"What did Ed Cox know and when did he know it?" asked State Democratic Executive Director Charlie King in a public statement. It was issued after Cox praised Levy this morning, following Levy's announcement that he settled a 16-month investigation by giving up his $4 million campaign account and pledging not to seek a third term in office.

"Ed Cox doesn’t get it," King said in a public statement. "Integrity counts. Ethics counts. It is not acceptable to break the law, which apparently comes as a newsflash to Ed Cox. The question for Ed Cox – Levy’s de facto Campaign Chairman during the campaign under investigation – is what did he know and when did he know it?”

The famous reference is, of course, to a question asked during the Watergate hearings of then-President Richard Nixon, who Democrats always delight in tying to Cox, who married Nixon's daughter, Tricia, in the White House Rose Garden in 1971.

In an email to me, King elaborated on the statement, saying Cox didn't just support Levy's gubernatorial candidacy, but hoisted foisted him onto the GOP, and was intimately involved with the campaign.

Now, it's hard to see how Cox benefited personally or politically, from his ties to Levy. If anything, it was Cox's recruitment of Levy that caused Cox so many headaches. The assumption at the time was that Cox worked with Levy in exchange for Levy's help in a congressional race taking place in on his home turf, where one of the candidate's was Cox's son, Chris. Cox never made it onto the ballot and Chris lost the crowded primary to Randy Altschuler, who narrowly lost to Democratic Rep. Tim Bishop.

Mr. King's appreciation for nuance and subtlety, while not always evident in his gruff demeanor, had better be on display when he presides over a House committee hearing into allegations that some American Muslims are becoming radicalized and militant. The topic must be treated with great care. Otherwise, Mr. King or his colleagues will make matters worse. One false move or poorly worded accusation could worsen rather than ease tensions between the majority of Muslim Americans, who are good and productive citizens, and those Americans who seem eager to believe the worst about their Muslim neighbors.

New Yorkers know all too well how quickly any discussion of Islam can degenerate into virtual hate speech. Last year's raucous debate over a proposed Islamic Center in downtown Manhattan should remind Mr. King and his colleagues of just how volatile this conversation can be. Demagogues from Alaska to the Deep South chimed in with unrequested opinions about the propriety of building such a structure near ground zero. What ought to have been a simple land-use decision made at the community board level--by people who live in the neighborhood attacked on 9/11--became an international incident that remains unresolved.

It is entirely possible--some fear the word is "probable"--that Mr. King's hearings will produce the same divisive result, never mind that the congressman continues to insist that most Muslim Americans are decent people who have no intention of waging jihad in the land they call home. If Mr. King's fellow Republicans, representing a constituency that seems particularly unsympathetic toward Muslim Americans, take a page from Joseph McCarthy, they may earn extra face time on Fox News but they will do a disservice to this country and the values it espouses.

Mr. King is not wrong to insist that homegrown terrorism is a concern. Several plots by Muslim Americans have been thwarted in recent years, and those who insist that these were isolated incidents simply are not paying attention.

It is important, however, to emphasize over and over again that these hearings should be an inquiry, not a witch hunt, and that they should be designed to gather information, not to serve as a platform for political posturing. It will be up to Mr. King to make sure that these proceedings bring no shame to his party and this nation.

After pretending not to know the Democrats who signed a letter urging Governor Cuomo to rethink his budget cutbacks, the state party's executive director accidentally bumps into one of them.

Jimmy Vielkind:

Almost on cue, New York City Councilman Robert Jackson walked by.

The Harlem Democrat has been skeptical of Cuomo’s plans for a new, fiscally conservative Democratic agenda since May.

“The Democratic State Committee should represent all Democrats across New York State, not Andrew Cuomo, our governor, who is also a Democrat,” Jackson said. “I think the Democratic State Committee needs to espouse positions of Democrats across the state, and not just the leader of our state.”

King insisted this was proper.

“Absolutely. The Democratic Party and the Republican Party have taken stands supporting governors for time immemorial, so it’s nothing new,” King said.

