Quinn, who became governor upon Blagojevich's conviction, said today that Burris should resign "as quickly as possible for the best interest of Illinois. This should not be a matter that takes weeks." Quinn also asked state lawmakers to give him the power to appoint a temporary successor until a special election could be held, probably within 115 days. The temporary successor would be a placeholder only and not run for the seat.

Quinn's call follows that of the editorial board of the Chicago Tribune and two Democratic members of Congress from Illinois, Jan Schakowsky and Phil Hare.

Behind the scenes, Senate Majority Whip Dick Durbin is thought to be putting as much pressure on his fellow Illinois senator as possible. Durbin is also thought be backing state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias for the job.

Burris first ran for senator in 1984. His slogan back then does have some irony today.

Roland Burris, in the Senate all of 35 days (as of this writing), is under pressure to resign (see yesterday's post on the subject). And that has led to a bunch of questions from The Reader. Jerry Stephens of Oklahoma City sends in this one:

Would you comment on the brevity of some U.S. senatorial careers? It seems Sen. Burris may be on the way out. That would be, what, about five or six weeks. Would that be the shortest senatorial tenure in our political history?

Similarly, this question from Carl Malmstrom of Chicago:

With the possible demise of my state's junior senator after less than five weeks in office, I find myself wondering: What is the record for shortest-serving senator in U.S. history? By this, I ask what senator served the least amount of time after being sworn in? In other words, I'm not counting those, like Mel Carnahan, who won their elections posthumously. I also don't care whether he or she was elected or appointed and whether or not he or she ever cast a vote, just the shortest turnaround from (initial) swearing-in to leaving or being removed from office. My father is tremendously curious to know the answer to this as well.

As for Jerry's question, there have been many brief Senate careers in recent years. They arrived mostly by appointment following a vacancy, and for the most part did not run again when their term was up. Here's a list of some whose tenure was less than a year:

-- Nicholas Brady (R-NJ). Brady was appointed in April of 1982 following the resignation of Sen. Harrison Williams, a Democrat who was convicted in the Abscam affair. Brady served 8 1/2 months but didn't run for the job when his term expired later that year. In 1988 he was named Treasury secretary by President Reagan.

-- Sheila Frahm (R-KS). Frahm was appointed to fill the seat of Bob Dole, who decided it would help his presidential campaign to resign from the Senate. Frahm, appointed in June 1996, was defeated two months later in the GOP primary by Rep. Sam Brownback. Her term lasted 5 1/2 months.

-- Bob Krueger (D-TX). Krueger, a former Texas representative, was named to succeed Lloyd Bentsen, who became President Clinton's Treasury secretary. Krueger was defeated in the special 1993 election by Republican Kay Bailey Hutchison. His term lasted less than five months.

-- Elaine Edwards (D-LA). Edwards was appointed by her husband, Gov. Edwin Edwards, following the 1972 death of Sen. Allen Ellender (D). Serving 3 1/2 months, she never ran for office.

-- Jocelyn Burdick (D-ND). Burdick was appointed to replace her husband, Sen. Quentin Burdick, who died in 1992. She served less than three months and never ran for office.

-- Dean Barkley (I-MN). Barkley, a longtime member of Minnesota's Reform Party, was appointed by Gov. Jesse Ventura (I) following the death of Sen. Paul Wellstone (D) shortly before the 2002 elections. Barkley served 59 days. He was the answer to yesterday's trivia question on the Political Junkie segment on NPR's Talk of the Nation.

Carl's question is interesting. The Senate Historical Office, when queried about the shortest Senate tenure in history, lists Rebecca Felton of Georgia, who was appointed in October of 1922 following the death of Sen. Tom Watson. Felton, 87, was the oldest person ever appointed to the Senate, the first woman, and -- according to the Senate office -- served in the Senate for just one day. That is, President Warren Harding called the Senate into a special session in November. Felton gave a brief speech on Nov. 21, 1922 -- predicting, interestingly, that many more women would eventually come to the Senate -- and then gave up her seat to Walter George (D), who had been elected to the seat earlier in the month.

But while Felton only served in the Senate for a day, she was actually in office from Oct. 3 until Nov. 21-- seven weeks. Not the shortest tenure.

And that title might go to New Hampshire's Louis Wyman. As Alan Fox of East Lansing, Mich., reminds us, Wyman was the GOP candidate in the 1974 Senate race in New Hampshire for the seat being vacated by Republican Norris Cotton. That race, as many junkies might remember, was for the longest time too close to call. Cotton resigned the seat a few days early, on Dec. 31. Gov. Mel Thomson (R) then appointed Wyman to complete the term -- all two days of it (Jan. 1 and 2).

Eventually, the Senate threw up its hands on trying to decide who won between Wyman and Democrat John Durkin. They declared the seat vacant and called for a special election, for September 1975, which Durkin won.

As bad as the circus surrounding Rod Blagojevich got -- and, let's face it, it got pretty bad -- one thing was widely heard throughout all of it: At least Roland Burris is an honest guy.

Once Blagojevich, then the governor of Illinois, was arrested Dec. 9 on corruption charges -- one of them alleging that he wanted to sell a vacant Senate seat to the highest bidder -- Democratic leaders in Washington said that even if the governor were brazen enough to still go ahead and name someone to fill Barack Obama's seat, they still wouldn't accept the appointment.

Blagojevich went ahead anyway, naming Burris on Dec. 30. Senate Democrats -- led by Majority Leader Harry Reid and Whip Dick Durbin (and backed by the president-elect) -- tried to prevent it, coming up with what they claimed was a constitutional barrier. That went nowhere. Ultimately, they threw up their hands, said OK, Roland, you win. But first, you must testify at Blagojevich's impeachment trial in Springfield. Tell them all about your contacts with the governor or representatives of the governor.

On Jan. 5, Burris sent a sworn affidavit to the impeachment committee that "there was not any contact" between himself and anyone associated with the governor. Three days later, appearing before the committee in person, his story changed a bit. In answer to a question, Burris acknowledged that he'd had a conversation with a former chief of staff to the governor and his interest in the Senate seat did come up.

On Jan. 15, Burris was sworn in as a senator. Exactly two weeks later, the impeached Blagojevich was convicted by the state Senate and removed from office.

Fast forward to earlier this month. Burris sent a "supplemental affidavit" to the impeachment committee, saying that he spoke to many Blagojevich allies about the Senate seat, including Robert Blagojevich, the governor's brother and chief fundraiser. The brother even asked Burris if he could do some fundraising for the governor, but Burris said he couldn't.

As if that weren't damning enough, now we learn this week that Burris actually attempted to raise money for Blago. While he was hoping to be appointed to the Senate! He didn't raise any money. But still ...

Why Burris decided this week to reveal that bit of information is part of the mystery. Many feel that he must have figured that Robert Blagojevich's phone calls were probably monitored by the feds, though he denies this. No matter. The Senate Ethics Committee in Washington has opened a preliminary inquiry (which is perfunctory), and Sangamon County State's Attorney John Schmidt (with jurisdiction in Springfield) has begun a perjury investigation of his own.

Today the Chicago Tribune editorially called on Burris to resign:

The benefit of the doubt had already been stretched thin and taut by the time Roland Burris offered his third version of the events leading to his appointment to the U.S. Senate. It finally snapped like a rubber band, popping him on that long Pinocchio nose of his, when he came out with version four. ... The story gets worse with every telling.

Enough. Roland Burris must resign.

The Washington Post had a similar editorial today.

Not leaving. In a long-scheduled speech today at the Chicago City Club, Burris said everyone should "stop the rush to judgment." He took no questions. (My favorite Burris line from his speech: "A new wind is blowing across Washington." He clearly missed the irony.)

D.C. Dems. They're in wait-and-see mode, but neither Reid nor Durbin (who is in Greece) hid his disappointment. It's as if they knew from the beginning that anyone who was in any way connected to Blagojevich was tainted.

Opponents. Right now the one Democrat who looks most likely to jump into the 2010 race is state Treasurer Alexi Giannoulias, who interestingly is in Greece this week with Durbin. Two members of Congress, Reps. Jan Schakowsky and Danny Davis, clearly want to be senator, but would they take Burris on in the primary? Also mentioned is state Attorney General Lisa Madigan, but the feeling all along is that she wants to be governor. (And who knows if Pat Quinn, the Democrat who succeeded Blagojevich as governor, will run for the job ... though the guess is that he will.)

And what about Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr.? His name once headed the list of those likely to succeed Obama in the Senate. But now his name may be more sullied than anyone else's in the wake of the Blagojevich seat-selling scandal (other than Burris', that is).

Waiting in the wings is likely to be Rep. Mark Kirk, a moderate Republican from Chicago's north suburbs. Given the farcical nature of Democratic politics in Illinois these past 10 weeks, Kirk could win the seat in November.

Primary colors. Adding to the mystery is the uncertainty over when the 2010 primary will take place. Held on the third Tuesday in March as long as I can remember, lawmakers moved it up to early February in 2007 in an effort to give Barack Obama a boost in his presidential bid. It is currently scheduled for Feb. 2, 2010. But now Gov. Quinn is hinting that he may want to move it back to September. He says the campaign season is too long with an early primary. Others say the reason he wants to move the date is to give him more of an opportunity to win over doubters in his own party that he's up for the job of governor.

Once upon a time, Durbin was among those who called for a special election to fill the Senate seat. Other Democrats, both in Washington and Springfield, fearing they could lose the seat that way, quickly shot it down. Is this any better?

