NY Sen. - You Break It, You Buy It

My very thought tonight. To all the progressives who railed against the so-called evil of dynasties, this will be a hollow ideological victory. The villagers with their pitchforks may not like what their fury has brought.

progressives to shoot themselves in the foot. Thanks for this, Al.  I was shocked and surprised at the blowback against CK from major parts of the blogosphere.  "Don't know much about history" is what I would say to them.  She would have been a solid advocate for all the issues progressives claim to care so much about.   

This whole saga showed the liberal blogosphere at some of its worse. For too many bloggers it was all about venting their emotions and expressing their hatred of Caroline Kennedy. Despite the warnings of others, they spent no time finding a good alternate candidate and promoting this person. Heck, most of them seemed unaware that Andrew Cuomo was the conventional wisdom for the alternate choice (and I see that Gillibrand used to work for Cuomo), and none of them took the time to study his record and learn whether he was a progressive or not, and none of them considered what to do if it seemed he would be picked.

There was no attempt at strategy or rational analysis. This kind of emotion-based reasoning is what I expect from Republicans, not from Democrats.

Even as Kennedy withdrew, they could not stop sticking the knives in and speculating the worst motives for her.

I hope they are happy now. I am disgusted with them.

Thank you for this post, Al--you have a right to say I told you so, although you're being kind about it.  I'm about as far left as they come in this country, but I'm also a pragmatist, and Caroline Kennedy seems like a lovely, intelligent woman who had progressive beliefs and a person I would LOVE to have as a Senator (in contrast, my new Senator is Roland Burris).  I never understood the bitterness toward her--jealousy?  The nasty things I've read on other websites truly shocked and appalled me.  As President Obama said in his inaugural address, it's time to put aside childish things, and too many on the left acted childish about this.  I hope this is not the last we see of Ms Kennedy in public life--in fact, I hope that President Obama will appoint her to a position suitable to her many talents.

Here.

I don't live there (yet), but for such a Democratic state, but looking from afar the bench looks suprisingly weak.  I was for Kennedy but if she is out, Gillibrand might be an one of the better choices out there.  It is odd to say, but there aren't too many Representatives who look promising.  Most of the NYC reps have never faced a serious Republican opponent and with a couple of exceptions (most of whom are too old to be put in the Senate now), don't seem distinguished.  

On the plus side, Gilllibrand will be almost impossible for a Republican to beat because of the numbers that she will put up in the Albany area (given the size of NYC Republicans don't have must of a margin for error in the rest of the state).  She is also a strong fundraiser (her years at NYC law firms probably helps in that department) and absolutely destroyed a very wealthy self-funded challanger in 2008.  At 42 she will be able to sit in the Senate forever and bring home $$$ for New York.  Since NY has only two Senates despite its huge population, this is important.  My main concern is that I'd like to have someone farther left in such a blue state.  I suspect that Gillibrand will move left pretty sharply once in the Senate (once she demolishes Peter King in 2010 her main threat will be from Dems running to her left), so I don't expect her to be a problem vote.  But we could do better in terms of progressive leadership.  That is what I was hoping from with Kennedy. Since I don't see other obvious progressive leaders around who Patterson might pick, Gillibrand seems OK.

I'm not sure how serious McCarthy is about the primary. Sounds more like a reaction of frustration.  Don't know much about her, but she doesn't strike me as a big threat unless Gillibrand really screws up in the Senate.

If you compare how he's handled this appointment with the other governors (obviously excluding Blago) in Delaware and Colorado he looks terrible. I mean he could have picked Kirsten Gillibrand weeks ago. Something about this whole thing doesn't smell right. The fact that there's been multiple explanations coming from Paterson's camp about why Kennedy withdrew says a lot, none of it good about the governor and his team. If in fact it is Kirsten G that should be interesting because she's certainly to the right of most New Yorkers on some key issues. She either has to stick with those positions or flip flop. We could see heated primaries in Illinois, Colorado, and NY!

What was that about? Was it class resentment? After all CK did for Obama during the primary, the vitriol towards her was often over the top. Al, what's your take?

Absolutely correct, Al.  But Kos and Co. - like George W. Bush - would never admit error, so prepare for blowback from ideological morons trying to rationalize Gillibrand representing New York.  Tennessee?  Fine.  New effin' York!?!

