Some of us saw this coming when he delayed his potential campaign announcement for the umpteenth time, but it's nice to see it made official. What hasn't been said already? Goodbye, good luck, and don't come back.
But Ford's timely demise isn't just a win for Senator Gillibrand, or liberals, or the netroots. It is, in fact, a win for the fledgling pro-reform movement in New York State politics.
New York politics operate on money. That's no secret, and it's not exactly different from politics anywhere else. But New York's almost total lack of campaign finance laws on the state level allow a disturbing amount of power to be wielded by a relatively small number of people who have money to burn.
Billionaire coup architect Tom Golisano is a perfect example. Golisano spent a lot of money in 2008 supporting candidates he liked. Some of them were good candidates, and good people. But when Malcolm Smith wasn't deferential enough, Golisano used his power to try and overthrow the state government.
Another example is Mike Bloomberg, the man who personified the corrosive force of money in American politics when, faced with a voter-approved limit on his term of office, simply bought all the votes he needed to stay in power.
Here's where Ford comes in. Make no mistake about it, Ford's base of support (such as it was, consisting mostly of the upper east side of Manhattan, but only above the 30th floor) was centered in and around the same kind of big money contributors who own and operate much of the dirtier side of the New York state legislature.
One of the ringleaders of this behavior (and one of Ford's major backers) is Mike Bloomberg. Another is Steve Pigeon, the "Democrat" whose most undemocratic ideas and total lack of anything resembling the human emotion of shame landed him the seat as the man behind the curtain to Pedro Espada, and the operator of the massively corrupt Independence Party.
The power that Pigeon and those like him wield is, without a doubt, the biggest single opponent to fixing what's broken in New York State government. Why? Because the privileged power brokers like the concentration of control into their own hands.
What kind of power? The power to direct state money, yes. To bend and break laws, sure. To lie, cheat, steal, and get away with it. But moreover, it's just about raw power. The power to bring the state government screeching to a halt because Malcolm Smith checked his Blackberry during a meeting with you. The power to push elections one way or the other. The power to take home a seven figure salary without paying the taxes that the plebes have to.
In a system with no campaign finance laws, no term limits, and no demand by the people that the legislature do the public business or else, power has collected around the lowest common denominator--the people most shameless in their exploitation of that broken system to reward corruption and punish underdogs.
Call it whatever you want--the center, big business, the DLC, corruption--Ford's candidacy represented a money-first view of politics, that the guys on Wall Street mattered more than what was right for New York State as a whole. And New Yorkers rejected that: in the polls, in contributions, in their participation online and across the state.
Because of that, a strong ally of reform, populism, and a fighter for New York State has sent Ford packing. Now it's time to do the same for our legislature, and get this great state back on track.
Tennessee transplant and former U.S. Rep. Harold Ford Jr. has decided not to challenge unelected incumbent Kirsten Gillibrand for her US Senate seat, sources said tonight.
"I heard from Harold Ford and he has decided not to run," said Assemblyman Vito Lopez, the Kings County Democratic chairman who had strongly indicated a willingness to back Ford.
"After giving it considerable thought and talking it over with his wife, he reached the conclusion that he would not be running, although he said he would like to remain active in the Democratic Party here," Lopez continued.
In response, Mr. Ford has said that he supports a system of pay in high finance that rewards profits and punishes poor returns. "I believe that people take risk, and there are rewards if they do well; they should lose if they don't," he said in an interview several weeks ago.
As a vice chairman at Merrill Lynch, however, Mr. Ford benefited from an unusual arrangement that paid him generously regardless of how he and his firm perform. In 2007, he began working at the firm under a contract that guaranteed him annual compensation of at least $2 million, according to two people with direct knowledge of the deal, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because the agreement is confidential. With a bonus, his pay could well exceed that figure.
