"I'm friends with Bennet's brother, James, the Atlantic editor, and I think he'll be a great senator and has a decent chance of holding on to the seat. You have to give Ritter the highest marks"

That's sort of a disclaimer, I guess. But here's the problem, Mr. Cooper: You're friends with his brother, so you presumably know the guy, and have some reason to believe he'll be a good senator. Care to share, or should we just take your word for it?

Maybe you haven't read much of what Josh writes, but this blogging thing isn't just journalism without sources. You're the source. If you don't open yourself up we have no context in which to judge your claims.

Or maybe you were hired as a reporter, in which case you can ignore what I just wrote and simply try to do...better.

"...if Obama's seat goes Republican it'll be the first time in the 20th century, as best I can tell, that a president will have seen his party lose his seat while he's in office."

Is it just me, or aren't we in the 21st century? 2009 and all. I'm just sayin'...

I disagree, Matt, with your presumption that these appointments are conflated together in the general public's perception. I think most of the voting public isn't paying attention, and the fraction who are paying attention are not conflating these appointments.

No, I'm not saying those who are paying attention recognize nuanced distinctions between these appointment scenarios; they don't. Rather, I'm saying most of the public don't think about these seats together. They're really not paying attention to Delaware at all, as the media hasn't given any attention to it. The Kaufman appointment was handled well insofar as being done quietly and kept out of the spotlight. That "Senator Kaufman" NEVER appears in any news story is telling, it means no one ever remembers he even exists. Regarding Colorado, as you mentioned there's no controversy surrounding the appointment, beyond Dems surpised by the pick and worried about Bennet's ability to win on his own which isn't a controversy in the nonpartisan public's mind. I think the Judd Gregg situation is badly misread by the corporate media; the public doesn't frown on Obama or Democrats on that one, it's only Gregg who looks bad for having accepted Commerce with great fanfare only to flake out later for reasons that pre-existed his acceptance of the job. Only the New York and Illinois appointments are penetrating the public consciousness in a way that makes Dems look bad, and even then I'm very confident these situations are viewed in isolation by most people. The Illinois situation is a drama unto itself, and the New York situation is more a political bungle that only New Yorkers will remember beyond today.

In summary, I think you're misreading the public by conflating these seats, Matt.

"By the way, if Obama's seat goes Republican it'll be the first time in the 20th century, as best I can tell, that a president will have seen his party lose his seat while he's in office."

Well, disregarding it's the 21st century and not the 20th, we need only go back to the last president of the 20th century to disprove this one...Mike Huckabee became governor in 1996 after Bill Clinton's LG and successor as governor--Jim Guy Tucker--was convicted and imprisoned over Whitewater. So there's one.

Did you research this at all, Matt?

This is one of the dumbest articles I have read on TPM. The situations are all different.

1. Illinois's case is a farce dependent on one certified nut.

2. Delaware's case is quite normal, historically. Is anyone in the country even aware of its circumstances? This selection was so far below the radar that I fail to see how it tarnishes Democrats.

3. New Hampshire's case reflects poorly (or well, if you are a Republican) on Gregg, not on any Democrat. Gregg is the issue, not any promise made by the governor. In some states, governors are required to appoint replacements from the same party as the former senator.

4. Colorado's case is quite normal historically, only this time you approve of the choice. This choice was also quite far under the radar.

5. New York's case revolves around Caroline Kennedy's fame. People are interested in this case because it's like Entertainment Tonight. I doubt if many associate this case with general Democratic Party incompetence, only with Kennedy's and Paterson's incompetence.

6. Perhaps you are right. While the Michigan/Florida primary mess was of interest to those who make money on conflict (our media), most people in the country outside those states didn't care -- viewing this as a political ploy like invalid absentee ballots in Minnesota. Michigan/Florida is in the news today because of the economy, not the primary, just as the new Senators or almost senators are an irrelevancy today in the country. Like who would care about senatorial appointments when losing jobs, homes, 401Ks, etc.

7. Lastly, those pesky "facts" don't seem to be with you. Practically the only way to gauge what the public thinks about the incompetence of the Democratic Party is to look at the polls. And what do those polls show? Increasing approval of the Democratic Party and the Democratic congressional caucuses.

I'm not apologizing for the People magazine-style story with C. Kennedy, but honestly, the brouhaha over that is exactly the same as the Repugs declaring Obama a "failed" president. Those of us in the real world A.) Couldn't care less about the supposed "scandal," and B.) Can easily distinguish between the truth and delusional ranting from the media.

It really is time to stop asserting that the process in Delaware was problematic. If Beau Biden takes the seat in two years, it'll be because the people of Delaware voted for him. Would it have been more democratically desirable to appoint someone who wanted to keep the seat -- presumably from the state party's big anti-Biden wing -- so that they'd get two years of incumbency for no charge? Absent a special election, appointing a seat-warmer is the best option.