Connecticut has been represented in the Senate by Chris Dodd, a Democrat, and Joe Lieberman, a Democrat turned independent, since 1989. Only three states have gone longer without Senate turnover: West Virginia (Byrd & Rockefeller), Massachusetts (Kennedy & Kerry) and Iowa (Grassley & Harkin), all with no Senate change since 1985.

But the Nutmeg State has not seemed especially enthralled with its senators as of late.

Lieberman's travails, of course, are well-known. The Democratic nominee for vice president in 2000, his support for the war in Iraq as well as for other parts of the Bush administration agenda have cost him dearly. He was defeated for renomination in the 2006 primary by an anti-war Democrat who ran against the senator's war/Bush positions. Lieberman promptly became an independent and won re-election in the fall in a three-way contest, mostly with Republican support.

His endorsement of John McCain last year -- and his pointed criticism of Barack Obama -- have helped sink his numbers back home even more. His term is not up until 2012, and while that is a long time from now, few people think he is going to run again.

But the standing of Dodd, who is up in 2010 -- not a long time from now -- is suddenly becoming more perilous. Back in June, allegations surfaced that Dodd, chairman of the Senate Banking Committee, got a sweetheart mortgage deal from Countrywide Financial; Dodd and Countrywide CEO Angelo Mozilo were pals. Dodd said he didn't think his role in regulating the financial industry had anything to do with getting favorable treatment. Aside from a few dogged reporters and publications, the story never took off.

Now, with the housing market in tatters, the story is getting new legs. Earlier this week, Dodd said he would refinance his loans with another lender, but he didn't answer questions that have been nagging since June. (A New York Times editorial called his answers a "less than satisfactory account.") A new Quinnipiac University poll now shows Dodd with a net negative approval rating (41 percent approve, 48 disapprove). Last summer, it was 51/34. By 54-24 percent, Connecticut responders said they weren't satisfied with his answers about the loans; 51 percent said they would "definitely" or "probably" not vote for him next year.

But that's against a generic opponent. Come election time, parties usually come up with real people to run for office. And the GOP bench in Connecticut is not thought to be especially deep. The current guess is that Rob Simmons, the former Republican congressman who was unseated in 2006, will be the GOP nominee. Dodd has not had an especially close race since he succeeded Abe Ribicoff in the Senate in 1980. And aside from Dodd's father, Thomas Dodd, who lost his bid for a third term in 1970 when he ran as an independent, no Democratic senator from Connecticut has been beaten since 1952.

At least with Dodd, Democrats still love him. That's not the case with Lieberman.

You missed a great NPR political chat that began at noon ET today about President Obama's evolving relationship with Congress. Congressional Correspondent Andrea Seabrook and I took your questions, hosted by NPR's David Gura. We are planning on having a Political Junkie web chat every Tuesday at noon. Hope you can join us next week!

You can re-live the glorious moments of today's chat below.

Some updates on key Senate races:

FLORIDA

Crist ran for Senate once before and got creamed. Will he try again?

The story thus far in the race to succeed retiring Republican Mel Martinez is mostly about those who aren't running. On the GOP side, last month's decision by former Gov. Jeb Bush to take his name out of the mix was not really a surprise, even though his brother (Mr. 43) and father (Mr. 41) were already talking about him being in the Senate as a fait accompli. Despite Jeb's popularity, Bush Fatigue is real. And there was never any indication that he really wanted to serve in the Senate.

Last week, state Attorney General Bill McCollum, who twice sought a Senate seat -- he lost the 2000 general election to Democrat Bill Nelson and the 2004 GOP primary to Martinez -- said he wouldn't run. Unlike the Bush decision, McCollum's was a surprise, as was the one by Alex Sink, the state's chief financial officer. Sink was the first Democratic name to be mentioned when Martinez announced his retirement in December, but she says she will forgo the Senate race to seek re-election to her current post. Another potential candidate, Rep. Allen Boyd (D), from the Panhandle, also considered the race but ultimately said no.

There's no shortage of Democrats interested in the seat. Rep. Kendrick Meek, from Miami, is already in, as is state Sen. Dan Gelber from Miami Beach. Rep. Ron Klein, an excellent fundraiser who hails from Palm Beach, is also interested.

Jeb Bush had frozen the GOP field while he was considering the race. Now it's Charlie Crist's turn. The popular governor said he would sit down with his new wife and discuss it after the legislative session, which ends in May. Crist, like Bush, could probably have the nomination if he wants it. Many, however, expect him to seek re-election next year. Way back in 1998, Crist was the GOP Senate nominee against Democratic incumbent Bob Graham and got clobbered by nearly a million votes. But that was a long time ago.

And if Crist doesn't run? There are two former state House speakers, Marco Rubio and Allan Bense, who are ready to roll. Add two members of Congress as well: Connie Mack IV, whose father was a two-term senator, and Vern Buchanan. Both are from southwest Florida.

The latest news has former Sen. Bob Smith (R) thinking about running. That's former Sen. Bob Smith of New Hampshire. Smith, who moved to the Sunshine State to sell real estate since losing his seat to Sununu in the 2002 primary, has sent out an e-mail trying to gauge his support.

MINNESOTA

For those of you with long, long memories, you might remember that back in 2008, in November I think, Minnesota voters went to the polls to decide if Sen. Norm Coleman (R) should get a second term. It's 93 days later and we still don't have an answer. But we do know some stuff.

NOTE: The following information was updated Thursday afternoon with guidance from Rachel Stassen-Berger, political reporter for the St. Paul Pioneer Press, who -- as her reporting shows -- understands this story better than anyone else on the planet.

After a hand recount of 2.9 million voters, Al Franken, the Democratic challenger, has a lead of 225 votes. For the longest time, the assumption (here at least) was that it's just a matter of time before Franken is sworn in. But not so fast. On Tuesday, a panel of three district judges appointed by the state Supreme Court agreed to let Coleman bring evidence regarding no more than 4,797 absentee ballots that the Republican argues were improperly rejected. Coleman, in fact, actually wanted the judges to review about 11,000 votes. The Franken camp originally had its own list of 771 rejected ballots; they have since asked for permission to expand that list to some as of yet unknown number.

But there are a lot of "buts" here. Just because they are being looked at does not necessarily mean Coleman will prevail. In fact, there's no telling how many of the ballots the judicial panel will agree to review or how many will be reinstated, and it's quite possible that Franken could get a healthy portion of them. There's also the question of how Coleman will physically get those actual ballots to present them as evidence to the judges.

I think it's also fair to assume that if after this process Coleman moves into the lead, Franken will come up with his own list of ballots he wants reviewed.

We may not know who won the election until March. At the earliest. Sorry, Rachel.

MISSOURI

Democrats got exactly the candidate they want to fill the seat being vacated by four-term Republican Kit Bond. It's Robin Carnahan, the secretary of state, daughter of the late Gov. Mel and former Sen. Jean (and sister of Rep. Russ) Carnahan. The GOP field may include Rep. Roy Blunt, the former House majority whip; ex-Sen. Jim Talent, former state Treasurer Sarah Steelman and ex-Rep. Kenny Hulshof, the 2008 GOP gubernatorial nominee. Hulshof and Steelman faced each other in last year's gubernatorial primary. Blunt appears at this stage to be the establishment choice.

NEW HAMPSHIRE

Commerce Secretary-designate Judd Gregg (R) has yet to depart from the Senate, and so of course Bonnie Newman has yet to be sworn in as his successor. But one candidate for the seat is already in the race: Rep. Paul Hodes (D). The Democratic field is not necessarily set; the state's other U.S. representative, Carol Shea-Porter, might also run. But the Republican field is far less focused. Newman, of course, has said she won't run. Most attention is on former Sen. John Sununu, who lost his seat to Jeanne Shaheen last year. Also under consideration: ex-Rep. Charlie Bass.

In addition to Gregg and the aforementioned Martinez and Bond, two other Republican incumbents are bowing out of a 2010 re-election contest: Sam Brownback of Kansas and George Voinovich of Ohio.

And speaking of Ohio, a new Quinnipiac University poll shows Lt. Gov. Lee Fisher (D) leading former Rep. Rob Portman (R) in a hypothetical Senate matchup, 42-27 percent. Other potential candidates: Rep. Tim Ryan (D), Secretary of State Jennifer Brunner (D) and state Auditor Mary Taylor (R).

Gov. John Lynch kept his side of the bargain.

The New Hampshire Democrat named Bonnie Newman, a Republican, to fill the Senate seat that will be vacated by Judd Gregg, (R) once -- and assuming -- Gregg is confirmed as secretary of commerce.

Picking a Republican was not, shall we say, universally popular among state Democrats, but that was part of the deal. Gregg told the Obama administration, and apparently Lynch as well, that he would accept the Cabinet post only if the governor appointed a Republican to succeed him. He didn't want to be responsible for the Democrats' getting an additional Senate seat, especially as they approach the magical number of 60, which would be able to beat back GOP filibusters (assuming all the Dems voted together, which is not always a sure thing).

Newman was Gregg's chief of staff when he was in the House. She served in the Reagan and Bush 41 administrations. But she also headed up "Republicans for Lynch" in 2004, when Lynch first sought the governorship, and so that made her palatable to Lynch and other Dems. Newman will not run in 2010, when Gregg's term would have expired.

But apparently Paul Hodes will. The second-term Democratic congressman is ready to throw his hat in the ring, now that Gregg will be out of the picture. On the GOP side, speculation is on John Sununu, who lost his Senate seat to Democrat Jeanne Shaheen last year.

