Since Burris only plans to serve as a caretaker for 2 years and then vacate to let others run for the open seat in 2010, this may be the best compromise available.

I actually would like to see an African-American in the seat if a viable candidate emerges.  Blacks are underrepresented in Congress, especially in the Senate.  And I do think groups which are underrepresented (and have been historically discriminated against) bring a useful perspective and life experiences to the realm of politics. 

Back in 1991 during the Clarence Thomas hearings, the senators displayed almost complete tone-deafness to issues surrounding sexism and sexual harassment.  I do not think it was a coincidence that the Senate was only 2% female at that time.  That would not happen today.

Also, many senators appeared afraid to seriously grill Thomas on his judicial views, even though he made ridiculous statements like claiming to have never discussed Roe v. Wade.  I believe many of these (white) senators were afraid of looking racist.  Had there been more minorities in the Senate, I suspect this would have been less of a problem.  Obama said that he would NOT have nominated Thomas to the Supreme Court.

Due to the current situation it is very hard to say.  The logical successor would have been JJJ.  He is probably the second most powerful African-American politician in the state after Obama.  It would have provided the continuity of succeeding one black senator with another.  But now he has been implicated in the Blago scandal, making his appointment very unlikely.  Other potential AA successors are inappropriate for various reasons already mentioned. 

What Quinn really needs is an Obama twin and there ain't no such person.  At this rate, he might as well appoint Oprah.  LOL.

I live in a swing district -- WA-3.  The major population center of the district, Clark County (which includes Vancouver, WA), is a swing area with a small-to-modest Republican lean.  The second largest county in the district, Thurston, is a fairly solid Democratic county.  The rest of the district ranges from modestly Democratic to staunchly Republican (Lewis County).  The population includes a number of extremely conservative rural voters to the far-left inhabitants of Evergreen St. College.  Our district also includes the state capital, Olympia.  It is a relatively low-income district, with few important businesses.  I might argue it is the weakest congressional power base in the state, although WA-4, which covers central Washington, is weak as well.

The result is a true swing district in theory.  In actual practice, incumbent protection has been the general trend.  The current congressman, Brian Baird, has been careful to run as a swing/moderate Democrat. 

It appears that Kennedy is starting to undergo a "vetting" process by the press.  A number of stories critical about her potential appointment are being run and skeptics in NY are speaking out against her.  Given that she is untried in the brutal world of NY politics and has never undergone this kind of scrutiny before, this is important.  We will see if she has the mettle to answer the questions about her qualifications, defuse her critics and maneuver successfully behind the scenes for the appointment or if she can't take the heat and will quietly fade away.

["Politicians and fundraisers do some very strange things from time to time. I wouldn't put it past someone to be purporting to represent Jesse without authority."]

JJJ is admitting to being candidate #5, but denies making the offer of of money in exchange for the seat:

Why did Blago claim that Jackson offered him $500,000 for the senate seat?  Jackson's lawyer hypothesizes that is was someone falsely claiming to represent Jackson who made the offer ():

Jackson said Wednesday: "I did not initiate nor authorize anyone, at any time, to promise anything to Gov. Blagojevich on my behalf. I never sent a message or an emissary to the governor to make an offer or to propose a deal about the U.S. Senate seat."

He said he would fully cooperate with the investigation.

Jackson's Chicago-based lawyer, James D. Montgomery Sr., said, "Politicians and fundraisers do some very strange things from time to time. I wouldn't put it past someone to be purporting to represent Jesse without authority."

Who is this mysterious JJJ emissary to Blago?  So far as I know, no one has produced a name.

Montgomery's suggestion doesn't pass the smell test.  And while there is no smoking gun, JJJ's role in this doesn't look good.  I agree that there is very little chance of him getting that Senate seat. 

Caroline Kennedy.

Saying that Kennedy would be a viable Presidential candidate when she isn't even in office yet is stretching it.  However, I do think there is a fairly good chance she will be chosen to fill Hillary's seat.  Let's look at her performance in office before we jump to conclusions.  Even if she does well, we have no idea if she has the relentless fire in the belly and bone-grinding dedication necessary to run for President.  Very few people do and given how private she has been it seems unlikely. 

Are we talking about the same Warren Harding?  The one who was more interested in poker and his mistress than governing?  Whose tax cuts, like Bush's, were hugely slanted toward the rich?  Whose Secretary of the Interior sold off our nation's oil reserves to oilmen in exchange for money under the table?  (Teapot Dome Scandal).  Harding's Attorney General was also caught up in corruption.  His administration practically defined "on the take."

Warren Harding:  "I am not fit for this office and should never have been here."

This would ruin Obama's reputation both domestically and internationally.  We really have some CDS infected fools on this site.

