Booker is so frustrating because he will sometimes give fiery speeches and get everyone hyped up but then turn around and vote exactly how the pharma lobbyists and APAIC dictate.

This. He talks a good game when the game calls for it, but for the most part he's content to just let the pieces move around the board as they have been.

Man, mixed metaphors get messy.

This isn't the same body though. Progressives are making inroads even in the Senate. Yeah it might not have reached critical mass yet, but is it enough to show some of the old guard which way the wind is blowing?

I'm starting to sense a consensus building around Ossoff. The only downsides I've heard so far are that he's still relatively junior, and he might already have his sights on the presidential primary for 2028. I don't think either of those things are insurmountable obstacles though. Plus he has charisma and backing.

I love Van Hollen. He's honest and genuine and does his best to deliver on his promises. But yeah he's not super well-known and that might be his key obstacle.

Personally I think it speaks to his merit, because he's too humble to play the political game and make a name for himself. A little bit of outside support to get him in the spotlight more and he could go places.

And I hear you about Booker. I think you may be right, sadly. It's disappointing but a lot of people seem to be seeing it the same way. Anyone know how much money he accepted from AIPAC?

Yeah I'm hearing a lot of feedback on Booker, it seems he's just another centrist, but with flair. I wasn't aware of his AIPAC ties.

Alas.

Not as egregious as Jeffries or Schumer, but $846k is $846k

I agree on Warren and Ossoff though. Either one would do great as SML, but Ossoff could likely garner more support. I hear they're considering him for the presidential primary, but a Senate leadership position might help him there rather than hurt him