Caroline Kennedy said she has withdrawn her name from consideration for the Senate seat being vacated by Hillary Clinton, in a statement released early Thursday morning.
"I informed Governor Paterson today that for personal reasons I am withdrawing my name from consideration for the United States Senate," the official statement read.
Confirmation of the decision followed hours of conflicting reports from several news agencies.
Can you hear that? That's the sound of the rest of the nation laughing at us, our Governor and the rest of the whole ridiculous process.
Hey, Governor, pull the trigger. This has gone on long enough. We're a punchline now.
And word is that she took herself out. Everything that I have heard over the last 10 days or so was that it was hers if she wanted it. The Times has the scoop:
Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn from consideration for the vacant Senate seat in New York, according to a person told of her decision.
On Wednesday she called the governor, David Paterson, who is making the selection of who should succeed Senator Hillary Clinton. Her concerns about Senator Edward M. Kennedy's deteriorating health (he was hospitalized after a seizure during the inaugural lunch on Tuesday ) prompted her decision to withdraw, this person said. Coping with the health issues of her uncle, with whom she enjoys an extraordinarily close bond, was her most important priority; a situation not conducive to starting a high profile public job.
She was planning to issue a statement on Wednesday evening.
Ms. Kennedy's decision comes nearly two months after she, along with several members of Congress and leading political officials, began auditioning to replace Hillary Rodham Clinton in the coveted position.
Can't say I saw this one coming. My guess is that Paterson didn't see it coming either as she was his pick as far as I know. My guess is that this is now between Kirsten Gillibrand or Tom Suozzi. Then again, this really shakes things up.
I'm one of those who truly dislikes the idea of Governor Paterson appointing Caroline Kennedy to the US Senate seat about to be vacated by Senator Clinton. Although she doesn't have much of a record as an elected official to go on, and won't release her financial information to the public, we can pick up bits and tabs of info here and there-- and not much of it interests me. Bloomberg likes her a lot(two strikes...although his aide, Deputy Mayor Kevin Sheekey, is no longer "out front" in her campaign), and she did notvote for Carl McCall for Governor(many strikes-- I thought he would have been a very good, as well as historic, governor).
But, this just shows an inability to do, like, um, you know, the "public speaking" thing that, um, politicians do, ya know?
Governor Paterson: appoint somebody with appropriate skills and experience, 'kay? This is not, after all, Alaska.
In his post here on Tuesday, Robert had a good synopsis of general consensus on a suitable US Senate appointee:
Judging by the reaction every post about the soon-to-be vacant U.S. Senate has gotten, I believe it would be fair to say that the TAP community wants someone who is a progressive Democrat with experience as an elected official and someone who can help Governor David Paterson (and other Democrats) in 2010 and beyond.
I'd add to that a strong preference being expressed for somebody with some statewide name recognition, maybe even somebody who has campaigned for statewide office.
Well, folks, today Paterson met with somebody who fits all that to a "t."
It's one thing when the children of politicians use their name and network advantages to make political careers for themselves - regrettable but inevitable in our very imperfect meritocracy - but quite another when it's just bestowed on them.
That pretty much sums up my thoughts on the increasingly likely appointment of Caroline Kennedy to our soon to be vacant US Senate seat.
Governor Paterson met with the President-elect today. Apparently, Obama joked with the Gov about how his poaching of Hillary Clinton wasn't exactly making his life easier. Then Paterson basically told everyone to butt out. It's his decision as to whom he will send to DC in Hillary's place and nobody else's and all those folks who think they are "part of the process" aren't. Ben has the scoop:
Paterson didn't offer any clues to which way he's leaning to fill Hillary Clinton's seat, though he knocked down a rumor that Obama or people close to him have pushed the nomination of Caroline Kennedy.
"That actually didn't happen, though every name has been mentioned to me by someone," he said.
He added that he hasn't solicited Obama's opinion on the pick.
"An individual who had access [to Paterson] went to [Obama's aides] and said I wanted them to give me their choice," Paterson said. "I never sent this person to do that. I know who it is but I never sent the person to do that."
