http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/john-mccain-affair-links_n_87690.html
New York Governor Paterson's choice of Kirsten Gillibrand is very interesting--very, very interesting.
The surprising - and, for many Democrats shocking - decision to pick the conservative Gillibrand, 42, from Hudson in Columbia County, was disclosed by the governor in calls to party officials and some members of the state's congressional delegation, many of whom said they were unhappy with the selection, sources said.
That's not at all surprising. What might be considered surprising is whose backing she had, and why.
Gillibrand, a mother of two occasionally resented by colleagues for being an aggressive self-promoter, was strongly backed for the post by Charles Schumer, the state's senior senator, who said a woman and an upstater was needed on next year's ticket.
The choice of Gillibrand explains a lot about the Caroline Kennedy implosion.
Had Schumer and Paterson started talking about Gillibrand back in November, it would have been a bloodbath. Kennedy was the perfect stalking horse to deflect media attention and political rivalry until it was too late to do anything about the appointment of Gillibrand.
The ruthlessness of it is breathtaking.
Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are the big targets for derision, anger and frustration, but the really scary guys in the Democrat party are Chuck Schumer and Rahm Emanuel. Yeah--the juice. Schumer is highly partisan, but he's no ideologue. For him its about the power--how to get it, how to keep it. While Democrats are in an extended swoon over their "historic" president (aren't all presidents historic?), Schumer smiles, but isn't buying in. He's thinking that this can't last and that if the Democrats are going to maintain power in 2010, he's going to have to emulate Emanuel's strategy of recruiting conservative Democrats to armor them against the charges of being "too liberal".
Think about this for a minute--knifing George W. Bush is just business, but knifing Caroline Kennedy? The sole survivor of Camelot? Cardinal Chuck Richelieu abases the nobility once more.
Understanding why Caroline Kennedy wasn't the pick, doesn't help us to understand the bizarre midnight withdrawal of her candidacy for the appointment. I don't know if she just got bad advice or just incredibly naive. It was like hanging raw meat from a tree branch--a sure way of attracting bears. Her actions have reinvigorated rumors that started early last summer about he relationship with divorcing New York Times publisher Arthur Sulzberger.
Its hard to feel sorry for someone whose lived her life in such an entitled and privileged fashion, but I do--I really do.
Mark writes: Everything Pinch Sulzberger touches turns to dust. Gawker writes:
It seems like a mostly legitimate question to ask, doesn't it? Whether or not they're having sexy sexy old rich scion sex, the special friendship between Sulzberger and Kennedy is well-documented. And when the publisher of your paper is BFF with a public figure, asking whether that friendship affects coverage of that public figure is certainly fair game.John Edwards would vouch for that. John McCain, not so much. For hyperhypocrisy The New York Times stands alone.But no, no comments allowed asking about the affair. When this guy tried, the City Room editors asked him to please not bring it up again. "we don't report stuff like this, regardless of the people involved.
Comments (1)
Dude. Wow. I wish I was that Slytherin. Guy's got mad skills.
Posted by Sarah | January 23, 2009 5:12 PM
Posted on January 23, 2009 17:12