While I didn't agree with those who thought Caroline Kennedy was to inexperienced to be a Senator, I certainly agreed with their right to make that argument. However, the pettiness, nastiness, vitrol and sexism that she was subjected to by DEMOCRATS just has me steamed.

and I need a shower to wash the slime of intellectual dishonesty away.  Someone else will have to take the late shift.

You are on the money, Al. Thanks for speaking the truth. I think Paterson was wrong, and that he got himself a mediocre candidate.

I understand that Kennedy's social stances line up with many of the people that visit this website. I understand that her social stances line up with Al's. She's reasonably well-educated, has obvious political backing, and seems reasonably intelligent. That said, the case still isn't made to say that she is the ONLY logical choice for this position. Furthermore, it seems a little intellectually incestuous to claim that the only reasons people would oppose her appointment are bad ones.

Come on folks.

Progressives shooting themselves in the foot?

Liberal blogosphere at some of its worse(sic)?

Hollow ideological victory?

Too many on the left acted childish?

Accusing those that disagree with you of never admitting error as a general rule?

...

What on earth are you folks going on about?

Maybe I missed it.  Can you folks point me to the causality between some left-oriented complaints (funny, I've read complaints across the board, but whatever) and the appointment of the junior U.S. Senator from NY?

Furthermore, how on earth is any of this bitching and moaning related to anything productive?  Fine, the person you wanted didn't get chosen - notice I didn't say "elected". (On a side note, it's kinda lamentable that NY has a Senator and Governor that weren't elected.) Is the tone here productive in any fashion? "You broke it, you bought it" smells of grenade tossing, not productive cooperation. In other words, if you disagree so much, maybe it would be more in the spirit of the proclaimed moment to forward action plans on getting people organized for the Kennedy Senatorial Campaign, 2010. This is just an example - I'm not trying to give direction.

This whole response just seems out of tune compared to the 2008 election cycle rhetoric found in the contributions to this website.

Kennedy would have been a good progressive choice. People railing against her for the most part did not care about that, but let class resentment and jealousy do the thinking. So 'you broke it, you earned it' seems a very appropriate metapher to me.

are a disgrace.  A bunch of them joined in with barely concealed glee to attack Caroline Kennedy for the sin of being the daughter of her parents. I'll never again take any thing written by any of them seriously. It is as though none of them have any sense of history with respect to the Kennedy family's political values or even a rudimentraty sense of the current political world.

Like the commenter immediately above, they seem not to understand the importance of every Democratic vote in the Senate. One of the reasons Bill Clinton struggled from the very beginning in 1993 was that even though the Senate had a solid majority of Dems, there were many DINOs who sabotaged him at every turn ("Don't ask don't tell" was a product of that dynamic). And he immediately lost that majority in the 1994 elections due to his inability to produce, resulting in triangulation and ultimately GWB. In view of this recent history and the overwhelming problems facing President Obama, it is an act of insanity to install a Blue Dog like Gillibrand in one of the two Senate seats for NY state . .

As annoying as the Kos-Hamsher meltdown was, my concern isn't so much that a few high profile bloggers went batshit crazy over the potential CK appointment -- that's what they do -- as much as the fact that the coming trainwreck was completely avoidable, and the  effects of that wreck will continue to gum up both electoral and legislative logistics for years to come.  It's all so unnecessary.

In appointing this anti-gay, anti-immigrant, gun-toting, Wall-Street-owned Blue Dog, not only has Paterson ensured that this seat will now get primaried (along with Paterson himself, in all likelihood), but he's also sent a big eff-you to the new President, poured salt into the Clinton-Obama wound over the Kennedys, and likely given away a very tenuous Dem House seat to a Republican't.  Stoopid.

But hey, what do I know?  Maybe it's all misdirection, Obama and CK are both on board,  and/or they'll draw straws for the seat at high noon in Albany.  But somehow, I doubt that.

John N. Did you just wake up from a two month long nap or something?  You seem to have totally missed the discussion as to whether CK bashing really promotes progressive causes or not. This is not about whose pick got picked. This is about how progressives trash a potential National Progressive Voice that CK would have been and then wonder why there are no national progressive voices to be heard.

I don't care how left leaning Gillibrand manages to turn herself into to please the down state liberals - she will never be a progressive voice. In that regard the loss of CK is big and I'm not surprised most who lent there vitrol to the cause don't  and won't own it.

Such is human nature and evidently politics as usual.