"There are a lot of people to in the middle now who want to, as the kids say, play high post - act like they're in the process," he reflected. "But they're not."
Barack Obama officially nominated our junior Senator to be the new SoS this morning and it's now up to Governor Paterson to pick her replacement. This your chance to tell us who you would like Paterson to choose and to tell us who you think he actually will pick. There is a difference. Personally, I'd love to see my congresswoman, Nydia Velazquez, get the nod. I think she could be a great senator. That said, I really think the pick should come from upstate.
Paterson seems to be telegraphing that he's going to pick the person best for Paterson himself. There's hardly anything shocking there. It's pretty much always that way. But, I'd definitely like to see someone chosen because they are awesome, not because they further the Paterson brand.
So, who would you like to be the next senator from New York?
Sen. Charles Schumer said Monday he is giving up his job running the Senate Democrats' national campaign efforts after two successful elections.
"We've had a great run," said Schumer, chairman of the Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee since the 2006 campaign, when he helped engineer a 6-seat gain that gave his party a slim 1-vote majority margin.
This year, the party won seven more seats, with two additional races in Minnesota and Georgia still undecided.
As head of the campaign effort, Schumer preached that candidates must be active in every part of their states, and focus on local concerns and middle-class economic issues - all of which are hallmarks of the New York senator's approach to his job.
Say what you will about Chuck (and I certainly have), but he did have one hell of a run. He took a 5 seat deficit and turned it into (at least) an 8 seat majority. In two cycles. Not bad.
It appears that the job isn't moving all that far from New York as New Jersey's Bob Menendez, a DSCC Vice-Chair, looks to be the favorite to replace him.
I want you to sit back for just a moment and relax. There's so much work to be done over the next few days and you should probably take a minute to rest. While doing so, I'd like you to imagine a US Senate in which McCain worshipping CT Senator Joe Lieberman becomes as superfluous as teats on a boar hog, as my grandma used to say. Joe's moment in the wingnut sun is almost over. He put all his chips on McCranky in hopes of fleeing the Senate for a cushy Cabinet job and now it looks increasingly likely that just isn't going to happen. Over the course of the last 6 months or so, Lieberman has told anyone who will listen how Barack Obama isn't qualified to lead the nation, isn't ready to do so, doesn't put his "country first" and even how he would "hesitate" to say Obama is a "Marxist", but couldn't really, ya know, rule it out. I mean, the man even pulled the full Zell Miller and addressed the Republican National Convention, though, in his defense, he did not challenge anyone to a duel as far as I know.
When will Democratic leaders realize that every time Joe Lieberman spouts right-wing talking points on TV as a "Democrat" or attends a Republican press conference as a "Democrat," that spites their face big-time?
So here's the plan. Immediately after Election Day, if Democrats don't need Lieberman as their 60th vote in the Senate, progressive activists in Nevada will stand in front of Harry Reid's office for hours and read your letters to Harry Reid about Joe Lieberman.
Media will be invited. It will be a grand spectacle, and Harry Reid will get the hint that in the progressive era, he needs to be bold. And the first step is to boot Joe Lieberman.
The event at Reid's office will feature folks reading these letters aloud. I'm told that if enough folks from NY write their own letters, there may even be an event at Schumer's office as well.
Senator Ted Kennedy's malignant brain tumor is not curable and his prognosis is not good.
The grim diagnosis that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has an almost certainly fatal brain tumor was "a real curveball" that left his family stunned even as he joked and laughed with them, his wife told her friends.
...
The diagnosis cast a pall over Capitol Hill, where the Massachusetts Democrat has served since 1962, and came as a shock to a family all too accustomed to sudden, calamitous news.
"He's had a biopsy, and we don't yet have final pathology or a plan or course of treatment. But I have to be honest, we've been pitched a real curveball," Vicki Kennedy wrote.
Doctors said the senator had a malignant glioma in the left parietal lobe, a region of the brain that helps govern sensation, movement and language. Malignant gliomas are diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year; in general, half of all patients die within a year.