His guaranteed pay was twice that of the Merrill Lynch chief executive who hired him, E. Stanley O'Neal. Mr. O'Neal's contract assured him a base salary of $700,000, with the rest of his compensation not guaranteed, and paid out only as a bonus, records show. In some years that bonus was quite large. In 2006, for example, Mr. O'Neal's bonus was $18.5 million in cash and nearly $27 million in restricted stock, according to Equilar, a compensation-research firm.
Boy, it must be nice to get a job you're unqualified for, and where you don't appear to need to actually DO anything, in exchange for $2 million dollars a year and God knows how much for a bonus.
I wonder how many New Yorkers, put out of a job by the financial meltdown created by Harold Ford and his employer, and made possible by the policies of unregulated greed and theft that Harold Ford supports, would love to have even one one-hundredth of the deal that Ford has--even just to have a stable job where they could ply their talents in exchange for a fair rate of pay, without the obscene wealth and sense of entitlement Ford and his Wall Street buddies display.
I don't have to wonder too hard--I'm one of those people whose last job was killed by Ford-style economics.
welcome to New York. Make yourself comfortable. Have a bagel.
Okay, now that we have the pleasantries out of the way, I have a few questions for you. It appears you're considering running for the Senate from my state, and you know what that means? It means that you answer to people like me, voters, bloggers, that kind of grubby folk. And it appears you're speaking tonight to the Stonewall Democrats, the largest LGBT political club in the state.
Karl Rove was talking to the Memphis Daily News about Rove's book and current political news. When asked about Harold Ford Jr. (right after Rove called healthcare "part of a more toxic, larger stew the Democrats have created") Rove had nothing but glowing things to say about the crypto-Republican from Tennessee turned erstwhile "Democratic" candidate and Wall Street baron:
"He's a guy with a lot of intelligence and a lot of drive and ambition, and (incumbent Democratic New York Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand is) a weak candidate. We'll see how it plays out. He's an aggressive campaigner.
He's had a few missteps here at the beginning, but ... (Ford) is an articulate, attractive candidate who can sway crowds.
As if that weren't bad enough, he goes on to repeat the same talking points Ford has been using about New York embracing "candidates who've moved in from elsewhere" like Clinton and Robert F. Kennedy.
My takeaway from this is two things: one, like the Lieberman situation in Connecticut, the Republicans realize they have no chance with one of their own, so intend to tacitly back the most conservative Democrat available to them. And two, that if Karl Rove is endorsing a Democrat in order to try and get rid of her, Senator Gillibrand certainly must be doing a lot of things right.
I found myself ambling around Chelsea yesterday, and happened to stumble across one of the roughly seventy-two Starbucks that I frequent habitually. And there it was, still available on a Tuesday afternoon, my favorite newspaper, The New York Observer.
Now, I'll buy any newspaper so pleasingly pink, because that's just about the gayest thing this side of Dean Skelos at a Fire Island tea dance. But what compelled me to fork over the two dollars was the blurb over the masthead: Reid Pillifant on Gillibrand's Annoying Voice.
I have to admit, I've been operating under the assumption that Harold Ford's press people are the same beltway-insider grossly overpriced consultant types that typically attach themselves to campaigns where the candidate's ego and pocketbook trump strategic sense. After all, anyone with a sense of honesty and an IQ greater than that of a fencepost could have told him that his campaign rollout was not going smoothly.
But apparently the consultants do know enough at least to recognize that his interview with the New York Times, despite the Times being friendly to him, still turned into an unmitigated clusterfuck.
The obvious solution would be to talk to the candidate, get some kind of message going, and determine whether the candidate's beliefs really fit the constituency.
Oh wait, silly me. That would be the right thing to do. No, in the world of overpaid political consultants with a win/loss record worse than the Buffalo Bills, the solution is simply to not talk about the issues.
From Edsel's latest interview in the NY Daily News, emphasis mine:
The interview - granted under the condition that the questions be limited to his rationale for running, and not issues - comes at the end of a rocky first week of buzz surrounding his potential candidacy.
