The New Senator from New York, In Her Own Words

Ohhh....don't get me started, Al. Dont get me started. I've been a good girl and muzzled my rants for months now. But this is one topic that gets my blood boiling.

Eliot Spitzer is looking more and more like a hero to me. He was outed the day (Feb 14, 2008) he penned an op-ed in WaPo warning about predatory lending and the how abuses on Wall Street will hurt homeowners -- remember the champagne corks popping outside the Stock Exchange at news of his demise -- and this broad went after his sane-and-protect-the-public drivers license and car insurance program.

I wonder if the progressives are pleased with this outcome. This is really a no-win situation on so many levels.

My eyeballs were on fire after viewing the PUMA sight, but I feel mostly pity for the ignorance they display. The xenophobia and despotism in Gillibrand's campaign literature is far more insidious and destructive to our democracy.

Driving home from D.C., Wednesday evening, I heard the news of Caroline taking her name out of the scrum. I started to cry. After a great trip, filled with so much joy, well, I guess she had her reasons.  Now this appointment.  

Al, you have again, expressed my feelings and concerns.

Reading and weeping, reaping the whirlwind.

...on the Gillibrand appointment.

 

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/01/is-kennedys-loss-conservatives-ga...

One argument I've seen - at OpenLeft and DailyKos - is that progressives shouldn't worry because Gillibrand only acted conservative or centrist since she represented a Republican-leaning district, but that she will surely move left to retain her senate seat.

And I think this reasoning is pretty pathetic.  The suggestion is that Gillibrand is unprincipled, and that we should be happy about it.  But at best, we get some one who will change her stripes for political convenience, even though NY had no shortage of true believers who could have been chosen.

This is my first comment on the Caroline Kennedy saga since we first learned she was interested in it after Obama nominated Clinton for SoS.  (OT -  I am sooooooo glad we don't have Clinton as President.  Agggh - her little pep talk yesterday had no substance - she sounded like "The Office's" Michael Scott directing a meeting at Dundler Mifflin.  Obama then spoke and was so eloquent about his view of foreign policy and diplomacy.)  Please God - she's gotta stop the yelling if she is going to practice diplomacy.

Anyway, I recognize I am clearlly in the minority on this issue on "The Field" but I was not happy about Caroline throwing her name in for the appointment.  I would have loved her to do it if it there was going to be an election but to use her name and relationship with Obama to then have the Governor feel compelled to appoint her - well it never felt like the "right thing".  And I really, really like Caroline for so many reasons, least of which is that I have always felt a connection to her in that she was born just days after me in Nov. "57. 

Had she been an elected official already in another capacity, even that wouldn't have been great but for YOUR VERY FIRST elected position to be the US SENATE and it being an APPOINTMENT??  I am glad she dropped out. 

Of course I'm not from New York so I don't know the local politics and it sounds like the woman appointed today is not a great choice.  Well, there has to  be someone in the state of New York that progressive Democrats can get to run against her.  I have to say that this might be a case of it might all turn out for the best in the long run.  Caroline Kennedy would be FANTASTIC as an ambassador - anywhere in the world.

Rep. McCarthy was just on Hardball and confirmed that she is going to make a primary challenge of Gillibrand. We'll see just how much liberals like having someone jammed down their throats because Paterson wants a shot at being elected upstate. I'd say that Cumo may have an opening if he wants it.

Also, Tweetie pointed out that Paterson said today in introducing Gillibrand that he had picked her days ago - before CK withdrew.  If that's the case why allow all the confusing drama over CK's exit.  I don't get it.  Or is this all face saving B.S. that no one believes any way.

And as for this being seen as a win for Clintonites that's very bad news for the Party - there was a sizable group of Obama supporters in NY who will not appreciate a redux of the bitterness they went threw last year .

They're both from political families. Gillibrand has a little more experience, but not much. The real problem here is the appointment process, not who the appointees are.

NYS's new Senator also has the NRA's top rating!  This will be comforting for all those New York families who have lost loved ones to fun violence.  I'll be voting for whoever challenges her and Governor Paterson on in the 2010 primary.

Al, I'm sorry you're disappointed about Caroline Kennedy's withdrawal.  I know that she would have been a great supporter of progressive causes, and I hope that she will find a way to support the progressive movement in the future.

I was distressed by the sexism and class warfare that characterized the opposition to Kennedy on the left.  It was disgusting, especially given the LACK of any similar opposition to Beau Biden, Andrew Cuomo or other male legacies.

