Like MA resident Dr. Rachel Anne Maddow who could easily raise 10s of millions for a campaign due to her national following, and could easily cream Scott Brown in any debate.

JohnMesserly is right on both points. Especially the second - I'd drool at the prospect of a debate between Scott Brown and Rachel Maddow.

Run, Rachel, run!!

I want to be honest with you. She is on record that she is definitely not interested in public office- That she likes her job too much (source). And it is certainly fair of her to turn the question around and ask why we don't.

In this case, the answer is that if she doesn't run, Scott Brown will win. Even the well known Deval Patrick is behind Brown by 7 points.

Given her opposition, this would take a concerted effort to pull off. It would be no picnic for her and can believe she would find it far less fun. But the "fun" quip I think was a bit of a dodge. My impression is that duty and integrity drives her more than the hedonism of playful treatment of politics.

Personally I think she is tough enough and will step up if enough people impress upon her that her country needs her to take this on. Heck- once someone gets strong enough or the Senate is not as precarious, she can step down if she wants to get back to talking rather than doing.

I don't think Brown as a snowball's chance. He was just roundly defeated, remember everyone said he was gong to win as late as last September.

So what is your explanation why the well loved and well known Deval Patrick polls 7 points behind Brown? (Nate provides a link to the WBUR poll if you are interested).

I'll tell you why, John. Because there is a plurality of older, well off Republicans in Massachusetts that fall for his, "I'm a moderate" lie even though vote wise, he has almost towed the party line except in votes where he could get away with it like the vote on DADT.

The only thing standing between Rachel and victory is herself. There is nothing about her life today that would stand against her (literally making her the posterwoman for 50 years of progress) - in fact, what used to be negatives would be positives.

If she and Elizabeth Warren went into the Senate together, they could quadruple the collective IQ in that swamp.

It really is a case where a damn good argument can be made that "your country needs you, Ms. Maddow!"

Rachel Maddow would clean Scott Brown's clock!

John Messerly-

That same polling firm, Massinc, had Brown up 4 against Warren in November when he lost by 8. There was another recent poll from Emerson College which shows very different results.

While I agree that Rachel Maddow is brilliant, progressive and politically savvy -- I wonder whether her influence would be greater as one of one hundred lawmakers in the Senate, or as one of the two most perceptive political commentators on television today... (the other being Bill Moyers)

No question about Moyers. But I think that Amy Goodman's, Hayes', and O'Donnell's observations and guest choices have established them as first rate commentators as well.

There is no question that Maddow is amazing in her ability to reach viewers who would otherwise be disinterested in difficult subjects. Nonetheless, I think you underestimate her. In my view the combination of charisma, political acuity, drive, sense of duty and ability to achieve a rapport with people from sharply different perspectives is the stuff of a very a rare class of politician.

Think about it. Howard Dean Or Warren for two terms after Obama, then Maddow as our first gay president. Her charisma and ability to charm people- people would forget about Reagan's reputation as great communicator and instead talk about the Maddow Magic.

Someone please explain to me why Obama is risking another seat in the Senate with his SoS pick. We need every vote in the Senate. Why risk it?

Republicans made it known that they were going to be really, really disagreeable (as if they wouldn't be anyway) if Obama didn't choose Kerry and open up the Senate seat. Past practice tells us how accommodating Obama has been to these little snits by the GOP.

Once again, they're rewarded for bad behavior.

I don't get it either. I would have nominated Rice and gone to the mat. What message does this send to Republicans? That we will take nominees off the table if they have tantrums and then nominate the very person they suggest!

This is something the O man has to work on.

I think the President has to carefully choose his battles. I trust his judgment.

At what point has he chosen to fight one of these kinds of battles? When has he "gone to the mat" for a nominee?

If he hadn't capitulated so many times before, it would be different. This is a pattern. As any parent or teacher knows, you can't continually give in just to keep a kid quiet. Some goes for cranky, grandstanding politicians.

