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.

I’m not a fan of Tim Kaine, but I think with Democratic control of the White House, the importance of the DNC chairmanship is significantly reduced. Kaine won’t be our party’s head — he’ll mostly be focused on helping Barack Obama get re-elected in 2012. With that in mind, I want to turn to more relevant questions regarding what a Kaine DNC will look like.

1. Who will be the Executive Director of the DNC? This person will have a far greater impact on day to day operations of the DNC than Kaine.
2. Will Kaine and the new E.D. continue the 50 State Strategy? Will they expand it or will they shrink it?
3. Will Kaine and the new E.D. keep current staff at the DNC? Howard Dean put together a phenomenal staff across the country. These are top Democratic operatives that know how to win unlike few other cohorts of operatives in our party. It would be a shame to lose this institutional knowledge.

I don’t have a sense of who the new Executive Director should be, but I would like it to be someone who supports the 50 State Strategy and has a deep understanding of how the Obama campaign won nationwide.

Update:

Marc Ambinder:

As has been previously reported, Jennifer O’Malley-Dillon will be executive director of the DNC.  O’Malley-Dillon is seen by the team as a manager with an organizational background that appeals to Obama.  She is large measure responsible for Sen. John Edwards’s solid caucus performances in 2004 and 2008.  She was recruited by Steve Hilderband to join Obama’s campaign as battleground states director and spent the general election overseeing state field budgets and figuring out where to send the principals.

The DNC will retain traditional responsibilities, like planning the convention and political research. But it will significantly expand its campaign organizing capacity and probably its staff; think of it as current DNC chairman Howard Dean’s 50 state strategy on steroids. [Emphasis added]

That sounds pretty good to me.

Connecticut State Rep. Mike Lawlor has penned an op-ed in the Chicago Tribune, advising his peers in the Illinois legislature on how to think about the prospect of impeaching Governor Rod Blagojevich. Lawlor and the CT legislature impeached criminal governor John Rowland a number of years ago and Lawlor’s experience and thoughtfulness shines through in his piece in the Tribune. Here’s an excerpt from Lawlor’s piece:

Your state constitution, and that of all the other states and the federal government, provides this extraordinary procedure designed to protect the integrity and legitimacy of government in a time of crisis.

It is, in effect, the undoing of a democratic election. By design, it is and should be extremely difficult to undertake. There may come a time when it is both appropriate and necessary. You must decide if this is such an occasion.

This is a political remedy to a political problem. It is a process that frustrates and confounds the best criminal defense attorneys. It is not court. You must not be distracted by legal arguments that assume trial-like procedures and standards.

Your governor will have his day in court. What you are contemplating now is uniquely legislative, not judicial. If you feel that your state’s government is at risk due to the actions of your governor, you should exercise the extraordinary power your constitution gives to you: Remove him from office.

As if aristocracy wasn’t enough of an insult to voters, Caroline Kennedy is giving New Yorkers the Sarah Palin treatment.

In a carefully controlled strategy reminiscent of the vice-presidential hopeful Sarah Palin, aides to Caroline Kennedy interrupted her on Wednesday and whisked her away when she was asked what her qualifications are to be a United States senator.

In her first public appearance since letting it be known that she wants to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton, Ms. Kennedy emerged from a closed-door meeting with Matthew J. Driscoll, the mayor of Syracuse, where about a dozen reporters were waiting.

She offered a 30-second statement saying that she would respect the process undertaken by Gov. David A. Paterson to fill the vacancy.

Then, as reporters asked why Ms. Kennedy was seeking the Senate seat and whether she was ready, she did not answer, then walked away, heading toward a waiting black sport-utility vehicle.

When one reporter asked what she would tell New Yorkers who question whether she has the qualifications for the job, Ms. Kennedy, 51, started to respond. But then an aide stopped her from saying more, and led her to the waiting vehicle.

“Hopefully I can come back and answer all those questions,” she called out as she got into the S.U.V.

