Skip to main content

Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), whose district spans from the Upper West Side through the World Trade Center site to Coney Island and Bay Ridge, and who is among the most progressive members of Congress, has announced his interest in the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton.  

Here's what Nadler,  who chairs the House Judiciary Subcommittee on the Constitution, Civil Rights, and Civil Liberties, told Democracy Now's Amy Goodman today:

Partial transcript:

AMY GOODMAN: Speaking of districts, are you interested in the Senate seat?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Certainly.

AMY GOODMAN: And what is the politics that goes on behind this?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, that’s very hard to know. This is an appointment. It’s entirely internal to Governor Paterson’s head. So one doesn’t really know what the politics is. Obviously, the people supporting Senator -- I’m sorry, the people supporting Caroline Kennedy think that a public campaign would be helpful. Other candidates have not been doing it. I have not been doing a public campaign. And no one really knows.

AMY GOODMAN: Have you talked to Governor Paterson privately?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Yes.

AMY GOODMAN: And do you think Caroline Kennedy is qualified to be senator?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, that’s up to Governor Paterson to decide, and I’m not going to comment on that. All I’ll say is that I think that’s the wrong question, and the press has been asking the wrong question. The question should not be is Caroline Kennedy or any other individual, for that matter, qualified, because the assumption there is if you meet the certain minimum qualification, you’re entitled to the seat. The question ought to be the same question anyone hiring someone for any responsible job would ask, and that is, is this person the most qualified of all the available candidates? That’s the relevant question.

AMY GOODMAN: And why do you think you’re the most qualified?

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, I think all the candidates think they’re the most qualified. I think my record in Congress is a very progressive and forward-looking record. I think I’ve shown very good judgment. I was one of the few downstate people who voted against the war, against the PATRIOT Act. I’ve taken a leadership role on civil liberties, on economic development. And I led the battle against the—I led the battle for eight years against the Bankruptcy, so-called, Reform Act of 2005, which we now recognize as probably responsible for maybe a third of the foreclosures that are going on in this country.

One more thing from the interview, in case Nadler's politics were unclear:

AMY GOODMAN: We just were listening to Vice President Cheney. One of the remarkable things he said was, well, as you pointed out, echoing back to Nixon—if people have seen Frost/Nixon, we just had Ron Howard on—that issue of, if a president does it, it’s not illegal.

REP. JERROLD NADLER: Well, that’s the definition of a monarch. We rebelled against that notion in 1776. And, in fact, it is just completely either ignorant or malevolent. It’s the antithesis of a democratic country. It’s the antithesis of the rule of law. The whole point of the way they drafted the Constitution was that they didn’t want the president to be an elected monarch. A president, anyone in this country, must be subject to the rule of law and not above it. The people are sovereign, not the president. And someone who says that if the president does it, it’s legal, betrays the Constitution and betrays the entire goal of American government, which is to have rule by the people, not by a king.

Originally posted to Daily Kos on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:01 PM PST.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Nadler is a good guy. (32+ / 0-)

    If he got the post, I would have the honor of saying I once had dinner with him, as well as had him ride shotgun in my car back to his DC hotel one night (long story...)

    Obamaponies made of rainbows would make ME happy.

    by wmtriallawyer on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:04:42 PM PST

    •  You'll have to share it with us one day... (3+ / 0-)

      ...if you can.  Sounds like a potentially interesting story.

      "It's better to vote for what you want, and not get it, than to vote for what you don't want, and get it." Eugene Debs, 1912.

      by cybrestrike on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:09:07 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  For sure. (5+ / 0-)

        Back in my Hill days in the 90s.  All happened on State of the Union night, too.

        Obamaponies made of rainbows would make ME happy.

        by wmtriallawyer on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:10:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  I'm posting up here so people see this (5+ / 0-)

          Nadler is a knucle head

          transcript

          Says Nadler: "I have no personal knowledge of what I'm about to say. What I'm about to say is my guess..."

          Hoo boy.

          "My guess," Nadler said, "knowing how politics works, what I'm about to say is not particularly..."

          He searches for the word. Rejects a couple suggestions.

          "...not particularly complimentary towards Sen. Obama," he says.

          "Think of the history here," says the six-term New York congressman. "You have a guy who's half-white, half-black. He goes to an Ivy League school, comes to Chicago ... to start a political career. Doesn't know anybody.

          "Gets involved with community organizing -- why? Because that's how your form a base.  OK. Joins the largest church in the neighborhood. About 8,000 members. ... Why did he join the church? ... Because that's how you get to know people.

          "Now maybe it takes a couple years," Nadler says, suggesting that soon Obama starts to think of Wright, "'Jesus, the guy's a nut, the guy's a lunatic.' But you don’t walk out of a church with 8,000 members in your district."

          Suggests a woman: "You don’t walk in though."

          "He didn't know it when he walked in, presumably," said Nadler.

          And then, the line that may haunt Nadler for four years or longer: "He didn't have the political courage to make the statement of walking out.

          "Now, what does it tell me?" Nadler asked. "It tells me that he wasn't terribly political courageous. Does it tell me that he agreed with the reverend in any way? No. It tells me he didn't want to walk out of a church in his district."

          What’s even funnier about this is that the previous time I can recall Nadler talking about Obama was in December 2006, when Jason Horowitz of the New York Observer chatted with him at the Israeli Policy Forum.

          Nadler told the Observer that Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., "had called him earlier yesterday to tell him that she was leaning towards running for president, and that he said he would support her. His choice, he explained, was a pragmatic one.

          "'I don't see a lot of other good possibilities in our party,' said Nadler... 'Someone like Barack Obama, who is suddenly a real candidate, always worries me, because he is a novice candidate. He hasn't done it before. Novice candidates, not always, but 95 percent of the time make a mistake. I made some terrible mistakes in office, when I was district leader, no one remembers what they are. I wasn't in front of all the news cameras.'"

          Yes, Congressman Nadler. Heaven forbid that you make a mistake in front of a camera! Only a novice would make such a mistake!

          Oy

          •  relevant flub about Barack (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            buckhorn okie, weebo

            this is only 3 days before the election

            And then, the line that may haunt Nadler for four years or longer: "He didn't have the political courage to make the statement of walking out.

            "Now, what does it tell me?" Nadler asked. "It tells me that he wasn't terribly political courageous. Does it tell me that he agreed with the reverend in any way? No. It tells me he didn't want to walk out of a church in his district."

            •  Clintonista or Maverick? (3+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              buckhorn okie, NYFM, markthshark

              You decide.

              Still, he's paid his dues.

              " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

              by Lavocat on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:37:53 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nadler may have paid his dues but to me... (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                skyounkin

                someone who claims to be a so-called 'progressive' and talks about how the Constitution and the rule of law are still sacrosanct in this country would at least try to use the tools available to him/her to preserve and defend it.

                Don't get me wrong, he's done some good work (and New York certainly could do worse) but my concept of a true progressive would be someone who has been a passionate proponent of impeachment hearings.

                Unfortunately, Nadler has not.

                "If you once forfeit the confidence of your fellow citizens, you can never regain their respect and esteem." -- Abraham Lincoln

                by markthshark on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:22:43 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Well then, virtually everyone is out (5+ / 0-)

                  by that strict litmus test.

                •  Nadler ignored pleas from his constituents... (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  Do Tell

                  ...to hold the Bush administration accountable for their crimes.  He didn’t just fail to act. He responded to the petitions from his constituents by clamping his eyes shut, covering his ears and yelling "la, la, la, laaaaa."

                  Sure, Nadler has lots of company in his failure to act. Sure, he’s not such a bad Congressman.  The problem is, if we continue to settle for spineless, "not so bad" Democrats, we’re condemning ourselves to the kind of ineffectual legislative branch that has allowed the Bush administration’s criminal enterprise to plow forward unchecked.

                  With Obama in the White House, perhaps we can worry a bit less about having the Constitution and the rule of law stolen out from under us.  For now. But what about the next time this country’s foolish, amnesiac electorate puts another bunch of Bush/Cheney style neo-Fascists into office (and we all know that eventually, that WILL happen)?  If we don’t demand that our current representatives hold this latest bunch of crooks accountable -- if we don’t insist on candidates who will stand up and fight for what’s right – then the next incarnation of Bush/Cheney will be able to pick up right where the outgoing one left off.  Then, we’ll be left wondering why we didn’t do something sooner, as all the benefits of our Constitutional Democracy are taken from us, one by one.

                  I’m sure Nadler’s not such a bad guy. We can do better. We MUST do better. Otherwise, we’re likely to live to regret it.

              •  Paid his dues? (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                alba, weebo

                Since when is "paying dues" a prerequisite for effective leadership. Did Obama "pay his dues", did Nadler "pay his dues" before he ran for congress?

                What is meant by paying dues? What I like about Caroline is that she hasn't "paid her dues" she is coming in from the outside, and is untouched, and unlike Nadler she was for Obama from the beginning, whereas Nadler is a Clintonista, and the Clintonista's are going to be the undoing of Obama.. They will subvert him and his admininistration.. they are Republican Light.

                •  bullshit. (7+ / 0-)

                  There is nothing about Nadler which is "Republican Light."

                  Don't judge folks based on who they supported in the primaries (and I think all NY incumbents supported Clinton, as a courtesty).  