However, I have to say that Caroline Kennedy's appearances and interviews left me cold.  In this age, it's not enough for a Senator to be a reliable vote.  We also need people who can explain and sell their positions, and who can work with the new wave of Democrats to keep them on board and expanding.  I question whether Kennedy is that person.

As for the Gillibrand pick... she voted against TARP!  That buys her huge kudos in my book right now.  She supports gay marriage.  She's been transparent and accessible to her constituents, and she's won two very tough elections.  I strongly disagree with her stance on immigration, and I'd prefer a more moderate position on gun control.  But I don't demand that politicians agree with me on every single position before I support them, and I think it's bad for our democracy and for the Democratic party to insist politicians toe the line on every single issue.

In short, Gillibrand has shown herself to be talented and open, and I think she could be a big boon to the party over the long haul. I hope she finds more thoughtful and nuanced positions on immigration and some other issues, but if she can do that she'll be a giant. She's holding Daniel Patrick Moynihan's seat, so that should be inspiration to do some free thinking.

to have NYS represented by a very conservative Dem senator at this difficult time when Obama is trying to implement his agenda (the first two years of an administration usually determine its success or failure and ability to produce) and every vote in the Senate counts??? Even if I agreed with your premise with regard to Caroline, surely Governor Paterson could have found another candidate who was actually a reliable Dem . .

Mary S.,

I'm just saying that Caroline has led a most respected and admired life professionally to this point and I have no doubt she will continue to do so.  So that comment was for her - not for Obama.

As for the issue of the new appointee voting AGAINST Obama when he needs her vote, well I guess I would be very surprised if that was ever to happen.  She may vote the other way when it isn't critical but I just can't see her on the wrong side when she is needed by the Dems. 

Further, I think it's a very narrow viewpoint for the progressives to say that it HAD TO BE CAROLINE, when prior to her endorsing Obama, NO ONE would ever imagined her in politics, let alone claiming a U.S. Senate seat in 2009.   And some food for thought,  I doubt Gillibrand will be as much trouble for Obama as Hillary might have been in that same seat.

last comment!! However, I followed the unfolding of the Clinton administration in 1993 very closely.  Clinton was as much thwarted by DINOs in his first year (when the Dems controlled the Senate by about the same margin as they do now) as he was by the Republicans. There was a floating gang of DINOs who resisted all his initiatives and demanded that he make concessions to them (which he did; that is where "don't ask, don't tell" came from). Based on her record, Gillibrand is a DINO and will be a problem. Caroline K aside, Paterson could have found an acceptable Dem senator but he chose not to do so due to his own machiavellian political games.

For what it's worth, it was progressives who voted for extending TARP and Blue Dogs and Republicans who voted against (per Nate Silver). So Gillibrand is true to form here. In terms of Congress, this does not make her a progressive.

Al - funny post from O'Donnell on HuffingtonPost on Gillibrand - and Patterson - that makes both of them look like a couple of serious nitwits. Money quote:

The governor obviously has no idea that this means he has just delivered a Democratic senator who is committed to voting against the first Obama bill to come her way--the stimulus package that will push the federal budget at least 800 billion dollars farther away from balance. Indeed, the Gillibrand simple-minded devotion to balancing the federal budget above all else means that she must oppose everything on the Obama agenda.

This is going to be one busy evolution for Senator BlueDog!

Caroline is going to have to develop more "want to" and some sharp elbows in addition to her skills and intelligence.  I also saw her interview and was NOT impressed, although I like the idea of her very much.

Politics are never predictable.  Gillibrand will know that she is being watched and assessed and if Caroline wants to strap it up, she could still be a force in two years.

Somehow, I believe that Patterson did the best he could on this one...it was politically a tough situation once the CK trial balloon started taking on heavy fire (notice Shumer is conspicuously silent through all of this).  In many ways, once it became contested, Patterson had a mess.  If he was going to appoin CK he should have done it immediately.  The longer she hung out there, the more damaged she became..

By the way, in my opinion Patterson did not help himself much politically having let CK get humiliated like that.  My guess is that there will be some pay back for that little faux pas. That was unnecessary and made some enemies who wont forget it soon. Stupid.

@ Laura M. Poyneer - TARP is a bad bill, shoved upon us by Bush's minions and supported in Congress out of pure fear of financial collapse. I understand that some version of the bill needed to pass, but the thing itself is a nightmare with inadequate oversight and restrictions.  It's been used differently than the Bush minions claimed it would be (surprise!).

