Kirsten Gillibrand to fill Hillary Clinton Senate Seat

I was curious who was filling her spot

I figured that when Caroline Kennedy removed her name it was because Paterson had decided to go elsewhere.

Well good for her. Nice of them to go in-House instead of an outsider with little experience.

I'm really happy about this. She's pretty new in politics, but she is very bright and I like her views. And she'll give upstate NY a voice in the senate, which has been missing for a long time.

She is, also, pro-NRA. OUCH! Come election time she'll be DOA. Anyone is better than the Princess, though...who finally came to her senses.

Thanks for sharing that. I hadn't heard anything about what they were going to do with the vacancy. Don't really know who she is so hopefully it works out.

From what I've read of her she is an anomaly for NY, sounds like she is one of the few middle of the road types left there. This is a pleasant surprise from Patterson.

I don't know anything about her. Does anyone know her?

I do not know her but she sounds like a good pick. Anyway it was a New York choice and it sure did go off better that Illinois.

I think we will hear more from Kennedy if something happens to Ted Kennedy, the Kennedy's are very well liked in Massacucettes.

I'm not sure she is an anomaly. She is from upstate, which is a very different animal than New York City. Clinton specifically did her "listening tour" of upstate when she first ran, though obviously she had plenty of name value to help her.

I'm still wondering what happened to Andrew Cuomo. The media talked about him, but at least from here I never heard anything from him directly (unlike Kennedy who definitely lobbied for the job). Did Cuomo want it?

Linda - That's true. For House seats they would have to have a special election.

Curious comments from CNN female reporters this morning before the announcement. They were talking about glass ceilings and barriers for women in politics in light of Ms. Kennedy's withdrawal. Did they not know Paterson has chosen a woman? It appears that she is well credentialed and capable of handling the job, and has an opportunity to win the 2010 election for the seat.

Antoine - People like to create story lines based on one or two facts. Seems kind of like jumping the gun on that one with the Gillibrand choice, eh? Alas, that's what they do to kill time.

I'm glad Kennedy did not get the job but I don't know if I'm happy with Gillibrand and her being pro NRA. Also, I'm a little afraid that she won't do much for NYC and will concentrate more on upstate but I'll have to see what she does before commenting too much.

From what little I know, it was a good choice. I don't live in NY anymore, but the Kennedy idea wouldn't have washed with me as the best choice.

The name Joe Bruno rings a bell, mostly that he and Spitzer didn't exactly get along. As for Kennedy, Paterson was smart to wait until after the hype died down before making his choice (or perhaps he had already made it long ago and just didn't announce it until after Clinton officially left the Senate).

By the way, the NRA is just like the ACLU, trying to defend the Constitution. Both groups aren't perfect all the time...

I don't think being pro-NRA or anti-NRA is in itself a very meaningful metric. I also would guess she isn't about to forget about NYC (it's kind of hard to ignore), though she may give upstate more attention than it might otherwise get. Which is a good thing. NY and not just NYC.

John - I don't know Gillibrand, and even thought Caroline Kennedy had the instant name recognition, I don't know her much either. My thinking was that Kennedy shouldn't be handed the job just because she was a Kennedy, but that it shouldn't be kept from her arbitrarily just because she's a Kennedy either. We don't really know how Paterson made his choice, but he made it. And Gillibrand is it.

Now if Minnesota could only make a decision we'll be all set.

Any idea on when the Great Lake State is going to resolve the matter?

The nepotism in this country is even worse than the mafia at its worse. Thank God Paterson went elsewhere.

Not how it will turn out, no. Franken has "officially" won by 225 votes, which has been certified. So technically he is the winner. But the law allows Coleman to contest the count, which is what they did this week. So each side provides evidence and the judges panel makes judgments, and eventually it's over. Obviously the burden here is on Coleman since the state has already recounted and certified the count for Franken. But the number of votes differential is so small that it wouldn't take much to flip it back to Coleman's favor. So it's wait and see.

Christos - I'm not sure about the mafia reference, but you could make a reasonable argument for nepotism: Bush, Clinton, Murkowski, Bono, Udall, Sununu, Chafee, Rockefeller, Dole, Landrieu, etc. And that doesn't count old ones like Adams, Roosevelt, Harrison, etc. Nor does it count relatives given staff and agency jobs or lobbying, etc.

Some could argue that some families simply have a history of public service, e.g., the Kennedy's, which is actually true, but notwithstanding that the Kennedy name opens doors that other names don't.

Keith - I'm familiar with Spitzer, including going back to his prosecuter days. It's Joe Bruno that I don't know other than in name and rumor. Paterson certainly has had his own share of sordid details come out after he unexpectedly floated to the top of Spitzer's self-destruction.

When you think about it, Spitzer's call girl is illegal but personal (and the authorities didn't press charges). Paterson's exploits are not illegal, though perhaps just as "interesting." Bruno, on the other hand, was indicted for fraud and other illegal criminal activities tied to his official political position. So really only Bruno's case (assuming he was or will be found guilty) would be considered corruption.