We wrote about Gregg trading his Senate seat for a Cabinet post yesterday. Many are still wondering why the three-term Republican would do it, and no one put it better than Slate's Mickey Kaus, in his kausfiles blog this morning:

What could Sen. Judd Gregg possibly do in a second-tier cabinet position -- Commerce -- to advance his conservative philosophy that would possibly make up for giving his ideological opponents a 60-seat majority in the Senate? Stop card check? Achieve a free trade agenda? ... Quick, name Bush's last Commerce secretary. ... Even if New Hampshire's Democratic governor angers his party by appointing a Republican to replace Gregg, will it be an anti-card-check Republican? ... Gregg could go down as the biggest sucker since Arthur Goldberg, who let Lyndon Johnson con him into giving up a lifetime Supreme Court seat to become Ambassador to the U.N.

New Hampshire is now the fourth state to have two women in the Senate, joining California (Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer), Washington (Patty Murray and Maria Cantwell), and Maine (Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins).

And, as Kris Schultz of Concord, N.H., points out, New Hampshire is now the second state -- along with Maine -- to have a majority female congressional delegation. In addition to its two senators, Carol Shea-Porter (D) represents one of the Granite State's two House seats (and in Maine, Democrat Chellie Pingree holds one of the state's two House seats).

TRIVIA QUESTION: Judd Gregg served as governor, representative and senator. Now he's headed to the Cabinet. Who was the last person to hold all of these positions? Send answers to politicaljunkie@npr.org

Gregg may give up his Senate seat for Commerce, but with conditions.

What was initially perceived as unfathomable is now likely to happen, as soon as this week.

By all accounts, President Obama is apparently on the cusp of nominating Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican, as secretary of commerce. With the Granite State looking more and more blue as of late -- in 2006 both GOP representatives were defeated and in 2008 Sen. John E. Sununu (R) lost his re-election bid -- perhaps Gregg, 61, was reading the political tea leaves. Or, maybe, his real desire is to become president one day, and he wants to emulate Herbert Hoover, who went from commerce secretary to the White House. (A lot of politicians yearn to emulate Herbert Hoover these days.) Whatever the reason, there would be consequences to such a move.

The question many Republicans ask is, is he willing to give the Democrats the potentially pivotal 60th vote (assuming that, one day, Al Franken is declared the winner in Minnesota, and assuming that all 60 Democrats would vote as a bloc)? Not necessarily. Gregg no doubt has been warned by his Republican colleagues to consider those consequences. Word is that Gregg would accept the post only if New Hampshire Gov. John Lynch, a Democrat, does not name a Democrat to fill the final two years of his term. A curious arrangement, but -- given the last batch of Senate appointments -- nothing is surprising anymore.

There's virtually no way Lynch, who has already ruled out his own Senate candidacy, would name a partisan Republican to fill the seat, such as Sununu or former Sen. Warren Rudman. But there's no way Gregg would agree to a deal that saw Lynch appoint, say, Rep. Paul Hodes (D) to the seat. The name most bandied about is Bonnie Newman, Gregg's former chief of staff, who headed up "Republicans for Lynch" in 2004. She would presumably be a caretaker appointment, not planning to run in 2010.

Another potential appointment, writes the New Hampshire Union Leader, is former GOP state House Speaker Doug Scamman, another Lynch ally.

Obama had originally named New Mexico Gov. Bill Richardson (D) for commerce, but he withdrew his name in the wake of a federal corruption investigation of his administration.

Sununu could re-emerge and seek a comeback next year. His father, John H. Sununu -- the former governor and Bush 41 chief of staff -- was just elected chairman of the state Republican Party. The Boston Globe's James Pindell today writes about what's on the senior Sununu's plate:

New Hampshire had long been a libertarian-minded, conservative Republican state. From 1856 to 1994, Republicans won 63 of 71 races for governor. The same domination held basically true for the state's congressional delegation and state house.

Recently it has been a different story. The state voted for a Democratic governor in six of the last seven races and for a Democratic president four out of the last five elections. In 2006, Democrats had their most successful election year since the 1870s, unseating two Republican members of Congress, winning the governorship by a record margin, and grabbing majorities in both state house chambers.

If the younger Sununu did return to the Senate, he would join Jeanne Shaheen (D), who defeated him last year. It would be the fourth pairing of senators currently serving from the same state who had once run against each other; actually, Sununu and Shaheen squared off against each other twice, with the first contest in 2002 going to the Republican.

Nevada: Harry Reid (D) and John Ensign (R) -- Reid beat Ensign in 1998.
South Dakota: Tim Johnson (D) and John Thune (R) -- Johnson beat Thune in 2002.
Wyoming: Mike Enzi (R) and John Barrasso (R) -- Enzi beat Barrasso in the 1996 GOP primary.

There have been four Senate appointments by governors in recent weeks, Democratic senators chosen by Democratic governors, and all in their own way have had different degrees of controversy.

The one that ruffled the fewest feathers was the one no one had heard of: Michael Bennet, in Colorado, to replace Interior Secretary Ken Salazar. Bennet was the superintendent of schools in Denver and a former aide to Mayor John Hickenlooper, never having run for public office before. Whatever you think of Bennet, Gov. Bill Ritter made the choice without making all the hopefuls -- and there were many -- humiliate themselves. Bennet will still have to prove himself in next year's election, but by all accounts he is an extremely bright guy, Colorado has been trending Democratic, and the GOP bench is weak. Compare that with ...

... Delaware, where outgoing Gov. Ruth Ann Minner chose Ted Kaufman to replace Vice President Joe Biden. The choice of Kaufman, a longtime Biden aide, was a clear statement that he will be nothing more than a placeholder for Beau Biden, the VP's son, who is the state attorney general and who is currently serving with the National Guard in Iraq. Biden comes home later this year, just in time (!) to begin a campaign for the seat in 2010 (when Kaufman said he would step down instead of run in the special election). Minner could have chosen Lt. Gov. John Carney to fill the Senate seat, but the fix for Biden fils was in. Kaufman would keep it warm for young Beau, while Carney wouldn't play. Compare that with ...

... Illinois, where Rod Blagojevich (D-Fantasy Island) chose Roland Burris to replace Barack Obama even after the governor was arrested and charged with trying to sell the seat to the highest bidder. And compare that with ...

... New York, where Gov. David Paterson had a slew of Democrats jumping through hoops, a humiliating and inelegant process that tarnished Caroline Kennedy, infuriated others, and elevated Kirsten Gillibrand to the Senate.

You get the point. It's not always a clean and orderly process.

Sen. Russ Feingold has a solution. The Wisconsin Democrat plans to offer a constitutional amendment that would require a special election to fill any Senate vacancy, as is the process in the House. He is chairman of the Senate Constitution Subcommittee and said he will offer the amendment before the week is up; he hopes to hold hearings on it shortly. Feingold posted a blog post at Daily Kos on it.

Feingold was also today's guest in the Political Junkie segment on NPR's Talk of the Nation.

And then there were four.

Four, as in four new senators appointed in the wake of the results of the 2008 elections:

-- Roland Burris, appointed to replace Barack Obama in Illinois;
-- Ted Kaufman, appointed to replace Joe Biden in Delaware;
-- Michael Bennet, appointed to replace Ken Salazar in Colorado; and
-- Kirsten Gillibrand, appointed to replace Hillary Clinton in New York.

We've talked about the winners and losers in the Illinois case for nearly two months. It's hard to make the case that Gov. Rod Blagojevich "hurt" himself in choosing Burris. Actually, it's hard to describe anything Blagojevich has done in ways Earthlings can understand.

But the situation in New York became a soap opera of its own. And while Blago is not long for this world -- or at least not long for his office in Springfield -- New York Gov. David Paterson is another story.

The last time a Paterson looked this bad was in September of 1962, when heavyweight champion Floyd Patterson was knocked out in the first round by challenger Sonny Liston. AP

 

Paterson himself is an accidental governor; he won the job when his predecessor, Eliot Spitzer, resigned last March following his involvement with a prostitute. Spitzer had spent much of his 15 months in office battling the Republicans who ran the state Senate. Paterson's relationship with the GOP, and other lawmakers, has been much calmer, cordial and conciliatory.

But the opportunity presented to him to name a Senate appointment turned into a circus, much of it the governor's own making. We all knew about the Hillary-to-Foggy Bottom plan shortly after the election. It was made official on Dec. 1. But here it was, in late January, and he was still having prospective Democrats jump through hoops.

No one suffered more than Caroline Kennedy. After a near lifetime of avoiding the limelight, Kennedy signaled in 2008 that she wanted a more public role: a key endorsement of Obama, a leading role on his vice presidential vetting team, a prominent speech at the Democratic convention, and vigorous campaigning on Obama's behalf in the fall. But her bid to be the next senator from New York was trouble from the outset. After she told the governor of her willingness to serve in the Senate, Paterson suggested she tour upstate so voters could get to learn more about her. The tour -- modeled after Hillary Clinton's "listening tour" in 1999, when the first lady decided she was a New Yorker -- was an embarrassment. Kennedy never seemed to know what to say or how to say it, and the notoriously combative New York media were not about to cut her any slack.

Kennedy clearly had her weaknesses, but she also had her strengths. Had Paterson made a decision by the end of the year -- even if it had been Caroline -- it would have prevented the process from deteriorating the way it had. But Paterson insisted he didn't have a favorite in the race, and thus encouraged other Democrats -- state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (who led in the meaningless polls), Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, American Federation of Teachers Prez Randi Weingarten, and at least five members of Congress -- to make their case as well.