You can argue that voting for the bill was a responsible, necessary act to prevent meltdown, and that opposing it was a propaganda stunt by those who don't bear responsibility right now.  If Republicans were in the majority, I bet they would have done something similar or worse.  You can also argue (as I would) that Congress's job was to make this better.

In short, I don't think it's a bill that serves to separate liberals from conservatives in any meaningful sense, or any any way that will help the progressive movement over the long run.

Well, I think we can expect a bruising NY Democratic primary. Hopefully whoever emerges hasn't been beaten up too badly and can win the race.

Unless this appointee swings way to the left, I am going to chip in for one of Gillbrand's opponents.

One thing that really bothers me about her is how much she bragged about working through her pregnancy and then returning to work right away. It doesn't bother me because I have a judgment about how she should live her life -- I have no such judgment because that is absolutely none of my business. No, it's because the women who make those choices tend to be absolutely unsympathetic to the vast majority of women who don't want to do that.

We need women who will promote better work-family policies. I have zero evidence that Gillbrand will do so.

And her views on balancing the budget are positively simplistic and absurd.

Frankly, from what I hear, she is to the right of both Senators Snowe and Collins.

This is not a Democratic choice I support.

I did not state my opinion on TARP (though I do think it was and is necessary, even though it is not very pleasant). I merely stated that in terms of who in Congress are generally considered to be progressive and those who are generally considered to be conservative, your position is held by the conservatives.

I do not consider that Gillibrand's opposition to TARP makes her some kind of progressive hero. She is taking a position consistent with other conservatives, because they oppose massive government spending.

The way Bush and Paulson set up TARP was a clusterf**k but I am not in favor of letting the economy collapse because the banks fail or are unable to lend. That appears to be the view that is held by most of the Progressive Caucus, since they support TARP.

She also used to represent Phillip Morris and worked against regulations regarding tobacco.

The most pathetic part of the news conference was when Schumer vowed to reeducate Kirsten on the gun issues and how he was confident that when Kirsten came to NYC, she'd see the light and her views on guns would "evolve."

I'm guessing (means I could turn out wrong) that she will move leftward as a Senator but she will be coming across as unprincipled and someone who just does what Chuck Schumer tells her to do.  We need to watch carefully how she votes in 2009.

Howard Dean also had an "A" rating from the NRA.

And Gillibrand's position on gay marriage is more liberal than Obama's.

How could she be to the right of Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins, both of whom voted in lockstep with the disastrous Bush legislation of the past seven years?

Chill, people.

 

 

Aside from Gillibrand's being a policy disaster, she's going to be a political disaster as well. She's going to draw a more progressive primary challenger from downstate in a New York second. I would love to see NYC councilman David Yassky go after her--very smart guy and extremely good on the issues.

over-played his hand.  I read Al's previous blog that Paterson was playing it politically smart by making everyone wait for his decision, which kept him in the media daily, and I could see the wisdom in that. But now I am reading that most people feel that he is simply an amateur and not up to the job of governing the State of New York.

I'm not from N.Y., so it doesn't matter, but with all that I have read today about Gillibrand, I think Paterson just said a "big f*uck" you to Obama.

Train wreck indeed.

Obama won NY-20 this year, but it is traditionally a moderately Republican district and I understand that Gillibrand only narrowly won it from a Republican in 2006 and only narrowly held it this year.

Now there will be a special election to replace her in NY-20. Are we going to see this seat go back to the Republicans? If Paterson was going to "promote" a Representative, it would have been better to pick one from a safe Democratic seat.

I wonder if he made this choice in a hurry or on the basis of emotion rather than calculation.

If he lets a House seat go back to the Republicans, and his pick opposes Obama's spending programs because she wants a balanced budget (which is something he touted about her), that is not going to win him very much favor from Mr. 83% Approval Rating in the White House (i.e., Obama), and could be considered politically bone-headed for that reason.

 

 

 

@ Laura M Poyneer - It sounds like we agree about TARP, just not about how to view those who voted no.

I think TARP was a pile that was dumped on the Democratic leadership, and that they failed to clean it up in any meaningful way.  It's a true lost opportunity - Democrats could have shown they are better at making government work and at protecting the interests of the common taxpayer.  They not only failed to do that, they lied and claimed they had.  And since Bush couldn't round up the Republicans to vote for it, the Democrats are left holding the bag.