Then Edsel has the actual brass to say this:
"This race isn't about feet, it's about issues," he said of ribbing he has taken on the web and elsewhere of his regular pedicures.
But Harold, that black cloud of doom that's hanging over the head of your still unannounced campaign? That's not going away any time soon, and this sudden swerve in strategy just adds to the feeling that some of us are familiar with when we see a campaign in crash-and-burn mode. Except that your campaign didn't even get off the runway: it caught fire in the hanger.
Does anyone else remember the video clip show "Maximum Exposure" that used to run on late-night syndicated TV? They would put together an hour of home movies featuring people doing what were mostly incredibly stupid and/or dangerous things, and then you got to laugh at idiots getting their well deserved comeuppance.
That's how I'm feeling about Harold Ford's campaign right about now.
Anyone here has probably already seen the highlights of the Ford interview, but just in case you haven't: weekly pedicures, a one third cut in the corporate tax rate, running on support for the bailouts, helicopter tours of New York City, luxury boxes, capital gains tax cuts, breakfast every day at the Regency Hotel, chauffeured towncars, tax cuts for the ultra wealthy, and deregulation of Wall Street.
Think of the Times interview as depicting a more articulate George Bush, with slightly better taste, running in a Democratic primary.
Well, you can imagine what the reaction has been from the observers of politics both here in New York and around the country. But fortunately you don't have to, because really, you don't want to miss what's being said about it. CQ Politics described it as "How Not To Do the Profile Interview."
Tuesday's New York Times ran a fascinating interview of former Tennessee Congressman Harold Ford, conducted by Timesman Michael Barbaro.
I say "fascinating" as in "Oh, my God, I cannot believe Ford actually said these things to a reporter for The New York Times in the belief, or even hope, that they would help him win Democratic primary votes against an appointed senator."
I don't know if I've ever seen a worse rollout for a political campaign, or one more disconnected with the constituency needed to win, than what Harold Ford exhibited in today's New York Times.
Remember how the New York Times' uncomfortable interview with Caroline Kennedy pretty much sank her Senate campaign? Hello, Harold Ford, welcome to New York!
I need to buck the trend, though. I'm really starting to see another side of Harold Ford, and I firmly think that he should continue to run for this seat.
After all, with all of extremely serious political fights going on out there right now, the late night comedy writers could use some easy material.
You can't run on everything. Here's what will work:
Merrill Lynch/Bank of America Vice Chairman and NRA member Harold Ford Jr. is out of touch with the hard-working Democrats in New York. Ford, who is driven to work every day in a chauffeured car paid for by General Electric, has a helicopter as a primary mode of transportation, at a time when many New Yorkers cant even afford to fix their clunker or take the Subway.
Ford, a lifelong resident of Tennessee, is against women's reproductive rights, opposes health care and banking reform, and wants police officers to spend their valuable time chasing down Mexicans rather than investigating murders. He is out of touch with New York, out of touch with the middle class, and out of touch with the Democratic Party.
"I think the White House is quite happy with the leadership and the representation of Senator Gillibrand in New York," Mr. Gibbs said when asked about Mr. Ford at a White House press briefing. "We're supporting her re-election."
Mr. Gibbs suggested that the White House was prepared to go even further to stop Mr. Ford, telling reporters to "Stay tuned" when asked about any behind-the-scenes efforts to clear the field for Ms. Gillibrand.
But Mr. Ford remained defiant.
Slap!
This White House has been notoriously reluctant to have its milkshake be slurped. Scott Stringer, Steve Israel, Carolyn Maloney and Carolyn McCarthy can tell that tale. Now, those are some very substantial names.
Names that are substantial enough to make Junior seem inadequate by comparison. But they also illustrate the underlying quality of this proposed candidacy: a startling lack of seriousness, of groundedness.
With the White House - for once - sending a clear message, the circle of possible Ford backers narrows further. And meanwhile, Progressives can see a bright silver lining to this particular cloud.
