I have no real problem with Blago appointing Roland Burris

He will not be excluded by the Senate -- that's just bluster.

The guy is a African American leader with a lot of "firsts" on his resume. Former head of PUSH, first AA elected to state-wide office in Illinois.

He's a safe place-holder which is what a senate appointment really should be. Long-time pol, loyal Dem, too old to use the appointment as a launch-pad.

Unless someone has specific allegations of Burris paying for the office then the idea that someone cannot serve just because of who appointed him is silly.

This is how a vacant Senate seat is filled. You can't chuck the rule-book without some kind of due process.

If Blago appointed his wife or someone mentioned in the pay-for-play allegations the Sneate might reject it, but I don't see the US Senate wading into murky constitutional waters just to block a relatively inoffensive pick (and make sure there are no AA Senators now that Obama's out.)

If Burris has big problems that's a whole 'nother thing, of course.

It's not his fault, I know - unless he did pay for the seat.

He'll simply be viewed as a caretaker until the next round of Senatorial elections are held to name Obama's permanent replacement.

The Senate seat is a nice tribute, a nice way of capping off a successful political career.

Burris has always been a class act. Met him a few times, once when he was attorney general, (professionally) and during his campaign for the senate. If I recall, I may have sent him money for his senate run.

I've always liked him, and thought that he was clean and smart.

Burris stepped down from an office he could have held for an indeterminate amount of time to go into private practice. THAT'S why I think he'd do this only to be a place holder.

returned to the Senate in 2002 when Bob Torricelli got into trouble. He was not just a placeholder, as ran for reelection this year.

Why not appoint someone who could serve a bunch of terms?

Nobody wants an individual, let alone a probable crook, to launch a political dynasty unilaterally. I think it's good for vacant seats to be filled by place-holders.

Then the voters get to decide from an open field the next time an election rolls around.

And Roland Burris gets to cap off his political career.

but not the brightest bulb in the pack.

I've heard nothing but praise about him since he first took office.

Blago is a Chicago pol, which means, among other things, he think 2 to 3 steps ahead.

In Burris, Blago has a man that the Senate will probably seat because of his great credentials. But, Burris, because of his age, can be nothing more than a seat holder.

So what does that mean for the 2010 election for the senate seat? Possible Dem. civil war. The Illinois party is already split in 2. Without a strong incumbent, it's easy to see at least 2 (maybe more) people trying for the Dem nomination.

And one of those could be Blago. He may be thinking that his legal troubles will be over early enough for a shot at it. Yes, he just might be that crazy at this point.

Dems have a bloodbath in the primary, giving rise to possibly weakened candidate, providing the IL GOP with a door if they can get themselves together in time.

Obama was a freshmen senator in his first term, who happened to win (Senate)election in the first place because his opponent (Keyes) was ridiculous. The seat would have been safe as long as Obama held it, otherwise, not so much. I don't see that there really is a safe pick. Unfortunately, this is what happens when the presidential winnner comes from the Senate. I think Biden and Clinton had safe seats, too - who knows what will happen in their states when their terms expire? I happen to believe that senators can make great presidents - I'm not one of those who thinks a candidate should have been a governor - but this consequence must have been anticipated. I don't know much about Burris, but if Obama supported him in 2002, as someone posted here, and he's African American (I think that it's shocking that there was only one African-American senator and I'm glad that Blago got that part right), I don't see that it's a particularly terrible pick.

Obama didn't "just" happen to win....he won the primary on merits, and trounced his Democratic opponents.

11504 of 11745 Precincts (98%)
Barack Obama 640,707 53%
Dan Hynes 288,176 24%
Blair Hull 130,944 11%
Maria Pappas 73,485 6%
Gery Chico 52,105 4%
Nancy Skinner 15,651 1%
Joyce Washington 12,973 1%
http://www.ilsenate.com/


....and was ahead of his Republican opponent, Jack Ryan, by some 20 points or so, BEFORE Ryan was striken with a sex scandal and then pulled out.

" Even before the lurid allegations, Obama held a lead over Ryan in various polls."
http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/06/25/il.ryan/

A frantic search found no suitable Republican opponent willing to go againstt Obama, and that's where Keyes came in.

You made it sound like the only person Obama ran against was Keyes in 2004. That is a lie, and the type of propaganda that the Republicans liked to use for a while to make it seem as though Obama didn't know how to "really win".

I'm sure you're not doing so on purpose, but I think the only way that Senate seat is safe in 2010 is if Obama is in it.

I also don't see anything saying Obama was 20 points ahead of Ryan.

It's also true that Blair Hull, who was leading the Democratic primary at one time, also dropped out - just like Ryan - because his divorce records were leaked.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blair_Hull

I think that Obama probably would have won anyway. He was a good fit for the Illinois Democratic party in 2004.