Ms. Kennedy's non-selection is still shrouded in mystery. I am sure Mr. Paterson does not read blogs. Kennedy did not present herself in any public forums as being very Senatorial. Perhaps she had toxic housekeeper or fatal nanny syndrome, she won't say. Gillibrand does bring something very valuable for Paterson, ready made Upstate popularity. Hard to believe, but some people really do like guns. I have lived in Upstate New York in the ancient past, and I noticed very little difference between Upstate and Appalachia. I don't even live in the US any more, but from a distance, this seems like one of those rare examples of Al not being as astute about the political world as he usually is. I would be willing to state right here {I am not as knowledgeable as Al in this area} that given the current dynamic, the singular voter, Mr. Paterson, made the choice that works best for him, and that Ms. Gillibrand will be re-elected by a wide margin. That doesn't have anything to do with my own political leanings or prejudices, it is just a cold analysis of mathematics. Perhaps Nate Silver would weigh in. Finally, I think it necessary to emphasize that the blog writers and publishers must recognize that while they have now earned some respect, that doesn't mean they have any influence, and it doesn't mean that politicians and other players do not intend to use them for their own ends as much as possible and to ignore them whenever convenient, which would be most of the time. Paterson really does not care about Bloglandia at all, so whatever Jane and Al have said, it means less than nothing in this case.

Looks to me like Kos, Hamsher and the rest can now count themselves as played by Schumer's machine.  Now he's got a junior senator he can control and who won't upstage him with better politics and no large debt to the NY state machine.   Those of us living in upstate know she hasn't done anything except underscore the most parochial of fears.

Anyone looking for a subject for their dissertation regarding the evolution of blogger/journalism will hit the Mother Lode at firedoglake's Jane Hamsher.  This site revolves around her cult of personality and the delusions she is a leading progressive journalist/pundit as well as brilliant political activist.

From the beginning, those who were drawn to the work of Marcy Wheeler and her interesting credentials and work regarding the cabal of Bush/Cheney found themselves confronting this other woman hellbent on making it big via character destruction.

While serious work concerning Scooter Libby was being done by Wheeler, Hamsher ripped apart every journalist and politician she considered beneath her by name calling, demeaning nicknames, vulgar asides, and endless constructions of her own reality which her followers adopted as truth.  The concept of "snark" as she employed it had rules; and those rules were were enforced by a lawyer from West Virginia and the lurking moderators.

First and foremost: the contributors must act as if they were in Jane Hamsher's living room.

And in Jane's living room, she got to say whatever she wanted while everyone else must first, acknowledge her writing as fabulous, insightful, worthy of a Pulitzer, and then they got to pile on with her line of reasoning.  To do otherwise was be frozen out of the comaraderie, turned on and called a troll.  Death by troll.

It didn't register to the true believers that while Ann Coulter was being derided for name calling, demeaning nicknames, vulgar asides and endless constructions of her own reality, their hostess was doing the same thing.

Which brings us to Caroline Kennedy.  In Hamsher's latest writings she cruelly repeats the worst about Caroline and Ted.  She clearly delights in being able to say she was right, and that the rest of us only wanted Camelot.  She knows that our delusions about Camelot necessitated her character assasination.

I will remain anonymous on this blog for a reason.  If no one else will follow this pathetic cult of personality, I guess I will.

Spot on, Al.

John N., I see your point(s) but as a NYer I would like at least a moment of dismay that I'm getting a very junior congresswoman that reads like a VERY status quo, politics-as-usual Blue Dog Democrat as my next Senator.

And I gotta say, as a woman, this smacks of the same insult McCain lobbed with the Palin pick: That we woman will be more ok with it just because she's got a vagina!  Well, gee, then...

My only hope is that there's some truth to this post http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/23/7820/40076/616/687903

and she will move to the left now that her constituency has changed.  I suppose I should just lump it, be glad it's not another schmuck from NYC who couldn't find Buffalo on a map...because they don't want or care to.  But I didn't want a pick who's primary selling point seems to be she makes sense for Patterson's re-election!

Gillibrand is being touted as a protege of Hillary's.  Anyone think Kirsten would graciously step aside to let Hillary back in when she inevitably gets dumped as SoS in the next few years?

Dear Al,

I usually disagree with you.  We've yelled at each other online multiple times, and don't have much good to say about one another, but you're spot on with this.

A quick review of the progblogs has yet to find anyone (especially on Dkos) taking responsibility for this train wreck as you put it, and no one ever will.  And they complain about our politicians making bad decisions . . .