                •  yeah - so far I like what I'm hearing about (2+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  rnotrtoornotrtoo, weebo

                  Nadler but I don't like what he had to say about Obama over the Rev Wright flap. Also it is not impressive that he reflexively went with HRC in the presidential race (I know all the NYS pols did it but that doesn't make it right). CK is from NY too so she gets big points for bucking the NY political establishment and going with Obama at such a critical point in his campaign. In assessing qualifications, you can't toss that evidence of superb political judgment on her part (as well as a close connection to Obama) as easily as so many choose to do.

            •  As A Strong Obama Supporter (7+ / 0-)

              Got to say most of what he said about Obama is true.

              Obama didn't fall off the turnip truck into the presidency. Clearly, he's been an aggressive politician with an agenda to climb up the ladder. And that's the only kind of politician that ever gets elected to the presidency.

              •  Frankly, having read both his books he did at (0+ / 0-)

                least walk in because of the power that church and leader had in that area.  His acceptance of Jesus happened later on.  As far as walking out, well the way I read it he was not so regular an attendee at Sunday service that he would necessarily have heard enough "controversial sermons" to have known Wright would be that big a deal in a national contest.  

                Nadler was inept, but if he is a progressive with a record we can see I would far rather see him than the nepotism candidate that is Caroline Kennedy. And honestly her first steps out are looking a bit Palin-ish for my tastes.

            •  Exactly (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              rnotrtoornotrtoo

              He hurt his chances with that potshot.

          •  So, he had a bad moment (10+ / 0-)

            And maybe he's not so good on his feet in uncontrolled situations.

            And yes, I understand that even a less "bad" moment for Caroline Kennedy becomes the pretext to call her Sarah Palin.

            But if he were to become the nominee, I'd support him enthusiastically, and therefore don't want to distort a bad moment today into something I can't defend later on. Would that more of the anti-Kennedy folks have such foresight and dignity.

          •  Not terribly important now (7+ / 0-)

            That was the Hillarista party line. It pales next to Hillary herself sitting next to Richard Mellon Fucking Scaife and piously smearing Obama for staying in the church for 20 years instead of walking out over 40 seconds' worth of remarks taken out of context he hadn't been present to hear. The entire Hillary campaign had lost its mind at that point, but IT'S OVER. Sanity returned. In fact, if 3/4 of it weren't going to mark Penn I'd probably make a contribution to help pay off Hillary's debt.

    •  He's the only good alternative to Kennedy (8+ / 0-)

      I have seen so far, and I will say that he is superior to her.  Cuomo has been decent as AG but I would not want him as our Senator.

    •  THANK YOU, Adam B! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Bartimaeus Blue

      I am now partisan and hope that Nadler gets the seat.  The people of New York will thank me for my wise opinion.  :->

      You won't have Putin's rearing head to kick around anymore.

      by rhubarb on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:34:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Now you're talkin' "qualified" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      klamothe

      We'll see how New Yorkers react.

    •  As a strong Caroline Kennedy backer,,, (6+ / 0-)

      I could just as easily support this man.  

      "But your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore"--Prine 4210+ dead Americans. Bring them home.

      by Miss Blue on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:39:45 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  He should get it (4+ / 0-)

      He's way more progressive than anyone else who could end up getting the nom.

    •  Nadler is a good guy BUT... (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weebo, Captain Antelope

      In his post as a committee chair, he is in a position to launch impeachment proceedings, and WILL NOT DO IT.

      I went to a big meeting at Judson Church in Greenwich Village on the subject. He was expected, and didn't even show up!

      It's not too late; Bush and Cheney could still be impeached. If Nadler refuses to start the proceedings, then he's not much better than Bush himself.

      Personally, I like Carolyn Maloney myself. She represents my ZIP code, which is in my user name.

      "The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." - George Washington, 1796

      by djny10003 on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:09:13 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  Even a monarch has limits on his powers (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    TomP, banjolele, MsGrin

    And that was true of King George III, as evidenced by the fact that one of his predecessors, King Charles I, was overthrown and put to death by Parliament, but evidently Cheney and others believed that they had powers King George III never had.

    "We have always known that heedless self-interest was bad morals, now we know that it is bad economics." Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Jan. 20, 1937

    by Navy Vet Terp on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:05:18 PM PST

  •  Very interesting (8+ / 0-)

    Spices things up considerably.

    All I want for Christmas is impeachment

    by MsGrin on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:05:26 PM PST

  •  Wouldn't Nadler and Franken (18+ / 0-)

    be a fine brace of progressives?

    Canada - where a pack of smokes is ten bucks and a heart transplant is free.

    by dpc on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:05:47 PM PST

  •  oooooh (23+ / 0-)

    An actual Liberal?  Can we have that?

    I'd like that.

    "They want to win, at any price. So, you have a choice: be a fighting liberal or sit quietly. I know what I am, what are you?" -Steve Gilliard.

    by demkat620 on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:05:48 PM PST

  •  Experience, Credentials. and Ability (21+ / 0-)

    What's not to like? He should definitely be considered for the open seat. We need more progressives like Nadler in the Senate. New York, as one of the more liberal states, should be represented by progressive congressmen.

    Oh, and let the "games" begin.

    But don't forget that most men without property would rather protect the possibility of becoming rich, than face the reality of being poor. (1776)

    by banjolele on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:05:55 PM PST

  •  But...but...he's fat! And liberal! (3+ / 0-)

    And...NY is center-right!

    Freedom is in the fight.

    by Troubadour on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:06:26 PM PST

  •  I'd walk a mile for a Senator Nadler (7+ / 0-)

    but I'd ride a mile on my last name if my name were Kennedy.

    "It stinks." - Jay Sherman

    by angry liberaltarian on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:06:58 PM PST

  •  Now this is an intriguing idea. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    demkat620, filby, ThePrometheusMan

    I ain't a New Yorker so I don't count, but he has some bona fides not many have.

    Plus, I just kinda like this bulldog of a man.

  •  I need to know his stand on the Pony issue (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Wufacta

    /ducks

  •  I like Nadler (5+ / 0-)

    He'd make a great senator. Any upstate Kosfolk have insight into how much traction he could get up there?

    •  i love nadler (4+ / 0-)

      and i want him to be the senator but this upstate question is a theoretical sticking point.

      you would think that a democrat would do well/win despite his down stateness.

      •  I agree. I think Jerry would (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        rnotrtoornotrtoo, Potus2020, Jacques

        make a great Senator.  But, I really wonder how he would play upstate.  There is already a feeling bordering on resentment that all the state-wide positions are held by downstaters.

        I am for the individual over government, government over big business and the environment over all -- William O. Douglas

        by Its the Supreme Court Stupid on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:22:20 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  It's a fair question (3+ / 0-)

          Does New York need another Brooklyn-born male lawyer in the Senate?  If he weren't as progressive as Nadler, I wouldn't be interested.

          •  i agree (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Adam B

            this is sort of his last chance for a promotion in a way...chuck isn't going anywhere and who ever gets the spot (if it isn't nadler) will likely have it for a while as well.

            his exceptional progressiveness makes the double brooklyn lawyer thing acceptable to me.

            he is so menchy that you would think he would go over well in Livonia and Syracuse and Greece and Potsdam and Buffalo

        •  Yeah, in Ohio this is a huge issue (0+ / 0-)

          Only it's how would Northeast ohio candidates play downstate. There's a certain sort of big-city candidate that gets creamed in statewide contests. In 2004 in the Senate race here, the very estimable Eric Fingerhut (now our state chancellor of higher education) got crushed by George Voinovich. Numerous gubernatorial candidates got creamed from 1990-2002. And, in early 2006, it looked like Sherrod Brown's would be the next name on the loser list. Congressman from the Cleveland area, very nerdy and intellectual, educated, urban aura, dry speaker. No one thought he'd do well downstate, in the rural areas and that Mikey DeWhiny would destroy him. Well, guess what?  That's SENATOR Sherrod Brown and FORMER Senator Mikey DeWhiny now. (Of course, DeWhiny ran a textbook stumbelbum campaign and then, as state chair of the McCain/Palin campaign, worked his ineffable magic for them as well!)

  •  He announced this on (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    rontun

    Democracy Now!?  HAHAHA

    Yes, Santa Claus, there is a Virginia. And it went Democratic.

    by Anarchofascist on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:07:57 PM PST

  •  Excellent diary (19+ / 0-)

    Positive case. Nadler is certainly the best of the US House members from NY in terms of voting record. And he showed real class not taking the bait (a la Ackerman, Wiener and Maloney's staff) when Goodman gave him a chance to whack Kennedy: he took the high road.

    Now, he's he going to raise the money, and, most importantly, from who?

    •  Oh, please. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Wufacta, nonnie9999, 0wn

      Al, do you have any evidence of bad voting by Nadler in almost two decades of service?

      •  What part of (14+ / 0-)

        "the best of the US House members from NY in terms of voting record" didn't you understand?

        Nadler kind of fell into his House seat in 1992 when the incumbent, Ted Weiss, died a day before the primary.

        He hasn't had a difficult campaign, not then, or at any point since. It's one of the most liberal districts in the country. A Republican hasn't been elected there in more than 100 years.

        One of the arguments used against Kennedy is that she hasn't had an election campaign. Well, in reality, Nadler hasn't had a real fight either, nothing more than token opponents and often unopposed. He hasn't had to raise massive warchests.

