Paterson Names Gillibrand to US Senate

I think the only reason this woman was able to run as a democrat and win in such a heavily Republican populated district is her stance against gay marriage and her support by the NRA. (Oh and her husband is a venture capitalist).

It is amazing a second term Congresswoman withe little bill writing experience and certainly limited overseas awareness can be appointed Senator.Thank God she has to run for re-election in 2010.

Sorry it wasn't Mayor Brown appointed- Buffalo would be a better place if he wasn't Mayor!

Take a look at her Daddy's connnections and you will see how she initially won the congressional seat and how she now has the Senate seat. (She is also a democrat in name only Pataki/Bruno/D'Amato couldn't beat Sweeney in a primary so ran her in the general as a dem)

She has more direct political experience than Hillary Clinton had when we elected her to Senator.

She voted against the bailout BOTH times

good enough for me

Who wrote this article? Who is hiding behind the anonymous "Buffalo Rising" moniker?

I wish the author(s) would use their real names. It would add a hint of integrity to this site.

I am happy to see Governor Patterson appoint a woman for this seat. That is really all that matters here.

Upstate choice, and that's very positive. She provides geographic balance with the Chuckster and can relate to Buffalo better than Caroline kennedy and Andrew Cuomo. A little disappointed that Brian Higgins wasn't given more than a passing glance. He ain't perfect, but he's ours and in some ways, so is Kirsten Gillibrand.

terrible.

I'm not going to follow up on the insanity spewed by Heather (aside from saying you go Girl!)but I would like to question exactly what is meant by upstate. If someone from a 100 year old political family in Albany that runs a lobbying firm for such entities as Madison Square Garden means she is one of us, I stand corrected.

All I had to see was "member of the NRA" on TV yesterday to know that I will be supporting her opponent next year.

It's an odd choice in a lot of ways. Her House seat will now be in play, and its unclear that she has the name value to win a statewide race against a prominent republican in 2010. The end result could be Patterson's party losing a seat in both the House and Senate. Picking Cuomo would have avoided both problems.

Her voting record is pretty liberal in total, clearly left of center, but not as extreme as the typical NY state member of congress (or Obama's record in the Senate).

So while it's fun to see some screaming now from some Democrats, once they calm down and look more closely at her votes over the years most will support her. I doubt there will be a serious Dem primary challenger. The state's voters are so deep blue now that I don't think any Republican could win the seat in 2010 no matter what. Losing the House seat is a minor inconvenience if that happens, considering the size of the House majority now, and that redistricting after the 2010 Census will make her former district much less Republican for the longer term.

Political difficulties of choosing Cuomo included even further angering the Kennedy faction in the party after the Caroline fiasco, the demands of several feminist groups for a female to be chosen, and the preference of both Schumer and Hillary that Gillibrand be the choice.

1. How can a person (or party) that wins a national election be called "extreme?"

2. There's going to be a primary challenge, though whether it's serious or not remains to be be seen.

3. I think there is still plenty of room for a republican to win a statewide race. We had Pataki and D'Amato for years, and similarly liberal states like Massachusetts and California had/have republican governors.

The one thing that the press seems to be focusing on is the fact that she is an NRA supporter. I heard this mentioned about a dozen times in the three minute coverage on NPR and it was the lead comment on the NBC news.

It is interesting how one affiliation or support can outweigh the rest of the credentials of a candidate. We aren't hearing about her qualifications or lack of qualifications, we are fixated on her NRA affiliation and stance on gun control. Actually, I haven't heard anything about where she stands on gun control as that specific issue. She has barely even started her job and so many of us have made up our minds based on this fact and the corresponding sound bite.

All I am saying is this shows how much the media influences our opinion and how much of a part they play in the political process. I would like to give her a shot to prove what she can do for the people of NY instead of making up my mind based on a few soundbites and leading speculation about how she was appointed, all provided by the media.

There is an interesting editorial in today's NY Times criticizing the procedure (law since 1917) wherein governors
appoint replacement senators rather than holding a special election as is done for representatives. Since 1917, 300 or one quarter of our senators have been appointed rather than democratically elected.

Ugh, people are still using the National Journal as a serious guide for "grading" a senator?

Project Vote Smart offers some interesting insight on Senator Gillibrand's views. Here's my summary:

http://buffalowatch.blogspot.com/2009/01/our-newest-senator.html

she is a great pick, both sides should be happy. for the democratic side, she is liberal in her social views, for the republicans, she is pretty pro gun (as pro gun as a democrat can be) and is very conservative when it comes to fiscal issues. overall a great moderate who can just maybe do some great things.

AnswerLady's blog post lists many other groups' voting record rankings which confirm Gillibrand as solidly left-of-center.

Please go to Project Vote Smart and take a look. I posted my favorites from her record. I think just about everyone will find something to like (and dislike) in Senator Gillibrand's record, which makes her perfect from my point of view.

1. To say that someone has an extreme voting record because he was ranked as the most liberal senator is correct, in a narrow sense. Of course, those 100 senators occupy a pretty narrow part of the ideological spectrum. The most liberal and most conservative senators actually share most core beliefs.

2. Those rankings are hardly a precise way of determining where someone stands. Bernie Sanders -- an avowed socialist -- is certainly to the left of someone like Obama.

3. The center moves. The most obvious (and binding) ways to determine where the center is are national elections.

Hillary was a blessing for New York? Glad Paterson picked someone upstate who can relate to Buffalo? What state do you live in? Name 3 actual thing that Clinton got done while in the Senate that benifitted NYS.

Upstate New York huh? So because her district is a little north of the city and borders vermont and new hampshire shes an upstater who will be able to relate to Buffalo? I'm sorry but Upstate New York doesn't mean anything outside manhattan.

Sometimes I wonder about you people....

If Gillebrand is solidly left of center where would you be putting liberal/downstate/socialist/union loving/big government loving/....well you know the rest...

If Gillebrand is solidly left of center than the alternatives for Cuomo and Kennedy would have been radical left.....

Its been near 50 years since the senate seats were shared between upstate senator and a downstate senator...and now through miracle of chance...upstate is represented again. We should be greatful....and their nocking her why? Because downstate loud mouth big nosers wants to own both senators? To f-g bad!

we should be greatful that a rep. from a rural part of the state thats really not that far from the city is our new Senator? Because she'll be able to relate to the economic problems the CITY of Buffalo is having? Doubt it. This no victory for anyone West of Albany.

I'm not particularly against her but lets not kid ourselves that she'll have any affinity towards Buffalo or do anything of major consequence for us. (Chatauqua and Genesee Counties should be excited about the appointment.) Although I truly hope I'm wrong.

The idea that there is an objective and constant standard for "liberal" or "centrist" or whatever is stupid. The meaning of these labels changes over time. While the NAACP was once a radical organization, over time it has become quite mainstream. Or, more accurately, it has succeeded in changing what it means to be mainstream.