“It’s not going to create a rift at all, even those who signed whatever-it-is urging the governor to reconsider different issues stand 100 percent behind the governor, were very active in supporting the governor to get him elected. This is a new time, change is not an easy thing to bring about. You’ve got to change cultures, you’ve got to change attitudes. We’re willing to do whatever it takes to get that done, so it’s not going to be a rift at all. I’ve talked to people who agree with me, I’ve talked to people who disagree with me. As long as the conversation lines of communications are open, I think that’s terrific.”

“Just because they have a view that is different than the governor’s…does not mean that they do not fit into the Democratic Party,” King said.

“I read the breathless AP story about 40 local Democratic officials who disagree with Governor Cuomo’s budget. I looked at the list and recognize only some of the names and I am the Executive Director of the Democratic Party. The lack of state legislators on the list would have been the more fair and important story to report. On any issue, given the nature of the Democratic Party you should be able to find hundreds of differing opinions given the thousands of Democratic elected officials in the state. The New York State Democratic Committee recognizes the State’s fiscal crisis and stands strongly in support of Governor Cuomo's budget.”

Among the people who signed onto the letter: 14 members of the New York City Council, who, I'm sure, know who Charlie King is. But King's statement underscores the main point Celeste Katz made in her column this morning, where she quoted unnamed Albany people discussing Cuomo's wrath.

"There certainly are some members of the Legislature who will, at the very least, think twice about adding their name to a letter that criticizes the governor," one legislative source said.

Cuomo is poised to take over the party when he becomes their gubernatorial nominee. Liz says the move gives Cuomo more control of the party, since the current chairman of the party, Jay Jacobs, was appointed by the guy Cuomo wants to replace, Governor David Paterson.

King told me his relationship with Cuomo is strong, because of the rocky road they've traveled together.

"It's strong," he said. "When you go through the ups and downs that we've gone through, and emerge and you still have a relationship intact, it's actually stronger than if we never went into that down."

"It's stronger than it's ever been, to be honest with you," King said.

Ms. Minard, a strong presence on the Democratic donor circuit in New York and a supporter of Hillary Clinton and the DNC, will host a breakfast at her Upper East Side house in honor of David Paterson. It shouldn’t be courageous for a Democratic donor to fete the incumbent Democratic governor. But given Mr. Paterson’s current political standing—his job approval is less than 25 percent, and he faces a $3.2 billion midyear budget deficit—few are willing to stand by him. Those who do will likely be there until what some of them publicly acknowledge is likely to be a suboptimal end.

“They asked me,” Ms. Minard told The Observer. “He’s my governor, and there’s nobody else running at the moment, and he’s been a great supporter of projects, and I’ve been a supporter of his for a while.”

Ms. Minard is part of the increasingly small group of influential Democratic officials, operatives and activists who might be called loyalists, or dead-enders, or both.

“I’m a big fan of his. I like him very much, and I certainly recognize his difficulties,” she said. The event will feature the first lady, Michelle Paige Paterson, and seeks donations of $250 per attendee, the number of which Ms. Minard would not specify. “I’m delighted to host David. I think he’s a very fine person, and I wish him well. I’m happy to host for him.”

D-Day for Mr. Paterson, the latest one, at least, is now recognized to be Jan. 15—the day the State Board of Elections findings for the last six month fund-raising period are due. Mr. Paterson’s tacit rival for the governorship, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, has four fund-raisers on staff and is raising money at a steady clip, sources familiar with his efforts say. (Mr. Cuomo has said repeatedly that his only political plan “at this time” is to run for reelection as attorney general. He outraised Mr. Paterson by a margin of two to one in the last filing period.)

Mr. Paterson’s circle of supporters includes old acquaintances like Ms. Minard and State Senator Eric Schneiderman, as well as the scions of the Harlem political establishment he comes from: Assemblyman Keith Wright (who is also the Manhattan Democratic leader), Representative Charlie Rangel and Carl McCall, the former comptroller who won in a gubernatorial primary against Andrew Cuomo in 2002. Representative Greg Meeks of Queens and Assemblyman Darryl Towns of Brooklyn, both personal friends of Mr. Paterson, also stand with him.

Charlie King, the former executive director of the National Action Network, is still making fund-raising calls on behalf of Mr. Paterson and won’t work for Cuomo.

Bill Lynch, the political consultant, said he’ll be with Mr. Paterson “to the bitter end.”

