Strongly disapprove.  The biggest question is if the President left the country in better shape than when he started.  In Bush's case the answer is absolutely not.  Economically, internationally, domestically, we are much worse off than in 2000.  I could list all the reasons why, but it would make me angry and depressed at how much he has f***ed up the country.

For the governor and senators from my state I would say --

Christine Gregoire
E:  -2 ; S:  -4

Patty Murray
E:  -3.5 ; S:  -4

Maria Cantwell
E:  -1.5 ; S:  -4


Their views are pretty close.  For losing gubernatorial challenger Dino Rossi I would say --

Dino Rossi
E:  +7.5 ; S:  +6


And for some of our congresspeople:

Jim McDermott
E:  -8 ; S:  -8

Dave Reichert
E:  +3 ; S:  +3

Research 2000 for Daily Kos. 1/5-7. Likely voters. MoE 4% (No trend lines).

Burr (R) 45%
Cooper (D) 43%

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/12/12352/9419/160/682241

Robin Carnahan  45%
Roy Blunt  44%

Robin Carnahan  47%
Jim Talent  43%

Robin Carnahan  47%
Sarah Steelman  36%

http://publicpolicypolling.blogspot.com/2009/01/carnahan-is-early-front-runner-in.html

Well, I don't want to make it sound like Hillary 2016 is likely.  She may explore the possibility of a run, then decide it isn't a good idea.  I think the chance of her running is less than 50%.  After serving as SoS, she may find her true calling is as a pure public servant rather than a politician.  Still, given how much she wanted to be president (and made a balls-out effort to win), I think she would at least consider running if the political environment seemed favorable.

Anyway, this is all far off.  For now she has a very important and difficult job to do.

Hillary Clinton likes to keep her options open.

For her to be a viable candidate in 2016, she will need to have had a successful term as secretary of state and the overall Obama Presidency will need to be viewed as at least semi-successful.  If this happens, the possibility of another run will be explored.

While it has not been used in this way in modern times, Foggy Bottom could be a strong platform from which to build a political power base.  The job is both high-profile and high-powered.  It is a very strong position to get things done, nationally and internationally, on a wide variety of matters.

I would not assume that a new generation will definitely take over in 2016.  Assuming that VP Joe Biden takes a pass, Clinton would come into the race with a resume -- First Lady, senator and secretary of state -- which would stand out against other governors and senators in the race.  It is also possible that President Obama might endorse her, which would carry major weight.

I don't really see things going too well if Sink doesn't run for whatever reason. She's the only current statewide officeholder with a D next to her name. That being said, we might end up seeing Betty Castor II: Electric Boogaloo, if Sink isn't as great as people say she is.  She doesn't particularly have great name recognition in the state, and those figures be nowhere near Connie Mack's. Everyone in Florida knows Connie Mack the elder.

Yes, with Alex Sink I would forecast a tossup race.  With Kendrick Meek I suspect it would be either lean or likely Republican depending on the opponent.

I actually think Betty Castor would have won if the race had been in 2006 or 2008 instead of 2004.

With regards to unempprof's point, I think electability is a critical factor -- if you can't get elected you can't do anything -- but of course the issues and experience are equally important.  I disagree with the suggestion of some here that Meek's race somehow makes his candidacy a non-starter.  I haven't looked at his record closely, but I don't see anything which would be instantly disqualifying.  As for Sink, we'll have to see what positions she articulates if she enters the primary.

Kendrick Meek shouldn't be underestimated.  I've think he and Debbie Wasserman Schultz are two potential rising stars among FL Dems.  Meek serves on the House Ways & Means Committee -- a prestigious appointment for one with relatively little seniority.  He seems comfortable in front of a camera and Dem House leaders have been impressed by him.  Meek led several high-profile campaigns against then-Gov. Jeb Bush's policies which garnered much public support and media attention.  Both generationally (Meek is 42) and stylistically he seems more in line with the Obama model of African-American leadership rather than Jackson/Sharpton.  To put it another way, I think Meek has crossover potential.

However, Alex Sink would still be my first choice if I was a Florida resident.

Cuomo refuses to say whether he received Paterson's 28-page Senate questionnaire, which makes me think he isn't under serious consideration and/or Cuomo isn't that interested.

So far as I know, the list of those who have received the questionnaire is --

Rep.  Steve Israel
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand
Rep.  Carolyn Maloney
Rep. Jerrold Nadler
Rep. Brian Higgins
Caroline Kennedy
Tom Suozzi
Daniel J. O'Donnell
Byron Brown

Brown, however, received his questionnaire late.  Does that mean it was just sent as a courtesy?