Late breaking news via Liz Benjamin: Both Peter King and Susan Molinari have opted out of challenging Senator Gillibrand later this year.
While King was a self-immolation waiting to happen, Molinari was objectively speaking the Republicans best and most realistic shot at trying to take this Senate seat. With her and King both departing, the Republicans are left with no likely candidates for the fall: George Pataki is reportedly unlikely to run, and the only remaining undecided is Liz Feldman, mayor of Larchmont.
I just wanted to clear something up: some people seem to be interpreting the flood of invective coming at Harold Ford out of the NY blogosphere, and particularly from supporters of Senator Gillibrand, as being evidence that Ford's possibly entry into the race worries us.
It's not. It's because the entire prospect of Ford running makes us feel like Dick Cheney in a nursing home: it's a target-rich environment. Ford is out of step with New York Democrats in so many ways that it's almost comical to think that anyone would raise this trial balloon.
It was pointed out to me today that in the general reaction ("HA HA HA HA HA HA HA") of the New York blogosphere to Harold Ford's ambitions to challenge Senator Gillibrand, there hadn't yet been a serious analysis of why everyone thought it was ridiculous. If you didn't know Harold Ford's record, you might be scratching your head about why Ford is such a poor match for a big, blue state like New York.
Full disclosure: some of these notes I dug up myself, mostly from OnTheIssues.org. A couple others (including duplicates) were helpfully dropped into my lap by the Gillibrand campaign.
I'll also declare up front that, looking through his record, Ford isn't a bad guy on a lot of issues. He's good with the environment, entitlements, criminal justice, and education. He wins cred with me just for the fact that he nearly got into a physical confrontation with Rep. Jean Schmidt over her description on the House floor of ex-Marine Rep. John Murtha as a coward. But while I think Ford would be a fine Senator for his home state of Tennessee, the great state of New York has slightly different standards.
Let's hit the highlights, shall we?
Ford was one of the 82 House Democrats (out of 210) who voted in favor of the Iraq War resolution. Just so everyone remembers clearly, the Republicans could not muster 218 votes for the IWR on their own--without Democrats voting with them, there would have been no authorization for the Iraq War.
Ford is unrepentantly pro-free-trade, voting for the US-Singapore FTA, US-Australia FTA, free trade with Chile, and supports the World Trade Organization. So long American jobs.
Voted in support of school prayer during the "War on Terror." Frankly I suspect that the recon Marines crawling around Afghanistan would prefer you spend your time giving them air support of a slightly more corporeal type, not to mention body armor.
Was known for telling fellow Democrats they should be more supportive of the Iraq War... at least up until it became politically unpopular, since he was running for it in 2004 and against it in 2006.
Was famously described by Anne Coulter (R-Eagle's Nest) as her "favorite Democrat."
Voted in 2001 against banning "soft money" donations to political parties, a reversal of his position from 1999 when he supported banning soft money.
Voted in 2001 in favor of retaining the failed ban against travel to Cuba. You know, that thing that has helped keep Castro in power for decades by purging the island of any competing viewpoints in public discourse. Moreover, he reversed his position from 2000, when he had publicly supported allowing Americans to travel to Cuba.
Opposed Bush's illegal wiretaps in January of 2006, but voted in favor of electronic surveillance without a warrant in September of 2006.
Voted against adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 commission.
Ford supported the Republican effort to interfere in the Terry Schiavo case, on the grounds of his ardent "pro-life" views. Being pro-life, to Mr. Ford, seems to mean voting against abortion rights but in favor of a war that's killed as many as a million people.
Supported building a fence across the US border with Mexico, one of the more absurd boondoggles that's ever come out of Texas, since apparently no one there has ever heard of a ladder, or wirecutters.
Voted yes on constitutional amendments to prohibit flag desecration and to ban gay marriage.
Was one of only 73 Democrats who voted in favor of the 2005 bankruptcy bill, which made it nearly impossible for those saddled with high debts to ever reach financial security again.
