does it look familiar? yes it does, and here's a story to back it up:

Historical evidence indicates, however, that New York's recessions tend to last longer than those in the national economy.

"This certainly was the case in the 2001 recession which lasted three quarters at the national level, but 10 quarters in New York State," Ehrlich says.

"Given that the current decline has been precipitated by the implosion of the real estate bubble that created a serious financial crisis for major Wall Street investment banks and insurance companies, New York State's economy is again likely to be hit harder than the national economy. Wall Street contributes about 20 percent of all tax revenues in the state."

from http://www.buffalo.edu/news/9781

but yes, even though i mentioned that -- in support of a point about why i don't think anyone need worry about the GOP taking back that seat anytime soon -- i did not mean to imply that the recession is not being FELT equally hard in other parts of the country, especially rust belt, rural, midwestern ones.

and anyway, you say nothing in response to my other points.

--this is not a 2-yr appt to be followed by an electoral vetting process for whoever gets the seat... it's a de facto EIGHT YEAR APPT., as the person who runs in 2010 will be running in tandem with schumer, and thus have an unnatural advantage in addition to a 2-yr headstart on fundraising and recognition. (read the politico blog analysis i posted earlier for the reasons why...)

thus the heaviest competition will likely come in the primaries, and again, i see no reason that a newly appt'd candidate will stumble there -- ESPECIALLY if it's kennedy. but does that mean she should get it? there, said my piece.

What's going to happen? Well, have you read The Road?

I'm only half-joking here.

Rampant capitalism and the profit motive were bound to run into this problem whether we decided on durability and slow growth or what we have now... it just would have taken a lot longer, and we probably wouldn't have had our cool iphones or whathaveyou.

Right now, the economy's shrinking for a variety of reasons, the housing issue being only the biggest and most visible. That's caused supply to far outstrip demand and led to the deflation (noticed gas prices lately?), which is making my wallet smile but won't last.

What happens when oil slingshots back up and carries food, heat, and other staples along with it? I'm just hoping to make it through the winter.

I give up. If holding the seat's the primary concern, sure, give it to her. But as I argued yesterday, I really don't think it's going to be a problem. I don't see how Repubs make a viable case here, given that New York is likely to STILL be mired in a recession two years from now, Barack Obama won the state by 30 points, and Schumer is likely to lift any Dem on the ticket with him.

Paterson's the one who's vulnerable here. He was not elected gov,. he's got to wash the stink of spitzer off, and he's been desperately cowtowing to the repubs in the state senate by beating them to the punch with the most draconian cuts imaginable to balance the budget... which, by the way, did you see his ideas to avoid logical, straightforward progressive tax increases? Let them drink coke...

I don't know how this all shakes out in two years, but it scares the bejeezus outta me. I see that Kennedy's upstate today to meet and greet the folks up here -- will it be the first (and last) time she makes that trip?

your logic is fallacious. kwame kilpatrick had legislative experience; kwame kilpatrick is corrupt; all those with legislative experience are corrupt. heavens to betsy!

likewise, the list of platitudes you trot out in support of "CK" are doggerel straight out of a shintzy campaign ad. not convincing.

NOT...

If CK is so qualified and ready to serve the people of New York -- and yes, this is a senate seat for the State of New York, not a national popularity contest as some here seem to think it is -- let her spend the next two years stumping up and down the state convincing us of her qualifications. The argument of those supporting her seems to be this, in a nutshell:

she's written some books

she's an "intelligent introvert," whatever that means

she's a kennedy

she's rich

--that's it; those are her qualifications.

people compare her to hillary clinton in terms of the nepotism factor -- well, guess what? hillary was elected. people say "let's see how she does the next two years and THEN vet her..."

i say that's crazy. upstate new york needs help NOW. we need competence NOW. we need someone who understands the inner workings of gov't and how to get things done NOW. not two years from now.

imagine the outrage if hillary had just swooped in to new york and begun pressuring the gov for a special app't. she may not have been the most experienced candidate -- but at least she stood for election. let CK do the same. given her lack of experience, that's all the more reason to demand it. we need to know her stance on the issues. we need to see her in action -- let her get out and stump, for real!

OH, OK.... you've convinced me. "Smart and savvy" -- how did I miss that?