Under the circumstances, I'm OK with those who voted no. I really wish that a lot of rank-and-file Democrats had demanded a better bill; maybe we would have gotten one.

As I said before, I believe that if we had a conservative majority holding they bag, they would have voted for TARP or worse.  I don't consider this a liberal-vs-conservative issue.  The Democrats probably saved us from financial meltdown, I just wish they hadn't made such idiots of themselves and wasted so much money in the process. :-)

@Laura

Gillibrand actually won pretty handily in 2008 (24 points is nothing to sneeze at). Of course, this is still one of the few districts in the state where Republicans aren't in a complete shambles and a place where the Democratic bench isn't all that good, so I basically agree with your point, but just wanted to nit-pick :)

"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” JFK

And of course, just as Kirsten is rolled out for the media, comes the Bruno indictment, and with it, fresh scrutiny turns to Kirsten's father, lobbyist Doug Rutnik.

Wayne Barrett at the Village Voice wonders

if Paterson has even considered the possibility that as he and Gillibrand prepare for their 2010 campaigns, her family could be dogged by conflict of interest allegations. The Bruno probe has been so far-flung and well chronicled -- particularly by the Albany Times Union -- that it is impossible to tell what elements of any case against him might consist of, but the deal with Rutnik is certainly an inviting target.

And Time makes sure to point out in its profile on Gillibrand

Her parents are divorced and her father, Douglas Rutnik, is an Albany lobbyist and a former public defender who had a longtime romantic relationship with powerful public relations maven Zenia Mucha. Douglas Rutnik also has ties to many powerful Republicans and Democrats in New York State and has drawn press attention for a real estate investment with New York Senate leader Joe Bruno, indicted January 23 on charges he defrauded the public while in office.

It can be so difficult for a daughter to make her own way in the world of politics when she has a famous father.

Thanks for the correction! I had read that somewhere and didn't bother to independently verify it. My bad. Still, this is a district that the Republicans may well take back in the special election.

Someone wrote about Kirsten's gay marriage position, but I think it is important to point out that she has only held this position for about 48 hours.

I read that she supports the EFCA and that is a big one in my book. Her immigration stance is very disturbing, but my general problem with her is that she doesn't seem to have fought for anything really progressive. She seems to have fought hard on guns and immigration, but she has fought on the wrong side.

The TARP thing is also not a plus in my book because the Blue Dogs voted against it out of "fiscal responsiblity" BS. Blue Dogs are major panderers to Republicans, but in NY a Blue Dog senator is not a necessary compromise. A waste.

are referred to as "illegal aliens" I hear alarm bells.

consists only of the hearsay statements an official from a NY gay organization saying that she told him in a phone conversation that she now supported gay marriage.

I read in Politico that Gillibrand is not well liked by her colleagues. She's starting to come across as a little bit Palinesque in style and MO. see http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0109/17877.html

Also I read in the NYT that Paterson excluded Andrew Cuomo from consideration because it did not want all the top NYS elected offices to be held by appointees. That makes it seem as though Paterson's pick was Gillibrand all along - he just had to find reasons to exclude the two top contenders (Kennedy and Cuomo).

" Elect A Progressive NY Senator in 2010"

http://apps.facebook.com/causes/195469?m=f6a2e5a8&recruiter_id=33238930

BTW, I find it hysterical that people like Kos can say about Gillabrand "oh, well, if she sucks, we can just oust her in the actual electoral process" but that same reasoning was never applied to Kennedy.  Even my own husband did something similar last night when he pointed out that Kennedy would have come in with a set of political enemies set against her, I pointed out that Gillabrand has already pissed off Pelosi/Democratic leadership in Congress and he actually said, "Well, sometimes it's good to have some enemies..."  WHAT?!?!?!  Bottomline we passed up a progressive candidate who could have picked up a phone and spoken directly to the President and would have inherited the Kennedy network of connections, favors, etc. and instead we got a Palin-esque junior congresswoman who has already burned bridges.  Great.

 

Whether one was in favor of Caroline Kennedy or not, choosing Gillibrand does not strike me as a brilliant alternative choice on the part of our governor.

I am a New Yorker and have spent many years living both downstate as well as in a very rural portion of upstate.  I understand that New York is vast and diverse, as is its population's politics.  But there are huge numbers of people throughout the state, Repubs and Dems, who have been frustrated with the last 8 years of political pandering to the 'the narrow minded' and they overwhelmingly voted for 'change' in this past election.