In short, Mr. Ford is grotesquely out of step even with the general electorate of New York State, let alone with the voters within the Democratic Party who would choose between him and Senator Gillibrand.
Apparently the other day when I was mentioning Peter King's list of transgressions (xenophobia, torture, racial profiling) I forgot a fairly major one: supporting terrorism.
Somebody helpfully reminded me today that King had a decades-long apologist relationship with the Provisional Irish Republican Army, even going against his fellow Republicans who wanted him to stop publicly defending the group that was banned as a terrorist organization in both the UK and the Republic of Ireland. From an old article in the New York Sun:
The politician once called the IRA "the legitimate voice of occupied Ireland," he was banned from the BBC by British censors for his pro-IRA views, and he refused to denounce the IRA when one of its mortar bombs killed nine Northern Irish police officers.
Of course apparently, while bombing police stations, and throwing around heavy weapons in civilian areas isn't enough to get you on the outs with Peter King, not being sufficiently pro-Bush is. He stopped talking up the Provisional IRA in 2002. Not because he suddenly had concerns about terrorism in the wake of 9/11, though.
Conceding that he has "cooled on Ireland," Mr. King blames an epidemic of what he calls "knee-jerk anti-Americanism" that swept through Ireland after the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq.
"I don't buy that it's just anti-Bush. There's a certain unpleasant trait that the Irish have, and it's begrudgery ... and resentment towards the Americans," he said in a recent interview in his Washington office.
Wait, Irish bashing? On top of calling Italian Americans mobsters, and saying that there's too many mosques in America? Did this guy just walk straight out of the 1940s? Is he running for the Senate in New York, or Alabama? He makes Daniel Day-Lewis' character in Gangs of New York look grounded and tolerant.
You may have heard by now that apparently Chuck Schumer got in a bit of trouble the other day for muttering a rude comment at a flight attendant. If not:
New York's famously garrulous senior senator, Chuck Schumer, got busted Wednesday for calling a female flight attendant the B-word aboard a US Airways flight from New York to Washington on Sunday.
Schumer was sitting next to protege Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, gabbing away on his phone, when a flight attendant told him to shut it down.
Schumer turned off his phone, and then argued with the attendant that he was allowed to talk while the cabin door is open. He lost. [...]
A Republican aide on the plane, who overheard the powerful Democrat, tattled to Politico.com.
"The senator made an off-the-cuff comment under his breath that he shouldn't have made, and he regrets it," Schumer spokesman Brian Fallon told Anne Schroeder Mullins.
Naturally, the National Republican Senatorial Committee wasted no time attacking not just Schumer, but also Gillibrand on the apparent assumption that she has the power to control people's language with her thoughts. Oh no wait, it's for not rebuking Schumer over his language. Which is not to say she didn't, just that admonitions not delivered via the media for the entertainment of the Republican base evidently don't count.
I for one would like to know what sort of candy-assed pearl-clutching Victorian-era transplant wannabes they've got over at the NRSC that apparently they faint if exposed to bad language. This is NEW YORK. If you haven't had at least one stranger on the street instruct you do something to yourself that's anatomically impossible, then you obviously have not spent enough time here.
I also wonder what kind of blistering criticism is in store for other Senators, thanks to the NRSC's new-found concern for the dignity of the female gender. I mean, if Chuck Schumer gets to be raked over the coals for muttering something rude about a flight attendant... correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Republican Senator David Vitter confess to being a long-term customer of a prostitution ring? I await with bated breath the NRSC's vigorous condemnation of how that's demeaning to women.
- Gillibrand's favorable rating is 31 percent, which is a decrease from last month's 34 percent rating but still keeps her above 30 percent. Her unfavorable rating is 22 percent - the lowest it has been since August. Those who don't know or have no opinion come in at 47 percent and while that still is a lot of ground to cover, it is still below 50 percent of the respondents.