Obama will have a better Presidency.  Bush's Presidency has been a national embarrassment and the biggest disaster since Hoover's.  Bush combines the worst qualities of Richard Nixon and Warren Harding.

If Caro gets the post, we will have a clearer picture when she has to run for reelection.  She will have to run in 2010 for the special election and again in 2012.  If she can pass this gauntlet then I would say she earned it.

I wasn't sure about Hillary when she won in 2000, but her reelection in 2006 with 67% showed there was more to her than just the family name. 

I also think its funny how the names "Kennedy" and "Clinton" drive the haters into a frenzy.

Opinion appears closely divided on this question.  IMO, it is a close call and perhaps more dependent on the specific individuals involved.

The Vice Presidency is technically the higher ranking job. It also strikes me as easier, due to the fact that there are few specified job duties.  Because there is a possibility of working on both domestic and foreign policy, it also seems the more flexible office.  Much of the office's authority depends on the deal stuck between the President and Vice President.  For the ambitious, the VP can fundraise and campaign for other candidates, building up valuable political chits for the future.  Due to the fact there are few specified job duties, the VP may wind up doing very little, which can become a perception problem if the press points it out.

The Secretary of State is solely focused on foreign affairs, but is the master of that realm.  He or she has a huge jurisdiction, giving the occupant a vast, global platform to pursue a wide range of policy matters.  Unlike the VP, the SoS is responsible for overseeing a large federal agency and has clearly defined (and very important) job duties.  It is a far stronger position to get things done and carve out a legacy -- but the high level of responsibility means the SoS is more likely to be criticized for actions deemed wrong (as opposed to just being seen as a do-nothing).  Also, the SoS can be fired at any time.

Both jobs are high profile and come with their own private jet and bodyguards.

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/12/05/1699586.aspx

New York State Democratic Party sources tell NBC News that Caroline Kennedy has expressed interest in the New York Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton.

She is known to have discussed the upcoming vacancy with New York Gov. David Paterson, who will be appointing the next senator to serve the remaining two years in Clinton’s term once she becomes Secretary of State.

Appointing Caroline Kennedy to the seat once held by her uncle Robert would be a very popular choice politically for Paterson, who is under pressure to replace Clinton with a woman.

The Kennedy name on the ballot could help Paterson’s 2010 reelection chances. Paterson became governor after Eliot Spitzer was forced to resign during a prostitution scandal.

Caroline Kennedy would also have an advantage in being able to raise money for the very expensive New York Senate contest.

Other contenders -- if Kennedy is not chosen -- include be congress members Kirsten Gillibrand (from an Upstate district) and Carolyn Maloney (NYC), Nassau County Executive Thomas Suozzi and New York Attorney General Andrew Cuomo is also a possible contender.

Kennedy's cousin -- Robert Jr., an environmentalist, has taken himself out of contention.

Her selection would have some appeal from a symbolic standpoint.  This senate seat was once held by RFK and Clinton was the first woman to win statewide in N.Y.

After what we saw during this campaign, does the Alaska electorate really believe that Palin would have a good chance of winning the Presidency?  The Couric interview alone is a treasure trove of potential negative ads. 

If I were Lisa Murkowski, I would emphasize the importance of seniority in the Senate and that I plan to be a senator for life.  Palin is just using the office as a stop along the way to the White House.  Murkowski would be in a stronger position to argue her importance if she could get a spot on the Senate Appropriations or Finance Committee.  Maybe with Uncle Ted gone, she can argue that Alaska deserves it.  LOL.

If Palin were interested in serving Alaska instead of having national ambitions, a less disruptive route might be to run for re-election for Governor in 2010.  Then, at the end of her second term in 2014, she can challenge Begich, who will just be finishing up his first term.  If you're going to knock off a sitting senator, after the first term is generally the best opportunity.

I saw this discussed among some talking heads and I was curious as to what people here thought. 

Plus, she has foreign policy experience from having tea with ambassadors' wives, according to Obama.

I think she's a good pick because she has standing relationships with much of the world, and she will immediately appease much of the anti-Bush populace.  They know her and are comfortable with her. 

The Secretary of State is the "face" of the country to the world, right?  But what authority does the office hold?  I understand they can designate/undesignate "foreign terrorist organizations".  What else can the Secretary do? 

In general, the Secretary of State:

--Negotiates treaties and agreements with foreign leaders and governments
--Serves as a key adviser to the President on foreign policy
--Advises the President on the appointment of U.S. ambassadors and other diplomatic representatives
--Manages the State Dept., including our embassies and consulates abroad
--Oversees foreign aid programs
--Represents the U.S. at international conferences

[European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana]

Absolutely not.  Hillary isn't even a good fit for the position.