Last week, when Kennedy alerted Paterson that she wanted out, a slew of rumors and innuendo followed. She had nanny problems. Tax woes. Even worse stuff came out in the blogosphere. And a lot of it was attributed to people close to Paterson.

So, with Kennedy gone, Paterson picked Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand. The choice wasn't a shocker; for the record, it had been my prediction from the beginning. But the announcement itself was a bizarro, Blagojevich-like freak show. For all the mocking of Kennedy's speech patterns, Paterson had trouble conveying a coherent sentence. It almost seemed like a Saturday Night Live parody. Among the politicians standing next to Paterson on the platform was former GOP Sen. Al D'Amato, now a big-deal lobbyist close to Gillibrand. With Gillibrand armed with a 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association, did they need to have a high-profile Republican like D'Amato up on the platform? (He was conveniently standing on the opposite side of Paterson from Chuck Schumer, who unseated D'Amato in '98.) It was almost like the bar scene from Star Wars.

Gillibrand's selection was lauded by many groups, including those favoring abortion rights and gay rights organizations. But the gun stuff was too much for some Democrats, notably Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, the Long Island Democrat who came to national politics following the murder of her husband by a deranged gunman in 1993. McCarthy is threatening a primary challenge in 2010, if no one else runs.

It's too soon to say that Gillibrand was the wrong choice. For Democrats who are comparing her to Charlton Heston, that's a bit over the top. You don't run as a Brady Bill poster child in upstate New York, in a solidly Republican district, and expect to win.

And remember what happened to Charlie Goodell. The Republican congressman from western New York was a moderate conservative during his near decade in the House in the 1950s and '60s. But when Gov. Nelson Rockefeller picked him to replace the murdered Bobby Kennedy in the Senate in 1968, he moved well to the left, knowing he would have to run statewide. The tactic didn't work for Goodell. But I suspect that Gillibrand will go out of her way to soften her image on the gun issue. Whether or not that holds off other Democrats from taking her on next year is something else.

And I'm not sure Caroline Kennedy would have been the wrong choice either. If Paterson had picked her right away, New York would have had a new star in the Senate, a Kennedy no less, and everyone would have been happy. Or he could have chosen Cuomo, or anyone else on the list. The point was not who but when. To allow it to go on for as long as it did not only hurt the Democrats' cause but opened Paterson up to serious questions -- and the possibility of a primary challenge in 2010, from Cuomo or someone else.

Continue reading "Gov. Paterson May Be The Big Loser In Gillibrand Appointment" >

 

In what may have been the most rambling and unfocused announcement of a Senate appointment in U.S. history, Gov. David Paterson today named Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand (JILL-a-brand) from upstate New York to fill Hillary Clinton's seat. The announcement came just one day after Caroline Kennedy withdrew her name from consideration, a spectacular retreat after having spent six weeks trying to make her case she should have the appointment.

The choice of Gillibrand, which was our prediction the moment Clinton was picked for the Obama Cabinet, made sense in many ways: She is photogenic, able to raise huge sums of money (which she will need to run statewide in both 2010 and 2012), and hails from outside New York City -- unlike other Democrats who will be running next year, such as Paterson, Sen. Chuck Schumer and state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo (himself someone who was angling for the Senate appointment).

But there are problems ahead. To win in a longtime Republican district -- she knocked off a scandal-ridden GOP incumbent in 2006 -- Gillibrand has broken from her party on several matters. She voted against the financial bailout bill in the fall. And she received an "A" rating from the National Rifle Association, which enthusiastically endorsed her bid for re-election last year. This is what Gillibrand said in response to the endorsement, as per the Albany Times Union's "Capitol Confidential" blog:

As a strong supporter of the Second Amendment, it is a privilege to have the endorsement of the NRA and the support of Upstate New York's gun owners and hunters. I come from a family of hunters, and preserving this strong Upstate tradition is a priority of mine in Congress. I will continue to oppose legislation that will restrict the rights of responsible gun owners and I will continue to advocate for policies that will keep our rivers, land and air clean, so that future generations can enjoy hunting and wildlife in our region.

And that's what got Rep. Carolyn McCarthy up in arms, no pun intended. McCarthy was a Long Island housewife when, in December 1993, her husband was murdered and her son seriously wounded by a deranged gunman on the Long Island Rail Road. Three years later, her congressman, Republican Dan Frisa, voted to eliminate a ban on semiautomatic weapons. An enraged Carolyn McCarthy talked to local GOP officials about challenging Frisa in the primary. When they refused to listen to her plea, she quit the Republican Party, became a Democrat and ran against Frisa, beating him by 17 points.

When word got out yesterday that Gillibrand was going to be the choice, McCarthy was livid and suggested she would challenge her in the 2010 primary. McCarthy did not back down today, after Paterson made the appointment.

New York Daily News' Kenneth Lovett quotes Gloria Cruz of the Million Mom March to Prevent Gun Violence as saying, "When I heard Gillibrand was his pick, I thought it was a joke. This is an insult to the families of gun violence victims across the state. Shame on Gov. Paterson." Lovett adds that Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer is also considering mounting a primary challenge to Gillibrand.

The most interesting stuff I've seen today came from Michael Tomasky in his Politics and Other Stuff blog:

Three thoughts on Governor David Paterson's selection of Kirsten Gillibrand as Hillary Clinton's Senate successor:

1. She's an odd choice. Two years in Congress, against all those members of the state's House of Representatives Democratic delegation with many years experience? In these cases, one smell test that ought to be passed is that a governor should be able to say "X was the best person for the job" with at least some degree of plausibility. I don't think Paterson can do that here. Even Blago could say that about Roland Burris, kinda-sorta. She was an obviously political choice: woman and upstater. Those are fair considerations of course, but when it's this obvious, it invites trouble.

2. Paterson has just made himself lots of enemies. I mean lots. Gillibrand will certainly face a primary challenge in 2010 -- one congresswoman, Carolyn McCarthy, has already vowed to. And others will see her as potentially beatable. Since so much of the statewide Democratic vote is from the city and the immediate suburbs -- and, crucially, so much of the donor base is too -- a city-based Democrat could look awfully formidable against her on paper.

3. This will be so controversial in intra-Democratic circles that Paterson may even have invited a primary challenge against himself in 2010. Today's New York Post suggests as much:

Democratic activists predicted that Cuomo, son of former Gov. Mario Cuomo, would also "seriously consider" challenging Paterson in a primary next year.

Believe me, you don't want to pick a political fight with the Cuomos. They throw elbows.

I don't much care about her National Rifle Association bona fides. Any Democrat from a rural district has to be pro-NRA. Even many New York City Democrats will, over time, come to understand that. That isn't the problem. And it should be said that Gillibrand has done some impressive things -- she beat a well-entrenched GOP incumbent when she first won the seat, a hard thing to do in upstate New York (I know the district well, having owned a house there for a few years).

The problem is that Paterson passed over lots of people who are more experienced. They will be pissed (not drunk; livid). He will gain countervailing support among upstaters and moderates for bucking the big-city liberal establishment. But when it comes to Democratic primaries in the state of New York, trust me: the smarter money is placed on the big-city liberal establishment.

Only once in the history of New York Democratic Senate primaries has the nomination gone to someone outside New York City, and that person, Rep. Richard Ottinger, was only barely outside the city; he represented Westchester. Below is a chart of classic N.Y. Dem Senate primaries; candidates outside NYC are in bold:

1998
Charles Schumer (Brooklyn) -- 51 percent
Geraldine Ferraro (Queens) -- 26 percent
Mark Green (Manhattan) -- 19 percent

1992
Robert Abrams (Bronx) -- 37 percent
Geraldine Ferraro (Queens) -- 36 percent
Al Sharpton (Manhattan) -- 14.5 percent
Elizabeth Holtzman (Brooklyn) -- 12.5 percent

1980
Elizabeth Holtzman (Brooklyn) -- 41 percent
Bess Myerson (Manhattan) -- 31.5 percent
John Lindsay (Manhattan) -- 16 percent
John Santucci (Queens) -- 12 percent

1976
Daniel Patrick Moynihan (Manhattan) -- 36 percent
Bella Abzug (Manhattan) -- 35 percent
Ramsey Clark (Manhattan) -- 10 percent
Paul O'Dwyer (Manhattan) -- 9 percent
Abe Hirschfeld (Manhattan) -- 9 percent

1974
Ramsey Clark (Manhattan) -- 48 percent
Lee Alexander (Syracuse) -- 30 percent
Abe Hirschfeld (Manhattan) -- 22.5 percent

1970
Richard Ottinger (Westchester) -- 40 percent
Paul O'Dwyer (Manhattan) -- 33 percent
Ted Sorensen (Manhattan) -- 17 percent
Richard McCarthy (Buffalo) -- 11 percent

1968
Paul O'Dwyer (Manhattan) -- 36 percent
Gene Nickerson (Hempstead, Long Island) -- 34 percent
Joe Resnick (Ellenville) -- 30 percent

New York Gov. David Paterson (D) will announce his choice for the Senate seat vacated by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton tomorrow, at noon.

Earlier in the day, the governor released this statement regarding his conversations with Caroline Kennedy:

Last night Caroline Kennedy informed the Governor that she was withdrawing her name from consideration for an appointment to the United States Senate for personal reasons. This decision was hers alone.