I doubt she (Gillibrand) would have been chosen. She's definitely electable, moderate enough to satisfy both upstate farmers and downstate subway riders, and young enough to hold the seat for decades.

It took reading some progressive gun sites and anti-drug war sites to come to this conclusion: we need a better solution to urban violence than passing a bunch of anti-possession rules that are just as disregarded as the ones regarding pot. Opposing someone who is a member of the NRA-a necessity in a district where constituents take the 2nd Amendment seriously, where the other option is a neanderthal who supports everything else retrogressive, is not politically smart.

Personally, I think Hillary is going to do her very best as Secretary of State. This jobs fits her wonky side better than President would have-she doesn't have to be quite the cheerleader type a President needs to be. She can focus her best efforts on formulating policy, not schmoozing the presss. This also frees her from concerns about re-election, about Bill's private life interfering with that, and other political problems.

I hear you Al. This is very disappointing. I believe CK did the right thing by pulling out. I can only hope that she will consider running for the seat in 2010. At least then, there's little that greedy and jealous NY politicians can do to stop her.  

Kirsten Gillibrand?  More work on this Brooklynite's plate.  It's bad enough The Schu is too much in Wall Street's pocket, but now another Democrat so beholden to Wall Street money?  Ouch.

The last comment about Gillibrand being "beholden to Wall Street money" is laughable.  She voted against the bailout bills, which is why she is on the outs with Nancy Pelosi.

Gillibrand will represent the state ably.  She is no rightwing idealogue.   She is one of the first "Sunshine" members of Congress who makes every meeting with a constituent or a lobbyist public on her website.  She is a quick study who has won wide support in her very conservative district by working her ass off.

The seat was Kennedy's to lose, and she lost it.  Gillibrand won as she has won over her district -- quiet perseverence.

I haven't read through all the comments yet but wanted to quickly state that my impression with all of this is that it makes it look like Patterson is really concerned about his own reelection chances.

He didn't want to rock the boat and picked a candidate who stood the greatest chance of getting Republican/Independant votes upstate (and catered to the centerist crowd upstate himself). He also left the door open to the Cuomo/Kennedy clans to fight it out in a primary without seeming to have picked sides.

My guess would also be that if there really was some issue with taxes in regards to Kennedy's help then he was probably quite anxious about having his named tied to any whiff of scandel since he came into office courtesy of Spitzer's idiocy.

Will read more later and have followed a tiny bit about Gillibrand (she represents my hometown) and maybe I'll change my mind but that's how I'm reading this.

Please cross post over on KOS....please!!!

I know KG and her husband -- pleasant people in social situations. But her positions on immigration have been of the fire-breathing Dobbsians sort: "Crack down" on "illegals." Close the border and hire 8,000 new guards. No amnesty if you're already here.

When asked by some local friends to meet with some undocumented workers so she might understand this from a more humane perspective, Kirsten allegedly snapped, "Why would I want to meet with criminals?"

Jane Hamsher and - while we're at it - Dave Sirota and Chris Powers define progressive politics (aside: can we please return to "liberal"?) as an emanation of essentially whatever they happen to be thinking, at any given time. This makes it possible for Hamsher to be sexist in the most rank and reactionary ways without paying any price. And it makes it possible for Sirota to idiotically claim, as he did yesterday, that the House vote against the second tranche of TARP funds was a progressive victory, when in fact it was a Republican victory. Meanwhile, Powers jumps the gun and makes an ass of himself on Tim Kaine, the DNC, and the alleged death of the 50 state strategy. Oops!

As John Cole says, Clown Shoes!

These folks sit on the edge of their seats, waiting to pounce on any subject that brings attention to themselves - and then stamp it PROGRESSIVE. The only things they're good at advancing are their own "brands." Politics be damned. And it works! They get to go on the TeeVee and shit.

Kos strikes me as a bit more genuine, but his Working Class Hero pathology makes it difficult for him to give an honest look at so-called "elites." That's less of a crime, in my eyes. His diatribes don't come across as heat-seeking, career-advancing opportunism.

...Al, you really have to warn people when you link to that nasty pink site!  

I agree -- It's really not an accident that the fake democrats supported the pick of the upstater. I'm willing to watch and see how she votes on the upcoming progressive agenda, especially the upcoming Employee Free Choice Act. But this choice could end up stinking worse than a train wreck.

Al did crosspost to kos -- look further up on this page (you may have already found it!). 