"It's treatable but not curable. You can put it into remission for a while but it's not a curable tumor," said Dr. Suriya Jeyapalan, a neuroncologist at Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center in Boston.
The doctors said Kennedy will remain in the hospital for the next couple of days as they consider chemotherapy and radiation. They did not mention surgery, a possible indication the tumor is inoperable.
...
Sen. Robert Byrd, D-W.Va., the longest-serving member of the Senate, wept as he prayed for "my dear, dear friend, dear friend, Ted Kennedy" during a speech on the Senate floor.
"Keep Ted here for us and for America," said the 90-year-old Byrd, who is in a wheelchair. He added: "Ted, Ted, my dear friend, I love you and I miss you."
I'm really not the praying type, but I'm sure I'm not the only one doing so today for Senator Kennedy.
In other news, yesterday when I first heard this sad news and began to post about it, I wondered aloud to myself how long it would be before some wingnut used Kennedy's illness as a joke. The sad answer is not long at all. Right wing hatemonger and complete and utter douchebag Michael Savage played a Dead Kennedys song "in some respect" for Senator Kennedy on his radio show yesterday.
On the day it was announced that Sen. Ted Kennedy had been diagnosed with a malignant brain tumor, nationally syndicated radio host Michael Savage opened his show by interspersing audio of Kennedy singing "Ay Jalisco No Te Rajes" with clips of news reporters discussing Kennedy's diagnosis and audio from Kindergarten Cop in which Arnold Schwarzenegger's character says, "It's not a tumor." Later, Savage played the Dead Kennedys song "California Über Alles" after stating: "The poor guy's been suffering for years, you know? Unfairly he's been accused of alcoholism, but we see now that it was something much more deep-seated. And so, to cut this out in some respect for Ted Kennedy, here's a tune coming at you from the Dead Kennedys. Go ahead and play it, please."
Sen. Edward M. Kennedy has a malignant brain tumor. Doctors for the Massachusetts Democrat say tests conducted after Kennedy suffered a seizure this weekend show a tumor in his left parietal lobe. Preliminary results from a biopsy of the brain identified the cause of the seizure as a malignant glioma, they said.
His treatment will be decided after more tests but the usual course includes combinations of radiation and chemotherapy.
...
His doctors said in a statement released to The Associated Press that he has had no further seizures, is in good spirits and is resting comfortably.
Malignant gliomas are a type of brain cancer diagnosed in about 9,000 Americans a year - and the most common type among adults. It's a starting diagnosis: How well patients fare depends on what specific tumor type is determined by further testing.
Average survival can range from less than a year for very advanced and aggressive types - such as glioblastomas - or to about five years for different types that are slower growing.
Davidnyc over at the SSP reports the latest poll numbers that indicate Elizabeth Dole is in huge trouble in her re-election efforts this November.
SSP is moving NC-Sen from "Safe Republican" to "Likely Republican." Several factors contribute to this change:
1) Democrat Kay Hagan (who convincingly won her primary earlier this week) has done a good job raking in cash so far, raising $1.5 million since she got into the race, including $900K in the first quarter. She had to spend a lot of her warchest in her race against Jim Neal, but it looks like her fundraising will continue to be strong.
Last month, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a strong and balanced FISA bill, legislation that protects America's national security while defending civil liberties -- without granting retroactive immunity to phone companies. Retroactive immunity would abet the Bush-Cheney Administration's efforts to avoid accountability for its actions.
This was a tremendous accomplishment -- and would not have been possible without the hard work and support from engaged citizens like you. The fight for a fair FISA bill has been waged all across the country: in the halls of Congress, on progressive political blogs, in newspaper editorial pages, on the public airwaves, and around dinner tables and water coolers from coast-to-coast.
But there's still much work to do. Now that the House has passed a fair FISA bill, it's time to turn our attention back to the Senate -- and we hope you'll join us in urging our Senate colleagues to sign on to the strong FISA legislation the House passed just last month.
We've already seen the impact of grassroots activity on the FISA debate. Your emails, phone calls, blog posts, and letters-to-the-editor -- including more than 1,700 letters written in response to our call last month alone -- really do make a huge difference.