The Governor had a private conversation with Ms. Kennedy yesterday afternoon. Out of respect for her decision making process, the Governor's Office did not respond to any inquiries in order to allow her time to deliberate. The Governor considers Caroline a friend and knows she will continue to serve New York well inside or outside of government. We wish her well in all her future endeavors.

The Governor is now entering the final phase of his selection process.

He has not informed any Senate candidates that they have not been selected, nor has any information gathered during this selection process created a necessity for any candidate to withdraw. Any speculation to the contrary is both inaccurate and inappropriate.

Meanwhile, if the choice is Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, as I have speculated, she is not going to have an easy ride to the Democratic nomination in the 2010 primary. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy of Long Island told The New York Times she would mount a challenge to Gillibrand if Paterson names her.

McCarthy is best-known for being the Long Island housewife whose husband was killed by a gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. Her outrage over the easy accessibility of handguns is what led her to run for Congress. Gillibrand's support for the National Rifle Association has "outraged" McCarthy, according to the Times account by reporter Danny Hakim:

"Obviously, I'm very upset," Ms. McCarthy said. "I came to Congress to reduce gun violence in this country, and Mayor Bloomberg has been working diligently to get mayors across this country to help reduce gun violence."

"To have a senator representing the NRA for New York, that would be wrong," she added. "If it comes down to that, I will [run in the] primary in 2010."

She said that, alternatively, she would support a younger candidate if one were to come forward.

"I'm 65," she said, "but if no one else will go forward with it, then I will do it."

Ms. Gillibrand's centrist views helped her win her House seat, which was long held by Republicans. Her district stretches from Adirondacks to the Catskills and parts of the Hudson Valley.

It was, at the same time, surprising and not so.

Her bid for a soon-to-be-vacant Senate seat in disarray, Caroline Kennedy has pulled the plug. In a one-sentence statement released to the press, she said, "I informed Gov. Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate."

Kennedy's brief emergence from a near lifetime of guarded privacy started off with excitement but ended disastrously. When she endorsed Barack Obama for president, about a year ago, she sent a signal that she might be entertaining thoughts of a public life. The endorsement was followed by her role in the Obama VP vetting process and a major speech at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

Then, in mid-December, she signaled her interest in the seat that Hillary Clinton would vacate to become secretary of state. Many high-profile New York pols immediately indicated they would join her cause; New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg was thought to be one of them.

Then it started to go sour. Her upstate "listening tour" -- modeled after Hillary Clinton's in 1999 -- was a disaster. She was shielded from the press, gave inarticulate responses to questions when the media had access, admitted she had a spotty voting record, and refused questions about her personal finances. Wherever she went, she was hounded with questions about "entitlement" -- as in, should she be given the seat simply because she's a Kennedy?

That last charge was completely unfair. She has a long, if not public, record of philanthropy, and everyone who has worked with her says she is smart, forceful and on target. But that's not what the public saw, and polls were showing that state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, another Senate hopeful, was surpassing her among Empire State voters.

It is being reported that Caroline pulled out because of concern about the health of her uncle, Ted Kennedy. The Massachusetts senator has been battling brain cancer for nearly a year, and shortly after Obama's inauguration on Tuesday, he suffered a seizure and was rushed to the hospital. (He has since been released; the seizure was linked to fatigue.)

But that rings hollow to me. Ted has been pushing Caroline for the seat from the beginning, as if he were intending to extend the Kennedy legacy -- there has been a Kennedy in the Senate ever since Jack was elected in 1952 (with a two-year hiatus in 1961-62). But Ted's health has been poor from the outset, so for Caroline to suggest that is the reason doesn't make sense.

I suspect that either she felt she was being humiliated by negative media coverage or, more likely, Paterson signaled he was looking elsewhere.

But where?

I don't think it's Cuomo either. The attorney general has been rumored to be pondering a challenge to Paterson in the 2010 primary, and the thought of Paterson picking him to avoid such a challenge is silly. Remember when people were speculating that Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich would name rival Lisa Madigan, the state attorney general, to the Obama Senate seat to take her out of the '10 gov race? Ridiculous.

Besides, Paterson has said he would like to appoint a woman to succeed Hillary Clinton. And he doesn't like the idea of having an all-NYC ticket next year, when he (Manhattan), Cuomo (Queens) and Sen. Charles Schumer (Brooklyn) will all be running.

That leaves me with Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, the second-term House member from the Hudson Valley area upstate. She is photogenic, a good campaigner, and has tons of money. She's been my guess from the beginning, I've said it consistently in our podcast, and I'm sticking with it. (Oh, and when I wrote in 1999 that I was convinced the Democratic successor to Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan would definitely be Rep. Nita Lowey and not Hillary Clinton? Ignore that.)

Other names still apparently on Paterson's list include Rep. Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan, Rep. Steve Israel of Long Island, Rep. Brian Higgins of Buffalo, and Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi. It's going to be Gillibrand.

Still, what comes out of all this is Paterson's decision to delay the process. Whatever you think of Michael Bennet, the relatively unknown choice of Colorado Gov. Bill Ritter (D) to fill the Senate seat of new Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar, at least the governor made a decision.

We're expecting an announcement by Friday.

The improbable journey of Roland Burris to the United States Senate is complete. A former Illinois attorney general and the pick of disgraced Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill the seat left vacant following the resignation of Barack Obama, Burris was sworn in today at 2 p.m., the fourth African-American senator since Reconstruction.

Three blacks have been elected to the Senate: Ed Brooke (R-MA, 1967-78), Carol Moseley-Braun (D-IL, 1993-98), and Barack Obama (D-IL, 2005-08).

BIDEN. Joseph Biden, the vice president-elect, gave his farewell speech in the Senate today. The Delaware Democrat was first elected in 1972 and was re-elected six times, the last time in November. He is the 14th-most-senior member in the history of the Senate. His appointed successor, longtime aide Ted Kaufman, will be sworn in tomorrow at 11 a.m. Eastern time.

CLINTON. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) also gave her Senate swan song speech today. The Foreign Relations Committee voted 16-1 to confirm her as secretary of state; only David Vitter (R-LA) voted no. NPR's Robert Smith is hearing that New York Gov. David Paterson (D) may be closer to naming a Senate successor to Clinton than had previously been thought. And it may indeed be Caroline Kennedy:

The end is nigh for New York's favorite political guessing game. Paterson indicated yesterday that he was ready to end the months of speculation and finally pick a Senate replacement for Clinton. He's been waiting for Clinton to actually resign the seat, but he now he's ready to get the whole thing over with. He told reporters that she is "floating right through" her confirmation hearings, and now he "feels the duty to act."

Thank God. The speculation over Clinton's successor has been a huge distraction to the state. Poor David Paterson has been trying to rally the state to drastically cut its budget and increase revenues. But all the reporters want to ask him about is Caroline Kennedy.

The moment the Kennedy name got uttered as a possibility for the seat, the whole process turned into a referendum on Caroline. Is she too aloof? Too private? Does she have too little experience? Kennedy didn't help matters by bumbling through her quasi-campaign for the seat. Running from reporters, then refusing interview requests. Then when she did sit down, peppering her answers with "um"s and "you know"s.

Her approval ratings with the public dropped. If it were an election, polls show she'd be losing to Cuomo. But the smart money is that Paterson will appoint Kennedy anyway, "you know"s and all. The governor has been backed into a corner. Caroline may not have much experience, but she has a lot of sympathy. Does Paterson want to be the man who keeps Kennedy from following in her father's and uncle's footsteps to the Senate? Picking someone else at this point would seem like a personal rejection of Caroline.

Women's groups have already made it clear to Paterson that they would not appreciate a man being named to take over from Clinton. Upstate communities are already steaming over the prospect of another New York City senator. Unless Paterson can pull a very attractive long-shot candidate out of a hat at the last minute, it's hard to imagine that he can say no to Kennedy.

A Marist College Poll out today pretty much mirrors the one released yesterday by Qunnipiac University. It has New Yorkers giving Cuomo 40 percent, to 25 percent for Kennedy. (Others: Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi 6 percent, Reps. Carolyn Maloney and Steve Israel 5 percent each, and Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand 3 percent.)

Note: Twice have New York governors appointed senators, and twice the senators have been defeated at the polls at the next election. In 1949, Gov. Thomas Dewey appointed John Foster Dulles (R) to fill the seat of Robert F. Wagner Sr. (D), who resigned because of illness; and in 1968, Gov. Nelson Rockefeller (R) appointed Rep. Charles Goodell (R) to fill the seat of Robert Kennedy (D), who was assassinated in his pursuit of the Democratic presidential nomination. Dulles lost a special election in 1949 to ex-Gov. Herbert Lehman (D), and Goodell lost a three-way race in 1970 to Conservative Party candidate Jim Buckley.

Here's the latest on some Senate seats:

No certified winner yet in Minnesota.

 

Florida: Rep. Kendrick Meek (D) has become the first candidate to officially declare for the seat being vacated by Republican Mel Martinez. Former Gov. Jeb Bush (R) took himself out of the running on Jan. 6.

Illinois: Roland Burris (D) will be sworn in as the junior senator from Ilinois tomorrow at 2 p.m. Eastern time. There's nothing more to say on this one. But wow. (Previous Junkie post on Burris here.)

Minnesota: Al Franken (D), who continues to hold a 225-vote lead, has gone to the state Supreme Court to force Republican Gov. Tim Pawlenty and Democratic Secretary of State Mark Ritchie to certify his victory over Norm Coleman. Both state officials turned Franken down on Monday, saying that Coleman is still fighting the apparent result and the legal process needs to be played out.