        I'm asking: Where's he going to get the money? That's a completely legitimate question and a statewide contest puts a whole new set of dynamics upon him. And people do evolve when they move up to higher office, both positively and negatively, and money does play a role. Let's not pretend it's not a vital question on the table.

        •  Well, it almost doesn't matter (5+ / 0-)

          Your money argument has been premised on the notion that we need someone who's independent of certain sources of money in order to maintain a progressive voting record.

          Well, Nadler clearly has that record, regardless of his funding sources.

          Are you really asking "can someone that liberal raise money?"  I'm pretty sure he can.

          •  Why the need to put words in other's mouths? (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, Do Tell, weebo

            Are you really asking "does this dress make me look fat?"

            No, you're not, and the post you are responding to did not ask: "can someone that liberal raise money?"

          •  I see donors like (6+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew, vcmvo2, Do Tell, Potus2020, alba, weebo

            ...the Akin Gump Civil Action Committee donating to Nadler time and time again, and it's something I want to investigate more.

            I spent 18 months of my life defending a lawsuit (against Internet press freedom) waged by Akin Gump (also on of the largest federal lobbying firms for corporate interests). As part of that, I started the Akin Gump Data Dump which is quite the large archive.

            When you represent the Upper West Side, Greenwich Village, Chelsea, et al, those were the votes that fit the realities of his district. And good on him for doing so. New York statewide is a horse of a different color. And yes I do think fundraising isn't going to be a walk in the park, and Schumer et al will be there waiting to make a statewide Nadler their subsidiary.

            You keep saying you'd like to hear more about Kennedy. Do others not have the same legitimate tendency to want to hear more about Nadler?

            •  Nadler has a thirty-year public record ... (0+ / 0-)

              ... you can't expect folks to post it all in the first hour.

              On fundraising: unless you have some evidence of PAC fundraising affecting his votes, it's a non-issue.  

              •  I'm sensing a bit of a double standard (8+ / 0-)

                You've been asking Kennedy supporters to dot the i's and cross the t's and answer even hypothetical and speculative questions. And some of us have been doing that for you, quite responsively I might add.

                Now that you've got a candidate to defend, don't try and shut down questions by labeling them "non-issue" (I assure you, I can make an issue out of it no matter how many times someone says it's not one).

                Do some digging. You can't wish the fundraising issues away. If you think that a good voting record makes it "okay" for someone to take money from any and all special interests, I assure you that millions disagree.

                It's kind of cool to see you now having to defend a candidate, rather than just raise questions about one. Let's see if you rise to meet the same standards you expect of we who favor a different candidate!

                •  I'm sensing a different double standard (0+ / 0-)

                  Crying foul about people make a negative case against Caroline as you attack an alternative choice for his fundraising.

                •  Last time I checked ... (0+ / 0-)

                  ... John Edwards bragged about never taking money from PACs or special interests, and won a total of one primary state during two presidential quests. It's not as resonant an issue as you believe it to be.

                  Do your digging.  If Nadler's cast bad votes -- regardless of the motive -- I want to know.

                  •  Edwards had the same problem (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    askew, Do Tell, alba, weebo

                    He didn't build a big enough small donor base and then felt he had to go on public financing. Actually, one of the potential problems with Nadler is he could turn out to be more of an "Edwards": good on paper, not so effective in reality.

                    A good senator does more than vote "yea" and "nay". The best develop fields of expertise and advocacy (that can be good - Teddy on health care, Feingold on civil liberties - or bad - Schumer on the financial system, Lieberman on foreign policy).

                    But in 16 years in Congress, what is Nadler known for? Other than benefits for victims of September 11 (which after all happened in his district eight years into his incumbency), he hasn't been a particularly effective champion.

                    If you believe a Senator is only a voting record - and not a potential leader that can change what gets voted on - then sure, maybe he is your guy.

                    I'm seeing in Nadler someone adequate and admirable, but not inspiring or with any evident potential to be more than just one out of 100.

                    But I'm open to hearing a case that convinces otherwise.

                    Beyond the voting record, the rest that he brings to the table seems mediocre.

                  •  But not taking money from lobbyists was (0+ / 0-)

                    resonant with Obama . . .

                •  LOL (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  chase

                  On the day "Kennedy Declines to Make Financial Disclosure" so as to give people even a rudimentary idea of her financial background, you want to throw out dotting i's and crossing t's against a sitting congressman whose been filling out disclosure forms for years?

                  That's rather rich.

                  •  You can be in a junior high schoolyard if u like (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    Do Tell, alba, weebo

                    But you're revealing yourself as foolish.

                    I'm talking about how (and from who) a campaign gets funded.

                    You're talking about personal financial statements.

                    Two different things. Nice try, though. I'll go back to discussing with the adults. Let me know when you get to, say, a High School level of debating politics.

                    •  Hate to Break It To You (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      klamothe

                      But the lame insults are a sure sign your argument sucks. She's refusing to provide even a fraction of the information that anyone who runs for office has to provide as a matter of course.

                      But you're kind of cute when you're bested.

        •  Oh, c'mon, you can't ask questions like that! (6+ / 0-)

          Don't you know that the only Senate wannabe you're allowed to be skeptical about is Caroline Kennedy?

          Stop asking questions about anyone else, dammit!  At least, don't ask them on Daily Kos.

          We are the change we've been waiting for.

          by MJB on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:29:12 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

      •  Not what he said (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Feanor, alba, True Independent, weebo

        Al, do you have any evidence of bad voting by Nadler in almost two decades of service?

        That's not all what Al stated. Please re-read his post.

  •  Nadler for Senate (9+ / 0-)

    He's one of the main people I've been countering to Caroline Kennedy for weeks. Glad he's made it clear the he's tossing his hat in the ring.

    And no his seat is in no danger of going to a Republican.

    Tell me one way Caroline Kennedy is a better choice? Give me one affirmative reason to select her rather than that most senators suck or we need an outsider. One affirmative reason.

    Nadler. Maloney. Slaughter. All better choices than someone who has been a 3-day a week fundraiser whose written two unimportant books and has a nice last name.

  •  Great quote here (11+ / 0-)

    The question should not be is Caroline Kennedy or any other individual, for that matter, qualified, because the assumption there is if you meet the certain minimum qualification, you’re entitled to the seat. The question ought to be the same question anyone hiring someone for any responsible job would ask, and that is, is this person the most qualified of all the available candidates? That’s the relevant question.

  •  Nadler would be good (0+ / 0-)

    Guy I'm honestly surprised we haven't heard more from is Joe Crowley though....he's been trying to move up in House Leadership for a few years it seems.  That being said, he's an NDC guy though so he wouldn't fly around here I don't think.

    Hey you, dont tell me theres no hope at all Together we stand, divided we fall.

    by marcvstraianvs on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:09:59 PM PST

  •  Its great to see (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    nonnie9999, Night Train, weebo

    the number of candidates for seat expand.

  •  Nadler doesn't hold up to Caroline. Nuff said. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Captain Antelope
    •  Not nuff said. Give one reason. Even one. (8+ / 0-)
      •  Nadler can't bring in the fundraising (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Feanor, daddy4mak

        Caroline can. And Nadler would lose a general election. Pete King can take either Nadler or Cuomo. Caroline will crush King in a general election.

        •  How do you know this? (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          nicta

          If Schumer can, why not Nadler?

          •  It doesn't take a rocket scientist to know (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            Do Tell, alba

            That Caroline will be a fund raising machine. Obviously fund raising won't win you any race but it surely doesn't hURT. Nadler will raise money of cause, but lets face it he's no dynamic candidate.  

            •  "dynamic" (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              filby

              Bob Casey Jr. raised $18M to win his Senate seat in 2006, and he's so exciting you can spend his speeches watching his eyebrows merge into one mighty unibrow.

              •  You mean Casey, son of... (3+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, vcmvo2, weebo

                ...the former governor?

                Oops.

                You don't think he was able to raise those sums without the family organization being so established throughout the state, do you?

                •  His dad has been dead for 8 years. (0+ / 0-)

                  Casey did this on his own.

                  •  And so a woman who's father (4+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    vcmvo2, Do Tell, alba, weebo

                    ...has been dead for 45 years is somehow less her own person than one whose has been gone for eight?

                    Change the names, and you're making an excellent case for a Senator Kennedy from New York.

                    •  not exactly (0+ / 0-)

                      Casey was elected to three 4-year terms to statewide office before seeking the Senate. He built his own name and record.  

                      And Ms. Kennedy has other relatives active in politics. You've mentioned them, Al, in your odd quest to not-go-negative.

                      •  New Math (3+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Do Tell, alba, weebo

                        Q. If a senator's father had been dead eight years before he ran for senate, but the senator had served three 4-year terms to statewide office beforehand, how many years was the senator's father alive during his statewide runs for office?

                        A. Four.

                        Bob Casey himself would tell you, proudly, that his father's support in live and his name in death played a big role in him being able to raise $18 million for a senate run.

                        You haven't made any case that Jerrold Nadler can raise what would be a higher necessary sum in New York state, having no statewide or national base, having never had a tough general election for Congress, having never had a tough primary for Congress, other than that he's "liberal" and the suggestion that liberal money would flow for him.

                        Color me still very unconvinced.

                        •  The same can be said for Kennedy (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          ThePrometheusMan

                          Other than having a last name.  Has no statewide or national base, has never had a any election for anything, having never had a tough primary for anything, other than that she's "liberal" and "well-known" and the suggestion that liberal money would flow for her.  