--Though I was generally supportive of CK as Senator, I think this experience will be good for her if she wants to continue in politics.  She is bright and when prepared, articulate spokesperson for the things she believes in.  But this is not a business for those who can't use sharp elbows when they need to.  Also, any background, tax, nanny issues really needed to be vetted by her team beforehand. 

There are no such things as "appointments" that are just easy-breezy.  They must be handled and strategized similar to any other campaign.  I suspect she won't make that mistake again.  Lets see if she wants politics enough to really get all the way in after this..

As for Gillebrand and Paterson, I don't see that he handled it all that badly.  He had a hot potato from the outset -- handling the highly charged personalities involved (and I'm not just speaking about Kennedy).  It was always going to be a mess once it was clear that her appointment was not going to be uncontested.  He smeared the blame around enough to get out of it himself for the most part.  Notice Shumer didnt get anywhere near this.

One can take issue with Hamsher only if she endorsed Gillibrand as the alternative to CK.  Telling Hamsher she can't oppose CK merely because a less progressive choice is possible is ABSURD.

As a gun owner (a simple .22 open sight at the moment) I think we should use caution in labeling others “gun-toting” maniacs. I'm certainly not a fan of the NRA's politics and I refuse to be a member (here in Colorado we've organized a “Shooting Liberally”), but please remember it is our constitutional right, and I've seen time and time again how gun-control is a sure loser for the left. Many of us are very sane, sensible and rational people.

I agree with nepat above and personally will no longer consider myself affiliated or in any way associated with progressives. I happen to listen to Albany radio from time to time and have been disappointed by everything I have heard Gillibrand say since she was elected. They might as well appoint a Republican, from New York they might be more progressive than she is.

Meanwhile in my own state the progressives are planning their political agenda and seem to think that restoring a healthy economy means building more interstate lanes and exits and that environmentalism is building high tension power lines to compete with New York. The number one social agenda item is a gas tax to build more roads and setting spending limits on all projects that are not building more roads.

President Obama isn't kidding when he says there a lot of work to do for the grassroots.

RHowe - At no point have I said "Hamsher can't oppose Kennedy." Rather, I've said, the way she did it was vitriolic, used sexist language, used twisted logic that only revealed that Hamsher herself is not that bright or smart about politics (for example, claiming that a consulting firm's past client ought to be a mark against a later client), hypocritical (because she never slammed any of the other clients of that firm), dishonest (inferring that Kennedy supported Leiberman for Senate when she in fact donated to his Democratic opponent) and transparently self-serving: her whole schtick was an appeal to Cable News stations to put her on the air and shout more epithets.

Hamsher just is not that astute when it comes to politics. She's an aspiring Ann Coulter, mouthing platitudes of the left rather than right, and thus an embarrassment to the causes she claims to support.

I hope people now see exactly why these little gatekeepers should be disowned by the rest of us.  They are no different from Sean Hannity and Ann Coulter.

For my extensive analysis, please feel read to read the rest at my site here.

http://davefromqueens.com/2009/01/23/netroots-must-disown-kos-hamsher--the-townhouse.aspx

Dan, please distinguish between wannabe ann Coulters like Jane Hamshers, wanna be Bill O'reilly's like Moulitsas and most progressives and liberals.

Kos and Hamsher have dwindling audiences. Kos gets fewer than 10,000 people a week and Hamsher is lucky if she gets 5000 readers.  their sites have each lost 75% of their audiences in the past 3 months.

Disassociate from them, but don't disassociate from most progressives.  Kos and Hamsher don't speak for them.

Dave from Queens - I don't know how many readers Hamsher has or doesn't have. I know that I don't visit her site and I read all the "must reads" regardless of the size of their audiences or of whether I often agree with them or not.

I also know your claims about Daily Kos having "10,000 people a week" is way off. You can view that site's statistics here. It gets, at present, 825,000 visitors a day.

Let's stay reality based, please.

Al - sitemeter is never an accurate indication of any site. If you go to compete.com which is similar to sitemeter, it shows 1.8 mill for DK in September but only 0.6 mill for December, a 75% drop. 

Sitemeter can be the same person 10,000 times a day.

A better place for statistics is Jotter's diaries. Jotter is DK's official statistician.  According to Jotter's weekly diaries, Daily Kos had less than 10,000 active users last week.

