by Mark Silva
Kirsten Gillibrand.
You know, that Kirsten Gillibrand - the second-term congresswoman from upstate New York. The governor has chosen her to fill the Senate seat of former U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, whom President Barack Obama has made secretary of state.
Hardly a "brand-name'' pick, though it is, actually.
The Associated Press in Albany cites an aide to Gov. David Paterson, who will formally make the announcement today.
He could have tapped a Kennedy - Caroline Kennedy, daughter of President John Kennedy, who, you know, had made her desire for the seat known and then waged a semi-sort of campaign, you know, that didn't go very well. She finally bowed out for "personal reasons,'' which The New York Times said had something to do with a housekeeping and tax problems in the vetting.
He could have tapped a Cuomo - state Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, son of the former New York Gov. Mario Cuomo, renowned orator. He, like Kennedy, could have made a good run for the office come election time in 2010, and also helped Paterson with his own bid for election, having risen to the office by virtue of the prostitution scandal that derailed the former governor, Eliot Spitzer.
.
Yet Gillibrand is "a proven vote-getter in a largely rural eastern New York district that sprawls from the mid-Hudson Valley to north of Albany,'' the AP Albany bureau notes. "She defeated a long-term Republican incumbent in 2006 and won re-election last year by a wide margin.
"Gender plus geography equals Gillibrand," says Doug Muzzio, a political science professor at Baruch College, who sees her upstate base as a boon for Paterson, whose base rests in the heavily Democratic New York City.
(AP Photo of Rep, Kirsten Gillibrand by Tim Roske,/ AP)
""On the minus side, she's an unproven statewide vote-getter, a conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrat who could face a primary challenge in 2010 and face a tough general election," Muzzio told the AP. "Also, her congressional seat, the 20th, is a mostly Republican district that she first won in 2006 after a long Republican monopoly."
Gillibrand, 42, becomes the only woman on a statewide party ticket that will include Paterson, Cuomo, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli and senior U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer of New York. For the record, Gillibrand starts with one popular stance: She voted against the $700 billion Wall Street bailout bill.
Gillibrand served in the Housing and Urban Development Department during the Clinton administration. She worked as a lawyer before challenging Republican John Sweeney in 2006 to represent New York's 20th District In November, Gillibrand defeated wealthy General Electric heir Sandy Treadwell, the ormer state Republican chairman "seen as one of the Republican Party's best chances to capture a congressional seat in New York,'' the AP notes.
Gillibrand is a graduate of Dartmouth College with a law degree from UCLA. And she is the daughter of an Albany lobbyist, Douglas Rutnik.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.









Comments
Interesting to see how Paterson explains snubbing a Kennedy and giving Hillary's seat to a Blue Dog Dem with a 100% rating from the NRA (!!). Wow...
http://www.political-buzz.com/
Posted by: matt | January 23, 2009 9:49 AM
New York Times:
Caroline Kennedy bowed out because of something to do with housekeeping and tax problems.
Timothy
Geithner...housekeeping and tax problems...
The dems love taxes...they just don't like to pay them.
...do as I say, my drones, not as I do.
Paulo
Posted by: Paulo | January 23, 2009 11:07 AM
One of the people who will be closely watching how this turns out in 2010 will be ..... Sarah Palin. Gillebrand is an NRA sweetheart and also got back to work straight from the delivery room.
Posted by: J.J. Moore | January 23, 2009 11:31 AM
Paulo now believes what is written in the Times. Pick and chose drones hard at work.
Posted by: bill r. | January 23, 2009 12:06 PM
It's interesting to see how the govenment works in this post-white male world. The governor passed on a highly qualified white male, Andrew Cuomo, to make the politically correct female appointment.
Spitzer begets Paterson, Paterson begets Gillibrand. I guess in New York qualified male white guys need not apply.
Posted by: Mike C | January 23, 2009 12:42 PM
Cue angry hatred from the far left Bill R. crowd in 3... 2.... 1...
Posted by: Jeff | January 23, 2009 3:11 PM
Paula- Ronald Reagan raised my taxes. He also doubled social security taxes. Do you recall that??
Posted by: Doug R. | January 23, 2009 3:38 PM
Gillibrand's okay, but I'd like it better if she was a babe like Nancy Pelosi:
http://jumpinginpools.blogspot.com/2009/01/joes-babe-of-week_16.html
Posted by: Matthew Avitabile | January 23, 2009 6:52 PM
* * * * *
Posted by: Doug R. | January 23, 2009 3:38 PM
.
Doug,
.
Some of us also recall that Reagan had the "Cold War" on his hands, and that he spent several hundred billion dollars extra every year to force the Soviet Union and a number of other communist countries to a choice between bullets and butter. Whether the strategy worked at all is still being debated. However, we haven't had the Cold War to deal with since a few years after Reagan left office at the end of Daddy Bush’s term.
.
As I also recall, with the end of the Cold War we were supposed to have a “peace dividend.” (Does anyone still remember that?) Given the difference in spending needs and priorities, there’s no good reason why the government hasn’t been doing a better job of spending within its means. All the same, the federal government has added to the debt every year since the end of the Cold War (including all eight years of Bill Clinton’s presidency despite his claims of a “balanced budget.”). Care to guess why there hasn’t been a peace dividend? I’ll give you a clue. It has something to do with the attitude of Democrat and Republican politicians who believe that the government should throw a lot of money at any problem that lands in their plate. The trend continues.
.
As far as social security taxes are concerned, Reagan should have raised them even more. On top of that, he should have done something to stop the federal government from taking the money paid into Social Security to pay general budget expenses. Since neither was done, we are now facing a disaster with Social Security if something isn’t done. As it stands, we will eventually face a several trillion dollar shortfall in Social Security obligations once all of the Baby Boomers retire.
Posted by: John W. | January 24, 2009 5:22 PM