I understand your goal, Jonathan. Maybe it is my own "advanced" age, but as someone who got her legal start as a staff attorney for a US Ct of Appeals, I'm fortunate in many ways--not the least of which has been the positive observation of the legal interaction of jurists in a mix of ages and other backgrounds. Yes, Dems need a political reality re: appointments. Yes also, the law is ultimately better for not going off the deep end either way.

Also: I believe that a US Supreme Ct. case some years ago--a case involving the House attempting to deny seating Cong. Adam Clayton Powell during another scandal--would suggest that the Senate would not have the power to deny seating a Senator based on "ethical" or other such matters. In that case, the Court negated Congressional attempts at barring the Congressman.  As this Blagojevich matter moves forward, I suspect (unless he has a change of heart about remaining) that it may well drag on for some while. This would be especially so if the Illinois chamber is precluded legally--as lawyer Genson claims--from using the fruit of the wiretaps in that State proceeding.

Actually, JJJ has played the "hatchet man." So, this does happen in turn.

I am trying to be restrained when it comes to JJJ. I remember his incendiary, defaming comments about Clinton following the NH primary; I remember that he was quick to diss his own father as well, etc. The man has an interesting background...and, mayhaps, it is catching up to him. Trial by press is unfair. Yet, please understand my early reaction here is a variant of lots of old sayings about getting back how we treat others.  

I would not equate "tough" with "gotcha." Actually, "tough" involves knowing the material, the direct issue, and the macro situation as well. What I learned during my days as an enforcement attorney was that there was a lot to be gained by varieties of open-ended questions.  The "did you--didn't you" stuff is a bit obvious; and, the responder often closes down. The result: Noone really learns anything or gets the measure of a person from the posturing interview. (By the by, IMHO, Russert occasionally fell into the attack-dog motif and trap in later years. Just saying....) Think about what you want to know from the responder...and the many ways, methods to elicit that info.  I'd vote for the even-tempered, somewhat self-effacing style over the bark anytime.

Yes, we agree.

A further note: Maybe it is "quota-esque" OR maybe it is just significant/legitimate representation to expect at women to be in several of the real power positions. Qualifications, first, of course. But, there are a lot of qualified women as well. What about Tyson or Bair at Treasury? I see Carol Browner's name a lot now--Energy or Interior? The point: I'm sure we (as Democrats) would not want to see a cabinet picture that had less diversity (including gender) than the present Bush picture. Its more than quotas; its about confident leadership.

I have been wondering about where Federico Pena stands...Sec. of Interior? Appropos of your comment on recognizing one's supporters: I recall that @53% of voters are women, and a majority supported Pres-elect Obama. A number of my friends are looking at the overall appointment picture--does is represent America? One of the comments on Stephanopoulis This Week noted the yardstick of previous high-level Presidential appointments and the breakout by gender, etc. At some point, that will be important too.  Of course, the biggies are/were VP, State, AG, and Chief of Staff.  Even without the gender aspect, Sen. Clinton has top credentials and international acceptance.  Just sayin'.

A fundamental mistake in a campaign is to attack the one who tells you what you don't want to hear. It would be useful to discuss the pros & cons of Jerome's comment without a semblance of hysteria or anger or avoidance or namecalling or....

No. Don't quit. But, recognized that nothing ever really goes as planned; it gets tough. Thats when you begin to see the mettle of the candidate (or at least, the campaign.)It is ok to talk about tactics on both sides; to insist on total obeisance without comment is foolhardy.

Thank you, BJJ Fighter. Honestly, sometimes our "intellectualism" and our "but, but we're smarter" get in the way of a real understanding of people. My husband holds a doctorate in political science (has taught it and run a campaign or two); I'm a longtime lawyer--and, guess what, we have started to learn that we are not smarter than what some have referred to as the "low information" voter. Funny thing...our families were blue-collar from the coal region in Penna; no college before this generation; yet, did they ever understand politics at all levels. It really is local. Obama & co. need to stop trying to demonstrate how smart they are in a comparative sense, and prove it by getting on with a tough, straightforward campaign.

The best argument against Palin is a direct argument from Obama against McCain. As we are finding out, continuing to throw punches at Palin either miss or hit our own faces. The more Obama is compared to Palin, the worse it ultimately (perhaps, subconsciously) it becomes for Obama because he forgets he is running for President and not VP.The Palin catnip thing--whereby the left has resembled the knucklehead right these past two weeks in strident emotion--inexorably drags Obama down. Believe me, I felt sympathy for Palin because of the incessant rantings of my own party. Enough; it's counterproductive. (Oh...my voting record for 40 years has always been straight Democratic Party. My work and money contributions have backed that up for just as long.) Stop the new round of wild-eyed attacks against women...it only undermines the party.

As so many have said, we may well see a jostling situation in the next few days. Whether it is 1 o 2 or 5 points, who knows? Speculation: There has been a small shift in momentum--whether it is only which party had the later convention, who knows? One thing is apparent in the hallways and byways in which I have been the fast few days: A lot of people are talking about politics in places where it hasn't been so obvious before. On Sunday morning, in the Church basement, coffee and donuts became the setting for political discourse coming from several directions around me. (Catholic church) In the neighborhood restaurant on Saturday night, political talk throughout. (nice little French restaurant) Whatever it is--and, only based on my experience--something is happening.