Wait , is Shumer one of the good guys ?

or is he a DLCer , never followed his politics closely.

He said something in public that is really appalling , but lets not mention that.

going, and I think she was very helpful to him, a year or so earlier, in his own senatorial campaign. Seems I remember seeing them in the news a lot together. I think of them as both very mainstream DLC types.

favorabilities in NY than she did. They did jointly announce everything for NY, but that is typical for 2 Senators of the same party (and often opposing parties). I agree that are both DLC types.

You are right that he was very strongly behind her campaign ... publicly. He has yet to deny the highly publicized Game Change story that he was among those who urged Obama to run ... in private.

He is extremely ambitious and willing to backstab good Democrats. He is 100% in AIPAC's pocket, though most Jews agree more with J Street positions.

Attacker of working families.

Back in the day when we all assumed that a public option would be the centerpiece of real healthcare reform and that the President would veto a bill that didn't contain it. Remember those good old days? My eyes are misting with nostalgia.

When it looked like reform would have to have a Public Option element (something we bargained away later in negotiating with Republicans and Blue Dogs who never intended to vote for reform anyway), crafty Chuck tackled his homework project - How Can We Create a Public Option that is NOT a Public Option? In a flash of brilliance he got it - The Level Playing Field Public Option!

Remember how the Public option was supposed to drive down costs because it would have lower fees caused by lower admin costs and drug negotiation? Chuck decided that was UNFAIR to the for-profits because they would have to lose PROFIT if they had to compete with a lower cost public program. So, he proposed "leveling the playing field" and eliminating the cost advantage of the public option, which was the whole point of their existence in the first place!! How's that for brilliant? A Public Option that accomplishes NOTHING in lowering costs for the consumer tax payer and protects the profits of the privates.

Anyway, I washed my hands of him after that. And never looked at the White House the same either after they killed drug price negotiation for Medicare (and the killed in the cradle Public Option) AND Dorgan's drug-re-importation amendment. And of course the icing on that cake was the election support Blanche Lincoln received for holding the chloroform soaked rag over the public options nostrils.

That blockade is leading to kids having no schools to go to - as there is no cement to rebuild them. It has also led to shortages of food. One list of what was not allowed in, included spices - many typically used in Mideastern cooking. Now, in the scheme of things not being able to get them is not life threatening, but it does decrease in a real way an unnecessary decline in the quality of life.

One comment that stuck me, a Jew, as stunning was this - "They don’t believe in the Torah" - I bet generations of Schumer's ancestors never gave in and believed in the New Testament or the divinity of Jesus.

He's bad on a lot of issues, but good on others.

As Democrats go, he's pretty typical, given his constituency.

He is unusually powerful, and extremely intelligent - more so than typical. He also seems far more likely to stab other Democrats in the back than is typical. On foreign policy, especially in the middle east, he is one of the worst.

I just hope that with his ridiculous neo-con positions that he does not become Majority Leader. It seems that he has propagated many stories that project him as being the best candidate for that - over the more liberal, nicer Durbin. Durbin would play far better as our leader through most of the country. It stuns me that many here and on Daily Kos have the perception that he would fight harder for liberal causes. I have rarely seen him fight hard for anything other than Schumer or Israel.

is to his fellow politicians, not to his constituents.

An old post of mine, which is the lens through which I now view everything he says:

"What we do is. . . we are an organization of incumbents, and while we certainly find challengers who go up against incumbents, we support incumbents,"

- Schumer, talking about why the DSCC might endorse Lieberman in the general election even if the voting public picks Lamont over him.

He belongs to an organization whose function - as he lays it out for us - is to use the old boys network to keep establishment people in power, and prevent new people from having an equal shot at elected office - even if it means going against the will of the voters."

He was heading the DSC and Lamont was owed the party support once he became the nominee. As it was, no Senators supported Lamont in the primary due to what had to be Senatorial courtesy. It was a big deal that Kerry and Feingold stayed neutral in the primary, while the rest of the Senate supported him.

down our throats in Minnesota.

I haven't thought a lot of him since then.

Others may disagree.