New York, New York

Unless hermetically sealed in a dungeon you know that Governor David Paterson finally named Representative Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Clinton. First let me address the fallout with respect to the disastrous public relations courtship between Caroline Kennedy, Governor David Paterson and his staff. Both Paterson and Kennedy are diminished from the entire process.

I never believed Kennedy was appropriate for the position or capable of withstanding the rough and tumble of New York politics. To her credit, Kennedy has been a citizen advocate for progressive causes and survived the public relations goldfish bowl far better than several other Kennedys who became entangled in scandals. Yet it was quite apparent during her “listening tour” that Kennedy did not have the right stuff.

Furthermore, Kennedy appeared to project a sense of entitlement about the position that was off putting. Other New York dynastic political figures such as Robert Kennedy, Hillary Clinton and Andrew Cuomo repeatedly demonstrated toughness, the willingness to work for their support and the resilience to bounce back from self-inflicted wounds. Without those skills a politician has no shot in the unique New York media cauldron. Sadly, Kennedy’s image took a beating and this Camelot icon will never be looked upon the same way again. She asked for it but it’s regrettable nonetheless.

Putting Kennedy’s flaws aside however, Governor Paterson’s administration was graceless in publicly throwing her underneath the bus after she asked to no longer be considered. It was bad enough that Paterson appeared disorganized, narcissistic and inept during his own selection process. Even worse was his staff’s eagerness to kick Kennedy while she was down in order to salvage Paterson’s reputation. Yes, the New York Times reported that Kennedy had personal issues with respect to taxes and a household employee. It's also true that her public performances these past few weeks were uneven at best.

However, the New York media was already piling on and pouring more salt in Kennedy’s wounds only served to make Paterson appear small. It seems inevitable now that Paterson will be challenged in the 2010 Democratic primary. If Eliot Spitzer was a vindictive bull in a china shop then the previous 24 hours has exposed Paterson as a feckless barking dog with no teeth that cowardly refused to let Kennedy depart the stage with any semblance of dignity. It was Paterson’s fault the process with Kennedy went as far as it did in the first place. A putrid demonstration of leadership at a time when accountability and competence are needed most.

With respect to Representative Gillibrand, I am neither enthusiastic nor gnashing my teeth. I would have preferred a genuine liberal advocate such as state Senator Liz Krueger or Congressman Jerrold Nadler who unflinchingly opposed the Bush Administration’s worst civil liberties abuses. Gillibrand is a respectable choice but she’s no liberal and won’t be a counterweight to Chuck Schumer who is in bed with the banking industry, and also paved the way for Michael Mukasey to serve as George W. Bush’s Attorney General in spite of being pro-torture.

In 2006, I phonebanked for Gillibrand when she challenged four term Republican incumbent John Sweeney in New York’s conservative upstate 20th congressional district. Naturally, Gillibrand reflects the cultural mores of her upstate conservative constituents with respect to guns and is a member in good standing of the Blue Dog Coalition in the House of Representatives. Electing centrists such as Gillibrand was the price for securing a majority in the House and Gillibrand does have her good points too.

Gillibrand is a strong advocate of legislation to reinforce the National Instant Criminal Background Check System Improvement Act to keep guns away from criminals. She also courageously supports same-sex marriage and that is not an easy position for any upstate legislator to assume. Gillibrand has been a reliable supporter of abortion rights, stem cell research, and the Children's Health and Medicare Protection Act. On fiscal matters she opposed the TARP bailout, supports extending the Bush 2001 and 2003 tax cuts and has a record of opposing Social Security privatization. In other words, Gillibrand has a centrist record. Pretty good on most social and civil libertarian issues but fiscally too conservative for my taste.

Gillibrand’s challenge now is persuade downstate urban voters like myself that she can represent the entire state’s diverse interests and views. Pro gun control congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy has indicated she will challenge Gillibrand in the Democratic 2010 primary. McCarthy as New Yorkers may recall first entered congress following the tragic shooting of her husband in 1993.