I'd like to see Paterson choose a qualified woman to succeed Hillary and all three women on the list would bring some interesting qualities into the race.  All three could be good picks.

Maloney might be the "safest" choice to me because she has paid her dues (elected in 1992), is a proven commodity in Congress, has a center-left voting record I approve of and is very strong on women's rights.  However, she doesn't know upstate well and has low name recognition.

Gillibrand is a strong fundraiser, brings geographic diversity via her upstate C.D. and at age 42 she has the potential to accumulate the seniority to become powerful.  However, she is a bit too centrist for my tastes and N.Y. would definitely accept a liberal senator.  Although she may shift once she begins representing the whole state.  As others have mentioned, if she vacates her House seat would be at risk.  And while she has proven she can win an election, she hasn't really proved herself in Congress yet and also has low name recognition.

I've talked a lot about Kennedy's strengths and weaknesses elsewhere, so I won't rehash that here.

In terms of the political benefit, feminists would be most pleased by a Maloney appointment.  Upstate residents would like Gillibrand.  The U.S. Senate leadership and, I suspect, the Obama Administration, would be most pleased by a Kennedy selection.

Burris is a weak candidate.  The apex of his career was winning the Illinois attorney general's race in 1990, so he's proven he can win statewide.  Unfortunately, since then he has lost 3 races for governor (1994, 1998, 2002) and a race for mayor -- evidence that his standing among the IL electorate is now extremely weak.  At age 71, he won't be able to gather the needed seniority to become powerful in the Senate.  And he let himself be appointed by Pay-Rod, which is the equivalent of putting a political kick-me sign on his behind.

I find the author's assertion that Burris' potential candidacy will become a "national cause celebre" strange.  You could just as easily turn it around and say people will not want to donate money to a Pay-Rod appointee.

Nevertheless, Burris could win in a heavily DEM state like IL.  But an IL senate seat should be safe Dem and under Burris it won't be.  Maybe he will surprise us and be a great senator.  But based on the reports I've read, I doubt it.  As strangeland said, the DSCC would be wise to monitor this race very closely and act appropriately if necessary.  IL Dems will want to clean house before the GOP does it for them.

Sarah Palin, as usual, doesn't know what she is talking about.  The press in general and the New York press in particular certainly has not let Kennedy "get off easy."  It only took a minute to find these via google.  I'm sure with in-depth searching I could find more.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/us_and_americas/article5416006.ece

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/29/1726207.aspx

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5hNYKrBSsJCpA4VhCehQBCAjTuuJQ

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2008/12/29/2008-12-29_caroline_kennedy_no_whiz_with_words-1.html

Some of the highlights:

Caroline Kennedy, you know, might need, you know, a speech coach, um, if she, you know, wants, um, to be a senator.

Um, you know?

Kennedy, who gave a flurry of media interviews on Friday and Saturday, revealed some cringing verbal tics that showed her inexperience as a speaker, experts told the Daily News.

That truth is that Kennedy is not ready for the job and doesn't deserve it. Somebody who loves her should tell her.

Her quest is becoming a cringe-inducing experience, as painful to watch as it must be to endure.  Her handlers and family enablers insist she feels no entitlement to the Senate job, yet there is no other possible reason to give it to her. Her name is the sole reason she even dares go for it. Camelot must be Gaelic for chutzpah.

New York can do better.

Caroline Kennedy’s quest to enter the US Senate has suffered a self-inflicted blow in a series of interviews in which she can only be described as . . . um . . . excruciatingly, you know, unerudite.

During a series of meetings with the New York press, one of which was recorded and is now being admired on YouTube in all its ineloquent awkwardness, the daughter of President Kennedy was vague, unconvincing and displayed a potentially ruinous verbal tic.

Palin is simply using the opportunity to (cowardly) pile on now that she is in a position to do so.  My opinion of her was already extremely low, so this doesn't really change anything.

["all but certain" of getting into the race]

I predict that Robin Carnahan will run.  This article suggests Gov.-elect Nixon and the state party are already coalescing around her:

In addition, a source close to Robin Carnahan said she is "all but certain" of getting into the race and will likely make an announcement in the very near future. The Democratic Party seemed to endorse the idea.

In a statement thanking Bond for his service, Democratic Party Chairman Craig Hosmer also said, "Following Gov.-elect Nixon's historic win, this seat provides a tremendous opportunity for Missouri Democrats.

"Robin Carnahan spoke to the Governor-elect this morning. Robin would be a strong candidate and a great Senator and Democrats across the state hope she'll run."

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/200f46365412f17e862575380059de66?OpenDocument

Carnahan is a top-tier candidate.  She is a proven winner statewide, has high name ID and will have the money and campaign infrastructure to make a strong run.  MO is a swing state.  She is absolutely capable of winning this race.

maybe there is a God, and Washington state will finally tire of Patty Murray's air brainedness.