It's nice to finally have an answer to that one. I was wondering who it would be. I'm not all that familiar with her, so my opinion is yet to be determined! Time will tell, and it should be interesting to see how it plays out. According to her speech, she is a Hillary fan. I wonder though, if that comment was to simply attempt to place people at ease. Personally, I found it to come across as just that. In short, she didn't come across as prepared for it. Which of course leaves me more questionable.

Already...It's ON!

"Mayor Michael Bloomberg wasted no time in offering newly appointed Kirsten Gillibrand a backhanded welcome to the U.S. Senate.

"Our Administration has worked well with her and her staff on a number of issues, including watershed protection," read Bloomberg's official release, before dispensing with the pro forma pleasantries.

“However, I have a strong disagreement with one area of her record as a member of Congress: illegal guns. She has actively opposed the efforts of New York City, and cities around the state and nation, to enact commonsense measures that keep illegal guns out of the hands of criminals. For instance, she has voted to keep critical data needed to track illegal gun traffickers from law enforcement, has voted to tie the hands of the ATF, and has also voted to protect dealers who sell guns illegally."

Bloomberg is one of the nation's staunchest anti-gun politicians, having gone as far as trying to sue gun makers for knowingly flooding illicit, underground markets with their weapons, an effort that was ultimately shot down by a federal appeals court in April 2008.

Gillibrand's voting record on gun control issues was sufficient to earn her a top rating from the National Rifle Association.

U.S. Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, who wasn't among the 10 to 20 people Paterson said applied for the Senate appointment, criticized the pick even before it was official. McCarthy, whose husband was killed by a gunman on the Long Island Railroad, said Gillibrand's support of more conservative issues such as gun ownership rights was out of step with most New York Democrats."

http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news/local/Bloomberg-Tajkes-a-Shot-at-Gillibrand.html

Did somebody mention Big Bad Joe Bruno...the most powerful Republican in New York State for the better part of the last 30 years.

Il capo di tutti i capi...the biggest kahuna...like E.F. Hutton, when Joe spoke people listened, especially other politicians.



Taking down Joe is akin to taking down King Kong!

"Bruno is the most powerful Republican in New York. He has been the majority leader of the State Senate for twelve years, one of the so-called “three men in a room” who decided what, if anything, got done in Albany. The other two are State Assembly Leader Shelly Silver, a Democrat, and the governor, who was get-along Republican George Pataki until Eliot Spitzer came in, determined to change the way business was done in the statehouse."

http://nymag.com/news/features/44755/

Well, we all know what happened to Eliot.

Whether he goes to jail or not. Joe was an institution...a force to be reckoned with. I wouldn't count him out quite yet, though:

"For inspiration in this time of need, Bruno does what he’s always done: He recites a poem—“It’s Lord Byron, I think”—to himself. “Fight on, my men?/?I’m wounded but not slain?/?I’ll lie me down and bleed awhile?/?Then rise and fight again.” Then he repeats it. “You know how many times I’ve said that to myself when I’ve been bleedin’? That’s been my life. I bleed. I rise. I fight again.”

(see above link)

Want to know why Paterson didn't name Andrew Cuomo to replace Hillary?

"On July 23, 2007, New York State Attorney General Andrew Cuomo admonished Governor Eliot Spitzer's administration for ordering the State Police to track Bruno's travel records, particularly his use of a state helicopter. At the direction of top officials of the Spitzer administration, the New York State Police created documents meant to cause political damage to Bruno. The governor's staff had stated they were responding to a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA or FOIL) request from The Times-Union of Albany in late June. On May 23, Spitzer's Communications Director Darren Dopp wrote Rich Baum, a senior Spitzer adviser, that "records exist going way back" about Bruno's use of state aircraft, and that "Also, I think there is a new and different way to proceed re media. Will explain tomorrow." Dopp later wrote another e-mail to Baum after a story ran in the Times-Union about a federal grand jury investigation of Bruno's investments in thoroughbred racing horses, and wrote: "Think travel story would fit nicely in the mix."