Now we need your help to make sure that our colleagues in the Senate know that the American people are watching -- and that they want a FISA bill that protects our national security, preserves our civil liberties, and refuses retroactive immunity to telecom companies.
First the Bush-Cheney Administration tried to bully the House into accepting its own deeply flawed FISA legislation. Then White House officials and Congressional Republicans refused to meet with us to hammer out a better bill. And then the President and his allies blocked our attempts to temporarily extend existing surveillance legislation -- incredibly blaming Democrats for their own efforts to let the legislation expire.
Despite all of this bullying, cajoling, and foot-dragging, we're proud that our House Democratic colleagues stood firm, refusing to water down the strong, balanced FISA bill that passed the House and is now on its way to the Senate.
Now we need your help to encourage our Democratic colleagues in the Senate to stand firm as well.
If you've got a minute, please contact Senator Clinton's office by phone or fax.
Today, I will vote against Republican efforts to shortchange the debate on the FISA Amendments Act, important legislation that would modernize our surveillance laws and give our nation's intelligence professionals the tools they need to fight terrorism and make our country more secure. Rather than allow the Senate the opportunity to consider important amendments to this vital legislation, Republicans are instead blocking meaningful debate on this bill by playing procedural games, choosing instead to score cheap political points at the expense of our Homeland Security.
This legislation deserves a thorough debate. Several provisions - including those which would have a profound impact on the civil liberties of Americans - need to be the subject of careful deliberation. For example, the bill under consideration gives telecommunication companies blanket retroactive immunity for their alleged cooperation in the administration's warrantless wiretapping program. I continue to believe that a grant of retroactive immunity is wrong, and I have cosponsored Senator Dodd's amendment to remove that provision from the bill. The Bush Administration has blatantly disregarded Americans' civil liberties over the past seven years, and I simply will not trust them to protect Americans' privacy rights. With the temporary Protect America Act set to expire on February 1st, I strongly believe that we need to pass balanced legislation that protects our civil liberties and the rule of law while giving our law enforcement and intelligence agencies the tools they need to protect our country.
Connecticut Senator, and presidential candidate Chris Dodd will take the floor of the Senate this afternoon to defend our Constitution against the lawlessness of the Bush administration and his corporate cronies, as well as a Democratic Majority Leader seemingly hell bent to pass truly terrible bill before the Christmas break. The fact that Senator Dodd, a member of the majority caucus, who has long signaled that he would put a "hold" on the bill, will have to do undertake the first actual filibuster in 15 years this afternoon, is enough to make one's head spin. This is not what being in the Senate majority was supposed to be about. He won't be alone though. 14 Senators, including our own junior Senator from New York, Hillary Clinton, have expressed their support for Dodd's strong stand against this travesty. Senators Kennedy and Feingold have gone as far as to promise to join his filibuster today on the floor of the US Senate.
Senator Clinton has the biggest megaphone in Democratic politics, if not in American public life. She also wants to be our next President. Standing up to protect our Constitution is literally the least she could do to show the nation that, should she actually become our next President, she will take the oath of office, the one that states that a president, "will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States", with a clean conscience. The time for real leadership is now. Today. This very minute. Not January of 2009.
If you'd like to ask Senator Clinton if she will stand up for our Constitution and the rule of law, you can reach her Senate office here:
(202) 228-0282
And while we're at it, will Senators Biden and Obama take a stand as well?
In a preview of Senator Dodd's filibuster this afternoon, he's addressing the Senate at this very moment. It is a powerful, sober and profound speech. You can read the entire text as it was prepared for delivery on the flip. I can't urge you strongly enough to read the whole damn thing.
UPDATE: Video of the entire speech is on the flip as well.
As you may know, the Senate Judiciary Committee is marking up legislation that may extend retroactive immunity to telecom companies that engaged in and enabled widespread illegal surveillance of American citizens. In fact, there is "compromise" language being floated that would essentially put the federal government in the place of the telcos. They still get immunity, but you and I would bear he costs. This is absolutely unconscionable and must not pass. It's a terrible precedent to set that lawlessness in acceptable and it's even worse to think that taxpayers would indemnify the lawbreakers.
