I'm not sure what to think about this appointment, aside from that the poor management of the selection process ought to make hungry NY Dems (like Cuomo) consider running against David Paterson. Gillibrand doesn't seem to be a good fit for the state's politics. She'd be a good choice for Senator in a state like Kentucky or South Dakota, where a forthright progressive cannot really win. But for NY? It reeks of internal state politics--and Paterson's reelection desires--rather than a concern at who would best fit the state's politics. Paterson is going to have a problem with progressives in 2010 now, and if you couple that with his budget ideas it sure seems like he's running to the right (although she's evidently become better on gay rights now). I guess we'll have to see, and Gillibrand might well shift a bit to reflect her new constituency. But Paterson looks bad with this. I must also confess that I don't understand the imperative for upstate New York to have one of their own as a Senator. I live in California, and both of my Senators are from San Francisco.
More and more, especially after the nominations of Senators Kaufman, Burris and Gillibrand, I'm thinking a constitutional amendment for special senatorial elections is necessary. There is way too much hanky panky going on here these days. (The exception is Michael Bennet of Colorado, who might prove to be a promising Senator. Having an education expert in the Senate can't help but be good.
Update: Russ Feingold, that prince of a man, has done what I asked. This blog is POWER!
