Gillibrand and gay marriage

By Michael J.W. Stickings

She may be a horrible, horrible pick, but at least she supports same-sex marriage -- which all Democrats should, not just civil unions.

So I suppose that makes the pick somewhat less horrible.

(Maybe in her ideal world you'd be able to buy semi-automatic rifles at wedding chapels.)

**********

For what it's worth, Kos thinks it's a win-win situation:

There are two alternatives:

1. Gillibrand was voting her districts, and will now tack hard to the left as she represents a much more liberal New York, or

2. She gets primaried and a more progressive Democrats -- one chosen by the voters! -- gets in. Heck, it could even be Caroline Kennedy, assuming she isn't afraid to face real voters!

Gillibrand is an accomplished politician who won in a brutally difficult House seat. But what made her successful in that district won't make her successful statewide. So she either adapts, or she dies. And in the end, it'll be the voters making that call.

As it should be.

Well, sure, but there's a third alternative: Gillibrand benefits from the power of incumbency and remains in the Senate after 2010 as a right-leaning Blue Dog with hard-right positions on gun control and other issues.

The point is, Paterson had the opportunity to appoint a solid liberal Democrat -- or (gasp!) a progressive -- to what is a fairly safe Senate seat. And he blew it.

And, yes, with Gillibrand headed to the Senate, I am wondering why I was so critical of Caroline Kennedy, who would have been the far better choice.