New Hampshire: Tom Fahey of the N.H. Union Leader reports that Gov. John Lynch, the state's most popular Democrat, announced today he will not challenge Sen. Judd Gregg (R) next year.

Lynch ... acknowledged speculation in political circles that he might challenge ... Gregg. He said he plans to focus on budget issues here in New Hampshire.

"I can tell you that although I don't know what I'll be doing in 2010, I'm not going to run for the United States Senate. So, that shouldn't be a distraction as I continue to work on the budget."

Lynch made the statement before taking questions from reporters at a brief press conference today.

He has just begun his third two-year term as governor, on the strength of a landslide victory at the polls. He and his staff are struggling to close both a $90 million budget deficit this year, and a revenue gap of as much as $500 million over the next two years.

Lynch declined to say whether he will seek a fourth term as governor, referring again to his focus on budget issues and the state economy.

Gregg announced in November that he plans to run for election to a fourth term in the Senate.

New York: A Quinnipiac University poll released today shows that New Yorkers "have cooled" on Caroline Kennedy and "more voters now prefer" state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo over the former first daughter by 31-24 percent. This is for the seat that Hillary Clinton will relinquish once she is confirmed as secretary of state. Three members of Congress are well behind in the poll: Carolyn Maloney of Manhattan has 6 percent, Kirsten Gillibrand from upstate has 5 percent, and Steve Israel from Long Island 2 percent. Eighteen percent suggested someone else, and 14 percent were undecided.

(To paraphrase an old expression, the only poll that matters is Gov. David Paterson [D]. He will select Clinton's successor.)

Kenneth Lovett and Glenn Blain of the New York Daily News report today that Paterson interviewed Cuomo for the job last month. That ordinarily should not sound surprising; Cuomo's name has been mentioned as a possible Clinton Senate replacement from Day 1. But this is the first confirmation that Cuomo has taken a step to get the appointment.

Previous Junkie posting on the New York race here.

Ohio: Rob Portman, the former congressman, Bush trade rep and OMB chief, announced his candidacy today for the Senate seat being vacated by fellow Republican George Voinovich.

"Just as it was an honor to serve the people of Southern Ohio in the U.S. House of Representatives for 12 years, so it would be an honor to serve all Ohioans in the U.S. Senate. At a difficult time in our state and national economy, I believe I can make a positive difference in the lives of people throughout Ohio."

Portman seems to be the early favorite for the GOP, but of course it is early. Among the Democrats mentioned as potential candidates are Lt. Governor Lee Fisher and Rep. Tim Ryan.

As Secretary of State-designate Hillary Clinton goes through the motions of her confirmation hearing before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee today, there is still no word on whom New York Gov. David Paterson will name to succeed her.

Paterson met with Caroline Kennedy, daughter of the late President John F. Kennedy, on Saturday, and came away "impressed," according to an interview with the New York Daily News published today. And while he refused to declare anyone the "front-runner" for the seat, he did say about Kennedy, "She didn't eliminate herself in the meeting."

Faint praise indeed.

Paterson said he has now interviewed 15 people for the job. While he won't give names, those also thought to be on the Senate wannabe list include state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Nassau County Executive Tom Suozzi, Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown, and Reps. Kirsten Gillibrand, Steve Israel and Carolyn Maloney.

My prediction from the outset has been Gillibrand. But I have no idea where things stand now.

I've Got A Secret. Several good government groups have decried Paterson's refusal to reveal either the names of those he has spoken to or the answers these candidates gave to a questionnaire he sent to each of them. The governor says the list of candidates is "personal." The Associated Press' Michael Gormley quotes a disappointed Barbara Bartoletti of the League of Women Voters as saying, "The law is on his side as far as whether he has to do any of this with transparency. But good government is not on his side here."

Wanna Be A Senator? Here's the questionnaire Paterson sent out to the hopefuls. Good luck!

Isn't That Special. New York state Assembly Minority Leader James Tedisco wants Paterson to call for a special election to resolve the issue, rather than fill the seat via appointment. Tedisco has, if nothing else, a great sense of humor.

Not Happy. Julie Sells of Cincinnati sent the following note:

With regards to the Jan. 7 Talk of the Nation program in which you appeared, it was very disappointing to hear your cutting remarks about Caroline Kennedy. I could not begin to tell you how many people I know or have met who insert "you know" into their conversations. It's always hard to hear ourselves but I probably say it too without realizing it. Please listen to that interview and count the number of times you say "uh" or "ummmm." Isnt that the same? It certainly was with Barack Obama. His campaign coordinators even hired a speech therapist to help him prior to some of the debates. ...

I really don't like ever to criticize someone for their speech difficulties and wish you would show more courtesy to others as well since after all few of us speak perfectly. ...

I think the media has been really nasty in the way [Caroline] has been treated. It should be about a person's qualifications, not the deficiencies in the way they speak. A big fat zero to NPR on this one!

Julie, I respect your argument but I'm not sure I agree with your conclusions -- except for your point that it should be about a person's qualifications. I think the media have been far more tolerant in their coverage of Kennedy than they have with anyone else with similarly limited qualifications or campaign abilities.

As for her Valley Girl-esque way of talking, it's hardly just Neal Conan and I who have been critical or sarcastic. Here's the New York Times' Michael Barbaro's account of Caroline's linguistic abilities:

In her pursuit of a Senate seat, Ms. Kennedy has raised eyebrows with her penchant for what are known, informally in language circles, as filler words.

Ms. Kennedy has liberally sprinkled her interviews with "you know" and "um," as can be seen in transcripts posted on newspaper Web sites.

When asked recently by New York Times reporters about a potential rival for the Senate seat, Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo, she responded:

"I'm, you know, actually, Andrew Cuomo is someone I've known for many, many years, and we've talked, you know, throughout this process, so, you know, we have a really good relationship and I admire the work he's doing now and what he's done."

That's three "you knows," for those keeping score.

And the leading paragraph in a recent Maureen Dowd column in the Times went as follows:

Ask not, you know, what your country can, like, do for you. Ask what you, um, can, you know, do for your country.

I am not saying that just because Maureen Dowd does it, NPR should do it. There is a well-documented history of snarky comments made by Ms. Dowd that we don't really need to emulate. But that's not the point. Sure, you can count all the times I say "uh" and "ummm." Of course, I'm not seeking appointment to the U.S. Senate. And let's keep in mind the media have mocked the language skills of George Bush, pere and fils, for years.

I'm just saying, and have been saying, that with all those out there who could be appointed to the seat, Caroline Kennedy seems to have less of an argument than many of the others. I'm sorry if you thought our having fun with Ms. Kennedy's speech patterns was, you know, over the top.

We've seen turnarounds in Washington before, but this one will always stand out, if for no other reason than the startling about-face.

Following the arrest of Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) on corruption charges last month, most particularly on the allegation that he attempted to sell Barack Obama's former Senate seat to the highest bidder, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid warned the gov: Don't even think about sending a Senate appointee to Washington. That person will not be accepted. And Reid said the entire Democratic majority was onboard, along with Obama.

Blagojevich called their bluff. On Dec. 30, he named Roland Burris, a former state attorney general and comptroller, to the seat. He basically dared them to reject Burris, who is African-American and would be the Senate's only black member.

For a while, it looked like Reid & Co. would stand their ground and prevail. The Illinois secretary of state, Jesse White (D), refused to add his signature to Blagojevich's certification of Burris. Reid and Dick Durbin, the Senate majority whip and the only Illinois senator, said whoa, we certainly can't certify a new member in light of that 1884 law that demands signatures of both the governor and the secretary of state! No signature, no senator, was the Reid/Durbin mantra.

No longer.

By all accounts, Burris will be sworn in as senator later this week. Reid, the Senate parliamentarian, the secretary of the Senate and Senate lawyers all now say that Burris' credentials are in order. White actually added his signature to Burris' certification last Friday, but it's more than that. The Dem solidarity began to fall apart when Sen. Dianne Feinstein said last week that Burris should be seated. The sight of Burris, a diminutive black man, being turned away from the all-white Senate earlier in the week because of faulty credentials reminded some, fairly or not, of black students being turned away from all-white Southern schools in the 1950s and '60s. Reid's case was falling apart right before his eyes.

Today, in a statement from Reid and Durbin, the Democratic leaders said that, "barring objections from Senate Republicans," they expected Burris to be sworn in and seated later this week.

The complete turnaround in the situation was nothing short of breathtaking.

Add another Senate Republican who won't seek re-election in 2010: George Voinovich of Ohio.

The moderate Republican, a former mayor of Cleveland and Ohio governor, announced his plans this morning. His decision follows that of Missouri's Kit Bond (Jan. 8), Florida's Mel Martinez (Dec. 2) and Kansas' Sam Brownback, three other Republicans who have decided not to run again.

Continue reading "Ohio's George Voinovich To Retire; 4th Republican To Do So" >

I'll admit it had me puzzled.

Barack Obama resigned his Senate seat, to no great fanfare, back on Nov. 16. And while no one foresaw the circus that would result in Illinois from his resignation, it certainly seemed to make sense at the time. With the Senate coming back for a lame-duck session, Obama felt that his priority should be his transition from senator to president.