There will be no divine intervention in this case.  You all will have to continue to live with her.  The only thing which will stop Patty is a health mishap or a huge skeleton in the closet unexpectedly coming to light.

There are very strong rumors that Rob McKenna is far more interested in the governor's mansion in 2012.  Why would he throw that chance overboard in exchange for a very difficult race against an entrenched incumbent?

As for Dino Rossi, I agree with the LOL. 

One could argue whether MO was lean or likely Republican for 2010 so long as Bond held the seat.  Now it is defintely a tossup.

I think Robin Carnahan is the strongest Dem candidate.  If she won in 2010, it could represent a sea change in MO politics -- in 2004 the Governor's Mansion and both Senate Seats were held by the GOP.  By 2010, it might be all Dems.  Almost all major statewide races in MO are close and I would except this one to be as well.

This is totally unrelated, but it reminds me of a story.  My friend "Linda" worked at a cell-phone company and "Bob," a manager at the company was accused by "Nancy," a female employee, of attempted rape.  This was pretty dumb, because Bob is/was completely gay and involved with another man.  Nevertheless, while the situation was getting sorted out, he spent a night in jail.

I suppose I should think Nancy should be thrown in the slammer, but Linda also told me that Bob was a complete a$$hole, intimidating employees, putting them down and generally being a jerk.  We speculated that this was Nancy's (very dumb and inappropriate) way of trying to get back at him.  What's odd was that the man Bob was involved with was very nice.  Linda could not figure out what he saw in Bob.

Senate Democrats would have resisted a Pay-Rod appointment if he or she were white, black, brown, yellow or purple.

what about the purple people lobby?

That lobby has been decimated by the purple people eater(s).

humder's thread gave me an idea for a parallel one.  What is the earliest election that the U.S. was/will be ready to elect a woman President?  Given the reaction to Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin, does this date lie in the future (2012?  2016?) rather than the past?  Or to put it another way, is the country still not ready for a woman President?  Was the performance of Clinton in the Democratic Primary enough evidence that the correct date was 2008?  Discuss.

I would say either 1996 or 2000.  As others have said, it would have taken a candidate like Colin Powell or Obama -- someone with "crossover" appeal.

Senate Democrats would have resisted a Pay-Rod appointment if he or she were white, black, brown, yellow or purple.

As the campaign progressed, I became increasingly convinced that "change" was mostly rhetoric.  Given the economic and foreign crises that we face, it would be foolishly risky to pick a bunch of inexperienced people.  And if you're looking for experience, there's little to draw upon except the veterans of the Clinton Administration.

Bill brought in a bunch of so-called "fresh faces" in 1993 -- and the first two years of his Presidency were ugly.  Now that the country's problems are even worse, Obama realizes he won't succeed with that strategy.

If the Democratic Primary had played out in a similarly close fashion except Hillary had won, I think she would have tapped Obama as VP and there's a good chance she would have made Joe Biden SoS.  We'd have the same people, but moved around in different positions.

If this is true, Florida 2010 is now unquestionably a tossup race.

I think that Pay Rod's shenanigans have increased the chance of a Republican pickup, but it is still unlikely.  Under normal circumstances this would just be a GOP suicide mission.  But now there is a small but reasonable chance they might succeed.

No clue, but I will hazard a guess.  Previous to the 2006 election, Charles Grassley was the chairman of the Senate Finance Committee and is now the Ranking Minority Member.  That is an extremely powerful post, giving him an opportunity to shape tax law and the inflow/outflow of federal revenues in a way which benefits his state.  Iowa agribusiness has no doubt profited from his position.

I certainly hope that Jeb doesn't run because it will increase the chance of a Democratic pickup.  If I were Mitch McConnell and John Cornyn, however, I would be trying sweet talk Jeb into doing it.  They may have to dangle something significant to convince him.

I feel like it is going to be the release of the stimulus package tied to the viaduct as part of the infrastructure piece of the "new", new deal.

I suspect this to be the case as well.  Gregoire, Nickels and Sims delayed their decision AGAIN on the Alaska Way Viaduct until early 2009, which makes me speculate they are holding out for federal funding.  This is especially possible since Patty Murray chairs the Appropriations subcommittee funding the Dept. of Transportation.  Perhaps she and President-elect Obama will deliver manna from heaven for the viaduct.

After the Democrats won back the Congress in 2006, Mayor Nickels asked Sen. Murray for $10 BILLION dollars for the viaduct ($1 billion per year for 10 years).  LOL.  Not even Robert Byrd could get that kind of money -- at least not under President Bush.