If this is how NY liberals are feeling, we’re going to have fun in 2010.
Wow. I haven't commented about Maureen Dowd in *ages*. There's this entire nostalgia vibe going on here.
For those who don’t feel like risking the SAN/Intelligence loss that can come from reading one of Dowd’s columns, let me summarize: I like Blagojevich more than I like Paterson, because Blagojevich is clearly insane – do you hear that, Illinois voters? Insane – and Paterson did my friend Marquise Caroline Kennedy-Schlossberg wrong by not picking her right away. That let the awful, awful Clintons destroy the chances for the best choice for the NY Senate, and never mind all those Republicans out there who were revving their chainsaws and grinning evilly. I hope that they primary that gun-loving, bailout hating Gillibrand – and that they primary that adulterous, drug-using governor, too! That’ll show ’em.
OK, I may have added a little subtext there, but really: the title is “Whose Governor is wackier?” and everything (via Hot Air Headlines). That tells you something right there.
Come, I will hide nothing from you: we really did want Kennedy in that spot: she did nothing to deserve it, she wasn’t particularly suited for it, and she wouldn’t have known the first thing about how to hold it in 2010. And it would have been a seat that the Democrats would have been embarrassed to lose, so they’d have thrown huge gobs of money at it in order to keep it; more money than they really should have. Governor Paterson worked that out, darn it – so no Kennedy. Instead, he stuck in the most conservative Democrat he had to hand – one with an actual electoral record and an ability to raise money to boot – because Governor Paterson is a loyal member of his Party*.
But if that loyalty is going to be repaid with a brutal primary fight on both the Senatorial and gubernatorial level – and let’s not forget that NY-20 is going to have two election battles in the next two years, and that it’s still considered a leans-Republican seat – well. It all depends on whether Dowd speaks for New York liberals in general, or just herself. Because I have to tell you: I don’t mind seeing New York Democrats spending the next two years ripping themselves to shreds over the fact that their Governor decided to give the Senate seat to somebody currently** sensible on guns and the bailout.
I don’t mind seeing that at all.
*It’s also going to help him with his electoral prospects. Or, at least, that was presumably the plan.
**Note the word “currently,” Senator Gillibrand. Your value to the Democratic Party is inversely proportional to the amount you accommodate yourself to New York liberals. Friendly advice? Keep that in mind.
Crossposted at Moe Lane.