                          How, exactly, did Al Franken raise > $20M for his Senate race having no statewide or national base, having never had a tough general election for Congress, having never had a tough primary for Congress, other than that he's "liberal" and the suggestion that liberal money would flow for him?

                          But, of course, I thought we were only making positive cases, Al.

                          •  Al Franken and Caroline Kennedy (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Do Tell, alba, weebo

                            Franken began with a national base ("base" is distinct from "organization," but is a building block of it). He was known first as an entertainer, then as a best-selling book author, then as a daily nationally-syndicated talk radio host. He turned that base into an organization for fundraising purposes. Many, many people from outside of Minnesota donated to his campaign because he was a known quanitity to them. For some, it was an expansion of their "investment" (psychologically speaking) after buying his books. Franken was an established "brand" when he began his run.

                            Kennedy begins with a national base that is very much intertwined with an existing organization - what I wrote the other day about the role of the Kennedy library is relevant here. Like Franken, she is known statewide and nationwide. Like Franken, many have already bought her books. I would say she starts out farther ahead than Franken did because she is better known and the Kennedy organization has a multi-decade head start on what Franken had.

                            Nadler has none of those things.

                            Yes, it's true that she and Nadler are the same in terms of experience at winning contested Congressional campaigns. That's a draw, as far as I'm concerned. But she brings so much more to the table in terms of the ability to A. raise the money and B. not make herself dependent on special interests to raise it.

                          •  So we're clear (0+ / 0-)

                            You're not making any argument that her beliefs are better, are you?  This is solely a fundraising prediction?

                            Also, Kennedy and Franken are hardly in the same league on book-selling, and there is no "Kennedy Organization" in New York.

                          •  Not arguing nor conceding (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Do Tell, alba, weebo

                            That Kennedy is better than Nadler or that Nadler is better than Kennedy. I'm sure as their positions come out, one will be better on some things and the other will be better on others, but they're pretty close together on the issues so far.

                            Yet, for the same reasons I observe that Kennedy can mount a better and more independent campaign, I think she can be a better and more independent US Senator, and get more done there.

                            If she weren't in the mix, and this were a contest between, say, Nadler and Gillibrand, I would likely argue for Nadler, but worry about the money part.

                          •  And as for positive v. negative (3+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Do Tell, alba, weebo

                            I've been 100 percent respectful in my tone and substance toward Nadler here.

                            I've smacked down a couple of folks that have been unfairly negative.

                            And I haven't jumped on cheap shots - like his performance in one commenter's video above - to distort or malign him. I think he's a fine person.

                            Asking questions is not being negative. It is in fact positive, when done in this friendly tone.

                          •  I appreciate this. (0+ / 0-)

                            Asking questions is not being negative. It is in fact positive, when done in this friendly tone.

                            Except when skeptics of Kennedy do it, they get accused of "bashing" or "hating".  Notice?

                          •  Many of them have been over the top (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            Do Tell, weebo
                            For example, when they say things like "how dare she think she can pick up the phone and call the governor and expect to be named senator," there are so many wrong and unfair things to that one sentence.

                            First of all, every one of the potential candidates has done the same: that's how one lets the governor know one is interested.

                            Nobody can say that Kennedy - or Nadler - making a phone call means they expect or have a sense of entitlement. But there have been hundreds of versions of that one statement in the comments here (and by the Hamsher column that our fearless leader praised).

                            Another example: "Why doesn't she get elected instead of appointed? So-and-so WAS ELECTED?"

                            That genre of comment blames Kennedy for a reality under New York law that she did not create: that the governor fills senate vacancies.

                            Of course, the "princess" and "nail filing" and similar belittlement to a 51 year old mother of three who, like many women her age are more able to enter public life (and whom the Obama campaign has brought into public life) has been frequent, too.

                            Your tone, Adam, has been better than that, which is why I'll spend so much time going back and forth with you. I wish a couple of our friends would follow your lead on that. But Kos in particular - god love 'im, as Joe Biden would say - ripped into Kennedy almost personally over things she is not responsible for (be it the process under current law or the family she was born into) in a way that I think surprised a lot of Kossacks, and set the tone of the debate throughout the site. People did feel she had been "bashed" (and as a supporter, I felt I personally had been attacked as some kind of dupe falling for the American version of Lady Di, and I know many others felt that way.)

                            That said, obviously I don't think it was heinous or terrible. Some of it's showbiz!  I'm in here pitching and catching. I do think it inadvertently helped my case because it was so over the top. (And I think in recent days you and Jed, among front pagers, seem to have grasped something of that dynamic and have been re-setting the tone, which is productive.)

                            I mainly feel uncomfortable with it for entirely separate reasons: I'm such a big cheerleader of this site and its leader's political and strategic smarts, that when something not-as-smart occurs and goes outside the experience of so many of the rank-and-file here in that it does make them feel "bashed" and "hated" upon, I wince because in my view a much smarter case could have been made from the beginning that didn't send so many commenters over to my site to complain about what goes on here (over there, I tell them not to worry about what anybody else says or does: we all have our hands full worrying about our own words and deeds!)

                            But to the extent that you're getting a defensive vibe from some, the site leadership did basically say that anyone that supports Caroline Kennedy is either a monarchist or a dupe for monarchists. To me that's not offensive. It's just silly.

                            You'll notice though that in your diary, there has been much less of that, because of the tone that you set.

                            Just my two cents.

                  •  now that's downright silly - you really don't (0+ / 0-)

                    think the people of Pennsylvania expunged Bob Casey from their memory banks the moment he died???

          •  So I gather (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, Do Tell, alba

            we're just going to write off upstate? Anything north of the NYC suburbs?

            I am so amused that you honestly think Nadler can carry upstate.  With what, may I ask?  His good looks? His ability to raise millions?

            And btw, NY ain't Pennsylvania.  Our TV markets are much more expensive.  And Senator Casey was a SON of a prominent politician, as a I recall.  A governor, right? A very POPULAR governor? So he had name recognition.  Nadler has zero, zilch name recognition upstate.

            But, hey, let me not disturb the "anyone but Kennedy" meme.  Hey, Adam, you coming over to NY to fight for our Democratic Senate candidate in 2010 if it's not Caroline Kennedy? Just askin'.

            We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

            by Mary Julia on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:32:56 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  His Democratic Beliefs (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              chase, ThePrometheusMan

              Frankly, your his good looks? crack is reprehensible and borderline HR-worthy.  For that matter, remind us how Dick Durbin keeps getting elected.

              Nadler's been in public life for thirty years.  He has name recognition.  Appoint him Senator, and he'll have universal recognition in New York.

              In 2010, I'll have both a Governor and Senate race in PA, so I'm staying put.

            •  Shorter Mary Julia: (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Ivan

              If you're born with bad metabolism, you can't be Senator.

              If you're born a Kennedy, you're allowed to be Senator.

              And nothing is more anathema to American ideals than that bullshit.

              •  Oh, get a grip (0+ / 0-)

                Actually, that is a pretty common political phrase.  I'm surprised you haven't heard of it.

                As for "universal recognition" once they become Senator, by that standard, we can run ANYBODY.  

                You seem incapable of understanding that upstate is not going to go for someone they have never heard of, especially a Congressperson from downstate.  Whether it makes sense or not, we upstaters have to put up with a lot of people from downstate running things.  Schumer does well because he is up here constantly, and has excellent constituent service.  He also came up here all the time when he was running against D'Amato, another guy who wore out his welcome.

                We do not rent rooms to Republicans.

                by Mary Julia on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:23:50 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

    •  Uh, this is a joke, right? (10+ / 0-)

      Nadler is a great Representative.  

      He has worked long and hard for New York.

      Caroline, not so much.

      All politics is class-warfare.

      by dhfsfc on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:12:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

  •  I like any politician... (11+ / 0-)

    willing to go on Democracy Now.  

    Hope you enjoyed it, Sarah, 'cause we just kicked your silly winking folksy lipsticked ass back to Alaska. Now shut the fuck up and stay there. Also.

    by Kaili Joy Gray on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:12:10 PM PST

  •  Finally - a good story on the NYS senate (8+ / 0-)

    possibilities!! I still prefer Kennedy but I would be very happy with Nadler too. In addition to being a superb progressive, he saw no need to disparage Kennedy in any way - so kudos to him all around . .

    •  alba:I thought you were going to say something (1+ / 0-)

      about the log jam in the NYS Senate:the "gang of 3" pledging to be and vote Dem based on your subj.line.  I'm smiling now that I realize what you meant.

    •  Adam's been in Nadler's corner, so this is hardly (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, vcmvo2, Do Tell, daddy4mak

      .
      surprising.

      Nadler sounds good, certainly.  But it's disingenuous of Adam -- whom I like, all in all.  Any half way skillful blogger could do a "hit" piece on any politician and a fluff piece on any other one.  Adam did a hit on Caroline and within 24 a fluff on Nadler.  

      Nadler would make a fine Senator.  I think Kennedy would, too.  I wish Markos and other Front Pagers would stop the hit pieces on good Democrats and tell us pros and cons of all of them.

      bg
      ___________________

      "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

      by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:33:11 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  I've barely mentioned him before. (0+ / 0-)

        I saw someone mention the interview 2h ago, which is how I learned he was interested in running.  I put this together quickly. There's no nefarious plot afoot, and my diary yesterday was hardly a "hit piece".

