This is the problem Wellstone had when he first arrived at the Senate. He has to rely on his staff way too much. And given he seems like a centrist, he sounds like the kind of guy the DLC'ers can sink their teeth into quickly.

I don't know anything about Bennet's views. I hope he does interviews. But my initial reaction is I like the fact that his main qualification is not his ability to raise campaign funds or "win elections". The Senate could use some people who are more than orators. A background in education is also a plus. Then again, I might have said the same of Caroline Kennedy, had she not been so poorly marketed.

On the diversity issue, I am not sure that we should make being Latino an important criterion. Otherwise, it would be an insult to Salazar and the replacement.

Ritter still trying to placate the wackjobs. He doesn't know they'll never be happy and would criticize anyone he nominates. Hey Bill, check the election results!

Thank god. When I first saw the headline, I thought it was Bill Bennett, and had wondered what we could have done to deserve such a catastrophe.

Maybe Colorado is going the "no drama" route to prove how much more sane than Illinois they are?

At any rate, Godspeed, new Senator.

Has Michael Bennet ever run for office? Has he ever faced voters and answered tough questions?

I don't know, I'm just aksing...is the Superintendent position an elected one or was he appointed there as well?

Danp - I don't think it's a politician's oration skills that is considered the strongsuit for raising funds, but rather one's ability to schmooze and convince rich people that they'll gain special access if they give the person money. Obama was an exception to this, as his oration skills were enough to convince lots of non-rich people to open their wallets (which is why I gave him more than I've ever given anyone). And I think we need more of that and less of the schmoozy pals that are too often the ones getting the big donations.

Beyond that, we need people who are good at making persuasive arguments and manipulating the media. Unfortunately, such people are typically phonies and phonies are much more likely to find their home in the GOP. And I can definitely be counted as being in the column of those who want Dems who can win elections.

As opposed to Burris, doesn't seem like anyone is asking "Is he the best candidate for the job."

Superintendent of DPS is appointed, and approved by the school board. I suppose that he could win them over...? making him a good choice?....

Bennett is a very close ally of Denver mayor John Hickenlooper. If Bennett is the pick, I think he'll do a good job. However, I'd rather have Hick himself instead of his stand-in.

Bennet is very highly regarded in Colorado's governmental circles. He is not a politician but rather someone who has experience with making government programs work.

When you have the chance to appoint a senator rather than get one elected, isn't that the kind of person you should be looking at? It appears that Ritter wanted to name someone who might actually be good at government. What a wacky concept.

He is not a politician but rather someone who has experience with making government programs work. -Tom Nawrocki

Making government programs work and being a Senator are mutually exclusive.

Really, though, someone, dig something up on this guy. We can't have an uncontroversial Senate appointment! Where's the fun in that?

"Bennett generated "national attention" for his own on a 'pay-for-performance teaching plan to boost incoming teachers' salaries and increase bonuses for teachers who take tough assignments.'"

Pay for performance certainly beats pay to play. The sociopath Blagojefuckin'vich wouldn't have the problems he does if he'd ever managed to figure that one out.

You can include my wife and I on that list of Colorado Democrats who went "Huh?" when this was announced. It occurs to me that this could be a place-holder appointment, and that term-limited Hickenlooper will run in 2010, rather than disrupt the city government by leaving at this challenging time. Hick for senate, Bennett for mayor in 2010?

Dr. Biobrain - I don't think we actually disagree on much if anything here. I want someone who can win elections. I just don't want someone whose main qualification is that. Sitting two years in the Senate is a boost to an otherwise poor politician. I also agree that orators and fund raisers are not necessarily the same. By orators, I mostly mean people who talk a good game, but aren't very good problem solvers. Bennett seems to be more of a manager, and I like that.

So...Bennet was APPOINTED to the school board and has now been APPOINTED to the U.S. Senate and he has never faced an actual voter.

Is that what you're telling me?

Have we really reached a point at which replacing a minority with a non-minority raises a "concern about diversity"? Certainly diversity is a legitimate criterion in the selection process but the idea that an office once held by a minority should remain in minority hands in perpetuity seems both silly and, as Sam noted, rather insulting.

It seems some of our states are a a loss for a top-tier well-known politician who can step in to be senator.

This could be a good thing.

Huh! indeed.

IIRC Hilzoy lives in Colorado, so maybe we can expect to read her input later tonight.

Bennett was on Obama's short list for Secretary of Education, so he's not a total unknown. He was also Hickenlooper's chief of staff before getting the school superintendent job (which he's done quite well). He may be an ok choice, but the big question is why Ritter chose him over Hickenlooper.

Nice to see Colorado Democrats still haven't changed since I left that swamp 42 years ago. They still can't find the zipper on their fly with both hands on a clear day with a 2 hour advance notice.