Blow you?! first we have to suffer Chuck and then we have to you suck. god is there no end to this torture?

I am conflicted on Schumer...and it has nothing to do with Atlantic Yards. It has to do with Iraq and accountability. I think Schumer had a prime opportunity, way back when Bush wanted his second payment on the war, to stand up for accountability, but he didn't. Schumer talks big but it seems to me he rolls over way too often. I expected better.

Having said that, while I wouldn't say he kicks ass, he certainly has a presence. I met him once while campaigning for Ferrer and was greatly impressed by his presence. On an philosophical, issues-based, personal level, I don't like Schumer much. But on a gut level I found him, dare I say it, quite Presidential. I am big enough (hey...no short person cracks...Scott Sala and I might gang up on you!) to admit that my personal and issues-based opinions are not those of the bulk of the nation and, unlike my Green friends, I recognize the best we can do nationally is a moderate to conservative Democrat. So I opt for brains and a reasonable agreement with my views...Schumer fits that very well.

For the record, I do NOT get a "Presidential" gut feeling from Hillary. I have the same issues-based problems with her as with Chuck, but have yet to find a compensating aspect to her personality. She still is better than ANY Republican out there these days, but she is also a disappointment. However, part of me would love to see her President because a.) yes, we are ready for a woman President...(why should we have a tougher time with that than, say, Pakistan and Sri Lanka?), b.) she certainly wouldn't make a BAD President, just not, in my opinion, a great one, and c.) the collective apoplexy of the right wing nut cases around the nation should Hillary win could probably fuel the nation's energy needs for decades. That collective right wing horror would be measured in megatons and would be such a pleasure to watch.

...our collective horror when Hillary pulls a Mondale and loses 49 states to some schmuck would render air-conditioning irrelevant for decades.

(Cue Wallner to the contrary)

But seriously, what is it that people have against Schumer? He's done a kick-ass job with the DSCC, he was a leader in the SCOTUS fights, he's been a tower of strength for candidate recruitment, got himself re-elected with 71% of the vote, and still deserves all of our thanks for offing D'Amato. I don't see him running for Prez, but in the Senate, he has been extraordinarily effective and upheld the dignity of the chamber. The Dubai ports fracas? that was Schumer.

I honestly do not get it. It can't all be about Iraq, and even on that, he has roasted the Rs.

Oh well.

OK, so I talk a lot. I HAVE A LOT TO SAY! Jeezus, there's days when all I do is type and type and not talk to anybody for 6 or 8 hours at a time. Trappist monks have more talking time (and fantastic beer, by the way) than I do.

I have no idea what to do about it. It's just one of those flaws in an otherwise perfect creation.

HA!

As to Americans being a bunch of ninnies : Agreed. As I said last night, if Congress where like Parliament, politics in the US would be so much awesomer. Unfortunately the US got the puritanical rejects, not the hot blooded political animals of old Brittania.

Not that verbal smackdowns a-la-UK Parliament would have averted the war. Blair is Bush's pony after all. But politics would be so much more fun than the staid, unemotionless crap that's aired on C-Span.

Which is why people are starting to get the value of blogs. We have the passion and conviction to be the smackdowners.

As to Andrew Rasiej, he soOoOoOo needs to get his ass in this blog. Pronto! He should do a tour-de-blogs. A blog-hopping techevangelizing event where he posts all over the blogosphere.

...on this post. Maybe I was a little bit distempered when writing this, but this is extraordinary.

Heh. Better start writing about the Greens again .

I preditt Hillary is not going to run for President after all. I think she is going to look at the race, and realize the dynamics may not work. By that I mean that like it or not, Hillary represents the past, not the future. She and Bill Clinton would be going around talking about what a mess things are, how great things were when they lived in the white house, and lets go set the clocks back. 'Hey everyone lets relive the 90's!" It is going to be too hard for every other candidate to paint her as the voice of the past and themselves as the voice of the future.

Also I've read that her people are seriously spooked by a potential Barack Obama candidacy, because he's going to galvanize the blogosphere and won't be as easy to pinpoint politically as the others. She knew she could run to the left of Mark Warner and to the right of John Kerry, and stake herself more firmly to the center than John Edwards. She knows she can beat all those guys, because she's a bigger star than those guys. Obama is another story. Or Gore if he ran.

Finally, she doesn't know where to on the Iraq war. I read the league of women voters voting guide, where the candidates are asked their views on the Iraq war, and the other senate and congressional candidates all express firm opinions. Hillary on the other hand in her paragraph response does a clear job of dodging the question altogether! She says to refer to other things she's said publicly on the matter. Okay? This won't work in primary season, she can't have it both ways on the war and be nominated.

So I think she's not going to run. She likes being in the Senate, could easily run against Reid for Majority Leader if the Dems take control, and not have to deal with these issues of how to run, where to position herself, and what to say on the war.