But what about Joe Biden? Previous senators who became VPs were already gone from the Senate by now. Al Gore, Dan Quayle and Lyndon Johnson all gave up their Senate seats in early January, just before the new Congresses were sworn in. Walter Mondale and Hubert Humphrey gave up theirs in late December. But not Biden. The vice president-elect has held onto his Senate seat; in fact, he was sworn in for a seventh term last week.

That subject came up during last Wednesday's Political Junkie segment on NPR's Talk of the Nation, and I didn't have an answer for it.

Carrie David of Newark, Del., does.

Carrie directed me to this posting on Delawareonline.com from Nicole Guadiano of the Wilmington News Journal:

A smiling Joe Biden took his seventh oath of office among friends on the U.S.Senate floor Tuesday, hitting a personal and historic milestone before becoming the next vice president.

At age 66, he was the youngest person ever sworn in for a seventh full Senate term, a fitting distinction for someone first elected at the age of 29 in 1972. He is the longest-serving senator in Delaware history and among the longest-serving senators in U.S. history.

"In all my life, the greatest honor bestowed upon me has been serving the people of Delaware as their United States senator," he said in a statement. "It is truly humbling today to take the Senate's oath of office for a seventh time." ...

Biden chose to extend his Senate service even after President-elect Barack Obama resigned from his Senate seat shortly after the election. His friends said taking his final Senate oath was important to him.

"He wants to be able to tell his grandchildren he did it," said Mark Gitenstein, a Biden adviser who previously served on his Senate staff. "I just know that he feels it's important. He's told me that. I've been in meetings where he said, 'I really want to do this one last time.' "

Kaufman said, "We all encouraged him to do it. It's historical."

It was a part of history that we weren't aware of. Biden will resign from the Senate this Thursday at 5 p.m. Eastern time. Ted Kaufman, a former top aide, has been appointed to serve in his stead until 2010, when a special election will be held ... and, conveniently, when Biden's son Beau -- the state attorney general -- will have returned from his National Guard stint in Iraq just in time to run for his dad's seat.

No. 14. By extending his Senate tenure to Jan. 15, Biden snuck past Claiborne Pell (D-RI) and Pete Domenici (R-NM) and will be the 14th-longest-serving senator in history.

1. Robert Byrd (D-WV) -- 50 years

2. Strom Thurmond (D/R-SC) -- 47 years, 5 months

3. Ted Kennedy (D-MA) -- 46 years, 2 months

4. Daniel Inouye (D-HI) -- 46 years

5. Carl Hayden (D-AZ) -- 41 years, 10 months

6. John Stennis (D-MS) -- 41 years, 2 months

7. Ted Stevens (R-AK) -- 40 years

8. Ernest Hollings (D-SC) -- 38 years, 2 months

9. Richard Russell (D-GA) -- 38 years

10. Russell Long (D-LA) -- 38 years

11. Francis Warren (R-WY) -- 37 years

12. James Eastland (D-MS) -- 36 years, 3 months

13. Warren Magnuson (D-WA) -- 36 years, 2 weeks

14. Joseph Biden (D-DE) -- 36 years, 11 days

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.

He served 12 years as state comptroller and four as attorney general. But he lost Dem primaries for Senate (1984) and governor (1994, 1998, 2002) as well as for mayor of Chicago in 1995. But he may finally be getting something he really wants.

 

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.

She ran for governor once before. Is she thinking about it again?

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.

Sen. Christopher (Kit) Bond, a four-term Republican senator from Missouri, is expected to announce within the hour that he will not seek re-election next year. The Kansas City Star reports that the political fallout of such a move would be "huge":

One person to watch: seven-term Congressman Roy Blunt of southwest Missouri, a Republican and father of the current governor, who might be tempted into a race to succeed him.

Other Republicans who might be interested: Congressman Sam Graves, former Sen. Jim Talent and Lt. Gov. Peter Kinder.

The Democrat most often mentioned for the seat: Robin Carnahan, the secretary of state.

Bond was first elected to the Senate in 1986, succeeding Democrat Thomas Eagleton, who retired.

1986: defeated Harriett Woods 53-47%
1992: defeated Geri Rothman-Serot 52-45%
1998: defeated Jay Nixon (now governor) 53-44%
2004: defeated Nancy Farmer 56-43%

Prior to his Senate tenure, he was elected governor in 1972, defeated for re-election by Joe Teasdale in '76, and beat Teasdale in '80. Before that he was state auditor.

Bond would be the third GOP senator to opt out of seeking re-election in 2010. Mel Martinez of Florida called it quits on Dec. 2, and Kansas' Sam Brownback long ago announced he would quit after two full terms; Brownback is looking at the governorship.

P.S. Bob Levine of St. Louis, Mo. reminds us in the comments below that Bond also ran for Congress in 1968, losing to Rep. William Hungate (D) by a 52-48 percent margin.

The 111th Congress -- the new House and the new Senate -- was sworn in today.

In the Senate, it's 55 Democrats, 41 Republicans, and 2 independents. Two seats remain vacant: in Illinois, where Barack Obama (D) resigned following his election as president and the Senate has thus far refused to accept the nomination of Roland Burris (D) as his successor, chosen by Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D); and in Minnesota, where no winner has yet been declared in the race between Republican incumbent Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken. Franken currently leads by 225 votes, but Coleman is vowing a legal challenge.

For organizing purposes, assuming both seats will ultimately be filled by Democrats (that's our guess), it will be 59 Democrats and 41 Republicans.

There are still changes that will take place in the Senate, not in party but in names:

-- Colorado. Sen. Ken Salazar (D) will resign to become secretary of the interior. He will be replaced by Michael Bennet (D), who was appointed by Gov. Bill Ritter (D).

-- Delaware. Sen. Joe Biden (D) will resign to become vice president. He will be replaced by Ted Kaufman (D), who was appointed by Gov. Ruth Ann Minner (D).

-- New York. Sen. Hillary Clinton (D) will resign to become secretary of state. She will be replaced by a still-to-be-determined appointee of Gov. David Paterson (D).

In the House, it's 256 Democrats and 178 Republicans. One seat, Illinois' 5th, is vacant, following the resignation of Rahm Emanuel (D) to become White House chief of staff. The primary to fill this overwhelmingly Democratic seat will take place on March 3; the general election is April 7. Another seat, California's 32nd, will become vacant following the confirmation of Hilda Solis (D) as secretary of labor.

There are 54 new members of the House: 32 Democrats and 22 Republicans.

Roland Burris, the former Illinois state attorney general and surprise choice of embattled Gov. Rod Blagojevich to fill Barack Obama's vacant Senate seat, had his credentials rejected this morning by the secretary of the Senate.

At a news conference held in the rain outside the Capitol building -- not long after Burris and his aides went to the Senate to make his case -- Burris, describing himself as the "junior senator from the state of Illinois," said his credentials were deemed not to be in order and he would thus not be seated today, when the 111th Congress is about to be sworn in. Nor would he be permitted on the Senate floor. He said he was not looking for any confrontation, and then added he would consult with his attorneys.

One of them, Timothy Wright, followed Burris to the microphones and called the Senate's action "improperly done" and "against the law of this land." Wright said he hopes the Burris team will "deliberate" with the Senate leadership about what to do next, and said he did not rule out taking the matter to court.

More to come.

I can always catch my breath later. But Roland Burris, the choice of embattled Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich (D) to succeed Barack Obama in the Senate, has made it into the Capitol building. The crowd of aides, journalists and cameramen accompanying Burris into the building had all the makings of the entourage that accompanies a heavyweight boxing contender as he leaves his dressing room and heads towards the ring. Clearly the most exciting event to hit Washington since the Beatles came here in 1964.

Doesn't look like George Wal, oops, I mean Harry Reid blocked the doorway.

Burris is hoping to present his credentials when the new Senate gets sworn in at noon today. A press conference is expected soon. More to come.

I'm not talking about last night's thriller in the Meadowlands, just outside the Big Apple, where (as long as we're on the subject) the New York Giants defeated the Carolina Panthers in OT and clinched home field advantage in the NFC playoffs. (Oh, did I tell you I'm a Giants fan?)

I'm talking about overtime in the other Apple -- the Minneapple -- where we are approaching seven weeks since Election Day and there's still no winner in the Senate race between incumbent Republican Norm Coleman and Democratic challenger Al Franken. Here's the latest news:

Franken with a lead. For the first time since Nov. 4, Franken is ahead in the count. Four days of going over disputed and absentee ballots by the state Canvassing Board has given Franken a lead of 262 votes. But that lead could be short-lived because ...

Challenges. On Tuesday, the board is expected to reconcile some 5,000 ballots that had been, but are no longer, challenged by the two camps. That should alter the count. The state Supreme Court has also instructed counties to separate some 1,600 rejected absentee ballots and count them, but only if both camps agree that the ballot was mistakenly rejected. The court has given them a Dec. 31 deadline. The Coleman camp is insisting that hundreds of ballots should be disqualified because they will have been counted twice. The state Supreme Court will hear that challenge tomorrow. Meanwhile, the new Congress will be sworn in on Jan. 6. There's no guarantee that we'll have a winner by then.

Temporary senator? There has been some talk that Gov. Tim Pawlenty (R) might want to name a temporary senator while the counting goes on, but this could only happen if for some reason the seat were declared vacant, and that (so far) is not the case.

Shades of Wyman-Durkin? The deadlock in Minnesota is starting to remind us oldtimers about the 1974 Senate race in New Hampshire between Rep. Louis Wyman (R) and John Durkin (D). I'll write a separate post on that one later today.