“Because we’re a year out, and folks are really not focused on his record so far as governor—it’s unbelievable what’s gone on. I’ve been with him for 30 years; I’m going to stay with him until the end,” Mr. Lynch said. “It’s not just because he’s a friend. That’s one reason. The other reason is, I think he’s done a good job and he’s not getting credit for it.”

But far more numerous are the fair-weather supporters and donors who will not publicly denounce Mr. Paterson because he remains, after all, the governor.

One Democratic bundler explained the prevailing Paterson dynamic this way: “He should do reasonably well in the next month, simply because they’re going to put on a full-court press, and there are people with business with the state who say, ‘Can I afford to offend him?’”

“The governor’s a friend, and you don’t walk away from a friend just because you’re down in the polls,” said Ryan Karben, a lobbyist and former assemblyman. And is he giving money to Cuomo? “Oh, of course. They’re both great public officials, they’re both friends. Obviously, the governor’s political challenges are no secret, and that affects the fund-raising climate, but the governor’s a friend, and you can’t measure friendships solely in election cycles.”

Ms. Minard said Mr. Cuomo was “doing an excellent job as an attorney general.” Asked if she would hold an event for him, she replied, “I plan them one at a time.”

“For some, there’s a personal connection, and everyone wants to see our first black governor be successful,” Assemblyman Michael Benjamin, a Bronx Democrat who has urged Mr. Paterson not to run, said of those supporting the governor. “You’re still, at the end of the day, a member of government. You want your governor to be successful so your state can be successful. I think that’s why people will stick with him in public, until he makes official whatever he makes official, either that he’s going to run all the way or he’s going to walk away in due course.”

A problematic narrative—Mr. Paterson was not elected to his position and has not always risen to its challenges—was cited by several donors as a problem. It has also not helped that the only public message Mr. Paterson is capable of promulgating that resonates even slightly with the public—that their legislators are acting irresponsibly, and are letting the state down—is one expressly designed to drive his remaining sympathizers in government away from him.

Hence, on Nov. 9, when Mr. Paterson called a rare joint session of the Legislature to lecture lawmakers on just how pressing the state’s fiscal problems were, he was very palpably alone.

He arrived late for the address, and walked to the rostrum without shaking hands with Comptroller Tom DiNapoli, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Democratic Leader John Sampson or Lieutenant Governor Richard Ravitch. (Mr. Cuomo declined an invitation to the speech, citing what an aide described as a “scheduling conflict” that was neither readily apparent nor elaborated upon.)

“Frankly, we are running out of money,” Mr. Paterson said. “At this moment, all of us assembled in this chamber stand as the last defense between our state gong into a downward economic spiral that threatens to engulf generations of future New Yorkers. We cannot, we must not risk the future of our children and our children’s children to borrow money we don’t have.”

The legislators sat stoically, and Mr. Paterson’s coterie of aides lingered out of sight behind the podium.

“I realize that I will not be able to do it alone,” Mr. Paterson continued. “I will endure the heat of the special interests. I have mortgaged my political career on this plan, but I will not mortgage the fate of the State of New York.”

Most legislators did not linger afterwards.

Assemblyman Darryl Towns, one of the governor’s remaining stalwarts, did, chatting with an assembly colleague before walking into a closed-door conference. He said Mr. Paterson’s speech sounded the right message, and was responsible, given the fiscal and political climate.

“I think that I am with him as long as he is a candidate—I think the majority of New York Democrats are with him as well,” Mr. Towns said, gamely. “Yes, we are friends, but it’s also: Sixteen months ago, when he was talking about this economic storm was going to be the worst economic crisis that we’ve had to face since the Great Depression, a lot of folks thought he was being a little melodramatic. Now, over time, we see that he is dead on with that. Again: Sometimes it’s difficult to be the deliverer of bad news, and this is tough.”

jvielkind@observer.com

It's mostly a mix of lobbyists, but (at risk of overanalyzing) it's also a neat reflection of the base Paterson is hoping to build on as he works to revive his political fortunes: African-Americans and, with his push for same-sex marriage legislation, gay activists.

