[Before anyone decries yet another Gillibrand diary, I say, Move along little doggie..plenty of other fine diaries to read if you are not interested in this subject, let those interested discuss]
Disclosure: I have no horse in this race. I live in Connecticut and would welcome an even trade of Gillibrand, Cuomo, the Professor or Mary Ann in exchange for Lieberman. I like Caroline Kennedy a lot, had misgivings about her as a senator and the way it was approached, dislike Blue Dogs, have heard good and bad things about Gillibrand, think Patterson handled this badly.. Ok, think that covers it all..
Now...fly away with me no Nether-The-Fold-Land
- Kos went on and on about how these senate appointment things are bad, the voters should decide, against political dynasties, it shouldn't be just because of the Kennedy name etc.
To which I say:
First: So much of politics is about posturing, supporting someone or dissing someone for old political scores. So how exactly is Kennedy bad because of political connections, but Patterson, Cuomo, Gillibrand and others would be ok when they all are part of NY machine politics? Fact is friendship or having worked as someones close ally can be just the same as a family name in terms of working the machinery. Frankly, I worry more about
what Rahm Emmanuel can do to the party as Obama's close, close confidant that Caroline Kennedy being appointed to a senate seat, but that's just me.
Second: I am also against these senate appointment things and think the voters decided but until this is practiced in all 50 states, I say we should not change it. Think Kay-Bay will decry this awful senate appointment thing if she drops out before her term to run for governor, knowing Mr. Hair will appoint a Republican in her place? The senate appointment thing is a double- or multi-edged sword. It is something we will benefit from, for example, if Robert Byrd dies in his latest term and we get a Democratic senator in West Virginia. Of course, in lieu of all states saying there has to be a special election, all states could adopt a law that says the appointee must be of the same political party as the senator leaving/dying, unless of course you are in Connecticut and the Connecticut for Lieberman party is pretty defunct.
- The whole way this thing was approached was awfully mishandled, either by Kennedy's people or Patterson's or both. I am an avid reader, read Kos regularly, again don't have a horse in this race. But it was my impression that the Kennedy request to be considered as a senator came out extremely abruptly and in a pushy way. Maybe it was the media, maybe it was a mishandling by one or both sides. As a casual observer, it came off to ME as "I want this because of the help my family gave to Obama's campaign" - maybe that is patently false but that is how it seemed at least at the beginning. I as an observer very much got the IMPRESSION that people really got in Patterson's face about how this HAD to be re Kennedy. If I were governor, I'd react negatively to this too.
- Bloomberg, J'accuse! Bloomberg these days would sell his mother to suck up to people to justify his overturning 2 voter referendums to be mayor a 3rd term. In the early days, Bloomberg made no secret of the fact he wanted Kennedy. Kennedy demured about possibly supporting him. There was even a quote rolling around, which I can try to dig up, where Bloomberg's people were quoted as pressuring unions for an endorsement, saying "She's [Kennedy] is going to be the one, get on board now" [paraphrasing]. Again, if I were governor, I would not react well to Bloomberg's own posturing, mainly designed to help himself in his own mayoral campaign.
- Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, j'accuse! You can blame Patterson and rightly so but do you really think he didn't receive pressure from people like Schumer and Hillary to make this happen? Now let's take Hillary for example. My take on her: Good NY senator, as an Edward's supporter, chose not to support her when her campaign went south and the racist shit started, though she would be a horrible president, but supported her for SOS as I feel Obama will provide the correct checks and balances to harness her powers for the good. But let's be brutally honest here: You are Hillary, you have had a record for holding grudges (that Judas Bill Richardson!), so you get the SOS job, say nice things about Obama. But in the back of your head, you know the Kennedy endorsement was important to Obama and surely angered the Hillary camp. So you are Hillary, the sitting senator from NY with bit input in who gets in, you have Patterson's ear, is there a chance you might argue against Kennedy because of the previous situation? Not saying it's so, sayin' it could be so. Plus, you can blame Patterson, but it doesn't help matters when the sitting senator is also pushing for the one who was chosen instead of staying neutral or going for a more progressive choice.
- Andrew Cuomo, J'accuse! Far too often, I've heard it said, "Well Patterson has done it now, Cuomo will primary him for sure..." Um, am I the only one in seeing something wrong with this? I thought you run for governor for the benefit of the people of your state, not as some deal, "If you appoint me to this, I won't challenge you for that.." If Cuomo wants to run for governor, it should be because he feels he is a better choice than Patterson, not because Patterson crossed him, dissed him or whatever...
- Kirsten Gillibrand, j'accuse. Many will not be impressed with you overnight conversions. While you certainly were a Dem, you made the choice to be a Blue Dog. Doesn't particularly inspire confidence. You are for gay marriage now? Great. But, um, why did you refuse to support legislation to repeal DADT? On other GLBT issues, your words are encouraging, your previous record is not stellar. And regarding the NRA thing, yes, people clearly point out that even Howard Dean got a 100% NRA rating, but if you are a senator from New York, this is a particularly sensitive issue. Being seen as a sweetheart to the NRA will not play well with many New Yorkers.
- David Patterson, j'accuse. Dragging the thing out for months. If he didn't want Kennedy, he should have cut her loose weeks ago, let her drop out gracefully then went with someone else. If he went with someone else, I think he should have gone for a more progressive choice like Jerry Nadler, my choise all along. Instead, he went to another machine-connected person, partly because he was thinking of himself and his own reelection effort.
- Diversity issue, j'accuse. I supoort diversity very much. I want Obama's government and state governments to be as diverse as possible. But I think we all agree that diversity must go hand in hand with qualification. We know very well that Patterson was under pressure to appoint another woman to this post. Again, I applaud diversity and would have more gladly accepted several other candidates on the list. However, in this case, when we have a Blue Dog candidate as the senator, causing all sorts of political shock waves, who got there through machine politics albeit a different road than Caroline Kennedy would have, perhaps would have been better to open up a wider pool to someone like Jerry Nadler? I'm asking this as a question, not giving an answer
- Finally, there is the question of the upcoming election. McCarthy is a very decent person but is widely seen as a one-issue candidate on gun control who cannot raise the cash for a decent primary challenge. I personally was concerned about Kennedy versus Peter King. True, early polls mean nada, but I was concerned about the "she's never had a real job" meme. I think for Gillibrand it is sink or swim and she will probably get primaried anyway. So I see her being Barbara Boxer II, still going through a bruising primary. And frankly, I blame Kennedy, Bloomberg, Clinton, Schumer, Cuomo AND Patterson for this whole mess.
Thought? Although probably all sides are pissed at me now...