Senator Gillibrand

[Lunar]

DAMNIT, it is happening at the worst time possible.  From BSmith:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Those quotes are very brutal on the Cuomo/Caroline crowd.  Sorry guys!

[justfollowingtheelections]

That's it.  I'm predicting Randi Weingarten.

[Lunar]

That's it.  I'm predicting Randi Weingarten.

She's a woman, she's Jewish, she's from labor, but she'd really piss off those people who want an Upstater or at least someone from the suburbs.  But a lot of Upstate candidates (the non-Gillibrand ones?  Maybe), would be primaried by Steve Israel.

But if Paterson is going to shake the foundations of our political order by appointing an openly gay senator, wouldn't he want maximum press coverage?

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

Too bad that Hinchey is so old, and Slaughter is even older.

[justfollowingtheelections]

That's it.  I'm predicting Randi Weingarten.

She's a woman, she's Jewish, she's from labor, but she'd really piss off those people who want an Upstater or at least someone from the suburbs.  But a lot of Upstate candidates (the non-Gillibrand ones?  Maybe), would be primaried by Steve Israel.

But if Paterson is going to shake the foundations of our political order by appointing an openly gay senator, wouldn't he want maximum press coverage?

I'm not really predicting her and I didn't even know she was gay, I just saw her name mentioned for the first time in that article and I just have a feeling he will make a WTF pick like Ritter did.  We'll see...

[Lunar]

There's actually two gay candidates.  Danny O'Donnell (He has a famous sister named Rosie) is actually under consideration and appears to be generating more buzz than Randi Weingarten but I can't imagine why, probably because he's less annoying according to Sam.  But I'm pretty sure Randi's gender, labor roots, and "lesbian=hot, sodomy=not" status means that she's more acceptable than Danny...  Also, at least with Randi it's not nearly as clear that she was chosen because she's gay -- O'Donnell is really obviously just Generic State Legislator #7.

Paterson is absolutely dropping hints that he's not going to pick Cuomo or Caroline, but I have a terrible track record when it comes to these things (Although I did think Burris was the best pick, but I expected soon-to-be-governor Quinn to make it).  I tend to like to choose candidates that are longshots and overanalyze their strategic value.  I like to frequently remind people that I once promised to eat my hat if Palin was selected VP and I once made a thread boldly predicting the exact date and time that Wesley Clark would be Obama's VP (but I was the first person to prove myself wrong).

My predicted order of things remains Gillibrand-Suozzi-Brown.  Brown is a bit confusing because he was not included in the original caste of people receiving Paterson's 28 page questionnaire.  This fact became a news story and then Paterson sent him one after the news broke... that would seem to indicate Brown was a second tier.
 
But now Paterson's public comments seem to indicate he's recently changed his mind over whom he was likely to pick.  Could it be because of the answers to the questionnaire?  Could, say, Gillibrand's husband's lobbyist connections be a sinker with Paterson's vetters?

[Mr.Phips]

There's actually two gay candidates.  Danny O'Donnell (He has a famous sister named Rosie) is actually under consideration and appears to be generating more buzz than Randi Weingarten but I can't imagine why, probably because he's less annoying according to Sam.  But I'm pretty sure Randi's gender, labor roots, and "lesbian=hot, sodomy=not" status means that she's more acceptable than Danny...  Also, at least with Randi it's not nearly as clear that she was chosen because she's gay -- O'Donnell is really obviously just Generic State Legislator #7.

Paterson is absolutely dropping hints that he's not going to pick Cuomo or Caroline, but I have a terrible track record when it comes to these things (Although I did think Burris was the best pick, but I expected soon-to-be-governor Quinn to make it).  I tend to like to choose candidates that are longshots and overanalyze their strategic value.  I like to frequently remind people that I once promised to eat my hat if Palin was selected VP and I once made a thread boldly predicting the exact date and time that Wesley Clark would be Obama's VP (but I was the first person to prove myself wrong).

My predicted order of things remains Gillibrand-Suozzi-Brown.  Brown is a bit confusing because he was not included in the original caste of people receiving Paterson's 28 page questionnaire.  This fact became a news story and then Paterson sent him one after the news broke... that would seem to indicate Brown was a second tier.
 
But now Paterson's public comments seem to indicate he's recently changed his mind over whom he was likely to pick.  Could it be because of the answers to the questionnaire?  Could, say, Gillibrand's husband's lobbyist connections be a sinker with Paterson's vetters?

Ive said it several times and I will say it again.  I dont think Paterson is dumb enough to pick Gillibrand.  The reason is that her House seat would almost certainly go Republican in a special election and likely by a very large margin.  Does Paterson want a headlines around the country saying "Republicans win key special election from Democrats in New York"?  This would quickly set off a meme that Democrats are in deep trouble and that Republicans are making a huge comeback.  This would likely cripple Democratic fundraising(not to mention Paterson's own) and would probably entice a very strong Republican to get into the race against Paterson.  I think Paterson and his advisors realize the disastrous domino effect that picking Gillibrand would have. 

[Lunar]

Well, I digress.  You attempt to address this as a major issue while in reality it's a moderate issue.