The chairs include Charlie King, of the National Action Network; Sean Patrick Maloney, a former administration official and hip-hop mogul Russell Simmons. I'm told that chairs are expected to raise or contribute $100,000, vice chairs $50,000, patrons $25,000 and sponsors $10,000.

As of the last filing, Paterson had about $4.9 million in campaign cash on hand.

Paterson Birthday Fundraising

This morning brings news of yet another positive indicator: a Siena college poll showing him with a garish 67-17 point lead over David Paterson in a hypothetical primary for governor next year.

But as he sails along on his undeclared but unmistakable quest to become governor, there's at least one uncomfortable issue he'll have to reckon with, at least as long as David Paterson is around: race.

"Aside from taking on a sitting governor in his own party, who I think will be a great governor, the biggest obstacle to Andrew running is it is going to remind people of when he ran against Carl McCall, which is not fair, but it is history," said Charlie King, the executive director of Al Sharpton's National Action Network who was Cuomo's running mate in that ill-fated run in 2002. "If Spitzer was going through the same rough patch as Paterson, there is little doubt in my mind that Andrew would challenge him."

In that insurgent and disastrous primary, Cuomo made a gross miscalculation of banking on the near-saintly status his family name enjoyed with black voters in New York. But, in a prelude to Hillary Clinton in the 2008 presidential primary, Cuomo's lead among black voters in early polls disappeared once those voters engaged with the history-making African-American candidate. Cuomo eventually dropped out.

Now, after a resoundingly successful rehabilitation effort that featured a thumping victory in the 2006 attorney general race—a contest in which King, Cuomo's onetime partner, was a candidate—and two impressive years in the attorney general's office, Cuomo is in a better place than ever to bid for the state's top job.

There is even reason to believe that he will be able to do so from a stronger position with black voters than he enjoyed in 2002.

As Siena pollster Steven Greenberg explains: "Currently—and with a long time to go before any election—Andrew Cuomo is viewed very strongly in the African-American community, with a 75-14 percent favorable rating.  For the first time ever, Governor Paterson has a negative favorable rating (44-46 percent) among African-Americans. And right now, Cuomo is beating Paterson better than two-to-one in a potential gubernatorial primary."

(Coincidentally, Greenberg was an aide on the 2002 McCall campaign. He is speaking here only in his capacity as a pollster.)

But if Mr. Cuomo has made ground among black voters, much of New York's black political leadership, at this point, doesn't seem to be on board.

In a series of interviews with black officials and operatives for a story about their view of Paterson's plummeting fortunes, the thing that seemed to prompt the staunchest expressions of support for the current governor was the mention of Cuomo's name.

"Everyone is clear on the ambition of Andrew Cuomo wanting to be governor; he ran before," said Yvette Clarke, a congresswoman from Queens.

"I think Andrew will make his own judgment," said David Dinkins, the former mayor. "I don't know that one can stop him or not stop him. I think from David's perspective, what he's got to do is get some good competent people on whom he can rely. I'm satisfied that if he has that, where judgments are required, in most instances he will make the wise choice among those presented to him."

"If [David] turns it around, I don't think Andrew Cuomo will run," said Bill Lynch, a leading black consultant who used to advise Paterson. "And I guarantee he will turn it around."

Representative Charlie Rangel, the dean of the New York delegation, wouldn't even go so far as to concede that Cuomo is looking to run.

 "I'm not gonna assume that Cuomo is going to be a challenger," said Rangel, who warned against speculating on a potential primary. "You shouldn't do that to Cuomo; you might have him politically crippled.".  

When asked what he thought about Cuomo bulking up his fund-raising operation, Rangel replied, "He's Andrew Cuomo. That's what he does."

“I think it’s happening already, I really do,” Ms. Gillibrand said in an interview on Feb. 14 as she ate a celery stick dipped in blue cheese at the end of a long day of meeting and greeting at the New York State Association of Black and Puerto Rican Legislators convention in Albany. “The more I am traveling around the state, the more people get to know me, the more we build this relationship of trust that I’m going to be there for them just as I was there for my district.”

To call Kirsten Gillibrand’s introductory travels around the state a “listening tour” wouldn’t quite capture it. Yes, part of the mandate since her appointment last month by David Paterson has been to hear and address complaints from officials representing high-crime urban communities (she has an NRA-approved position on gun rights) and from black and Latino officials concerned about her restrictive stance on immigration.