I’m sure her handlers, lead by former Lieberman consultant Josh Isay, think not saying anything to anyone in public about her qualifications or aspirations for New York’s Senate seat is a great idea. But sweet merciful jeebus it’s offensive.

Voters don’t get to have a say in Governor Paterson’s selection. But Kennedy should at least treat New Yorkers with enough respect to answer questions, speak in public, and make a case to the people she seeks to represent. Maybe she hasn’t realized it yet, but that extends beyond the Empire State’s political power brokers (no matter what part of the state she’s in).

I don’t live in New York anymore, but this stuff is really getting me angry.

Matt Stoller reports that Iowa Congressman Bruce Braley is starting a Populist Caucus in the House.

This is an interesting internal shift in the House, and suggests that no current ideological caucus is quite capturing the moment.  The plank for this group is economic justice, universal health care, affordable college education, consumer safety, fair trade, and good paying jobs.  Culturally, though, this has more of a rural farmer and union feel than the progressive caucus, with its heavily New Left and multi-ethnic approach, but policy-wise it is substantially different than the Blue Dogs.

…

This is an interesting development, and I suspect there’s going to be some strong caucus reorganization going on as an expanded Democratic majority finds its sea legs.

I think it’s great news for two reasons.  First, the Progressive caucus in the House seems disorganized and feckless. It isn’t a useful organizing body, whereas the Blue Dogs and New Democrats find ways to bend a more-liberal Democratic House caucus to their will with infruriating frequency. If Braley’s Progressive caucus can develop into something that bends legislative progress to their wills, then it will be a huge asset for Democrats in Congress.

Second, from a messaging standpoint, I think it’s time for people who identify as progressives to be honest about how the progressive brand has been subsumed by very non-progressive interests and organizations. Progressive has become, in my view, a substitute for Democrat. Politicians still shirk “liberal” and use progressive as a stand-in. But it’s hard to look at many self-identified progressive elected officials, include President-elect Obama, and see actual progressivism. Braley, on the other hand, is positing a populist brand that is actually populist. It’s also in line with how I think of myself when I identify as a progressive. And by creating a new caucus, Braley has created an opportunity to move the Overton window to the left in terms of how House Democrats talk about issues and identify policy to larger narratives. I’ll be very curious to see if Braley is able to grow the new Populist caucus.

Steve Benen brings up an interesting possibility as far as a replacement for Hillary Clinton in the Senate: Eliot Spitzer.

Ben Smith, who recently suggested Spitzer might be a strong candidate to succeed Hillary Clinton in the Senate, argued yesterday that a purely intellectual approach may not be sufficient to restore Spitzer’s name. Ben said the former governor may need a few “soft-focus interviews about his personal transgressions” to help the rehabilitation along.

Perhaps, but wouldn’t it better if Spitzer’s obvious expertise were considered by the political world on the merits? I can appreciate how sleazy his sex scandal was, but it was hardly more offensive than David Vitter’s, Newt Gingrich’s, or Rudy Giuliani’s, and they’re all prominent political figures and Republicans in good standing.

Spitzer made a humiliating personal mistake, and he’s paid a high price. Maybe, as a sign of cultural maturity, we can get past this and start taking Spitzer seriously again.

The way I see, Eliot Spitzer, by commiting adultery and hiring a prostitute, did something which New Yorkers (and most of the political world) felt precluded him from continuing to be Governor of the Empire State. But that problem clearly does not exist in the US Senate. David Vitter also was revealed to have frequented prostitutes (his diaper fetish was also revealed). Neither of these things lead to his expulsion from the Senate, nor even reprimand from the Senate Ethics Committee. If what Spitzer did was unforgiveable in New York, it is eminently forgiveable in the US Senate. While I don’t have any great preference for Spitzer over any other scandal-free candidate to replace Clinton, it’s clear that his personal problems should not prevent him from being considered.