I won't comment further on this subject as I'm straying too far away from your initial and valid point but very extensive analysis of these numbers (and their reality based implications) can be found here. http://davefromqueens.com/2008/12/31/thank-good-its-friday.aspx

Infrequent commentator here, occassional lurker.  You just lost me Al.  I've always admired your positions, thoughts, and writings, but this was a very bad blog, Al.  I find your claims without merit, your arguments clouded by possible anger and irrationality, your overall premise baseless.

Paterson is the only one to blame because it was, and always was, his and only his choice.  People expressing their opinions is never a bad thing (whether you agree or disagree).

I don't think I will be returning here to often, to see a writer I admire fall into such unfounded arguments is disturbing.  I've lost  respect for you Al.

Josephcast - If I'm not pissing somebody off, I'm not doing my job. I'm not doing this for your respect or anyone else's. I call 'em as I see it. If you don't like it, the EXIT sign has been lit up all along.

Dave from Queens - To say that 10,000 DKos "users" were there in the course of a week only refers to those who comment. A general rule of thumb in blogging and talk radio is that less than one percent of the viewers or listeners ever comment or sign up to do so. (Multiply 10,000 x 100 and you get one million.) Your stat doesn't include the great majority of viewers who are "lurkers." I'm not sure what the point is anyway. I have my disagreements - sometimes passionate - with Kos and his front-pagers, but as in this case I can separate those disagreements from my overall admiration for the work he does there. In fact, sometimes it's the success of that work that can piss us off the most.

numbers are on the decline. I am about to join the exodus as I find that I am only posting to refute the craziness disseminated by Kos and his minions and don't want to continue to contribute to the count of site visitors and users (that just helps him out with advertisers).  It's a pretty dismal site if you look at it from the politics perspective. Kos himself is not particulalry sophisticated about politics and is pedaling some strange stuff these days. Kudos to Dave from Queens for his direct words on just how bad Kos, Hamsher, etc. are. Let's recognize these sites for the cynical money-making ventures that they are.

Jotter tabulates those for the week.  Usually only a few thousand. So if we add lurkers, it's still under 20,000 per week. And this doesn't factor into multiple computers or sockpuppets.

My general point is that the progressive netroots is a very large entity.  There are millions of us.  No one person, no two people, no three people, speak for all of us.  In fact, no single person even speaks for 5% of us.  The problem arises when any individual, whether it's a person I respect or find loathsome, tries claiming to speak for all of us.  And when such a person says or does stupid things, it taints us all unless we are on record ahead of time on this point about who speaks for us.  this is especially troublesome when the media goes to the same people time and time again.  It's the equivalent of the punditocracy and Broderism that we've all denounced in the past.  It deserves denunciation.

Regarding firedoglake and founder, Jane Hamsher:

I encourage people to use this site to research Groupthink.  Before and during the Scooter Libby trial, a post would go up and bloggers would race to be the first to respond.

Jane!

Fitz!

Your so beautiful in person, Jane!

Thank you for this post, Jane.

A person might begin with his own opinion and someone would remind him of his rudeness.

Where are my manners?  Wonderful post, Jane.

I agree, Jane, that Pumpkinhead (speaking of the late Tim Russert) has absolutely no credibility.

Speaking truth to Pumpkinhead, you go, girl.  Jane you are a national treasure.  When will we be seeing you on Press the Meat?

I made up the above, but this is how many of her posts were greeted and how her namecalling was promulgated.

She took this style to her posts on HuffingtonPost and sought to humiliate Caroline Kennedy.

Thank you for writing the Progressive TRUTH! I could not have said this any better myself. Keep preaching. I'm reading and like u, watching!

dumb luck Daily Kos has cachet with the media so Markos often gets designated by the MSM as a spokesperson for the netroots. (Oddly, though, he has not been impressive at all in his TV appearances (weaselly in appearance and speech) - he has some nerve criticizing Caroline Kennedy for the quality of her public appearances.) I'm not sure how we get away from that other than to stop participating in his blog and hope that others see the light.

Al has made it pretty clear that he doesn't care what his readership numbers are. If his goal was to maximize page hits, he wouldn't write blog posts about such controversial subjects as Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals.

If Al has lost you as a reader, then just leave. Nobody is stopping you, and frankly I don't care if you leave or stay. I'll make my own decisions about whether I still want to continue reading here (but here's a hint: I'm going to be sending Al another portrait of Benjamin Franklin printed on a green cotton blend just as soon as I can get Tim Geithner to sign it).