The Chris Dodd campaign has a nifty citizen whip count tool that i've posted below. they also have a wonderful new tool that will put you directly in touch with the office of any Senator on the SJC. Chuck Schumer sits on that committee and he needs to hear from us. You can use this awesome tool to be put in touch directly with Schumer's office.
Or you can call him in DC:
(202) 224-6542
Just be sure to call, no matter which route you choose.
John Dean is someone who knows what an out of control Executive Branch looks like. He also a long memory. Senator Schumer (and Leahy and the rest of the SJC) would be wise to listen.
As the Senate Democrats complete another sad concession to President Bush, and confirms a nominee who refuses to declare "water-boarding" torture, allow me to offer a brief historical reminder: the Senate Judiciary Committee has conspicuously forgotten that there are direct situational and historical parallels with Judge Mukasey's nomination to be Attorney General and that of President Richard Nixon nominating Elliot Richardson to be Attorney General during Watergate.
Nixon's Attorney General had been removed (and was later prosecuted for lying to Congress) - a situation not unlike Alberto Gonzales's leaving the job under such a cloud. Nixon was under deep suspicion of covering up the true facts relating to the bungled break-in at the Democratic National Committee headquarters at the Watergate, not to mention widespread rumors that he had engaged in abuses of power and corrupt campaign practices. Today, Bush is under even deeper suspicion for activities far more serious than anything Nixon engaged in for there is evidence Bush has abused the laws of war, violated treaties, and ordered (or approved) the use of torture and political renditions, which are war crimes.
Since Judge Mukasey's situation is not unlike that facing Elliot Richardson when he was appointed Attorney General during Watergate, why should not the Senate Judiciary Committee similarly make it a quid pro quo for his confirmation that he appoint a special prosecutor to investigate war crimes? Richardson was only confirmed when he agreed to appoint a special prosecutor, which, of course, he did. And when Nixon fired that prosecutor, Archibald Cox, it lead to his impeachment.
Before the Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee completely cave-in to Bush, at minimum they should demand that Judge Mukasey appoint a special prosecutor to investigate if war crimes have been committed. If Mukasey refuses he should be rejected. This, indeed, should be a pre-condition to anyone filling the post of Attorney General under Bush.
If the Democrats in the Senate refuse to demand any such requirement, it will be act that should send chills down the spine of every thinking American.
This afternoon, I met with Judge Michael Mukasey one more time. I requested the meeting to address, in person, some of my concerns. The Judge made clear to me that, were Congress to pass a law banning certain interrogation techniques, we would clearly be acting within our constitutional authority. And he flatly told me that the President would have absolutely no legal authority to ignore such a law, not even under some theory of inherent authority under Article II of the Constitution. He also pledged to enforce such a law and repeated his willingness to leave office rather than participate in a violation of law.
Chuck, these assurances and $4.50 will get you a flippin' mochachino.
Until yesterday, Schumer was ducking cameras rather than answer questions about Mukasey. And when he finally talked to reporters, it was clear why he'd been camera shy. He told reporters yesterday on a conference call that he's caught in a "substantive tough spot." And even during that call he vaulted back and forth on how he might vote:
"From this administration, we will never get somebody who agrees with us on issues like torture and wiretapping," Schumer said at one point, suggesting an argument in favor of Mukasey, who faces a Senate Judiciary Committee vote on Tuesday. "The best thing we can hope for is someone who will depoliticize the Justice Department and put rule of law first."
But Schumer said minutes later that his mind is not made up: "He's the best we can get, but that doesn't necessarily ensure a yes vote. I thought John Roberts was the best we could get, but I voted no."...
"The question is whether he will show the requisite independence," Schumer said. "That's what I want to clear in my own head. . . . If Congress passes a law forbidding waterboarding, would he enforce that?"
Maybe you should ask him and maybe, if you feel as I do about the Mukasey nomination, You could tell him to vote "no."