- Bill Thompson's favorable is lower than Gillibrand's. He comes in at 25 percent and his unfavorable rating is 17 percent. There are 58 percent of respondents who don't know him or have no opinion of him, so he's behind Gillibrand in that respect.
- In a primary featuring Gillibrand, Thompson, Harold Ford Jr. and Jonathan Tasini, Gillibrand wins with 32 percent of the vote. Thompson is second with 23 percent, Ford nets seven percent of the vote and Tasini is last with three percent. That part of the poll makes it clear that, at least today, Gillibrand is the top of the Democratic crop of candidates. She is the strongest of any of them.
- In head-to-head matchups with with Gillibrand and two top Republican candidates, Gillibrand fares well. While she would lose to Rudy Giuliani 49 percent to 42 percent, she would defeat George Pataki 46 percent to 43 percent.
The Gillibrand-Giuliani matchup is especially good for Gillibrand since in October, she was 17 points behind Giuliani. Now, she only trails by seven points 11 months out from the general election and nine months out of the primary.
- Giuliani and Pataki both have favorable ratings over 50 percent (Giuliani is at 58 percent while Pataki enjoys a 53 percent favorable rating) but neither get over 50 percent against Gillibrand.
Gillibrand has plenty of work to do to make herself a favorite for the general election next year. But one thing is becoming clear. She is the option for Democrats next year. If she can do this well in a poll against Thompson, who is coming off a battle for mayor in New York City (a place where Gillibrand hasn't run a full-blown campaign as of yet) then that is a good sign for her.
Another good sign is beating out Pataki. She was ahead of Pataki by one percentage point in the last Siena poll so increasing that lead to three points is a good sign that more and more voters see her as a better candidate than Pataki. Of course, Pataki doesn't want to run for Senate, but considering his name recognition (he was governor for 12 years), beating him in a poll isn't a bad thing.
For Governor David Paterson, the Q Poll has one piece of good news. His favorable rating is up to 38 percent - the highest it has been since earlier this year. The last four Q Polls had Paterson's favorable rating under 30 percent. That favorable rating is padded by New York City, where respondents had a 49 percent favorable rating of Paterson. Elsewhere, Paterson's favorable rating was between 31 to 35 percent.
In the hypothetical Democratic primary between Paterson and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Cuomo wins 60 percent to 23 percent. Paterson would defeat Republican Rick Lazio 41 percent to 37 percent but Cuomo would win easily over Lazio 62 percent to 22 percent.
In the race for the seat currently held by Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, 2009 New York City mayoral candidate Bill Thompson would defeat Gillibrand in a primary, according to the poll. Among registered Democrats, Thompson beats Gillibrand 41 percent to 28 percent.
What is interesting about this though is that Gillibrand fares better than Thompson against Rudy Giuliani in the general election. Giuliani would defeat Gillibrand 50 percent to 40 percent while the former New York City mayor would knock off Thompson by a 52 percent to 36 percent vote.
Gillibrand's favorable rating is similar to where it was when she was appointed to the post. She has a 26 percent favorable rating - only one percentage point higher than what it was in January 2009.
For Thompson, the favorable rating isn't much better. His favorable rating comes in at 25 percent, so while he might be ahead of Gillibrand in a primary, his favorable rating isn't higher and is right on par with Gillibrand. So while some question Gillibrand's viability as a candidate, her prospective challengers have never fared any better in this department.
But perhaps the most interesting finding in the poll was Governor Paterson's job approval rating. His favorable rating and electoral ratings aside, his job approval rating is at 40 percent. His disapproval rating is at 49 percent. So while his disapproval rating is still high, having the approval rating he has at this point is encouraging for him. It also might help him in his argument that he can run in 2010 and be a viable candidate, although other polls down the road might change that.
