McCaskill's right, threading thru all the corruption and bought corporate flacks, hacks and puppets in the Congress is a tough job on its own... to actually do something good that isn't profitable to the corporations is nearly impossible.

On the other hand, I think this week's will push the environmental agenda hard -- not that too many folks in Washington pay attention to one of the smartest weekly rags in the country...

this week's Nation magazine, that is

If Sen. McCaskill really believes what she says, then the Republicans' plan is working: they get really, really mad about absolutely everything the Democrats propose, because the Democrats propose it, and then Sen. McCaskill will lose heart and give up.

In fairness, McCaskill does tend to issue statements and tweets that she hasn't thought through, and then reconsider after more thought (initially she thought that the Stupak amendment was fine, evidently because she didn't understand its effect).

That's the fascinating dichotomy. Progressives passed so much in their time's in power there was a backlash.

Which necessitates radical overhauls to keep the country from collapsing the next time they get into power but ensures another backlash.

I do not think that it is likely that the Democrat's majorities will shrink. The GOP has a very unfavorable set of Senate seats to defend and the Jacobin wing will make sure that GOP moderates are kept away from winnable seats.

I suspect that climate change legislation is going to be pushed off to the next session because immigration reform is a higher priority. The electoral calculation there is pretty straightforward, most of the new citizens are going to be voting Democratic, which is of course the reason that the GOP is so keen to exclude them.

There is a lot of other stuff on the agenda that is important but not going to consume anywhere near the amount of time that climate change would. Adding Don't Ask Don't tell to the defense appropriations bill for example.

"After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.) said. "Climate fits that category."

Further proof that the best thing we should do is let climate change happen, leading to the extinction of the worst species to ever evolve on this planet: the hairless biped cancer best known as Homo Sap. McCaskill certainly demonstrates that "Sapiens" is not a term to apply to this species.

"After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad," - Sen. Claire McCaskill

That's because you think your primary job is to get re-elected. If you realized that your primary job is to represent your constituents, then this would not be an issue. Do your job, Senator(s), and the re-election thingy will take care of itself.

Actually, I think alot has to do with laziness. Those people aren't really familiar with actually working.

What is really, really, really frightening for me is what are our alternatives here with Dem. senators like McCaskill and the like. Do we stay home on election day and let a repuke win? Do we try to find a good progressive Dem to challenge someone like McCaskill and hope that the young people get out and vote like they did for Obama? I don't know the answer here but it does leave me very concerned. I am in one of those extrem Red states that still has a all Dem. congressional team. But I have to tell you Conrad has left me deeply dissapointed in this whole health care debate.

As one of McCaskill's constituents, I can say she made this comment because she "really, really" doesn't want to face the climate bill at all. Not now, not next year, not ever. Missouri is a coal powered state and her political career depends on not pissing off too many people in this light pink part of the country.

She will be to the climate bill what Nelson has been to the health care reform bill.

"After you do one really, really big, really, really hard thing that makes everybody mad, I don't think anybody's excited about doing another really, really big thing that's really, really hard that makes everybody mad,"

OK, so you're not excited. That's understandable. Most people are not terribly excited about going to work everyday, yet buckle down and fulfill their obligations anyway. Is it too much to ask that you see your job as the privilege it is and approach the accordant duties and requirements with diligence and passion? If so, then please give someone else a chance.

Success breeds success. If the Dems had good old fashioned gumption, they would push forward and harder and pass necessary reforms. Americans would catch the wave and ride with the winners. But it would require strong leadership, a savvy public relations effort, and a tremendous reduction in the undertow from right-wing Democrats - and I mean you, Bayh, Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Stupak, et al.

"The vote is the second cloture vote, and that is the cloture on a motion to cease debate, and I wanted that clear, because I've already begun to see people out there say, 'oh no, no, if you vote [to take it up] you've voted for health care."

uh, Claire? You're a U.S. Senator, quit whining like a grade school student with too much homework.

sorry, that quote above is from Ben Nelson regarding his anti-democratic stance on cloture and filibusters--which bugs me even more.