        •  It's not "nefarious plots". You mentioned him... (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          vcmvo2, Do Tell

          .
          . . . as your alternative to Caroline Kennedy more than "2 hours ago".

          You like him.  You're for him.  Good.  That's your right.  As I said, I think he'd make a fine Senator.  But I wish you'd at least feign some objectivity when writing about New York Democrats, or, if that's too tall an order, just say:  "Disclaimer:  I like and am rooting for Democratic Candidate A and don't like and am rooting against Democratic Candidate B.  So read what I write with whatever salt you think is due."

          That would be a good, if not "Standard Front Page", thing.

          bg
          __________________________________

          "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

          by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:50:35 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nadler's district (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Adam B, MajorFlaw, NYCartist

    Although I'm a native New Yorker, I haven't actually lived in NYC in many, many years, so I was a bit surprised at the description of Jerry Nadler's district:

    [Nadler's] district spans from the Upper West Side through the World Trade Center site to Coney Island and Bay Ridge,

    So I looked it up. Talk about Gerrymandering -- it's non-contiguous: NY 8th Congressional District map

  •  Wow, a candidate who is actually qualified for (9+ / 0-)

    the job and has a long track record as a progressive Democrat.  I'd be fine with this. And he's also right about this part:

    Obviously, the people supporting Senator -- I’m sorry, the people supporting Caroline Kennedy think that a public campaign would be helpful. Other candidates have not been doing it. I have not been doing a public campaign. And no one really knows.

    Lotta private conversations going on.

  •  US representative? (0+ / 0-)

    Not qualified. Move on.

  •  AdamB:much appreciate transcript. I heard him (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    alba

    this A.M. on the show.  He didn't sound like he really was excited about it.

  •  Like the Guy (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    michaeloberg, ThePrometheusMan

    When I lived in New York I thought he was a nice guy.  I'd go for him way before I'd go for Celeb Kennedy.

  •  Jerry Nadler... (7+ / 0-)

    would be a superb choice.

  •  I'll take Nadler (8+ / 0-)

    Already a competent at crafting legislation, already comfortable with congressional rules and rulemaking, already proven. Ms. Kennedy should run for state office or congress first. She's a fine person. I wish her well. But I don't want her to win that seat just because her name is Kennedy. That's not why our founders formed this union. In fact, it's exactly orthogonal to our founder's intent.

    •  Not Really (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Do Tell, weebo, Radical def

      The founders weren't against family dynasties. The U.S. was no more "democratic" in the modern sense than Great Britain was. Jefferson, Washington, and Adams and most of the rest of the founding fathers all came from powerful political families and the whole culture oozed established wealth.

      The two least-connected founders--Thomas Paine and Ben Franklin--actually never held elected office.

  •  Ok, wrap him up for the holidays please (6+ / 0-)

    and deposit him in the senate as my New Year's present forthwith.

  •  Nadler stepped on it when (0+ / 0-)

    he questioned Obama's commitment to the security of Israel during a campaign time stop at a synangogue in Florida.  Nalder strikes me as the progressive version of fellow New Yorker Peter King.

    •  And on what basis are you saying this? (0+ / 0-)
    •  GMAFB (5+ / 0-)

      Nadler is the Dem King because, like every other NYC pol, he played the Israel card? That's absurd. You clearly don't know the first thing about him. King is a blowhard in the Al D'Amato mold. Nadler is for real.

      The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

      by kovie on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:23:04 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  In Palm Beach he was a blow hard (0+ / 0-)

        It would be good to get effective legislators either in the House or Senate not just preeners

        •  Nadler voted against the war, and against the (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          kovie, Do Tell, bee tzu, filby

          Patriot Act. How many Dems stood up against the Patriot Act at that time of hysterical jingoism?

          So he's not just a preener.

          WHether he can win up-state is another question; I don't have a clue.

        •  Name one Dem member of congress (0+ / 0-)

          who's not done what Nadler did here, who had to do it for electoral reasons, because they needed the Jewish vote. Or the soccer mom vote. Or the NASCAR dad vote. And so on. I suppose that you can't stand Obama too because of what he said at the AIPAC conference last summer? Not to mention what Kennedy recently said which echoed it.

          Politics is about words and action. I'm ok with some unfortunate words so long as the right actions are there. Nadler has come through there. Why you choose to single him out when every other Dem has done it too who's had to is beyond me.

          The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

          by kovie on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 12:12:00 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

  •  Nadler is one of the good ones in DC -- (9+ / 0-)

    Replacing Clinton with Nadler would be like CA replacing Feinstien with Henry Waxman.  

    What FDR giveth; GWB taketh away.

    by Marie on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:17:58 PM PST

  •  My Money is on.......... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ThePrometheusMan

    Ted Berndt,  first term town councilman in Cambridge, NY. Rumor has it he really has the inside
    track with Governor Paterson.  Every upstate elected official should be taking a shot!  Any Democrat appointed should be able to win reelection in 2010.  Buckley and D'Amato only won because of third party challengers knocking off the Dem candidates in their elections. Buckley was ousted in one term by Moynihan. without a third party challenger Schumer easily beat D'Amato.  

    Oops somebody started having a few too many smart eggnog drinks while watching Mr. Smith Goes To Washington!

  •  I so prefer a discussion that offers a choice of (4+ / 0-)

    candidates from which to choose rather postulating that everyone weigh in on a singular individual who's expressed interest in the position.

    Nadler's a great guy with an impressive record that demands consideration.

    "If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich." JFK - January 20, 1961

    by rontun on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:20:17 PM PST

  •  Nadler for senate! (8+ / 0-)

    As far as being a liberal Democrat who'd fought to protect and advance progressive causes, he's the real deal. And anyone who actually believes that Kennedy is as if not more qualified than Nadler to be appointed to the senate seriously needs to find the nearest paper bag and just BREATH DEEP.

    The fact that we're both alums of the same school and he used to be my congressman has absolutely nothing to do with that, of course. :-)

    The liberal soul shall be made fat. He who waters shall be watered also himself. (Proverbs 11:25)

    by kovie on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:20:32 PM PST

  •  I'm interested, too (1+ / 0-)

    My chances are a little better than Nadler's (though not so good as Fran Drescher's).

    Will W get to keep Saddam's trophy pistols? Will he get to collect unemployment?

    by Minerva on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:21:06 PM PST

  •  After losing Teixeria to the Yankees... (4+ / 0-)

    ...I could certainly trade that for some Nadler. I don't really oppose Caroline Kennedy, but I think Nadler would really shake shit up.

  •  Interesting. n/t (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    michaeloberg
  •  May God help you if (0+ / 0-)

    you violate orthodoxy on this site.

    I like posters here.

    Don't like the overseers.

    They enforce orthodoxy.

  •  Entering the game a bit late hey Rep Nadler? (0+ / 0-)
  •  Hmm (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, weebo

    Seems like a good choice to me.  So did somebody have the inside scoop?  If so, it would certainly explain the Kennedy hostility that was otherwise a bit perplexing.

    Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

    by bythesea on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:25:28 PM PST

    •  The Kennedy hostility is coming from multiple (5+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      askew, Mary Julia, vcmvo2, Do Tell, weebo

      sources, including bitter Clinton supporters (Ackerman and Ferraro), senator wannabes (Maloney, Israel, Cuomo), and people who don't like the Kennedys.

      •  Where does Kos fit in (0+ / 0-)

        those categories?

        Your political compass Economic Left/Right: -6.50 Social Libertarian/Authoritarian: -6.67

        by bythesea on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:54:47 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  don't know - he hasn't explained himself - but (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          askew, vcmvo2

          his behavior is mighty peculiar for someone who says he is motivated to elect DEM members of Congress. Assuming that to be his goal, his attacks on CK do not make a whole lot of sense even if he genuinely believes that her qualifications fall short (the way to make that case is to expressly support some other candidate and make the case for him or her).

          •  Hasn't explained himself? (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            michaeloberg

            I believe he has several times, primarily he's against dynasties - inherited or entitled successors.  It doesn't bother me so much, but he has been pretty clear that that's his primary objection to CK.

            President-elect Obama. I like the way that sounds!

            by filby on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 06:42:30 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Wrong, for some families he is for dynasties, (0+ / 0-)

              for others, not so much.

              He is for the Carnahan dynasty and I think he also doesn't mind the Bayh dynasty or any other political dynasties that he ignores.  

              This is not the change I signed up for. Dump Warren.

              by Do Tell on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 11:42:46 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

          •  He HAS explained himself (0+ / 0-)

            You just don't like what you heard so you're pretending you didn't hear it.

            With FISA like these, who needs enemies?

            by chase on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 07:15:40 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  Am I the only one who had to read the title 2xs? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby

    I thought it said NADER!  I was really beginning to think this was turning into a bad joke.

    Do not be too hasty in entering that room. I had Taco Bell for lunch! - Dr. Byron Orpheus

    by Tiparillo on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:25:55 PM PST

  •  The Game doesn't really start (0+ / 0-)

    Until Hillary is confirmed!

  •  Thank you (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    raboof, vcmvo2, Do Tell, alba, weebo

    for being perhaps the first front pager in the past week who has not slammed Caroline Kennedy. Instead you actually proposed an alternative candidate. What a novel concept! A front pager who actually had the courage to argue who would be a better candidate than Caroline Kennedy.