How about Minnesota 1962? That's before our time, but not forgotten by Steve Cain of Minneapolis, who sent in this note:

"Close statewide elections in Minnesota have occurred before -- significantly, in the 1962 gubernatorial race between Gov. Elmer Andersen (R) and Lt. Gov. Karl Rolvaag (D). That one wasn't decided until March 1963, in which Rolvaag came out ahead of the Election Day winner, Andersen, by 91 votes."

And David Inman of St. Paul, Minn., adds more info:

Back in October, I attended a program where Tom Swain, Gov. Andersen's chief of staff and campaign manager (now 87), discussed, amongst other things, the 1962 recount (who would have known how prophetic that would be). He stated that in March (2 1/2 months after the beginning of the term), Gov. Andersen decided that the recount had gone on long enough and that he would not appeal to the Minnesota Supreme Court. Ultimately, it was a three-judge panel that had the final say.

David sent along a link from MinnPost.com, which gives fascinating detail about that race. The canvassing board back then was deadlocked over whether to accept amended returns from several counties. The state Supreme Court got the board to end its deadlock, which resulted in Andersen being declared the winner by 142 votes.

But Rolvaag insisted on a recount, which led to months of meticulous examination of each contested vote. The three-judge panel declared Rolvaag the winner by 91 votes. GOP leaders urged Andersen to take his challenge to the courts, but the governor refused to do so, saying a "competent and fair tribunal" rendered its opinion. Rolvaag was sworn in on March 25, 1963.

Heck, this is only Dec. 22.

The objections to Caroline Kennedy becoming the next U.S. senator from New York -- a decision to be made not by the voters but by Gov. David Paterson (D) -- center mostly on the issue of privilege and entitlement. If she weren't a Kennedy, would she be seriously considered? Isn't this dynasty thing going a little too far?

Perhaps. But before we get all bent out of shape on this, let's remember who the president of the United States is. And, for good measure, take a look at the current (as well as incoming) Senate:

Alaska: Lisa Murkowski (R) -- daughter of former Sen./Gov. Frank Murkowski (heck, he appointed her to the Senate!)

Arkansas: Mark Pryor (D) -- son of former Sen. David Pryor

Colorado: Mark Udall (D) -- son of the late Rep. Mo Udall of Arizona

Connecticut: Chris Dodd (D) -- son of the late Sen. Thomas Dodd

Indiana: Evan Bayh (D) -- son of former Sen. Birch Bayh

Louisiana: Mary Landrieu (D) -- daughter of former New Orleans Mayor/Carter Cabinet official Moon Landrieu

Massachusetts: Ted Kennedy (D) -- brother of the late President John Kennedy

New Hampshire: Both GOP senators -- Judd Gregg and John Sununu -- are sons of former governors

New Mexico: Tom Udall (D) -- son of former Rep. Stewart Udall of Arizona

Pennsylvania: Bob Casey (D) -- son of the late Gov. Bob Casey

Utah: Bob Bennett (R) -- son of the late Sen. Wallace Bennett

Plus, Iowa Gov. Chet Culver (D) is the son of former Sen. John Culver. Democrats in Delaware seem determined to in effect hold open the Senate seat of Vice President-elect Joe Biden for his son Beau, the state attorney general currently in Iraq. Another political name in the news lately (and constantly) is Lisa Madigan, the attorney general of Illinois whose father is the powerful state House speaker.

And Jeb Whatshisname may run for the Senate from Florida.

Back to Caroline: There was one objection to my post of yesterday when, in talking about those opposed to her candidacy, I added a link to the Beach Boys' 1996 song "Caroline No." Neil Sapper complained that I should have added Neil Diamond's "Sweet Caroline" in the interest of fairness and balance.

I'm sorry Neil but, fairness or not, I can never ever ever ever link to a Neil Diamond song. Even in a blog post.

Yes, Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg is interested in the Senate seat from New York. That was established Monday and confirmed by many New York Democrats, including the guy who's going to make the appointment, Gov. David Paterson. Front page headlines everywhere.

So, end of story? Paterson picks Kennedy, Camelot redux? Not so fast.

For weeks now, there has been breathless speculation about what the daughter of President Kennedy might do. For most of her adult life, she has gone out of her way to stay out of the limelight. She has never actively participated in campaigns, let alone run for office. But this year was different. A very public endorsement of Barack Obama back in January. Participating in his VP vetting team. A speech at the Democratic National Convention this summer. Active campaigning on behalf of Obama in key battleground states this fall. And now this.

In 1994 it seemed that everywhere you looked a Kennedy was running for office somewhere.

In addition to the governor, Caroline has sought out the Rev. Al Sharpton, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver and senior Sen. Charles Schumer. A tour of upstate New York by the longtime Manhattan resident is next.

But it's one thing to run for the seat. Anyone can do that and, by the looks of things, nearly everyone might want to. But only one person will be appointed to fill the seat once Hillary Clinton gets confirmed as secretary of state. And Caroline Kennedy is one on a quite sizable list. A list of politicos with sizable qualifications and experience.

Plus, there was something Paterson said at Monday's news conference that stuck with me: "She told me she was interested in the position," the governor said. "She'd like at some point to sit down and tell me what she thinks her qualifications are" (emphasis mine). It almost sounded as if he was wondering whether she was the most qualified candidate.

Others have been thinking the same thing. Rep. Gary Ackerman of Queens, one of the nine Democrats in the state not considering the Senate seat, made his feelings clear in an interview last week: "I don't know what Caroline Kennedy's qualifications are. Except that she has name recognition, but so does J Lo." Hank Sheinkopf, a party strategist, was unusually antagonistic toward Kennedy on interviews replayed all day Tuesday on CNN.

At some point, I expect to see an approach similar to what Ted (officially, Edward Moore) Kennedy faced in 1962. At his Democratic primary debate, opponent Ed McCormack made the famous remark, "If your name were Edward Moore instead of Edward Kennedy, your candidacy would be a joke." Will people be asking that about Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg?

But there are also signs that Democrats will embrace her candidacy. Already Rep. Louise Slaughter of Rochester has endorsed her, spurning her many congressional colleagues who are actively seeking the appointment. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg (R? D? I?) sounded very supportive as well. Although the Empire State GOP is in shambles, whichever Democrat is appointed will still have to run in 2010 (to fill the Clinton term) and again in 2012 (for a new term), and that means a lot of money is going to have to be raised. The Kennedy name alone might be able to get to some of the required $70 million. And running with a Kennedy in 2010 may not be the worst thing in the world for Gov. Paterson.

One serious question: What does Hillary want? Or, better put, how would Sen. Clinton feel about Caroline Kennedy taking her Senate seat, given Kennedy's influential snub of Clinton in favor of Obama last winter?

Huffington Post's Sam Stein reports that Kennedy has called Clinton to let her know of her interest in the seat but that they have yet to speak. Stein writes that Hillary may not exactly be a Caroline booster:

The key sticking point for Kennedy remains: whether or not she can placate Clinton's backers in New York, many of whom seem tepid or antagonistic towards her candidacy.

Multiple reports indicate that supporters of the former first lady -- not to mention the Clintons themselves -- weren't willing to simply forget Kennedy's endorsement of Barack Obama during the Democratic primary. Others, including several Clinton fundraisers, have made public statements that the former first daughter simply isn't qualified for the Senate. But the source close to Clinton insists that their differences are not caused by hurt feelings, but rather preferences for other New York politicians.

"The Clintons aren't going to do anything against her," said the source. "I think they had just been more emotionally attached to names that surfaced before hers did, like Randi Weingarten [of the United Federation of Teachers] and [Rep.] Carolyn Maloney."

And it's not just Clinton allies, or Gary Ackerman, or Hank Sheinkopf. There are also the sentiments of the Beach Boys' Brian Wilson to consider.

Yes, yes, yes. You're interested in what happens in the Minnesota Senate race. You want to see who wins between Coleman and Franken. You read the papers, you read this blog, you follow the stuff. Blah blah blah.

But do you really care?

If you did, then you would be watching live coverage of the Minnesota Canvassing Board's proceedings. And now, thanks to a live feed provided by the Minnesota Secretary of State, you can!

Life doesn't get better than this.

Six weeks since Minnesota voters went to the polls, we may now finally be close to finding out who won the Senate election.

Maybe.

We're getting there. We're just not there yet.

 

Two point nine million people had their say on Nov. 4, choosing among Norm Coleman, the Republican incumbent; Al Franken, the Democratic challenger; and a third candidate, Dean Barkley. At the end of the day, Coleman had a 215-vote lead, a margin so narrow that it led to an automatic recount -- a hand recount, of all 2.9 million voters.

That ended on Dec. 5, and Coleman had a slim lead then as well (though the Franken camp claims they're up by four votes). But there are still some 1,500 ballots that remain in dispute, and today the five-member state Canvassing Board begins the process of trying to decipher the intention of the voters and whether to accept them. Some ballots were partially filled out, some have extraneous markings on them, and some have a box filled out for one candidate and then crossed off in favor of another. If enough of the disputed ballots go Franken's way -- and there is a sense out there that they may -- a Franken victory is a strong possibility.

One reason for that "sense": Several media outlets in the state, including Minnesota Public Radio, have shown sample disputed ballots on their Web sites, and many of those who examined them (online at least) have indicated that Franken deserves more of them than Coleman.

The counting is supposed to be certified by the state on Friday. The loser can then take the decision to court, which would extend the uncertainty at least until Jan. 6, when the 111th Congress is sworn in.