But she is also laying down a marker. She is telling the state that it had better get used to her.

She is a fact of life.

“For those who are considering running, they will see that I am performing well,” she said, referring unmistakably to Democratic Representatives Carolyn McCarthy and Carolyn Maloney, each of whom has made noises about running against Ms. Gillibrand in 2010.

“Ultimately,” she said, “I don’t think there will be a primary.”
While New York’s new junior senator does not lack for brute political strength—tireless campaigning, monster fund-raising, unanimous backing from the state’s top-tier establishment—she can still be a bit of a blunt instrument.

On Jan. 30 at the St. Regis Hotel, Ms. Gillibrand met with about 30 influential liberal columnists and consultants over a spread of cookies and soda for an off-the-record talk about key policy issues.

According to several attendees, Ms. Gillibrand introduced herself by saying her experience as a lawyer prepared her for Congress because she had learned to read bills closely. She then answered a series of general questions with lengthy responses.
Then Dorothy Samuels, a member of the Times editorial board, launched into a particularly aggressive, rapid-fire line of questioning about Ms. Gillibrand’s position in support of a bill lifting all gun regulations in Washington, D.C. and her support of the so-called Tiahrt Amendment, which critics say inhibits access by law enforcement officials to gun data. At one point, Ms. Samuels asked, sarcastically, if Ms. Gillibrand’s years as an associate at a law firm representing Philip Morris taught her how to read the Tiahrt Amendment before she signed on because, as Michael Bloomberg argues, it prevents the authorities from getting information to pursue gun traffickers.

“Well, that’s not how I read the amendment,” Ms. Gillbrand responded.

One attendee said that Ms. Samuels went over some line, but several other attendees considered Ms. Gillibrand’s response to have been worse: vague, naïve, dismissive. At a certain point, when Ms. Gillibrand seemed to ramble during an economic question, an aide handed her a note. She stopped in the middle of the answer and read the note, which instructed her to move on, out loud.

She moved on.

“We were kind of shocked,” said one attendee. “She was unprepared and a little minor-league that day.”

Ms. Gillibrand remembers it differently.

“My view on the D.C. gun ban, which I told her, was that you could not be a gun owner in Washington, D.C., and I didn’t think that was fair,” said Ms. Gillibrand. “Because any law-abiding citizen should be able to own a gun, particularly if they want to hunt or for home protection, and I thought that was very, very different from laws to keep the guns out of the hands of criminals.”

She added, “Dottie asked, ‘How can you say you are going to end gun violence if you say that you are going to support the brief to end the D.C. gun ban.’ And we didn’t have time because literally it was the last question and we had already been given that we were late by 10 minutes so I couldn’t go into the full discussion, with her, which I would have.’”

Asked if she considered herself to have been dismissive of Ms. Samuels, who she acknowledged she didn’t know was a member of the Times editorial board, Ms. Gillibrand responded, with a chuckle, “Not at all. I think she was dismissive of my answer.”

An editorial headlined “Listening to Ms. Gillibrand” in the following morning’s New York Times concluded: “New Yorkers should expect much more.”

Maybe New Yorkers will get it, but in unexpected areas. While the press narrative has focused on guns and immigration—the issues on which Ms. Gillibrand continues to “evolve” (to use Chuck Schumer’s word)—she shows signs of assertiveness on other topics.

Take relations with Israel, a subject on which New York’s senators have traditionally assumed leadership stature as four-square supporters of whatever elected government happens to be in power.

In the Feb. 14 interview, Ms. Gillibrand said that the next prime minister of Israel—based on the recent close election that has yet to result in the formation of a governing coalition in the Knesset—would “probably” be the Likud Party’s Benjamin Netanyahu, a hawk who regards a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict as naïve and unworkable.

“You never know: as the leader, Mr. Netanyahu may find that when he works with America, he may broaden his view,” said Ms. Gillibrand. “He may decide that in the best interest of peace is a two-state solution. That may well indeed be the path to peace.”

Asked if she would advocate that position in the Senate, Ms. Gillibrand said, “I will certainly offer what I think is the best policy, regardless of what Netanyahu says is what he wants to do. I will always be an advocate for the solutions that I think will be most effective.”