This could have been an exciting appointment carefully aligned with Obama's agenda and New York's needs.  I, personally, liked the idea of Caroline Kennedy but in the end I am less disappointed about Caroline not being our Senator than the fact that Patterson's choice seems so flat and unimpressive.  

Gillibrand might have been elected, but only by a small slither of the State.  She certainly does not appear to be well known or particularly noteworthy.  Someone above metioned that it seemed a kind of Palinesque pick and I am tempted to agree.  Not well handled.  Way to blow it NY.

We shall see. 

 

 

 

Ny Post is saying Paterson is going out bad mouthing CK at private parties that Gillibrand is going to have a rough ride and the Cumo is not likely to let Paterson slide into election for Ogvenor but  will have a primary fight. All those - Non- New Yorkers who think they know how things work are in for a big surprise. 2010 is going to e a blood bath.

Here's  what the Post has to say about Gillibrand's legacy connections geting her the nod -

"Which likely explains why the state has a new junior US senator with all of two years' legislative experience - but one who is extremely well-wired politically. (Her father, Douglas Rutnik of Albany, is a longtime lobbyist in his own right, with strong ties to D'Amato.)"

That's right  - right wing lobbyists in Albany - and she's supposed to be a progressive voice some how.

In the end - no one is going to be taking this fiasco sitting down.

Lawrence O'Donnell, a big supporter of Caroline Kennedy, has this on Paterson's dopiness in choosing Gillibrand:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawrence-odonnell/new-yorks-next-senator-o...

You of all people should know that you CANNOT judge a Representative by their voting record or the politics they wear on their sleeve. Do you think Dennis Kucinich's House voting record (pro-life) reflects how he would vote if he were in the Senate?

Gillibrand was tough enough to get elected in a Republican district. Twice. She's already moved to the left since this announcement, and will undoubtedly move further to the left.

Let Gillibrand create her own record. Your remarks regarding this appointment are in direct conflict with all the sage advice you've given on trusting Obama.

While Kucinich began his political career as anti-choice, he has since established himself as strongly pro-choice and enjoys a 100 percent rating from the National Abortion Rights Action League (NARAL).

How has Gillibrand (or her appointer, Paterson) "earned trust" from anybody in the ways that Obama has. Your argument is essentially that she's an empty suit with no convictions or strong opinions of her own and will blow in the wind according to what is politically expedient. You can't say that about Obama and she deserves nothing of the benefit of the doubt that people who have earned it get.

Nobody who puts out hateful anti-immigrant propaganda like that deserves an iota of trust or benefit-of-the-doubt because it's not about a mere difference of opinion: she's shown the poor judgment to pour gasoline on the fires of race hatred and bigotry.

And if now she "tacks left" so easily what guarantee is there that when political winds blow rightward she won't blow right back again.

Gillibrand's anti-immigrant bashing makes her no more to me than a nasty piece of refuse from the human garbage dump. Politically, anybody who appeals to such prejudice and division is dead to me no matter what words she tries to paste over her past actions now out of political expediency. God willing, a strong challenger will rise up to primary her and put an end to her brief Senate career in 2010.

New York State politics have traditionally been melodramatic, highly conflicted (within each political party), and ideologically chaotic.  At the time he first ran for the U.S. Senate from New York, Bobby Kennedy -- though a shoe-in, in the wake of his brother's assassination -- was nevertheless criticized by some New Yorkers (including some liberals) for having the chutzpah to run against the beloved maverick liberal Republican incumbent, Kenneth Keating.  The rule in New York seems to be: feel free to eat your friends, before eating your enemies.  So it's unlikely that this appointment will do long-lasting ideological damage to Paterson, whatever Gillibrand does as Senator.  What Paterson stands for substantively in his campaign to remain governor will have a greater impact. As for the politics of it, however:  Does Paterson think he's vulnerable and needs to use a Senate appointment to burnish his appeal Upstate?  Is this really about Fear of the Second Coming of Rudy, since Guiliani might run against Paterson -- or for the Senate, where he might have a tougher race against an attractive, non-liberal woman?  What about appointing a relative rookie to represent New York and fill Hillary Clinton's shoes?  Isn't Paterson concerned that one of two New York Senate seats will drop on the political-clout scale from a 10 to a 2, or she going to be programmed by Chuck Schumer? These are legitimate questions. Paterson's long honeymoon with the press corps may be over.  New York may be all hardball, all the time.  But most New Yorkers expect that they'll get outstanding, progressive heavyweights to represent them in the Senate.  And what's with Al D'Amato, the former conservative Republican Senator, standing right beside her at her rolling-out event?  He's reportedly a family friend of Gillibrand, but Democrats could barely tolerate the sight of him for 18 years, while he became famous for his ethnic slurs and his Whitewater jeremiad against the Clintons, even in the wake of his own reprimand by the Senate Ethics Committee. (You can imagine what Bill, still a New York State resident, is thinking.) No doubt Gillibrand believes that displaying D'Amato at her national debut will help her in his home ground of Long Island, but that just reinforces the impression that this appointment was all about playing New York State politics with a U.S. Senate seat.  It doesn't make anyone involved look particularly high-minded.

