[Update below; I discuss one column in particular, but it reflects some others, so is more representative than it might at first seem. The whole thing is so tiresome. So knee-jerk. See here as to how the press handled the fiscal mess, including lack of follow-up stories. This story suggests half-assed doesn't just apply to favorite "MSM" whipping boys.
BTW, the NY Daily News editorial board -- Liebermanesque sorts -- today becries her lack of experience. Fair criticism, but sorry, "names" like Clinton and Kennedy held the seat in the past, and they were largely just that -- names, who were question marks. Lest we forget. In the news section, we have an article on the "conservative gun fan." Oh. shut. up. Sigh.]
Her politics, perhaps reflecting her conservative district, cannot be easily charted along a left-right axis. She earned a high rating from the National Rifle Association and opposed efforts to extend state drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants. At the same time, she favors abortion rights, voted to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq and to extend middle-class tax cuts, and she has opposed privatizing Social Security. She raises large sums of money from Wall Street, but voted against the first bailout bill last fall; that vote angered some Democratic leaders in Congress.
She was an outspoken supporter of Mrs. Clinton’s presidential campaign and has drawn financial support from prominent women’s groups in Washington, not least Emily’s List.
She has insisted, to the point of annoying Congressional colleagues, on openness in government, posting a “Sunlight Report” on her Congressional Web site listing her meetings with lobbyists as well as the names of individuals seeking government grants known as earmarks.
-- NYT Article
I was no favorite of the top two putative picks to fill Secretary Clinton's seat, Caroline Kennedy not appearing qualified, while Andrew Cuomo probably was, except to the degree he always seemed like a jerk to me whose biggest asset at times was his last name. I have an idea that one reason the (criticized) nomination process was so long, was that the governor wanted to get rid of her (done so messily) and her friends in high places made this difficult. BTW, the governor had other things on his mind, including an economic mess. So, Gov. Patterson can be open to some criticism here, but not quite as much as some supply.
Anyway, I supported him picking someone other than these two, not having a strong preference on what one. Though Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand was basically out of my radar until last night, she seems like a good choice. As an early TPM announcement succinctly noted:
So Paterson gets to a) court women voters,* b) court upstate voters, and c) recruit a candidate who can bring in a lot of money in case of a tough race.
Some don't like her, suggesting she is but a Blue Dog. She does call herself one, it seems largely on fiscal grounds, but relying just on that label does her something of a disservice. See, e.g., her Wikipedia page, providing a picture of an experienced and smart public official with various Democratic bona fides. Such as support from the senior senator from New York, who has a top role in the political side of the party's caucus. And, if she no longer has to defend a conservative leaning district, she vary well might vote more progressive in certain cases. In fact, some think it will be politically necessary. Rep. Gillibrand is no faux Democrat. As a Salon endorsement summarized:
But she has never voted contrary to the Democratic majority [well less than 10% of the time] and is a strong supporter of middle class tax cuts, ending the spying abuses of the Bush administration, ending the war in Iraq, repealing tax cuts to oil companies, reducing the interest rate on student loans, and reforming health care.
And, the NYT article adds she supports same sex marriage. What a loser! She also is pragmatically a good pick, outside the value she supplies to Patterson himself in 2010. Gillibrand showed herself to be a tough campaigner (bringing young blood and enthusiasm, the working mom angle not hurting) in a Republican friendly district, and honestly, it is only fair for the state to have one senator with whom upstate (more conservative) voters can be comfortable. The fact she is strongly gun friendly is unpleasant to some, but with Heller, she does not just have her district on her side. The realistic sort will realize that the best path would be to have a national policy that both sides can trust, and this includes having senators in our party that are friendly to gun owners. Sorry.
[She in fact singled out a strong opponent, whose husband was killed by a nutcase in a gun rampage on the LIRR, by noting her support for a gun support measure to keep guns from criminals and the like. Either way, I'm not going to resist her a pick just because she is a member of the NRA, though her opponent here has a not surprisingly strong distaste for that group.]
Sen. Gillibrand probably will disappoint me sometimes, but it is not like Sen. Clinton did not as well. I think she will do and suggests some smarts from my gov. It is understandable that some progressive sorts are disappointed, but at the moment, I think they are overdoing it a bit.
---
* On a thinly related basis, here's another one of those charming personal interest entries that Salon provides fairly regularly. Also, cute footnote: Rep. Gillibrand worked until the day she gave birth. A Palin we can believe in?
And Also: Honestly, I'm rather annoyed at the heavy-handed coverage of this pick. Some news commentator on Keith made a crack about her chairing some obscure farm committee in the House. News flash: N.Y. has farms and dairies, she's a junior member, and someone has to chair such things! Another in an earlier local newscast basically knew nothing about her. I found about her in about ten minutes Thursday night. And, I'm not paid to go on the air and talk about politics.
Joe Conason, who is a good guy but has some lulls (and the fact Clintonites were apparently annoyed by the selection process might factor in here), including criticizing her PayGo stance. Uh, Joe ... I recall this being a draw for Dems, how fiscally responsible they are vis-a-vis Republicans. And, it doesn't mean that you never compromise, such as in emergencies like now. Likewise, what the hell is this lack of "independence and intellect" business? Her resume alone suggests intellect, even if her press conference was a bit rough (e.g., President Obama called in the middle of it, but she finished it first, leading the governor to joke "please call back" ... Rachel Maddow covered it).
He's upset at her being "conservative" but she isn't "independent?" And, then he suggests (sneers?) she is "supple" enough to get high ratings from both the ACLU and NRA. Huh? Not only does the ACLU ratings (not alone btw on that side) suggest she is not soooo conservative, it doesn't really clash with the NRA. Many support both, stereotypes aside. I raise my hand here. He also sneers that her support for same sex marriage seems like a jane-come-lately opinion. Shocking how that now she is a state-wide officer, she would tweak her positions as compared to when running for a conservative seat. Anyway, she did support an employment discrimination bill and hate crime legislation in this area. Soooo conservative.
As to clashing with Paterson, I assume this doesn't mean her various loyal Dem votes (usefully ignored by the tedious spin jobs like his). And, uh, tough fiscal choices HAS been a priority of the governor. As would be trying to win in 2010, which would include supporting someone more popular upstate (and who would be on the ticket with him). Others have also noted that politics -- including one person being key to the N.Y. delegation and N.Y. likely to lose a seat in re-districting anyway -- could explain not picking some of the other choices.
Again, the whole thing could have been handled better (though the time it took etc. really didn't matter too much to me) and the choice might have been better (but, on balance, it actually is not really a bad choice at all), but this knee-jerk response, some from people I respect, annoys me. As to Rachel Maddow saying it should be up to a vote, fine, the N.Y. legislature should do that. Have the governor fill the seat temporarily, and we can elect someone in November.
But, we don't have that now. She referenced Illinois too. Well, there, the Senate DOES have the power to judge appointments, and could have delayed things further. IMHO. We have been down that road before, and not just here!
[Update: I should note here that this is in reference to the U.S. Senate and its delay in seating Burris, which was appropriate, as I noted in a few earlier posts.]