There's been a LOT of pressure on Paterson to select a woman and an Upstater [or at least someone from the suburbs].  Like, a major bunch lot.  Paterson could lose the endorsements of all kinds of major politicians and organizations if he forgoes either one.   I think this sort of political organization is more important in the PRIMARIES than one moderately embarrassing news story a year and a half before the election.  After all, this sort of buzz wouldn't really be a negative campaign issue and is extremely doubtful that voters would vote on it.  Primaries are more about organization and Gillibrand satisfies more critical checkboxes than anyone else, even if you can come up with one omfg drawback.

[Mr.Phips]

Well, I digress.  You attempt to address this as a major issue while in reality it's a moderate issue.

There's been a LOT of pressure on Paterson to select a woman and an Upstater [or at least someone from the suburbs].  Like, a major bunch lot.  Paterson could lose the endorsements of all kinds of major politicians and organizations if he forgoes either one.   I think this sort of political organization is more important in the PRIMARIES than one moderately embarrassing news story a year and a half before the election.  After all, this sort of buzz wouldn't really be a negative campaign issue and is extremely doubtful that voters would vote on it.  Primaries are more about organization and Gillibrand satisfies more critical checkboxes than anyone else, even if you can come up with one omfg drawback.

This is also a money thing though.  Paterson is going to need to raise tons of money for his 2010 race.  If a Democrat loses a House seat in New York, this is going to be huge news to many of the industries and PAC's that give money to politicians, since these people like to go with who they think is winning. 

[Lunar]

They do like to go with whom they think is winning, but why would Paterson become "not winning?"

Is incumbency no longer a winning variable?

[Ogre Mage]

I agree that there has been a lot of pressure to select a woman and/or an upstate candidate.  Paterson could probably get away with picking a downstate woman or an upstate man, but to pick someone who didn't fall into either category would cause much unhappiness.  Gillibrand's big strength is that she checks both boxes, although she has other problems.

Paterson has handled this appointment process poorly. 

[Lunar]

And it's important to remember that Phips ignores the fact that Gillibrand is young and upwardly mobile and the Democrats will control redistricting in 2010, so for the party activists they might more than forgive her for moving upward.  I mean, if the Dems can't win an open seat there, they probably won't hold onto that seat for another two cycles anyway since I don't think Kirsten is going to park there

I agree that there has been a lot of pressure to select a woman and/or an upstate candidate.  Paterson could probably get away with picking a downstate woman or an upstate man, but to pick someone who didn't fall into either category would cause much unhappiness. 

Not to mention Gillibrand has the most proven fundraising skills of any of the candidates listed, except perhaps Mrs. Kennedy.  Phips references Paterson's concerns for funds, you'd think that the fact that Gillibrand is the one candidate from Upstate that could possibly win reelection against a downstate candidate (except Byron Brown?  He's black and from Upstate, that must count for something) would at least keep her in contention.

But noo, Paterson is deathly afraid of looooosing that U.S. House Seat

I mean, honestly, I could focus completely on one facet of a candidate, say, someone being a non-male and list a point-by-point rebuttal about why a male could never be selected.  I think I could do so half-convincingly.   But that doesn't mean I'd be right.  This sort of focus on Gillibrand's house seat is ridiculous (and you know you're being ridiculous if an obsessive loser like me calls you ridiculous)

[Lunar]

a description of Paterson's interviews:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/01/18/nyregion/18paterson.html?ref=nyregion

kind of.


They seem to involve improvization and non-gotcha questions.   Suozzi commented that Paterson never asked him what his position is on TARP or whom the prime minister of Turkmenistan is.

[justfollowingtheelections]

There's actually two gay candidates.  Danny O'Donnell (He has a famous sister named Rosie) is actually under consideration and appears to be generating more buzz than Randi Weingarten but I can't imagine why, probably because he's less annoying according to Sam.  But I'm pretty sure Randi's gender, labor roots, and "lesbian=hot, sodomy=not" status means that she's more acceptable than Danny...  Also, at least with Randi it's not nearly as clear that she was chosen because she's gay -- O'Donnell is really obviously just Generic State Legislator #7.

Paterson is absolutely dropping hints that he's not going to pick Cuomo or Caroline, but I have a terrible track record when it comes to these things (Although I did think Burris was the best pick, but I expected soon-to-be-governor Quinn to make it).  I tend to like to choose candidates that are longshots and overanalyze their strategic value.  I like to frequently remind people that I once promised to eat my hat if Palin was selected VP and I once made a thread boldly predicting the exact date and time that Wesley Clark would be Obama's VP (but I was the first person to prove myself wrong).

My predicted order of things remains Gillibrand-Suozzi-Brown.  Brown is a bit confusing because he was not included in the original caste of people receiving Paterson's 28 page questionnaire.  This fact became a news story and then Paterson sent him one after the news broke... that would seem to indicate Brown was a second tier.
 
But now Paterson's public comments seem to indicate he's recently changed his mind over whom he was likely to pick.  Could it be because of the answers to the questionnaire?  Could, say, Gillibrand's husband's lobbyist connections be a sinker with Paterson's vetters?