Claire, if you think the work is so damn difficult for the meager salary and benefits it pays, would you please just go away and let someone else more committed to the electorate take over? And take all the like-minded congress-critters with you! Go clear brush or something.

Note to Harold Meyerson: If only Obama really wree that progressive. (See "Geithner, Timothy.")

It's just so hard being a senator. We really, really, really have losts of homework and stuff and if we get one really really really big thing done ain't that enough?

God we need better dems. I voted for her to get Jim Talent out of office so we'd have one dem in the senate but she's just a dem...that's her only qualifying attribute and she's barely that.

She fails to see the urgency surrounding our nation and the world. Hire some intelligent staff Claire to give you the help you need to cope with the huge problems facing us so you can stay on top and not drag behind on issues the senate must deal with. Please stop assuming the majority of your constituents are slow minded hicks.

I am going to tell my boss that i will only work on one big thing a year. One big hard project. That's all. Don't want to stress out the ol'brain. Hard is hard.

Wish me luck. I am sure I will be fired soon.

McCaskill is dangerously close to utter use-less-ness. is there ANY GOP talking point she can't be cowed with or made to repeat?

I teach for a living. EVERY f***ing assignment I grade is really really hard, and makes some people mad. So, should I quit giving assignments?

While I love your blog, the STUPIDITY of some of the things the senators and representatives say is really depressing...

Dear Blue Dog Bartlebys: Do Your Effin' Jobs. Or Quit.

Like it or not, it's your job to deal with tough issues. If you don't want the responsibility, then run for the goddamned Library Board back home.

We've got a lot of challenging problems to deal with. And there are only 535 people in this country who get to vote on Federal legislation. If you don't want to be one of them, fine - but step down. If you won't lead or follow, then get the f*¢k out of the way.

nodak, whose frustration I can completely relate to, asks:

What is really, really, really frightening for me is what are our alternatives here with Dem. senators like McCaskill and the like. Do we stay home on election day and let a repuke win? Do we try to find a good progressive Dem to challenge someone like McCaskill and hope that the young people get out and vote like they did for Obama? I don't know the answer here but it does leave me very concerned.

No, we don't stay home, at least not in 2010.

There's a chance - an increasingly slim chance, if the Blue Dogs win this one, and this Dem Congress does close to nothing with its majorities, but still a chance - that we could actually pick up a few more Senate seats in 2010. And I think we have to work for that.

What good is that, you ask. What can, say, 63 Senate Dems do that 60 couldn't?

It's more a question of what a few Senate Dems can't do if there's 63 Senate Dems. Right now, any single member of the Democratic caucus can force any Dem bill to be watered down to his/her specifications, or jump ship and join a GOP filibuster.

If we had 62 or 63 Dem Senators, you'd need at least three or four of them jumping ship together, on the same issue. Might still happen, but the power of any individual grandstander would be a lot smaller. This is one rare case where "More Democrats" is enough by itself: it may not necessarily mean "Better Democrats," but it dilutes the power of the Worst Democrats.

But in 2012, we've got to start primarying some of these pseudo-Dems.

She's the best we're going to get out of Missouri. Show me regression!

Regardless of how hard these are they are rather big in terms of legislative work, lines of legislation, political consequences and in terms of real world effect.

Thus, I'm not generally in favor of rushing so many big things through the system (Congress and America) so fast.

Where we face a problem is that some things, particularly economic this year, have required speed. Healthcare reform is needed for both economic AND actual real health reasons. Climate change is harder to quantify. Will a few months of delay result in measurable effects? So long as Congress is moving along on other major efforts I'm fine with going slower on climate change legislation. However, slightly different is energy production. On that, as with healthcare reform, we need to push ahead. It is very important for us economically AND for real energy needs.

How can we quantify climate change legislation? It's always going to be hard because it's going to be very difficult to see gain, but always easy to see costs.

Now wait just a damn minute here. As a Sentaor, I expected to be coddled, wined and dined, provided with monetary incentives and have any number of flattering photos taken with IMPORTANT people. Is there really an expectation of action beyond referring to my morally bankrupt brethern as "dear friends and distinguished colleagues?" Integrity was definitely not in the job description. Apparently, I was woefully misinformed. Get me a valium and my stylist.