Shows how much I know

Why? For once you were correct.

He still named her Secretary of State, though; just later on.

You were correct that he absolutely shouldn't name her as secretary of state, and that she is not a good fit for the position.

Some prominent foreign policy folks disagree:

European Union foreign policy chief Javier Solana: "I think it would be very well taken if that is the case, at the end of the day," said Solana when asked how he thought European diplomats would react if President-elect Barack Obama chose her to head the State Department.

"She is capable, with experience. She is well known," he added. "Nothing seems to be negative."

Ambassador Swanee Hunt of Harvard’s Kennedy School: “She and I have worked together with representatives from probably 50 different countries, in war zones, and there is this extraordinary warmth about her that makes her connect with people so quickly – then she has also all of this understanding and smarts,” says Ambassador Hunt. “It’s a striking combination.”

Lawrence Korb, Director of National Security Studies at the Council on Foreign Relations: She “really does understand” the world and is a “quick learner,” he says. He recalls a 2002 meeting with her soon after he returned from a fact-finding trip to Iraq.

“She was really on top of the game, but what surprised me was how much she knew about lots of other defense issues,” says Mr. Korb, a former Pentagon official in the Reagan administration. “We ended up not only talking about Iraq, but defense transformation [and] the history of the Joint Chiefs of Staff. [She has] really quite a remarkable understanding of things that I’ve spent my life working on.”

As someone who voted for Clinton in the primary, I am glad to see Samantha Power back if she genuinely has something positive to contribute to the foreign policy team.  The time has come to bury the hatchet. 

Take it to the bank -- Obama is going to offer SoS to Clinton.  And I think Hillary would be a better SoS than John Kerry.  She is smarter, tougher, carries the goodwill of the Clinton brand, has better international connections, greater stature, is more ruthless and far more tenacious.  Do you think foreign leaders are more likely to be impressed/intimidated by John Kerry or Hillary Clinton?

There is absolutely no chance that she will run in 2012.  As for 2016, that is a long time off.  If Obama is reelected and she steps down from Secretary of State in 2014, that is suggestive.

I don't see how Jon Porter can put up much of a challenge given that he lost his seat to Dina Titus.  Still, Reid looks vulnerable.

John Kerry is getting a pretty big bone in spite of not getting Sec. of State.  VP elect Joe Biden is stepping down as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Kerry is next in line.

I don't know why Bill Richardson would want to quit being N.M. governor to become Sec. of Commerce.  It seems like a step down.  OTOH, his governorship ends in 2 years.  The Commerce gig will last longer.

I think Hillary would have lost because after just 4 years in office she just was not ready yet and was still trying to establish herself and get comfortable in her new role as a politician.  Now, if Hillary had won election to the Senate in 1996 and then mounted a challenge to Bush in 2004 I think she would have won.

With all due respect, I don't think that experience would have been any more of a decisive factor in 2004 than it was this year.  If the experience argument didn't work against Obama, then how would have it worked against Hillary Clinton in 2004.  She certainly didn't have any less experience in 2004 than Obama did when he ran this year.  Hillary may have lost in 2004 just like John Kerry did for a variety of reasons, but I don't think that experience would have been one of them.

2004 was a very different election.  It was a national security election with the nation still largely transfixed on 9/11 and Iraq.  Hillary at that time had been on the Senate Armed Services Committee for 2 years and was still in the process of developing a deep understanding of defense issues.  She was also trying to develop an independent identity from Bill Clinton.  IMO, a major moment which crystallized her independence was when she (decisively) won reelection in 2006 -- a sign the voters of NY clearly approved of her work as a senator.  Obama, in contrast, had the luxury of fashioning his own national narrative because he arrived on the scene as a blank slate.

Polls showed many people concerned about Obama's lack of experience, but by 2008 the Republican brand had grown so monumentally unacceptable that people were more than willing to take a chance. 

I think Hillary would have lost because after just 4 years in office she just was not ready yet and was still trying to establish herself and get comfortable in her new role as a politician.  Now, if Hillary had won election to the Senate in 1996 and then mounted a challenge to Bush in 2004 I think she would have won.

It currently looks like the race for the newly created King County Elections Director will be between Jason Osgood and Pam Roach. This has to be some sort of cruel sick joke. We're being Punk'd, right?

I don't know whether to laugh hysterically or scream.  This could be a meltdown of monumental tragicomic proportions.  If there is a debate on TVW between these two I would watch just to gawk at the train wreck.  The Horror Show that began with Julie Anne Kempf and had an even bigger sequel starring Dean Logan now seems destined for a Part 3.  AIEEEEE!