The New York Times editorial board gets it – for Kirsten Gillibrand to be a successful senator for New York, she has to move her views to the left to represent the entire state, not merely the conservative NY-20th district. Gillibrand has already changed her views on marriage equality, coming out in favor of gay marriage after her pick. We need her to do the same on gun control, domestic surveillance, and comprehensive immigration reform.

But the question arises: was Gillibrand always capable of being more progressive because she believes these things and was representing her district before? Or is she only making these changes now because it’s politically expedient? After all, she’ll have to run for reelection in 2010 and will likely face a primary challenger from the left. Moreover, if the point is that New York deserves to have a real liberal representing them as the state’s junior senator, why in the world didn’t Governor Paterson not pick a liberal in the first place? The policy changes Gillibrand makes now may be for the better, but they also amount to future ammunition for any Republican who runs against her (presuming she avoids or survives a primary challenge).

Maybe the statewide constituency will compel Gillibrand to become a real New York Democrat, but Paterson and anyone who supports this pick are relying on the assumption of a hypothetical outcome to ensure that New York has not taken a step rightwards in the makeup of the Senate delegation. I’m not sure if Paterson cares about that or not, but I know most Democrats do. At minimum, if Gillibrand doesn’t find a way to represent the views of the Democrats of New York, she should face a primary challenge from a progressive Democrat.