Taking the time to post about how THIS time Al has really done it and lost you as a reader just makes you look like a self-important martyrphiliac who can't stand reading something he or she disagrees with. Anybody remember the great DailyKos exodus led by allegre during the Democratic primary? Boy that sure was effective, wasn't it?

Go ahead and leave if you must. But if you're going to take the time to post here and announce your departure, I suspect most people here are just going to laugh at you.

Al's blog is great - I was talking about Daily Kos . .

It was my understanding that that website was agit-prop BS run by right-wingers. Given how often over the last six months the stuff on that crap site has completely contradicted HRC's spoken, written, and e-mailed words, I can't see how anyone, much less a seasoned professional journalist, can take it seriously.

Mary - thanks for the kind words.  Your thoughts are the thoughts of most online netroot progressives. We're just too scattered at this point.

Ernest - Good point on Rules for Radicals. I think it is a great book if one appreciates the strategic element to it.  I read Alinsky as more of a strategist and his concepts could be (and indeed have been) applied by people from all parts of the political spectrum. 

Granted she didn't come across well when speaking publicly and if she was campaigning for the seat, she went about it wrong. On paper though she was a great choice.  She was a close advisor to Obama for starters. Her list of accomplishments are far greater.

What offends people is how horribly she was treated. This wasn't about honest disagreement.  This was about progressives tearing apart a woman for no reason when she was every bit as progressive as they purport to be.

The level of anger and hostility shown toward CK and the amount of blog posts that went into this anger and hostility leads me to question whether or not this was all orchestrated and if so, by whom?

You here the talk about how there should be no blue dogs from blue states, how we should find the most progressive candidate possible, how we want more and better Dems.  On paper, CK is far superior to Gillabrand.  Now maybe as a Senator, Gillabrand moves leftward and turns out to be a great Senator. Time will tell but as of right now, this all looks bad. 

Now these people claim their blog posts influence politics and elections.  Now that the progressive CK has been ripped to shreds and we have Blue Dog Gillabrand, these same people claim that they are powerless and can't influence politics.  So which is it?

Al, Thanks for the clarification.

And of course, just as Kirsten is rolled out for the media, comes the Bruno indictment, and with it, fresh scrutiny turns to Kirsten's father, lobbyist Doug Rutnik.

Wayne Barrett at the Village Voice wonders

if Paterson has even considered the possibility that as he and Gillibrand prepare for their 2010 campaigns, her family could be dogged by conflict of interest allegations. The Bruno probe has been so far-flung and well chronicled -- particularly by the Albany Times Union -- that it is impossible to tell what elements of any case against him might consist of, but the deal with Rutnik is certainly an inviting target.

And Time makes sure to point out in its profile on Gillibrand

Her parents are divorced and her father, Douglas Rutnik, is an Albany lobbyist and a former public defender who had a longtime romantic relationship with powerful public relations maven Zenia Mucha. Douglas Rutnik also has ties to many powerful Republicans and Democrats in New York State and has drawn press attention for a real estate investment with New York Senate leader Joe Bruno, indicted January 23 on charges he defrauded the public while in office.

It can be so difficult for a daughter to make her own way in the world of politics when she has a famous father.

Al - New York Magazine is up with a must read inside look at how Paterson hamstrung CK - and possible doomed himself to boot.

"Paterson had told her to go upstate and introduce herself to some elected officials, even dictating the order of the cities Kennedy should visit. Crazily, he’d also told her not to take questions from the media. (Paterson now denies having instructed her.)"

"Kennedy’s team expected her to go through a rough baptism by press. But in any conventional campaign, the candidate can fight back with ads, speeches, listening tours. This time, her aides say, Kennedy was required to defer to Paterson’s shifting limits on what she and her competitors could do or say in pursuit of the Senate opening."

It was a narrow gate - for a rare opportunity - Paterson could have held the door open  - instead  he strangled the baby in the crib - I doubt he will survive.

http://nymag.com/news/politics/53618/index5.html

So, let me get this straight. Schumer pushed Paterson for Gillibrand. Gillibrand's daddy is going to come out in the Bruno scandal wash. Paterson is up for election in 2010. Who does Schumer have waiting in the wings for Paterson's job?

I guess you probably won't read this, but just on the off chance that you do...

My post wasn't directed at you at all. Actually, I was making a general observation about the two or three people I've seen in this thread who have written in to declare that they are all leaving for good. Your post just happened to be sitting above mine. It wasn't even visible to me when I hit the "Post Comment" button. Sorry about the confcusion.