Are You Serious, Dave?
23 January 2009
One Comment
Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand in Albany
While it’s a relief that the month-long drama over who New York Governor David Paterson would pick to fill Hillary Clinton’s US Senate seat, at lease one of his claims at a news conference in Albany Friday was absurd and impossible on it’s face.
In his lengthy explanation of how he arrived at upstate Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand as “the best choice”, Paterson said, “This was not based on gender, on geographic location, on race, religion or sexual orientation. This decision was made on who the best candidate would actually be.”
Not based on gender or geographic location? If neither of those factors entered in Governor Paterson’s thinking he should be indicted for “political malpractice” to borrow a phrase from Bloomberg political guru Kevin Sheekey (who said Paterson would commit such a crime if he did NOT choose Caroline Kennedy but that’s another story).
Remember the only truly critical thing to Paterson is who would best help the ticket in 2010 when he will be running for Governor for the first time (Spitzer is why he’s Governor now). So keeping that in mind was he really going to replace Hillary Clinton with a man?
Consider this: The swing demographic that elected Hillary Clinton in 2000 — the demographic that was NOT on her side at the beginning of her listening tour — was suburban and upstate women. In 2006 Clinton won that group by a huge margin. If Republicans convince Rudy Giuliani to run against Paterson in 2010 then that same demographic will again, according to several pollsters I’ve spoken with, almost certainly be the deciding swing factor.
So who did he pick? A young working upstate mom who has obvious appeal to suburban and upstate women.
Indeed moments later Senator Chuck Schumer laid bare the facts: “Governor, the bottom line is this: With this choice, you hit the nail on the head. Congratulations. Furthermore, it’s very important to have someone from upstate. Upstate New York, until now, has had no representation statewide and it has no representation in the Senate since 1970.”
Later, when asked by the New York Post’s Fred Dicker if it wasn’t gender or geography or race then what exactly was it that made Gillibrand, who began her second term two weeks ago, the “best choice”? Good question Fred.
Paterson’s answer was hardly convincing as he noted her expertise on financial issues (she had just given a stemwinder answer explaining why she voted against the stimulus twice — it boiled down to she didn’t think it would work — she seems to have been more right than wrong but I digress) and that she twice won in the most Republican district in the state. Taken at face value that would seem to suggest that understanding money and appealing to Republicans were Paterson’s litmus test. But while he often mentioned wanting someone with some understanding of finance — and there were plenty of candidates offering just that — he never mentioned appealing to Republican voters as a concern.
So Governor, get real. What’s so wrong about admitting you picked Gillibrand because you think she’s qualified AND because you think New Yorkers deserve to be represented by a woman and an upstater? Saying otherwise makes you look like a typical dissembling politico and we’ve got enough of them.
I’m fine with this pick, but Paterson really dragged this out and hurt his own reputation in the process. The guy was a straight shooter from the day Spitzer got busted, but now he’s clamming up? C’mon Dave!
I’m just happy, you know, that he just chose anyone, you know, besides bored lil’ rich girl, you know, that wanted to prove she could do well in the family business too, you know?