Something that is frequetly lost in the day-to-day political battles is the underlying philosophical platform of what we believe.  Many people are Democrats because their parents were Democrats or Republicans because someone else they know is Republican.  Sometimes even worse are those who belong to a party because of personality-worship, like those who decided to become Republicans because they like Reagan (vice-versa with Dems and Obama) without really knowing what the candidate believes.  Of course, there are many that will choose a party based on the patronage opportunities and their own selfish benefits.

From Wayne Barrett in the Village Voice:

"Gillibrand once worked for both D'Amato and Andrew Cuomo, another candidate for the senate seat. She was a special counsel when Cuomo ran HUD in the 1990s and her father was close to both Senator D'Amato and Governor Mario Cuomo in the same time period. Her former law firm, Boies, Schiller & Flexner has been the largest single donor to her House campaigns, and David Boies, the senior partner at the firm, contributed $25,000 to Paterson's campaign committee on December 23, 2008, while the governor was considering Gillibrand's candidacy. Boies' son Chris, also a partner in the firm, contributed another $25,000 on the same day."

Let’s start with the assumption that it’s Gillibrand. As shown by my post yesterday, political analysis can get stale very quickly (like in 5 minutes) based on reality.

According the NY Times, Caroline Kennedy called Gov. Paterson on Wednesday to withdraw her name from consideration as Senator before changing her mind later that evening.

It's too little, too late.  The opportunity to be involved in politics and public service at any level, from community board to district leader to councilmember all the way up the chain to POTUS requires an unflinching desire and ambition to serve in the position one presently has and may be interested in the future.

Remember Tom Golisano, who wanted to run for Governor, before deciding against it, and then changing his mind again and deciding for it.  Remember Ross Perot who was a viable candidate before he changed his mind twice about continuing his race.  Look at Mike Bloomberg who has floated balloons about every other race before deciding against them (and is weaker for it IMO).

It looks like Ellis Henican hit the nail on the head with Sunday’s column about Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg’s candidacy (note the title, "How THEY, Elected A Kennedy").  From the beginning, it seemed like something with the Caroline (Kennedy) Schlossberg nomination was fishy and Ellis did a good job of pointing out what it was.

When someone has a press conference, and the headline is just that she held a press conference, is that person really ready to represent our state in the United State Senate?

In contrast, last week, Andrew Cuomo held a press conference, and the headlines were "Cuomo proposes consolidation of local governments".

Ladies and Gentlemen, please let's not support the appointment of someone without substance. The issues are too important and the stakes are too high to have a political novice representing our interests.

First, I have to link Dan Jacoby's latest post from Daily Gotham.  I had the same idea without seeing his piece, but since he posted his first, he deserves the hat tip. http://dailygotham.com/blog/dan_jacoby/behind_the_three_amigos.

I think the sign of a true political junkie is when the Machiavellian machinations and conspiracy theories end up consuming your mind at all times of the day.  This morning, for no reason at all, I kept thinking out scenarios in which the Dems could keep the Senate and bring the Gang of Three into the fold.  The most obvious answer was Jeff Klein because of the Bronx connections with Espada and Diaz.  That led me to the same conclusion Dan Jacoby reaches in his post.  It's too much of a coincidence that the one person who everyone knows is hungry for the Senate Majority spot is from the same borough as two of the dissidents and has the most to gain from the entire thing.

Throw in the fact that it seems like there's going to be a special election for Boro Prez in the Bronx coming soon with Adolfo Carrion possibly going to D.C., and I wouldn't doubt that the real deal is Klein for Majority Leader in exchange for Diaz Jr. support for Boro Prez.  Think about it, Klein becomes one of the most powerful Dems in the state and Rubencito gets exactly what he's wanted for the last couple of years.  And really, if the Senate Majority Leader tells the party that he wants to support a candidate for Boro Prez in his backyard, do you really think Carl Heastie is going to stop him?

As everyone is by now aware, with Hillary Clinton accepting President-Elect Obama’s nomination to Secretary of State (dumb move Hillary – you should’ve declined and stayed in the Senate), Governor David Paterson has the constitutional duty to appoint the new Senator from New York to replace her.

Bloomberg cannot possibly be this oblivious. From Azi's post here.

"Congestion pricing, said Bloomberg, 'was supported two-to-one in every poll'"

-- Someone give me some of what he's smoking. From a March 24 QPac poll, "New York State voters oppose 50 - 33 percent a proposal to reduce New York City traffic by charging a fee for vehicles driven south of 60th Street in Manhattan." The 2-1 number is if there were a guarantee that the proceeds would be used for mass transit, but 50% of the same people polled did NOT believe it would be used solely for mass transit. (http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1162)

"'There were 40-odd Republicans,' he went on. "Their leader said he could deliver those votes."