If Paterson says now that he chose Gillibrand before Caroline pulled back, he is humiliating CK, intentionally? Establishing the precise timeline on the confusing day (with statements going back and forth) could probably tell whether his statement is factually true (which I doubt). Choosing Gillibrand and her balanced budget rhetoric is clearly anti-Obama politics. Since other candidates would have been available, it seems to be deliberate. So both the choice and the circumstances hit CK (who is close to Obama) and Obama. Why would Paterson do that?

Maybe another deal fell through? Blago redux? Either that or Paterson was so pissed off by CK's refusal that he lashed out without thought - which is hard to believe, that a professional politician could be so unprofessional. The possibility advanced by Lawrence O'Donnell (linked to above by Lucidamente), that Paterson did not realize the choice to be anti-Obama, appears extremely unlikely.

No one truly listening to the Inaugural Address could doubt that this former community organizer intends to demand plenty from us as we face down what he calls “raging storms ....

While it’s become a Beltway cliché that America’s new young president has yet to be tested, it is past time for us to realize that our own test is also about to begin.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25rich.html

amk

You may be right that O'Donnell's take on Paterson is flawed. Generally, though, I think he's on the mark, and he's quoted extensively in this piece by Larissa MacFarquhar from the latest New Yorker ("Ms. Kennedy Regrets")

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/02/02/090202fa_fact_macfarquhar?...

O'Donnell's best line: “What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor. This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.”

I don't often like Maureen Dowd but she pretty much hits the nail on the head about this NY Senate fiasco:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/25/opinion/25dowd.html

Ezra Klein also had a good line about Gilibrand:

"She may be a conservative Democrat, or, given the fact that she ran in a conservative district and appears to have reversed her retrograde stance on GLBT issues sometime between last night and this morning, she may have been a secret liberal skilled at the art of insincerity."

So a typical politician, friends of D'Amato, lobbyist father, NRA member, uses the phrase illegal aliens with compunction, and probably will be in Bobby Kennedy's senate seat for 30+ years.  Lovely.

KD

40 years ago, who could have imagined that a Democrat with a 100% rating from the NRA would hold Bobby Kennedy's seat?  What a slap in the face of the Kennedy family to pick someone with these pro-gun credentials. What a slap in all of our faces.

Instead of someone with family ties to a tradition of great, progressive public service we have a senator with family ties to Republican lobbyists and Al D'Amato.

The thing is, I don't know who can raise the money to effectively primary her and get her out. Carolyn McCarthy is unlikely to be able to do so.

And what a waste of political energy for 2010, when we need to be going after open seats in Ohio and Florida and elsewhere.

Chris Smith in New York Magazine has an interesting story that brings together a lot of what is known about how this train-wreck came to pass. Titled The Zany Adventures of (Senator) Caroline Kennedy, here's a sample...

The appointment was destined to be a mess—how could it not be? The cast of characters involved in choosing a new junior senator for New York included a lapsed priest, three of the country’s most bare-knuckled political dynasties, and an imperious mayor. Add to that a $15 billion budget deficit and a tainted plate of sushi. And start the whole crazy chain of dominoes with a hooker.

Yet in two months politics in New York devolved from dysfunctional to chaotic, tarnishing every major player involved. And sometimes it seemed that David Paterson wanted it exactly that way. His style of governance, a dizzy mix of ingratiation and trickeration, has turned what could have been a moment of triumph—a powerful new ally in the Senate, a relationship with President Obama—into a slapstick fiasco, a fitting sequel to the way Paterson got the job in the first place. Politics is often a contest of half-truths, where the winner is the best bullshitter. But thanks to Paterson and a cast of dozens, the fight to become the next senator became instead a world-class festival of lies.