A 57-page report issued by the Attorney General's office concluded that Spitzer aides attempted to create negative media coverage concerning Bruno's travel before any FOIA request was made. The investigation looked into both Bruno's travel and the senate leader's allegation that Spitzer used State Police to spy on him. Cuomo concluded that "These e-mails show that persons in the governor's office did not merely produce records under a FOIL request, but were instead engaged in planning and producing media coverage concerning Senator Bruno's travel on state aircraft before any FOIL request was made." It noted that the Times-Union's initial FOIL request didn't even ask for the records involving Bruno that the paper was later given by aides to Spitzer. The Times-Union's requests sought documents on use of state aircraft by seven officials, including Spitzer, Bruno and Lieutenant Governor David Paterson, yet Spitzer’s office released only Bruno's itinerary. The Spitzer administration and the State Police provided far more details about Bruno than about other officials to the Times-Union, including records to reply to a request under the state’s Freedom of Information laws, though no such request had even been made. The report noted that the state acted outside the laws in what it released, such as documents that resembled official state travel records, “which they were not" according to Ellen Nachtigall Biben, a former prosecutor in the Manhattan District Attorney’s office, who contributed to the report. The report stated that the Times-Union request came after the story about Bruno’s travels was published, and was "not consistent" with Spitzer administration claims that all it did was respond to a FOIA request. No other officials were subject to the same scrutiny as Bruno, and in some cases, the reports created by State Police were pieced together long after the trips, sometimes based on the memory of the police escorts involved.

The report cleared Bruno of any legal violations in his use of the state's air fleet. Spitzer also used the state aircraft during the first six months of his term as governor for political purposes, including a stop in Rochester to attend an event for the Monroe County Democratic Committee on a day in which he had a number of stops related to public business. The report criticized Spitzer's office for using State Police resources to gather information about Bruno's travel and releasing the information to the media.

Spitzer responded at a July 23 press conference that "As governor, I am accountable for what goes on in the executive branch and I accept responsibility for the actions of my office" and that his administration had "grossly mishandled" the situation. Spitzer issued an apology to Bruno and stated that "I apologized to Senator Bruno and I did so personally this morning."

However, Spitzer's apology did not end the dispute. Four probes by the state Attorney General's office, the State Senate Investigations Committee, the Albany County District Attorney's office, and the New York Commission on Public Integrity (the state ethics board), are ongoing.

On March 29, 2008, the The Buffalo News reported "former Gov. Eliot L. Spitzer lied to prosecutors" about his role in Troopergate, but "the Albany County district attorney said he will not pursue any criminal charges against the already disgraced ex-governor."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eliot_Spitzer_political_surveillance_controversy

Bloomberg obviously disagrees with her position on guns, and took advantage of the media statement to make it clear. But it's doubtful her position on guns or her ranking by NRA would have any meaning in the Senate itself, since gun control isn't reallyl a major issue. I would guess that her position probably helps her for reelection in the upstate counties, though it would probably hurt her in the NYC area. She will have to run again for 2010 and then again in 2012 (which seems like a bizarre way to fill a Senate seat), so we'll see pretty shortly whether she can carry the whole state. The fact that Paterson picked her to replace Hillary obviously gives her a good head start.

Seems Spitzer had some Eliot Ness/J. Edgar Hoover in his blood...if you can't take the bad guys down for what they do, try to get them on some other technicality, even if it meant "bending" the rules. Kind of like suspending parts of the Constitution to protect the Constitution.

With respect to Cuomo, I never heard anything from him on this. Did he indicate he wanted the job, or was his name simply media speculation and he neither actively sought or withdrew from consideration? I admit that I don't read the NY Times much since I moved to DC and Brussels. Was there much local coverage?

This Upstate New Yorker doesn't regard Kirsten Gillibrand well at all. She tends to be aloof from her constituents, owes her power to insider dealing, based originally on her father's power as a lobbyist for military contractors, and she's in favor of a huge number of Republican policies, including George W. Bush's program to spy on Americans' private electronic communications, which she endorsed by voting for the FISA Amendments Act. Kirsten Gillibrand doesn't reflect New York State's values - she's the kind of Democrat you'd expect to see in a place like Alabama or Wyoming. That's why Gillibrand already has Democratic challengers for her Senate re-election campaign in 2010.

Andrew wanted the job...well, not as much as Papa Mario wanted it for him...but, he definitely wanted it. He also was aware that his' chances of getting named by Patterson were almost nil.

I do believe Andrew will get elected to the seat outright come election time.

Well, sounds like Gillibrand won't be a shoo-in for reelection in 2010. But perhaps that is what Paterson wanted?

In general I like the idea of picking one of the House members to replace the Senator. They have already won at least one election in the state, and have some experience governing at the national level. Of course, it depends on the person, since the Senate and the House are two very different animals.

Overall, upstate is much more conservative than the city, so it's not surprising that any representative from there might be more conservative, or at least more of a moderate. Again, I don't know her other than what I've heard in the last few days, and I don't live in New York, so this is just casual observation.

I'm satisfied that Carolyn Kennedy did not get it - whatever her real reasons were.

Kirsten appears to be a capable candidate - good luck to her.

As always I'm amazed at the discussions in the comment thread.

I know Carolyn withdrew - I meant to say whatever her real reasons for withdrawel were.

We may never really know why Kennedy withdrew. As for Gillibrand, seems she's getting mixed reviews from her fellow Democrats because she has some conservative (moderate?) views on several issues. I'm not surprised given she's from upstate. It'll be interesting how it plays out over the next two years since she will have to run in 2010 and again in 2012.