Gillibrand's the One. Is She the Right One?

NB: Shout out to my good friend Wayne Barrett from the Village Voice for his reporting on this story. He was one of if not the first to report that Gov. Paterson's choice would be Kirsten Gillibrand.

So it looks like Upstate New York Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand will be Gov. Paterson's choice to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate.



Already the choice has roiled the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, at least inside the state. Yet for a lot of reasons, the choice is smart politics.

The logic against Gillibrand's runs along several progressive fault lines. She's got a 100% rating from the National Rifle Association. She even opposes any limits on the sale of semi automatic weapons or so-called cop killer bullets. Her position on immigration isn't what anyone would call enlightened. She voted against both financial services bailout bills supported, ironically, by one of her current champions, Sen. Chuck Schumer. That won't endear her to New York City residents.

But wait, there's more! She supported the Bush tax cuts, backed continued funding for the Iraq war, and generally described her voting record as one of the most conservative in the state.



She opposes gay marriage (while supporting civil unions). Even though she was an ardent backer of Hillary Clinton's presidential bid, it's pretty obvious they don't see eye to eye on any number of issues.

Even with all this, and the possibility of several primary challengers next year, the choice makes political sense. Gov. Paterson knew he needed to replace Hillary Clinton with a woman. Once Caroline Kennedy dropped out, an upstate woman made the most sense. While watching the NY-1 program, "Inside City Hall" last night, I was struck by the number of phone callers who knew quite a bit about Gillibrand's record, and thought she'd be a good choice.

Voting for her certainly won't be a problem for ethnic voters in Brooklyn, Queens, and Staten Island. Some of them might even be induced to vote for Gov. Paterson's re-election as well. Keep in mind Gillibrand defeated a long standing incumbent Republican to win her seat in Congress in 2006. There's no way she could have won by taking policy positiions favored by downstate liberals.

Besides, if anyone in theory bears responsibility for the rise of Kirsten Gillibrand, it's Caroline Kennedy. If you believe she was the governor's first choice for the job, the mess created by her last minute departure demanded a quick and clear response.

Kirsten Gillibrand is certainly no perfect vessel. This is politics, and everyone knows there are no perfect vessels. Assuming David Paterson doesn't change his mind, he'll announce her as his choice later today.



If she wants to win a full term, she's going to have to rethink some of her more "Blue Dog" positions, especially on gun control.

Yet in the end, she will be measured by what she's able to bring to the state in the way of jobs and stimulus money. New York, like the rest of the nation, is hurting economically. If she's successful there, she'll win next year.

What do you think? Is Kirsten Gillibrand the right choice?

Too Bad About Caroline, Ya Know?

When it comes to political drama, it seems nothing can top the twin efforts to fill US Senate seats in New York and Illinois. Just when it seemed the controversy surrounding Rod Blagojevich's pick for the latter was dying down, New York's selection process has been thrown into chaos.

That's because Caroline Kennedy, the presumptive choice of Gov. David Paterson, has taken herself out of contention. Speculation abounds about why. Various media are reporting the move caught the governor's office completely by surprise. We may never know the real reason she dropped out.

Fact is, Caroline Kennedy was ill prepared for the blood sport that is New York politics.



Her public rollout was badly flawed, her credentials seriously questioned after a flurry of early positive press. All this she should have expected. Unlike her good friend President Barack Obama, she was incapable of responding effectively to the negative media coverage.

A good speech coach, for example, could have gotten her past the awkward "ums" and "you knows" that made her public interviews agonizing to watch. On top of that, does anyone remember a single policy position she articulated during the course of her shadow campaign for the office?

Why she dropped her bid is anybody's guess. The New York Times cites a person "close to her" as saying it was worry about the health of her uncle, Senator Ted Kennedy. Others are speculating it was a graceful way out, since Gov. Paterson was not going to choose her despite the speculation he had little choice.

And the governor's office doesn't come away unscathed in all this either. As recently as 7:00PM last night, his people were saying reports that Ms. Kennedy was dropping out were "just the rumor of the day". A little more than an hour later, his press secretary asked that the previous statement not be published. Say what?

If there's one thing you never do, it's ask the media not to report something you told them. You issue a clarification, you say the governor didn't have all the information, whatever. This is New York! People should know better. All this has conspired to make Gov. Paterson, a thoughtful man, look indecisive and confused.



I don't think he is. In fact, I was never as certain as some of my colleagues that Caroline Kennedy had a lock on the senate seat. David Paterson has always managed to confound even his friends with the choices he makes. He is his own best counsel. Caroline Kennedy dropping out doesn't change that.

Gov. Paterson will make his choice for Hillary Clinton's senate seat known by the weekend. Who do you think he'll choose?

Can Barack pull it off?

Finally, we can stop calling him President-Elect Barack Obama. An historic day of ceremony took care of that. George W. Bush did fly off in a helicopter, finally a former president. Yet not before he heard some scathing words from his successor.



President Obama spent much of his inaugural speech laying out how he would undo what Bush has done over the past eight years.

In many ways, it was a stinging rebuke. "Our collective failure to make hard choices", and the willingness of suspend the nation's ideals "for expedience's sake" pulled no punches, especially with the guy you're talking about sitting only a few feet away. Fact is, though, it had to be said.

He also rejected the notion of the "false choice" between ideals and safety. Again, a repudiation of the Bush Doctrine. Even these words, however, fail to capture what the world saw during Barack Obama's swearing in Tuesday. From the first camera shot as he prepared to be introduced, the new president exuded confidence without swagger, an aura that said, "I can do this".

For just a moment, my mind went back to the early 1960s, to the dawn of my consciousness about who I was. That consciousness was shaped in part by a brash young man from Louisville, Kentucky, a boxer then named Cassius Clay. Until that time, black people rarely if ever held their heads up and proclaimed their greatness. Cassius Clay was different.



Certainly he was electric, confident to the point of arrogance in the eyes of some. Many people thought Sonny Liston would clean his clock when they fought twice for the heavyweight championship. We all know how that turned out.

Still, watching President Obama stride to the podium, take the oath of office, and speak to the world, I was reminded of the confidence we saw as kids in the man who later became Muhammad Ali. For some reason, I saw a straight line there. And it made me feel proud. And old.



That aura of confidence Barack Obama showed yesterday made me realize he really believes he can change the course of this nation. The outgoing president had to sit there in silence, no doubt a little shocked at how directly his watch was bring critiqued.

But all that was yesterday. The parade, the balls, the glitter, all that is done. Time to get to work.

Can he do it? Post your comment here.