He blames Paterson for telling Caroline early in the game that it was hers if she wanted it but that he was going to make statements and comments that would make it look like he was considering others, putting restraints on her and telling her not to talk to the media (which predictably blew up on her, not him), and on and on. It's pretty damning and a lot of it rings true to my suspicions about what was going on.

One issue that has not received much attention is that the NYS population has been dropping quite a bit, and after the 2010 census, NYS is projected to lose at least one House district. The 20th district, where Gillibrand is from, is the most gerrimandered in the state, and maybe a district slated to be merged with other districts. Perhaps the Clintons (and Schumer) wanted their girl to have a place at the table so her political career can continue to flourish. In her first House campaign, Gillibrand relied on Howard Wolfson, Hillary's odious buddy, and other Washington consultants, and would not hire locals for the smallest paid work --- she expected locals to just volunter. It's interesting that KG comes from a political dynasty (Republican until KG). (Why haven't Hamsher and her ilk complained about that? --- where's their consistency/integrity?) KG frustrated local Dems by having her political base in Albany. In addition to being an Albany insider, she's been an "inside-the-beltway" creature from the beginning --- just like her buddy Hillary Clinton. With this stupid choice, Paterson has stabbed Obama in the back. He's appointed someone who won't support Obama's agenda. Harry Reid has a problem on his hands.

There are plenty of Dems who would like to see our new president fail.  They won this one, I fear.

Excellent blog post on Gillibrand from a progressive attorney/public defender in her district:

http://dreamantilles.blogspot.com/2009/01/score-one-for-oligarchy.html

 

The part of this I find most instructive is all of the excuse making. Folks on the left or the just to the left of center are making excuses because we don't want to confront the obvious. The obvious is that Kirsten, who is not on the left, who is not really in the center, and who is a blue dog, is in the Senate from New York because she was already a member of a certain club, and that club is from whence people who are also in the club promote other club members to the Senate.

Chances are, dear reader, that you aren't in that club.

 

I also put up a Kos diary running through Gillibrand's scarily right-wing record... (This doesn't even include her A rating from English First, a rightwing group that wants to make English the "official" language of the U.S. and eliminate "multilingual policies." Nasty people, with whom Gillibrand voted 100% of the time in 2007.) I know Kirsten personally and live quite near to her in the district, but she doesn't have my support at all.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/1/23/174928/355/302/688225

As for gay rights -- Gillibrand did *not* support it until moments before she was announced by Paterson (who has destroyed his reputation in the state, and is being rightly savaged by the press as we speak).  I don't care for politicians who only do the right thing on civil rights when there is an urgent need for them to "evolve" their position.

Another excuse you hear for her is that she "had to" pander to the right to get elected -- to which I say (a) How did Obama win the district, too, then? and (b) what's the point of winning the seat, if you're going to behave like a Republican anyway?

And don't get me started about her close ties to Alphonse D'Amato, who was standing as close to her as anyone at the press conference, and practically feeding Gillibrand her lines...

I think it's an over-simplification (to put it mildly) to say that the NY Mag piece blames Patterson..

 

I do think, though, that this article's idea of what Caroline's personal reasons were for withdrawing (realizing the amount of public scrutiny just wasn't worth it..and that she was at least not prepared for the position in the terms of her presentation of herself to reporters) is the most plausible I've heard.

On his marketing blog, John Tantillo analyzed Caroline's candidacy from a branding position just before the new year--predicting that she would not only be Senator but also the first female President.

I wonder if she's out for good or will throw her hat in the ring again later...perhaps after a lot of work with a speech coach?

Tantillo's full post: http://blog.marketingdoctor.tv/2008/12/31/caroline-kennedy--a-brand-that...

I thought that the factual take of O'Donnell's on Paterson was excellent. I just disagree with his interpretation of Patersons intentions. I am convinced that usually politicians are not as stupid as people accuse them of. Mostly there is a perfectly rational (if not likable) motivation behind their deeds.

However I take consolation in the statistics by Nate Silver, that appointed senators rarely get re-elected (19 of 49 recent appointments, whereas re-election of elected senators happens in 88% of cases.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2008/12/appointed-senators-rarely-win-re....