I had a couple of long phone conversations with Jon Cooper when he was prepping to visit upstate and meet with activists who were interested in his exploratory efforts for U.S. Senate. In those conversations, Cooper would push a few of the talking points about Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that were mentioned in what seemed to be every article or story about Gillibrand in the media. I thought then his view of Gillibrand was distorted because of that, but didn't correct him. That's not my job. He is an intelligent man who has gotten to this point in his life because of hard work and his smarts.
Cooper's decision not to run for U.S. Senate and endorse Gillibrand was one that didn't come with the fall-in-line fanfare that usually accompanies such endorsements. In his endorsement, he explained how and why he got to this point.
"After I met with Kirsten for several hours, and had an opportunity to engage in in-depth discussions on a wide array of policy issues, I realized that my perceptions of her were primarily based on media reports and second-hand stories," said Cooper. "I now believe that she's the 'real deal' and I'm convinced she will vote the way I would, work as hard as I would, and strive for the same progressive goals as I would."
...
"Kirsten is smart, warm, energetic and committed to doing a great job," stated Cooper. "I've always said that my decision would ultimately be based on what's best for the Democratic Party, New York State and our nation. And that's why I am today offering Senator Gillibrand my wholehearted endorsement."
In an e-mail sent out to supporters, Cooper further detailed how he got to this point and why he has decided to endorse Gillibrand:
But one recent Saturday, I flew down to Washington and had a private dinner meeting with Senator Gillibrand. I did this because a mutual friend challenged me to do so. He told me that what I knew about the Senator from press reports was simply wrong. And he suggested that if indeed it was wrong, my ignoring that and running anyway would be like declaring war on Iraq because they had weapons of mass destruction.
Didn't I have a responsibility, he asked, to take a few hours to determine whether the enemy was real?
I was somewhat reluctant, having come this far, but at the end of the day, I always try to do what I think is right. So down I went to Washington, fully prepared for a "snow job" that I would easily detect and resist...and pretty certain I would come back to stand here today and declare my candidacy.
But what I found instead - based on facts I subsequently verified - is a woman quite unlike the one that has been portrayed in the press.
Believe me, it's a conclusion I did not jump to.
But in reviewing the "source materials," as you might put it, instead of relying on second-hand accounts, I determined that Senator Gillibrand is no more a tobacco stooge than I am...that she was 100% pro-LGBT equality long before she was ever appointed to the Senate...that her positions and votes on guns are not at all what that "100% NRA rating" had led me to assume.
Plus, as it turns out, Senator Gillibrand is smart, warm, energetic and committed to doing a great job.
The decision for Cooper, politically, is a smart one. While there are those who argue Gillibrand is vulnerable, her profile is still rising. For Cooper, it would have been an uphill battle even against someone with perceived weaknesses. He is a strong legislator and a brilliant activist, especially when it comes to leading on LGBT issues. But making the jump from county legislator to U.S. Senate would have been a big one. Perhaps too big.
Yet, Cooper showed a willingness to sit down with Gillibrand and get to know her. He learned who she really is through their one-on-one meetings and by the end of it, came to the realization that it wasn't in his best interest to run for Senate. Instead, he not only decided not to run, but endorsed the woman who he was almost going to primary.
Jon Cooper has been pondering a primary challenge to Senator Kirsten Gillibrand for months now. In an interviewed I conducted with him in the fall, he outlined a number of reasons why he would mount such a challenge while adding that he would make a decision on whether or not to run by year's end.
Today, Cooper held a press conference announcing the he will not run against Gillibrand. In addition, he announced that he is endorsing Gillibrand for Senate believing her to be the best candidate for the job.
In a tweet, Gillibrand said she was "honored" by the endorsement.
I am honored to receive the endorsement of one of Long Island's great leaders and champions of LGBT rights, Majority Leader Jon Cooper.
Cooper was considered a long-shot candidate because he would enter the race trying to make the leap from county legislator to U.S Senate. He would be in a better position than Jonathan Tasini, but still would face long odds.
Cooper's exit means that no elected officials from New York will face Gillibrand (unless something changes over the next several months).