    Why did this take more than a week to do? Why the slamming of Caroline Kennedy vs promoting another candidate? If I want to watch a Democrat get slammed, I would go to Fox News. But lately, I could just go to dailykos.

  •  I like Nadler (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby, Lavocat, weebo

    I lived in Nadler's district for about 20 years until I moved upstate about two years ago.  I had the pleasure of voting for him again and again.  Nadler's great!  Great!

    Now I live upstate (in the blue heart of Gillibrand's red district) and I'd much rather have Nadler run for senate than Gillibrand.  Nadler's (dem) replacement would be much easier than Gillibrand's in this red district.

    That being said, there should be someone from upstate who would be "most qualified" fill this seat, to use Nadler's phrase.  

    There's a world of hurt north of Westchester that is, unfortunately, still being overlooked or brushed under the rug or whatever.  It's like there's been a great depression in upstate NY for the last 30 years and nobody in Manhattan has a clue about how to handle it.  Including me.  

    Nevertheless, good on you, Jerry!  Go for it.

  •  Who is he to aspire for the senate seat? (0+ / 0-)

    This is the fiefdom of the Kennedy's and should be given to them whenever they want?

  •  How about? (0+ / 0-)

    June O'Neill NY State Democratic chair!!!

    Brian Higgins Congressman NY-27?

    Matt Driscoll, Mayor of Syracuse?
    brian Stratton, Mayor of Schenectady?

  •  Fine by me! (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Ivan
    I'd be fine with Nadler...or Nydia...or Liz. Not so keen on Caroline "Bloomberg Shill" Kennedy.

    Nadler would be an excellent Senator. Good luck Gerrold!

  •  NY - 20 (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby

    Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand!!!

    Awww come on we'll never hold that seat in a special election.  And to think Sandy Treadwell's trust fund called and it wants it's $6 million back.

  •  I welcome Congressman Nadler into the debate!!! (0+ / 0-)

    This should not be a lock for Schlossberg!

  •  I had no idea Jerrold Nadler was interested in (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby

    Hillary's seat.  He's a great rep. and would probably get plenty of support where he to get that seat and have to run for it in twenty months.  I love his politics and I especially love his easy to understand rhetoric when it comes to the rule of law, monarchs/dictators/kings, Constitution.  I've just become a big supporter of his getting Hillary's seat with this interview alone.

    P.S.  Rule by the PEOPLE, not a f'ng corrupt, lying, thieving gangster/king like Dick With Us Cheney.  What a TRAITOR.  I say he and his ilk should all be behind bars, awaiting their trials for TREASON against our country and our Constitution.

  •  Funny, but Nadler was always my first choice (0+ / 0-)

    This guy is a very good choice.

    He's paid his dues.

    Other than being a bit of a Clintonistan sycophant [check out his fawning defense of Bill during the impeachment proceedings - truly sickening], he's a true blue progressive.

    Shit, we could (and likely WILL) do a HELLUVA lot worse!

    " ... or a baby's arm holding an apple!"

    by Lavocat on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:35:56 PM PST

  •  I don't live in NY anymore, but.... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    filby, Lavocat

    I would definitely like to see Nadler or Mark Green in that Senate seat.  No offense to CK but I just don't think she is comfortable in the public eye.

  •  Bears repeating. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    vcmvo2, Do Tell, alba, Rebecca74
    - likely lost way upthread -

    Nadler sounds good, certainly.  But it's disingenuous of Adam* -- whom I like, all in all.  Any half way skillful blogger could do a "hit" piece on any politician and a fluff piece on any other one.  Adam did a hit on Caroline and within 24 a fluff on Nadler.  

    Nadler would make a fine Senator.  I think Kennedy would, too.  I wish Markos and other Front Pagers would stop the hit pieces on good Democrats and tell us pros and cons of all of them.

    bg

    ____________________________
    *At least do a "full disclosure" and admit:  "I'm for Nadler and against Kennedy."  We get (rightfully) exercised when the AP angles stories.

    "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

    by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:39:14 PM PST

    •  I didn't know he was interested until today. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      BenGoshi, michaeloberg

      He announced it this morning.  Otherwise, you'd be seeing my Fritz Schwarz/"find a scientist" diary.

      •  What time this a.m. were you promoting him? (4+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        raboof, vcmvo2, Do Tell, Rebecca74

        .
        As soon as you saw his "interest" on the wire?

        Bottom line is that everything I wrote is true.

        You have every right to be in his corner and against Kennedy.  It would just be nice if you'd say that "up front".

        What I'd really like to see is a Front Page story (heaven forbid!) that shows the pros and cons of all Democrats who have a hat in the ring on this appointment.  Or would that be too boring?

        bg
        ___________________________________________________

        "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

        by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:45:01 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  7:24 am (0+ / 0-)

          Link.  Before the interview took place, but I'm a telepath.

          •  That's my point: you were rooting for Nadler... (3+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            vcmvo2, Do Tell, Rebecca74

            .
            . . . from the start.  In his corner.

            Which, again, is fine and your prerogative.  I just ask/humbly request that you be a little more "up front" about who's on your Wish List and who's on your Shit List so that everyone can know what angle you're coming from.  A little, one-sentence "disclosure" thing would not be unreasonable, do you think?

            bg
            _____________________________________________

            "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

            by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:55:03 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  He's among many I was hoping might run. (0+ / 0-)

              No one's on my "shit list".  My profile here lists my actual biases, and has for years.

              •  Remember though there is no running this time (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                BenGoshi, weebo

                anyone Patterson appoints comes with the same baggage of not being elected.

              •  Kennedy is. C'mon just say it. It would actually (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                askew, Do Tell

                .
                give you credibility to be up-front about your biases.  I don't say this in a sardonic or smart-ass way.  I mean it when I say it would make you (even more) credible.  Hell, it'd be refreshing.  It set you apart from (and, in my opinion, above) Markos.

                 As for "among many", it was Nadler you were promoting this morning, before he even announced.  Right?

                bg
                ______________________________________

                "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:22:53 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  you're really reaching (0+ / 0-)

                  "How about Nadler?" is evidence of deep-seated bias?

                  Let's talk about Nadler and Kennedy; they're more interesting than me and you.

                  •  Of ALL the people you could pick/promote... (0+ / 0-)

                    .
                    it was Nadler -- and, let's note for the record:  as opposed to Kennedy (that was the context).

                    Then, in the afternoon, Nadler comes out and starts self-promoting for the job and . . . WHAM! you do a very pro-Nadler diary.

                    Again, it's not a matter of "deep-seated bias", it's regular bias.

                    Just disclose/admit it.

                    That's, of course, not an obligation on your part.  This is, after all, a blog, where the "regular rules" of journalism don't apply.  Oft-times that's for the best.  Sometimes, not so much.  IMHO.

                     bg
                    __________________________________________

                    "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                    by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:29:00 PM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There's nothing to disclose (0+ / 0-)

                      When I woke up today and was asked, basically, "name a progressive New Yorker you like," he's the first name that came to mind.  That's all it was.  

                      All I did was excerpt the interview today -- didn't give my own spin on it, didn't tell folks what to do with the interview.

                      •  You're for Nadler and against Kennedy. (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        Do Tell

                        .

                        Why's it so wrenchingly difficult to admit that?

                        It's not, I repeat not, a shameful thing.  It's just something I think would be good to 'fess-up to.  It would lend more credibility to your stories.

                        I can't say it enough times that while you and I have some fundamental differences on several things (like /a/ I don't believe any of the Dems who are up for the NY appointment should be trashed -- you and Markos do; /b/ I believe that for stories/diaries disclosure of biases is a good and worthy thing, you -- not so much), we actually debate in a more or less civil manner.  

                        You could give lessons to the owner of this site and one Front Pager who, were this an island and The Community to have a vote, would get kicked-off in about .00000001 second.  He-who-shall-not-be-called-out.

                        So, in that vein, cheers to you.

                        bg
                        ________________________

                        "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

                        by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:37:57 PM PST

                        [ Parent ]

  •  Its about damn time (5+ / 0-)

    People started discussing candidates for senate qualified for the position beyond their pedigree. It sounds like Nadler deserves a chance at the position a hell of a lot more the those trust fund babies Cuomo and Kennedy. Thanks Adam for spreading the word. I've always found DemocracyNow a deep well of truth; so important in these drought stricken times.

  •  Get what you want. (0+ / 0-)

    A choice served up to you that everyone says is good.

    Sorta like Hank Paulson.

    Or a choice lots of people say sucks, but maybe has some merit.

  •  Nadler is the real deal (4+ / 0-)

    I live in the West Village in Manhattan and he's my rep. Nadler is one of us.

  •  Finally, the type of discussion that should be (6+ / 0-)

    occurring, instead of knee jerk reactions against C. Kennedy because of her name.

    "Mr. President, I'm not saying we wouldn't get our hair mussed." General Buck Turgidson

    by muledriver on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 02:58:36 PM PST

  •  Remember During Lieberman-Lamont (0+ / 0-)

    how quick Nadler, who I otherwise admire, was to impute anti-Semitic motives to the Lamontites?

  •  I like Nadler (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca74

    but I think Patterson will appoint someone who is not (like Schumer) a Jewish male from NYC.... just for the demographics.