Uh, let's see. Elena Kagan, Sonia Sotomayor...

He would have for Rice, but she's the one that backed out. What do you do? FORCE somebody to run? I am sure he could have talked Rice into it, but that's not his style. He wants people that are 100% IN, not just in because he talked them into it when they had decided to opt out.

I don't trust his judgement on anything, unless his feet are held to the fire. Otherwise he's just "the Good Emperor." And he's still running Guantanamo, has put forward draconian policies against governmental transparency, is continuing his homicidal killer drone program, and loves his Empire, the one he said needed to end. The best you can say about Obama is he isn't Romney. I don't care how nice he talks about anything. When I look at what he does, he is the biggest disappointment I have ever seen in 50 years in Democratic politics.

Occams, I am with you guys ideologically. But I do believe in the concept of "political capital," and it's a finite resource. Obama has to choose his battles.

On the fiscal cliff, he has just played the GOP like a cheap violin. Some blogger (smarter than me) suggested a couple of months ago that if Obama was re-elected, he could call Boehner's bluff and put some Social Security concessions on the table without fear of the House actually agreeing to meet him halfway. The failure of "Plan B" (or any other plan that called for even the TINIEST concession from the Tea Party) was a fait accompli. Boehner has adjourned the House for the rest of the year, leaving Obama and the Democratic senate to draft the deal that they really want. If the Republicans come back in January and block the Senate bill, then EVERY American will see a huge ding in their next paycheck due to the tax increases required by the sequestration deal. Americans are smart enough to look at this scenario and see that the GOP RAISED TAXES due to their obstinance.

I think that end game is worth putting a senate seat into play. The Republicans have already said that Kerry would "sail through" for SoS. So Obama wastes zero time and energy fighting for that nomination, and gets to focus on fiscal issues.

Don't assume that Brown will win. Remember that Brown just burned through a shipload of SuperPAC money and lost. If the Dems field an exciting and inspiring candidate and pour a bazillion dollars into the campaign, they could beat him handily.

BTW, Obama committed to Kerry AFTER it was clear that Boehner's plan was about to collapse like a wet taco. Coincidence? I think not.

I think that this would be the perfect move to thwart Scott Brown and the Republicans. Patrick has the background necessary to win this seat, and it's a nature move for him. Let's hope he sees it that way. Or, at least, that he appoints someone as a caretaker and then runs for the seat.

Patrick won't do it. He's holding out for appointment to the post of Attorney General.

Not to mention the A rating Brown has with the NRA. That could come back to haunt him....

Is the rating that Senator Harry Reid has had with the NRA???

That could come back to haunt him....?????

Scott Brown is no Harry Reid.

I'm from Massachusetts and pay very close attention to the politics of the state and our nation. Scott Brown will run and - despite the fact he's a liar and a whore - will probably win. It's all about name recognition and money, both of which he has in abundance. (Not to mention the flood of SuperPAC $$ that will come flooding in. He's not stupid enough to repeat the mistake he made with Warren about pledging no outside money.) The Kennedys (with the exception of Vicki) don't stand a chance. Their time has passed. Unfortunately, the person who is - without a shred of doubt - the most qualified to do the job (Dr. Maddow) has made her intentions clear. I truly wish I had ten minutes of her time to convince her otherwise. However, it might be argued that she has more influence and power in her current job.

Nope. Warren will be the senior senator, for whatever that is worth. It's an honorific, pretty much. You don't get an extra half a vote.

Good question, though.

Warren will be sworn in before Kerry is confirmed. Until then, he's still a Senator.

Interesting that this post appears in this forum as the issue could be critical to a MA Senate race concluding in June. No? MA is one of Connecticut's neighbors. It has to be concerned. But, of course we are all concerned.

But I would miss her on the Rachel Maddow Show just as I have missed Al Franken and his Al Franken Show. :-D

Well, how does this thing go? Is someone appointed by the Governor until 2014 or is there a special election in June?

145-150 day appointment, then special election.