This week's primary petition deadline came and went, with little notice of a challenger to Kirsten Gillibrand: Gail Goode submitted 45,000 signatures in her bid for the U.S. Senate seat. The notable exceptions are Daily Politics, (http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dailypolitics/2010/07/lawyer-gail-goode-to-challenge.html) a must for political junkies, and Capitol Tonight (http://capitaltonight.com/2010/07/gillibrand-vs-goode-in-democratic-primary/).

The media blackout is, at turns, puzzling.

Early on, MSM reported numerous concerted efforts to discourage challengers to Gillibrand, including Rep. Carolyn Maloney, Long Island Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, and Manhattan Borough President Scott Stringer. On the Republican side, this list of dropouts include Guliani, Pataki, Rep. Peter King, Zuckerman and Bloomberg''s girlfriend, Diana Taylor.

For weeks, meanwhile, readers of New York's MSM were bombarded with article after article speculating about Harold Ford's non-candidacy, cumulating with a NY Times feature of Ford's white wife. Did MSM cover Ford so extensively because of his ties to Mayor Bloomberg?

With almost almost 25 years in public service, Gail Goode has worked in the Bronx DA's office, MTA, and as Deputy Borough Chief of Trials in NYC Corporation Council. Goode is experienced, competent, and can utter a grammatically correct sentence, unlike... well, like, um... Caroline Kennedy, whose air of entitlement led the Princess of Camelot to seriously believe she should be given the seat.

Contrast Goode with Alvin Greene, the Democratic candidate for U.S. Senate for South Carolina. Greene generated national media coverage simply by being an unpolished enigma. Could the media blackout of Goode exist because she does not offer a spectacle to be held up to media ridicule?

One would think the Wall Street Journal, NY Times, Daily News, et al., would exhibit a modicum of curiosity. Having obtained three times the number of signatures necessary to get on the ballot from 24 of the state's 29 congressional districts, chances are she may prevail. Are the state's power brokers not interested in the stances a potential Senator Goode would take on issues important to them?

Perhaps MSM believes there is no reason to pay attention to a legitimate challenger to Gillibrand, i.e., one who actually submits petitions. Conventional wisdom clings to the notion that in a state where the majority of voters are registered Democrats, the winner of a Democratic primary will go coast through the general election. As the sitting Senator, Gillibrand has the power of incumbency.

One problem. Gillibrand was appointed a mere 18 months ago by Governor Paterson to complete Hillary Clinton's term. (There are many who, to this day, disagree with the governor's choice.) The only voters who have had the opportunity to chose her are the ones in her former congressional district. This year's election will be the first statewide test of voter confidence in Gillibrand. Most voters don't know who she is.

This week's release of campaign finances demonstrates whose money talks; Gillibrand has a formidable $7.5 million warchest. As Goode readily admits, she spent her life savings on the petitioning process. Having just stepped forward to run in April, Goode has not had a long fundraising leadtime. (One thing seems certain, Goode's finances demonstrate she is not a minion of Bloomberg, who pays his lackeys well -- even allows some to steal from him -- until he doesn't need them anymore.)

New York's media elite didn't wait for the long list of Gillibrand's speculative challengers to submit signatures before they wrote about them. Are they now waiting for Goode's signatures to be validated, then feign surprise at the newly emerged stealth candidate? Voters will wonder why.