A gay man?  We are open-minded enough here in NY to tolerate a lesbian, but we're no Massachusetts

[justfollowingtheelections]

Well, I digress.  You attempt to address this as a major issue while in reality it's a moderate issue.

There's been a LOT of pressure on Paterson to select a woman and an Upstater [or at least someone from the suburbs].  Like, a major bunch lot.  Paterson could lose the endorsements of all kinds of major politicians and organizations if he forgoes either one.   I think this sort of political organization is more important in the PRIMARIES than one moderately embarrassing news story a year and a half before the election.  After all, this sort of buzz wouldn't really be a negative campaign issue and is extremely doubtful that voters would vote on it.  Primaries are more about organization and Gillibrand satisfies more critical checkboxes than anyone else, even if you can come up with one omfg drawback.

No offense to any upstaters but who gives a s*** what they want?  How many people live up there anyway? (I'm kidding by the way)

[Ogre Mage]

Well, I digress.  You attempt to address this as a major issue while in reality it's a moderate issue.

There's been a LOT of pressure on Paterson to select a woman and an Upstater [or at least someone from the suburbs].  Like, a major bunch lot.  Paterson could lose the endorsements of all kinds of major politicians and organizations if he forgoes either one.   I think this sort of political organization is more important in the PRIMARIES than one moderately embarrassing news story a year and a half before the election.  After all, this sort of buzz wouldn't really be a negative campaign issue and is extremely doubtful that voters would vote on it.  Primaries are more about organization and Gillibrand satisfies more critical checkboxes than anyone else, even if you can come up with one omfg drawback.

No offense to any upstaters but who gives a s*** what they want?  How many people live up there anyway? (I'm kidding by the way)

  I hope there are no upstate NY posters on this board.  lol.

[Lunar]

I don't think they have the internet yet

[justfollowingtheelections]

I don't think they have the internet yet

lol

[Iosif]

15 pages is a lot of talk for something that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things...

Does it really matter which Democrat is the junior senator from New York?

[Bacon King]

In the long run, yeah, as a couple of them are the type that will run for president one day if given the chance.

[Lunar]

15 pages is a lot of talk for something that doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things...

Does it really matter which Democrat is the junior senator from New York?

It's mostly just me.

And I'm obsessive.

[BM]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

more here:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/news/columnists/caroline_the_certain_pick_for_dave__riva_150822.htm

[YRABNNRM]

meh

[Brittain33]

You must be logged in to read this quote.

more here:

http://www.nypost.com/seven/01192009/news/columnists/caroline_the_certain_pick_for_dave__riva_150822.htm

Hoping the Post has it wrong...

[Lunar]

I feel this article needs to be posted.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2009/01/ny-sen_is_it_caroline.html?hpid=news-col-blog

NY-Sen: Is it Caroline?
The dean of the New York political press corps -- New York Post columnist Fred Dicker -- reports this morning that Gov. David Paterson (D) has settled on Caroline Kennedy as his pick to replace soon-to-be Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Senate.

Dicker draws his conclusion based on conversations between "several unhappy contenders" and their associates in recent days.

He writes:

"The contenders based their conclusion on the view that Paterson, after nearly two months of indecision, would 'greatly embarrass' and 'entirely humiliate' Kennedy, anger her prominent political family and even offend President-elect Barack Obama by picking someone other than President John F. Kennedy's daughter."

The Fix did a bit of checking with several of the people -- not named Kennedy -- who are allegedly under consideration and there is no sign that Paterson has been reaching out to anyone to inform them of his decision if in fact he's made up his mind.

And, Errol Cockfield, a spokesman for Paterson said that "the governor said on 'Larry King' last night and again on CNN this morning that he hadn't made a decision."

All of the potential contenders will get a chance to talk to Paterson face-to-face tonight when New York Democrats gather for a party at the Smithsonian Castle on the Mall. (What the Fix would give to be a fly on the wall at that gathering!)

Those in the know expect Paterson's decision any time now especially since the seat will be formally vacated tomorrow afternoon when the full Senate is expected to confirm Clinton as Secretary of State.

It's hard to believe Paterson would make the announcement on the day Barack Obama is being sworn in as the 44th president but he could well decide to do it early on Wednesday when much of official Washington is still digging out/waking up from the inauguration festivities.

We continue to believe that Kennedy is the favorite for the appointment for one main reason: she is clearly the preferred choice of the incoming president. Kennedy emerged as a public figure during Obama's campaign and the two are friendly. No one else in the field can make that claim.

Could Paterson spurn the president and the first family in Democratic politics? Absolutely. Remember that Paterson's primary concern is getting elected to a full term in 2010 and, if he believes that state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Reps. Kirsten Gillibrand or Steve Israel or even Buffalo Mayor Byron Brown make that more likely, he may well go against Kennedy.

If, however, Paterson follows conventional wisdom and names Kennedy, expect Republicans to immediately start making the case against Kennedy (no experience, the return of dynastic politics) and promoting the potential candidacy of Rep. Peter King (R).

New York is a Democratic stronghold so in a traditional election the Democratic candidate, whoever he or she may be, should be favored. Are the circumstances surrounding Kennedy extraordinary enough to put this seat in play in 2010?