The HMS Caroline is sinking fast. This New York Post piece tells us that Mayor Bloomberg’s previously helpful aide is backing off, adding via an unnamed source (presumably about the interviews, but equally applicable to the entire undertaking): “She wasn’t prepped enough. . .She wasn’t ready to do this.” Well, you know, that seems umm . . .  about, you know, right.

And Caroline is sinking in In-Trade.

As lawsuits go, this one filed by a Washington lobbyist against the New York Times (which ran a front page story accusing her of having an affair with John McCain) is a pretty interesting one. If the Gray Lady sold tickets to the depositions of its reporters and editors, the Times might climb out of its financial ditch.

Harry Reid better have a more compelling argument than “fraud” to keep Roland Burris out of the senate. For starters, where’s the evidence of “fraud” and is Reid accusing Burris of some misdeed? By their brilliant strategy of opposing a special election, the Democrats have now ensured an unseemly and protracted legal and political free-for-all.

President-elect Obama is predictably “disappointed.” That, you may recall, is the officially-approved default reaction.

Illinois Attorney General Lisa Madigan whines that Blago’s pick of Burris leaves the state in a “terrible situation.” Hmmm. How could this have been prevented? Someone ask Sen. Dick Durbin.

I agree that Reid’s got a tough case: it’s not enough to say Blago is a crook and was considering a list of other people for a price. Blago’s move, in a way, is a brilliant bit of misdirection, but it does undermine any insanity defense. This is one clever pol.

Ron Haskins of Brookings has the smartest (if not most accurate) 2009 prediction yet: “President Obama will quickly enact his $999.9 billion stimulus package. It’s main effect will be to pile still more debt on our children and grandchildren. At least the new president can argue that the indifference to future generations has been bipartisan.” Yeah, what happened to “doing it for the children”?

Some are bemused, if not horrified, by the Democratic senate follies: “So to recap all of this change you can believe in: A Kennedy and Cuomo are competing to succeed a Clinton in New York; the skids are greased for a Biden to replace a Biden in Delaware; one Salazar might replace another in Colorado; and a Governor charged with political corruption in Illinois wants one of his cronies to succeed the President-elect. Let’s just say we’re looking forward to 2009.”

The Clintons will help ring in 2009, a sign that they will be front and center in the new year. Both of them.

I’m not as optimistic about Norm Coleman’s chances as some. For starters, whoever has the lead after the official recount ends has a huge advantage. And second, the “double counted” ballots theory isn’t a slam dunk.

This reminds me how much I enjoy watching Candy Crowley. But still, the whining by reporters who were staying in decent hotels and covering the best story of their lives is a bit much to stomach. Did Murrow’s Boys complain like this?

Some scraps of good news for Republicans in polling about voters’ attitudes toward the two parties: “The good news is that voters are very fearful that Democrats will go too far with their liberal agenda. When voters are asked what they ‘like least about the Democrats,’ the most common answers volunteered were: ‘taxes going up,’ ‘big government,’ ‘liberal,’ ‘raise spending,’ and even ‘socialism.’ These broad economic and fiscal principles appear to present the GOP with its biggest opening. The poll also reveals that Republicans can win back voters by opposing Democrats on several specific policies coming down the pike in 2009: card-check labor union elections, bailouts for banks and auto makers, welfare expansions and affirmative action.”