I’m pro gun control but will make my decision on whom to support over a wide spectrum of issues while evaluating Gillibrand’s performance. Robert Harding over at the Albany Project provides a useful guide about gun control with respect to upstate/downstate perspectives and Gillibrand in a post today that is worth reading.

Hopefully, there will be several Democratic primary challengers vigorously competing to provide options for both governor as well as senator. Party establishment figures often prefer the banality of “unity” but I’ve always believed that intra-party competition is healthy. Two years is a lifetime in politics and that is doubly true given our current economy. In the meantime, New York desperately needs both Paterson to quickly get his act together and Gillibrand to grow into her new job with dispatch. Otherwise New Yorkers will need viable options to consider as replacements.

New York's New World

For my home state, Governor David Paterson's budget is a window into the future. Simply put, we are witnessing what happens when New York State ceases to be the financial capital of the world. At the moment the world doesn't really have one as the global economy sorts through massive wreckage. Truthfully, the era of financial centers concentrated in western port cities such as New York or London is a relic.

This had long been been predicted because information technology makes it possible to outsource back office functions remotely and utilize cheap labor. Why pay for New York City real estate and labor when a trader can just as easily play with other people's money from a computer in Dubai? However, until the recent economic catastrophe Wall Street stubbornly hung onto its symbolic trappings as the center of the universe.

As a result, Albany could count on revenues generated from Wall Street to finance union pensions, government services, medicaid spending, corporate welfare, our prison industrial complex and so forth. The financial services industry also generated millions of jobs in our region from stock brokers to janitors. Hence, Wall Street's titans were able to leverage their influence with power brokers such as New York State's senior Senator Charles Schumer.

As many of you know, the New York Times recently profiled the intimate relationship between Wall Street and Schumer. Liberals are justifiably outraged at Schumer's enthusiastic pandering to Wall Street's desire for excessive deregulation and lax oversight in exchange for campaign donations for himself and his party. Instead of a Democrat standing up for working people we elected an enabler of our economic meltdown.

In fairness to Schumer, any New York senator would have to some degree catered to this industry's interests just as Joe Biden championed the banks and credit card industry while representing Delaware. All politics is local as Tip O'Neill used to say and even Wall Street enemy Eliot Spitzer raked in contributions from the financial sector during his 2006 campaign for Governor. That's where the action was that created jobs for New Yorkers and filled the state's coffers.

However, Schumer's excessive pandering to Wall Street has facilitated a calamity for the working people in New York he claims to represent and helped wreck the global economy with it. Figures such as Clinton Treasury Secretary and Wall Street powerhouse Robert Rubin were never Obi-Wan Kenobi.

Today New York is confronted with a $1.7 billion 2008 shortfall and a projected 2009-10 deficit of $13.7 billion while Governor Paterson promotes an "obesity tax." Important government services such as healthcare, education and emergency first responders will take a hit. And New York's Mass Transit Authority ("MTA") with its chronic incompetence in good and bad times will impose painful rate hikes and service cuts in 2009 to make up for its own steep revenue shortfall. As always the working stiffs are hit the hardest.

The pain is no fun and hardships abound for New Yorkers as our manufacturing industry was sucking wind well before Lehman Brothers collapsed, AIG was bailed out and Bernard L. Madoff became a household name. Like all New Yorkers I'm feeling the pain too but thankfully still have a job.

Yet even during this challenging period an opportunity exists. Necessity is a mother to invention and New York needs to reinvent itself. Just as oil is a dangerous narcotic that has arrested the development of petro states the financial services sector and manufacturing industry have undermined New York's ability to retool for the 21st century. Such innovation requires leadership and vision.

Whatever critique one may have with the specifics of Paterson's hardship budget he is at least showing leadership by not ducking the tough choices. Personally though I am dismayed by Paterson's unwillingness to more fairly distribute the pain. He should worry less about taxing millionaires and instead embrace New York's Working Families Party approach of shared sacrifice.

My question though is what sort of people does Paterson listen to as the corporate private sector vies for his favor in New York's new world? Alas, Paterson's consideration of Caroline Kennedy to replace Hillary Clinton in the Senate because of her ability to raise millions from friends such as billionaire Mayor Mike Bloomberg is not encouraging.