It's not that I don't like him or think he would be a decent Senator, Mary. But let's put it all in perspective.
A. Not only was he not elected to the Senate, but Burris has a history of losing Democratic primaries in Illinois when he ran for any major offices.

B. He was appointed, without any substantial rationale being given for the choice, by a governor whose ethics and respect for the law were at the time seriously in question and who shortly thereafter was impeached and removed from office (almost unanimously) and who is likely to face criminal charges -- in connection with his appointing someone to fill that same Senate seat.

C. The Senate vacancy in question was a seat previously held by an extremely popular Illinois Senator, elected to that position with solid, widespread bipartisan support and leaving the seat only because he had just won a resounding victory as US President.   Several other Illinios Democrats were passed over by Blagojevich, quite possibly in part because they would not be party to that Governor's quid-pro-quo scheme. Some of them probably were (are) more likely to gain a substantial degree of the kind of support their predecessor had. The Governor should have tried, inasmuch as he could, to find the person best suited to fill Obama's political shoes, but it does not appear he did.

D. Burris's age, in and of itself, makes him a risky choice in terms of the Democrats retaining this seat (which they only 'lost' because their junior Senator was elected President).   As I said before, incumbency matters, and even if Burris agrees not to run in 2010, his staying in the Senate would be throwing away that advantage.   

Filling the Senate seat of an extremely popular and young politician by appointing someone who will be basically obsolete when the term is up (for whatever reason) is a stupid move on the part of whoever does the appointing. And does anyone think a Governor who really had the interests of his state and his party at heart would have done that?