    Most people worry about their own bellies, and other people's souls, when we all ought to worry about our own souls, and other peoples' bellies.

    by plf515 on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:13:09 PM PST

    •  Hey, it works in Wisconsin (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      plf515, alba

      and considering NY has the largest Jewish population in the US, why not?

      •  I'd like it (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        BenGoshi, ThePrometheusMan

        for one thing, I am also a Jewish male from NYC.

        Patterson being Black may help him get away with it.

        But I don't think he'll do it.

        Most people worry about their own bellies, and other people's souls, when we all ought to worry about our own souls, and other peoples' bellies.

        by plf515 on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:23:55 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Protestant males from . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          plf515

          .
          Texas Maine haven't gotten us very far.  Well, not very far in any good directions at least.  

          I'm so friggin' sick and tired of the "demographics" thing, though.  

          How. will. the. person. vote?

          How. strongly. will. they. advocate. for. progressive. causes?

          Schumer and Lieberman:  Jewish men from the North.  One is a nebbish, the other a weasel.

          Kaye Bailey Hutchinson, Diane Feinstein:  women.  One a craven and rather dim-bulb right wingnut, the other and sell-out or capitulator to Democratic causes.

          (former Congressman) J.C. Watts, Clarence Thomas:  African-American and as friggin' crazy Right Wing Neo-Fascist as Rick Santorum was or Jeff Sessions is.

          So, religion, gender, race . . . hardly valid litmus tests.

          Oh, by the way, Bill Clinton:  white, Southern Baptist, Arkansan.  Some disappointments notwithstanding, not too bad.  Not too bad at all.  He was actually into that peace and prosperity thing.

          bg
          _________________________________

          "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

          by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:50:42 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  In terms of how he will vote (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            BenGoshi

            I think Nadler is as good as anyone.

            He's my rep., and I've been happy with him.

            I don't think Schumer is a nebbish, by the way, although I agree with all your other points.

            Most people worry about their own bellies, and other people's souls, when we all ought to worry about our own souls, and other peoples' bellies.

            by plf515 on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 04:03:28 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

          •  Re: Feinstein . . . correction. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            alba

            .

            not a sell-out to Democratic causes; sell-out of Democratic causes.  Y'all know what I meant.

            bg
            _____________________________________

            "We in the gloam, old buddy," he said, "We definitely right in the middle of it." -Larry Brown

            by BenGoshi on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 04:26:21 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

  •  I'd be quite fine with Nadler as Senator (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    klamothe, michaeloberg, weebo

    He's got a good voting record, he truly has New Yorkers interests in mind and would be a good choice for progressives.

    It'll be curious to see how Patterson reacts to this.

  •  Nadler is my Congressman. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, weebo, ThePrometheusMan

    He's quite good, but rather stymied by the power of the media (consolidated in Republican hands).

    He told me that one can't vote against things like The Patriot Act when they are named that way because the newspapers pick it up and run with it (I think also implying that voters either don't know they're being 'had' by the biased media, don't care, and/or can't tell the difference). But I haven't seen him do as much I'd hope for when it comes to media reform. Or Impeachment investigations......alas.

    Better Know a District - New York's 8th - Jerrold NadlerRepresentative Jerrold Nadler would have voted against the USA Patriot Act even if it had been called "The USA Patriot Act of America: Love It or Leave It."

    http://www.colbertnation.com/...

    Nadler could be a very good Senator.
    I just hope people understand his weight problem is genetic. And that he's better at doing his real job than at doing the campaigning thing.

    He keeps a low profile.

    I just don't know what to think about who Gov. Paterson should name (other than himself, my first choice). So many good candidates, so many emotional pulls. A woman to replace a woman? A Catholic to attract Republican Catholics?

    More about Jerrold Nadler:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/...
    -------------- Our of curiosity, how many of you know about this incident?:

    But perhaps the most headline-grabbing incident by Sensenbrenner came last June. At a hearing sponsored by Democrats on re-newing the Patriot Act, testimony broadened to address reports of prisoner mistreatment at Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay prisons. At that point, Sensenbrenner abruptly adjourned the meeting after two hours and turned off the mikes, walking out of the room. Liberal political blogs erupted with gleeful fury and passed around a C-SPAN clip of the incident. Democrats, charging "abuse of power," brought a resolution to the House floor condemning Sensenbrenner. It was defeated on a party line vote.

    Asked about these dust-ups now, Sensenbrenner brushes them off. "I was not trying to pick a fight," Sensenbrenner says of the amendment descriptions. And he only cut off the hearing, he adds, after Democrats ignored his admonition to keep the testimony "relevant to the Patriot Act" and only after every committee member had had an opportunity to speak for his or her allotted five min-utes. "I was very liberal in enforcing the relevancy rule," he says

    . . . .his successful campaign for student government president was managed by Dick Morris)

    http://www.milwaukeemagazine.com/...

    Media Reform Action Link http://stopbigmedia.com/

    by LNK on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 03:15:11 PM PST

  •  So he's opposed to Cheney? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    BenGoshi, Rebecca74

    What a brave, brave stand.  Bravo.

    Clearly, he is far superior to Caroline Kennedy.

    And if he's chosen, another man in the Senate!  Those women were almost up to 20.  We really need to nip that in the bud.

    •  LOL Project Much? n/t (0+ / 0-)
    •  You hear, but don't listen (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weebo

      It's how he explains why. Not simply that he's opposed. This is something this site's "progressives" can learn. It's opposed because he understands history in a way that a lot of politicians do not. Those who forget it are doomed to repeat it.

    •  You want a woman without experience? (0+ / 0-)

      There's lots of those in New York.  What attracts you to Kennedy?

      "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

      by fishhead on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 05:40:59 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Sigh. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        askew

        Nothing in particular; I'm not so much a Kennedy partisan as an "I think this anti-Kennedy rhetoric is bullshit" partisan.

        As for experience, I could really care less.  Although I do find the concern precious, especially coming from a site that championed a presidential candidate who was very recently a State Senator.  Experience!  Important!  Except when it's not!

        Really, I didn't buy the experience argument when Clinton offered it, so why should I buy it now?

        •  Because Obama rose on his merits (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bee tzu

          Kennedy has risen mostly on her name.  I'm not saying she is without talent or skill - but do you seriously think that her background of accomplishment would have made her a serious contender for the US Senate if her name was, say, Jennifer Schwartz or Phyllis Wilson?

          What riles me, and  I think others, is the easiness with which so many here accept the notion of a political aristocratic class as a given - or even as something to be embraced.  I don't expect to be embraced or judged on the accomplishments (or failures) of my relatives - why should I extend the same irrational process of assessment to others?  Especially for those being considered for high political office?

          The only rational argument for Kennedy over Nadler or Cuomo is that she can rake in dough and has powerful connections.  Rational, yes, but also incredibly sad and cynical.  I had hoped Democrats were better than this - that they awarded people on accomplishment and merit.

          "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

          by fishhead on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 10:58:03 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Actually, yeah. (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            askew

            There are plenty of civic leaders who've used their fame to leapfrog more experienced politicians into higher political office.  Some are named Franken.  Others are named Kennedy.

            I see the objection to "the notion of a political aristocratic class," but in general, I don't think it's sincere.  I have seen too many scions of political families (Udalls, Salazars, Landrieus, etc.) promoted on the front page and elsewhere to buy this newfound opposition to legacies.  I'm sure it's true in your case, but in general - no.  It's bull.

            And with respect - you thought the Democrats were "better than this?"  As noted above, the Democrats have never been above legacies, not on this site or elsewhere, and during the primary, candidates who accepted matching funds and thus spending limits were accused of trying to destroy the Democratic Party.  No, really.

            If being able to "rake in the dough" and make use of "powerful connections" were good arguments for Obama, then they're good enough for Kennedy, too.

            If people don't like that, well, maybe they should found their principles before Kennedy came along.

            •  I've been entirely consistent on this score (0+ / 0-)

              But if people have newly seen the light because of Caroline Kennedy's prominence, and her unwillingness to enter politics via election, then hurray!

              "The state has no place in the bedrooms of the nation." - Pierre Trudeau

              by fishhead on Wed Dec 24, 2008 at 12:29:31 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

            •  Franken put himself OUT there before the voters (0+ / 0-)

              This is the thing that bugs me about Caroline Kennedy - unlike the other people mentioned for the Senate seat, she has never run for political office.

              Somebody who had a lot LESS experience than Kennedy when he first ran for office was George W. Bush (as Gov. of Texas) but still again, he campaigned and was voted in (albeit via Rovian dirty tricks and god only knows if there was vote tampering).

  •  I know next to nothing about this man... (0+ / 0-)

    ... But from what I've seen so far, I love him.

  •  Great Man, Great Choice Surpassed Only By Louise (0+ / 0-)

    Slaughter.

    Therefore neither has a chance.

    Pity.

    Best,  Terry

  •  Nadler is terrific. (6+ / 0-)

    In the last eight years, I can honestly say that Nadler is the only one of my federal representatives that I never thought had sold me out because of fear, triangulation or political expediency.  (Yeah, Schumer and Clinton, I'm looking at you.)

    I'd be proud to call him my Senator.

    •  I absolutely agree - he's been my Congressman (0+ / 0-)

      for years and have been very happy with him as my Representative (and like you, I do not feel the same about Clinton or Schumer).

      So he hasn't been out there on a white horse like Kucinich on issues like impeachment - at least he is on the right side of most of the issues

      It would be great if he was appointed Senator.