The elected officials listed below are public disgraces. New York City residents should not support any of these individuals for any other public service positions. They were elected with the social contract to represent OUR communities, NOT their own interests. Make your voice heard and ensure that embarrassments like these individuals NEVER hold elected office again.

Yesterday’s congestion pricing vote did one thing, it separated the real public servants from the pretenders. In the entire City Council, there were only 6 councilmembers who could vote “Yes” in good conscience. These are the ones that represent Manhattan below 60^th Street. There is no conceivable way in that this congestion pricing plan actually helps the rest of NYC outside of the privileged area below 60^th Street. In fact, what it will do is contribute to the congestion around the edges of this hallowed zone, which will in turn result in a worse environmental situation for areas like Western Queens, Brooklyn and Northern Manhattan/Bronx. Further, as a regressive tax against the working middle class that live in the outer boroughs, it will continue to divide the City into the haves and the have-nots. Of course, since Uncle Moneybags probably couldn’t even tell you where Sunnyside or Bushwick are, he doesn’t really care. Besides, all his millionaire friends are now going to have better air, even if they won’t have basic goods because it will be too expensive for companies to pay $30 every day to make their deliveries.

It seems like a lot of people watched last night's debate. Today, many people have been asking me what "Rezko" was and why Hillary brought it up. They rightfully believed that Obama dodged the explanation and that there was more to the story. Personally, when I heard his explanation (pasted below in bold from the debate transcript), I laughed. His answer proved that he's just another typical politician guilty of typical political follies.

"Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual [Rezko] to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to."

It’s a shame that after such a distinguished and respected trajectory as a political analyst and activist, Rock Hackshaw decided to throw away all of this goodwill by writing such an indefensible pile of dog feces and actually publishing it on this website (available here for your entertainment purposes, if you're entertained by temper tantrums by grown men over politicians).

I very often find myself writing extemporaneous thoughts and think about publishing them on this site or other political blogs, but before I do so, I re-read what I’ve written and ask myself whether this is something that I want the entire world to see. Many times the answer is no and the document stays on my computer for my private use (or deletion). If only Mr. Hackshaw had done the same, he would have saved himself from the embarrassment and tremendous decline in popularity that he should suffer from his current article.

It's no secret after reading below that I'm a big Hillary supporter. As such, don't expect unbiased, reasoned analysis here. My purpose in posting this is to be as brutally honest about my thinking process in choosing my candidate for the Presidency. Feel free to disagree in the comments.

Hillary
1. Eight years of serving as First Lady under one of the most successful and prosperous Presidencies in American history. If you take away the Lewinsky scandal, President Clinton is probably in the top 10. For those of you who think this is irrelevant, think of our standing in the global community right now. Hillary Clinton will not have to rebuild relationships with world leaders from scratch since she already knows most of them from the first Clinton Presidency.
2. Followed by eight years of serving as a U.S. Senator from the most economically important state in the country. Apparently doing a good job based on her overwhelming re-election.
3. A history of working for the people, whether in Illinois, Arkansas, D.C., or NY

Say hello to Senator Monserrate in 2009. Nice job by Sabini to ruin many years of service in Queens.

Wasn’t everything supposed to change on Day 1? Wasn’t our hero, the smartest man in the world, the Honorable, Majestic, Virtuous, and Excellent Eliot Spitzer (one title isn’t enough for a beneficent leader of the magnanimous caliber of our Governor) supposed to usher in a new era of good government and transparency in Albany? Isn’t this the man who promised to end the era of hidden deals and backroom politics in favor of TRANSPARENCY AND FAIRNESS?

I guess not. Maybe that was the Eliot Spitzer that we voted for, but it’s certainly not the Eliot Spitzer that’s governed the state since Day 1. Last week we found out the worst kept secret in state government, that the Comptroller panel was rigged and that Spitzer nullified the recommendations of the panel by eliminating one of the potential candidates for the Comptroller position; an action which if Spitzer hadn’t interfered, would have been a win-win situation for everyone involved and would have led to a much more peaceful co-existence between the Governor and the Legislature. Granted it takes two to tango and Grannis’ acceptance of the DEC position (one which the Senate is now threatening to block) showed a remarkable lack of foresight. However, it is Spitzer’s willingness to actively obstruct the process that is most troubling. Instead of receiving 4 qualified candidates for the Comptroller position, there were only 3, thus sparking the aforementioned war. If everyone agrees on an independent panel, then EVERYONE should agree to let the panel perform its functions with the least amount of external intrusions as possible. Shame on the Governor for depriving the Legislature of an additional Comptroller candidate which may have led to some temporary peace.