...it's a really crummy pick for the Senate.
Gillibrand is arguably to the right of Evan Bayh. That'd be fine if she was a Democratic Senator from Oklahoma, but she's not -- she'll be from New York State.
She is 42, and if she wins election in 2010, could very well be in the Senate for 30+ years, unless she runs for Governor or President (and wins) or is appointed to the cabinet someday.
Now even though CK probably would have been better, it's not as if the choice was between CK & Gillibrand. There were plenty of other good options for Paterson, and he picked just about the worst.
Personally, I'd have liked to have seen a caretaker, so Democratic primary voters could have picked their nominee, and GOP primary voters could have done the same.
Meanwhile, on a different note, Paul Krugman -- who I have the utmost respect for as a progressive policy guy -- seems to misinterpret President Obama's inaugural address.
Krugman seems to think Obama's speech calls into question the President's commitment to a bold economic recovery plan.
In response to an unprecedented economic crisis -- or, more accurately, a crisis whose only real precedent is the Great Depression -- Mr. Obama did what people in Washington do when they want to sound serious: he spoke, more or less in the abstract, of the need to make hard choices and stand up to special interests.
That's not enough. In fact, it's not even right.
Thus, in his speech Mr. Obama attributed the economic crisis in part to "our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age" -- but I have no idea what he meant.
But the full sentence -- note the first clause -- was:
Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age.
During the speech Obama also said:
For everywhere we look, there is work to be done.
The state of our economy calls for action: bold and swift. And we will act not only to create new jobs but to lay a new foundation for growth.
We will build the roads and bridges, the electric grids and digital lines that feed our commerce and bind us together.
We will restore science to its rightful place and wield technology's wonders to raise health care's quality...
(APPLAUSE)
... and lower its costs.
We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories. And we will transform our schools and colleges and universities to meet the demands of a new age.
All this we can do. All this we will do.
Now, there are some who question the scale of our ambitions, who suggest that our system cannot tolerate too many big plans. Their memories are short, for they have forgotten what this country has already done, what free men and women can achieve when imagination is joined to common purpose and necessity to courage.
What the cynics fail to understand is that the ground has shifted beneath them, that the stale political arguments that have consumed us for so long, no longer apply.
MR. The question we ask today is not whether our government is too big or too small, but whether it works, whether it helps families find jobs at a decent wage, care they can afford, a retirement that is dignified.
Where the answer is yes, we intend to move forward. Where the answer is no, programs will end.
And those of us who manage the public's dollars will be held to account, to spend wisely, reform bad habits, and do our business in the light of day, because only then can we restore the vital trust between a people and their government.
Nor is the question before us whether the market is a force for good or ill. Its power to generate wealth and expand freedom is unmatched.
But this crisis has reminded us that without a watchful eye, the market can spin out of control. The nation cannot prosper long when it favors only the prosperous.
The success of our economy has always depended not just on the size of our gross domestic product, but on the reach of our prosperity; on the ability to extend opportunity to every willing heart -- not out of charity, but because it is the surest route to our common good.
Personally, I think Krugman is incredibly compelling when he offers specific analysis of what we should do on a substantive basis. I'm not as moved by his political analysis, but he's so good on the policy, that I'm willing to overlook his occasional tendency to fret too much about Obama's style.
Recent Comments