Has Congresswoman Maloney expressed interested in becoming a Senator?

Yee Haw!

Comedy gold.

The Chutzpah of Hope!

And your opinion as to who should be Senator from New York is SO important and relevant.

Ever hear of Pelosi? Why don't you take out the trash and leave the New Yorker's to their own trash?

Yes, Juliebird, I believe she's expressed quiet interest, and reportedly hired longtime labor politico Bill Lynch to quietly help her bid. I don't know enough about all the NY choices (and politics) to say who's best, but I trust Digby and have always respected Maloney. We'll see.

What (little) I've heard about Maloney certainly recommends her.

Here's a follow-up question: should Maloney become Paterson's appointed Senator, does her seat get filled via special election, sudden-death trivial pursuit, or what? (You say "run" in your blog post, so I assume the answer is "special election"). I know you've mentioned CK taking a shot at Maloney's seat, which would certainly open her up to the scrutiny everyone seems to demand.

Hmmmmm...

But, to be honest, my attention is still focused on Minnesota. Franken is up by 50, the rejected ballots still need to be counted, and Coleman is insisting on rules for counting them that sound more like "Calvinball" every minute. Seem like eventually, Senator Franken will inherit Paul Wellstone's seat. Woot!

Because she's a good example of everything wrong about politicians.

Case in point. Her entire uninformed, knee-jerk sound bite reaction when that small plane flown by the Yankee pitcher or his flight instructor flew into a building on this East side.

I wouldn't elect her to anything.

But I realize it matters little other than someone wear the appropriate label, in this case apparently "strong feminist" will do.

Maybe for NOW or Emily's List. Or maybe I could shoe horn in a strong queer activist, although none comes to mind at the moment.

Senators are supposed to represent the State, not look after the interests of a select group.

WillBFair, I'm being unfair to digby with that headline, because her post jumped off Kerry Kennedy saying (and other Caroline supporters agree) Hillary's post should go to a woman.

I actually think, given that it's an appointment, that gender should be one of Paterson's considerations, given that New York elected a woman.

But I'm not saying that's the only consideration.

Increasingly though, I would say, given his choice of Carolyn/Carolines, I would choose Maloney if I were Paterson. It's such a Solomonic choice, because it opens up Maloney's seat for Kennedy IF she chooses to run.

Everybody in the Senate should probably have run (and probably have won) for some kind of political office. Call it Walsh's law.

Oh, and WillBFair? If you're mainly looking for a gay/gay rights prominent candidate, I might well support Christine Quinn over Caroline Kennedy. I am a Democrat; I have a bias for people elected democratically.

I haven't read any quotes stating David Paterson wants to appoint a strong feminist. Sounds more like a feminist editor linking to a feminist blogger about a feminist congresswoman. Can you say echo ?

I believe (and this is just MHO), that the appointer should find an appointee who most closely matches the previous Senator in terms of positions on issues and likely voting. The appointee, in other words, should most resemble what the voters wanted in that position. While that doesn't mean the candidate must be A Woman, if you consider HRC to be a "strong feminist" (eg, someone who worked to equalize the playing field for men and women, or someone who worked for issues largely ignored by "nonfeminists"), then, yes, Paterson should be looking for a "strong feminist" to fill HRC's seat.

Joan, I agree with you on this one.

Caroline... I so supported you when you announced your sentorial intentions. That was before you actually got in front of a camera, opened your mouth and made Sarah Palin look articulate. You know.... you know.... you know....

I do know. It is clearly beneath you, but why don't you consider sitting on the community zoning board for a few years. Or the PTA.

Oh, I forgot, you're royalty.

Interesting take. Hard to argue with you opinion, however I never thought that was much of a consideration....to match voting records, gender....what about age ? Should the person be the same age if gender is important, what about race ? Also, does that mean women shouldn't be candidates for other open (male) positions like Obama's and Salazar's ? Gender politics suck and so does faux news.

The point of my original post is the assumption in the story that David Paterson wants to appoint a strong feminist has not been reported anywhere else that I have read.....so it starts with a false premise....and hence becomes propaganda.

I've read very little of Ms. Digby's "must reads". I know. I'm lost without being a constant reader of Digby's sage wisdom. (Actually, not too much sarcasm implied. I'm a terrible reader.)

My point: As so many others have inferred, why does everyone feel they need to weigh in on this particular senate seat? And why is it news each and every time? My god. This issue is turning the Liberal blog universe into mimics of the tabloid wannabe MSM. But honestly, Mr. & Ms. Weblog, if you're going to have favorites (or in all honesty, prime opposition to...) particular horses in this race you should weigh in on each and every open seat in the land. As well as those in the British Parliament, UN General Council, and on and on, so on and so forth, ad nauseam...

Has it ever happened in the history of our country that the subject for an open seat in our government has been asked to produce so much information and curry the favor of so many others? This lousy 2-year appointment has sparked more interest and caused so many voices to choose sides it is ridiculous. It's been ridiculous from the outset. All because some prominent voices are vociferously opposed to Gov. Paterson choosing Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg to the seat without, I presume, her having actually campaigned for public office previously (I'm guessing, because this reason seems, to me and from what I've read many, many others, to be considerably inadequate and as such, there has got to be some hidden, unspeakable reason so horrible that none should mention it. Is she, or as she ever in the past, been an accomplice to Lord Voldemort?)

By the way, Ms. Walsh, Al Giordano is pulling for Ms. Kennedy-Schlossberg, would you care to publish his screed for taking such a position?

Actually, as an Upstate refuge I care a lot about the politics and whom is entrusted in each public servant's seat quite a bit. I love the area where I grew up, received a first-class education in every sense of the word, and wherein much of my family still resides. It needs a whole lot of care and it has been neglected for my entire life, and then some. From the little I know about Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg, I like her and would feel good about her representing NYS in the US Senate. I know less about Carolyn Moloney, but I'd feel good about her if Gov. Paterson chose her as well. Some others (Andy Cuomo, Rep. Nadler...eh. Not so much.) But the news this seat has triggered, most especially on the Internet blogs truly is the signature sign of ridiculousness.