  •  Finally (0+ / 0-)

    Took you long enough. Jerry Nadler. I'm into it. Get the buzz machine worked up and let's have a competition. Any other candidates we should be talking about or is it CK vs. the Nads?

  •  Re:the president does it its legal bs (0+ / 0-)

    great answer.

    I demand prosecutions for torture.

    by heart of a quince on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 04:03:45 PM PST

  •  Nice. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weebo

    Nadler is right, this isn't a question of whether Kennedy or anyone is qualified or not. And I find the notion that you have to have been an elected official to be appointed to something insulting. If you're 30 years old, an American citizen for at least nine years and live in the state you're running in by election day, you're qualified.

    As to the question of who is the most qualified, Nadler has clearly demonstrated that between him and Caroline Kennedy, he is the most qualified. I don't know who else is interested in the seat, but would love to hear some of the other potential appointees explain why they are the most qualified.

    Then again, I'm not from New York so I'm probably not in a position to make such demands. Then again, neither are most (if any) of the front-pagers who have focused so intensely on this appointment. Then again, even if we were, it wouldn't matter because it's Paterson's call. Unfortunately for him, the 2010 governor's election isn't his call.

    I hope, for his sake, he uses better judgment with this appointment than with his recent very regressive tax proposal.

  •  I didn't know him until this post (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    weebo

    I would be honored to have him as my Senator. God, but if more Americans understood history like he does. That these things are not new that we see from the ruling class. New forms maybe. But , not new concepts. Chenney and others lead to darkness because that's what history teaches us. So, I hope he suceeds.

  •  Is Nadler electable? (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rebecca74

    How would Nadler fare in State Island, Long Island, Westchester, and upstate NY?

    •  That's a good question (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Egalitare

      I have lived in his district for years -  I get his updates in the mail and read about his works in Congress in various places, so I know to vote for him because of that - but I honestly don't even remember him actually CAMPAIGNING - I guess its because he's so popular in his district he really hasn't had any serious challengers to force him to get out there and campaign.

      In other words, even though I live in his district and have voted for him several times, I have no idea how good (or bad) of a campaigner he might be.

  •  Palin is more experienced than Kennedy. (0+ / 0-)

    To point out the obvious:  Palin was mayor and is a governor;  Kennedy has never held public office;  Ergo, Palin is more experienced that Kennedy.

    There you go.  I put it in syllogistic form as an invitation to Kennedy supporters to try to disprove the conclusion:  Palin is more experienced than Kennedy.  

    If you rejected Palin on account of her lack of experience and you support Kennedy without regard to her lack of experience, then you're a hypocrite.  All Kennedy is is name recognition.  The meek and indecisive way she approached the question of whether she would be Senator didn't help much either.  To boot, she's an establishment figure, taking us for walks on time regularly enough for us to get excited when we hear the sound of the leash.

    If you want a real democracy here, in this country, you have to stop worshiping these air-headed celebrities.  

    •  Not to point out the obvious . . . (0+ / 0-)

      but Kennedy supporters will say that you are equivocating on "experience" and "public office."  And they would be right (although I'd like to know more about Kennedy and the others in consideration before forming an opinion myself).

      •  A public officer makes decisions that have (0+ / 0-)

        real world consequences, both for the public as well as for the officer's career.  Caroline Kennedy's "experience" involves no such decisions, merely listening to her family express their political opinions--and we've all heard plenty of that, so maybe we all qualify for Senate seats.

        Who is equivocating with regard to the word "experience" here?  

        Kennedy supporters are playing semantic games that are suspiciously like those played by Clinton's supporters.  Are the Party Unity My Ass clowns going to take their vaudeville act to the mainstream media again?  Fuck it.  Let them.  It just confirms the suspicion that many have that, yes, these people really are living in their own private worlds.

        •  I was merely pointing out . . . (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          rnotrtoornotrtoo

          . . . that your syllogism, as written, included an unavoidable assumption that public office is the only consideration that matters when judging one's "experience."  The context of your post further implied that experience (i.e., public office) is all that matters in judging one's worthiness for the Senate.  Assuming you voted for Obama over McCain, I hope you do not agree with that reasoning.  You and I know as well as anyone else here that a candidate's plans for public policy are much more important than the simple act of holding office for a longer duration.  I'd like to hear more on that point instead of needless bickering about name recognition and elected office.  I'd also like to point out that this diary is about Nadler, whom you neglect to mention at all -- not Kennedy.

          Of course, your ad hominem remarks here suggest to me that your original invitation to engage Kennedy supporters in debate was insincere.

          •  You point out that this diary is about Nadler, (0+ / 0-)

            then you imply that you want to engage in a sincere debate about Kennedy.  How's that?

            The number of qualifiers and logical doors-ajar that you use in your arguments leave room for all sorts of games that we can play, but why don't we leave the games aside and address the main issue here: experience.

            Nothing that I have said suggests that I believe that experience is the sole qualification for a senatorial seat; as a matter of fact, I believe that it is one qualification, and an important one.  There are other qualifications, of course, and one of these is, indeed, a candidate's policy plans, just like you point out.

            In considering the worthiness of a candidate for office, I consider experience, policy plans, voting record, political connections, fund-raising ability, effectiveness, as well as many other factors, all of which are important, as most people would agree.

            For some reason, however, you want to shut all debate about experience and focus on policy plans, instead.  As you claim:

            a candidate's plans for public policy are much more important than the simple act of holding office for a longer duration

            Good move, because you can't win on the experience issue, and you know it.

            Q.E.D.

            Now, in order for me to be able to discuss Kennedy's policy plans, she would have to have a track record, a voting record, except, erm, she doesn't have one.  Unlike her, Nadler does have a voting record, and his voting record is rock solid in just about every way, as it has been pointed out many, many times in this thread.

            To boot, if the politics of the New York "movers and shakers" who want her to be Senator are taken into consideration, then, in all likelihood, she will vote like an establishment democrat--which is not good enough for me.

            Finally, I take it that you agree with the idea that Kennedy supporters are a lot alike PUMA supporters.  You didn't try to disassociate the two, after all, but took the ball and ran with it, so to speak.  

            •  I can't "win" . . . (0+ / 0-)

              . . . on the experience issue or any other because I don't actually have a preference as to who takes the seat.  I just found your original comment disingenuous.  When you say that A has held XYZ offices; B has held none; therefore A is more experienced; (implicit in the context of your comment, therefore B is not worthy of this office), it doesn't really follow that other considerations are important.  I was pointing out that I took issue with your definition of experience and leaping from there to a conclusion about one's (un)worthiness to take office.  And you're doing it again, saying that leaving room for other factors is playing "games."

              And for some reason you want to construct a straw man that I don't care at all about experience, which I never said.  I think it should be considered (though defined more broadly than public, elected office), along with good faith discussion of other factors.  But I think plans for public policy -- the actual results we will see -- are most important.  I have actually been unimpressed with Kennedy's failure to adequately address the media on this point; her NYT questionnaire responses were promising but very insufficient.

              And I didn't address the PUMA remark because it is irrelevant.

              I'm usually a lurker; I have just been disappointed with the level of discourse on this topic.  I have yet to see a holistic case made for who should be appointed, let alone a decent comparison to another candidate (hence my mention of Nadler).  Maybe that's due to the fact that there are few names being considered openly, but it's still disheartening.

              As with every single other discussion of the N.Y. Senate appointment on this site, this string of comments seems to be going nowhere.

    •  CKS isn't ready for VP, is that good enough? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      weebo
  •  I'm a New Yorker and I like Nadler. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    NYFM, bee tzu

    I live near his district.  He's a good man and good for New York.  As for those who say he sold out because he didn't press for impeachment charges against Bush, I'll ask you how many of your congressmen did?  Very few.

    I am proud to admit that I come from one of the districts that had the least votes for George W. Bush in the entire country.

    by ThePrometheusMan on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 07:10:12 PM PST

  •  Kos would totally be against Nadler,... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    askew, Do Tell, weebo

    since there's no way Nadler is a "caretaker".

    As so many others here suggest, Nadler would be running in 2010 knocking out his caretaker status and moving him toward career motives.

  •  It would be really important for NYC to be (0+ / 0-)

    represented in a statewide office. After all, look at all those other people from north of Van Cortlandt Park who are running things in the state!

    Hige sceal þe heardra, heorte þe cenre, mod sceal þe mare, þe ure mægen lytlað

    by milkbone on Tue Dec 23, 2008 at 09:56:59 PM PST

  •  As a VERY practical matter, (0+ / 0-)

    The more currently elected officials toss their hat in the ring, the easier it is for Paterson to decide on Kennedy. It really would be better if the "anti-Monarchists" would settle on one candidate. As it is stands now, it is Kennedy against an increasing number of Congresspersons, many of whom may not have fundraising reach much beyond their current personal "fiefdoms."

    Yes, I know fundraising ability shouldn't be such an important factor in this, but given the current campaign financing landscape, it is difficult - if not down right naive - to ignore it.

    We STILL don't know if Cuomo wants the appointment. He may well decide that his ultimate goal is to become Governor of NY, and that his best course of action is to "play the good soldier" and announce that he will run for re-election as AG and run WITH Paterson, Schumer, and whoever Paterson decides to appoint. He may well also decide that having Kennedy on the ticket best serves HIS INTEREST, and communicate as much to Gov. Paterson.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site