And as for the United States applying diplomatic pressure on its ally, Ms. Gillibrand wasn’t entirely against the idea.

“I think the president will use all the means and all the tools in his toolbox to reach a solution for peace in the Middle East,” she said, adding, “And if he offers positive reinforcement or negative reinforcement, that will be a strategic decision for the administration and our secretary of state.”

Asked if she would generally be a standard-bearer for New York liberalism in the Senate, now that she represents the entire state, Ms. Gillibrand said, “I think we’ll see. I tend to look at each issue independently, each issue on the merits, and I rarely will decide my views based on whatever label will be given it.”

She continued, “I think on financial issues, I will have a view based on my experience, having been a securities lawyer, having come from upstate New York, where we tend to be more in favor of fiscal conservatism, pay as you go. On the financial issues, that may be areas where I might bring different views to the debate.”

On Saturday afternoon, a handful of supporters of Ms. Gillibrand, several wearing suits and mud-caked boots, came to the drab offices of Amalgamated Transit Union Local 1321, just down the road from the Hudson Valley Paper Company and Miss Albany Diner.

Union officials looked for toothpicks to poke into cheese cubes and pepperoni slices and brought out a tray of cookies studded with M&Ms. One man in a work shirt and baseball cap walked into the office and said, “I haven’t seen my girl in a while.” A middle-aged couple showed off their “Senator Gillibrand” buttons while the mayor of Albany, Gerald Jennings, complained that the Web site of The Times Union had published the wrong address for the event, in which Ms. Gillibrand would endorse Democratic businessman Scott Murphy, a red-haired political neophyte, as her successor in the 20th Congressional District.

Ms. Gillibrand arrived, dressed in a funereal black jacket with large black lapel buttons, white pearls, a black skirt with a frilled hem and shiny black flats. (After a morning political event, she had paid respects to the family of one of her former staffers whose mother had died.)

“How are you? Nice to see you,” Ms. Gillibrand repeated over and over as she shook the circle of extended hands around her. “I appreciate you coming out today.”
She took a cookie from the tray.

“I’m just going to steal this cookie because I might not get another chance,” she said before heading to the press conference.

Ms. Gillibrand, who went to Dartmouth and spent years working in a white-shoe corporate law firm in Manhattan, affects a homespun air. Upstate, she talks about the lessons her grandmother, Polly Noonan, a Democratic power broker, taught her, and of the importance of family.

Standing in front of the union’s seal, festooned with American and Canadian flags, she told the 50 or so local supporters, “I am so happy to be home,” and waved a special hello to her local reporters. She talked about the stimulus bill that had just passed in the Congress; demonstrated a fluency in energy technology grants; and called dairy farmers “the best businessmen I know.” When she ceded the podium to Mr. Murphy, she stood with hands folded in front of her and squinted and grinned as if there were sun in her eyes. It’s an expression she wears often when listening onstage. It’s her answer to the Hillary head nod.

When state Democratic Party chair June O’Neill asked if there were Democrats in the house, the whole room cheered, but when she asked if there were any converted Republicans in the house, Ms. Gillibrand alone said, “Absolutely.” She whispered “perfect” to Mr. Murphy when he finished his maiden political remarks, and came to his rescue when, in a question-and–answer session, her press aide asked if a reporter’s query about drug policy was intended for “Scott Johnson.”

“Murphy,” corrected Ms. Gillibrand.

After the press conference she greeted the people in the room, including Elizabeth Benjamin, an excellent, no-nonsense Daily News reporter who had asked about guns during the press conference. 

“How ya been?” said Ms. Gillibrand said to Ms Benjamin. “I love seeing you.”

According to Ms. Gillibrand’s base, she is doing everything right.

“The first people she met with are the first people she might have had a problem with,” said Bob “Rabbit” Riley, a Congressional liaison for the National Association of Letter Carriers, referring to the new senator’s downstate constituents who disagreed with her pre-evolved positions on guns and gay marriage and immigration. “Give her a year and a half, and she’ll be untouchable.”

A few minutes later, Ms. Gillibrand hopped in the passenger seat of the black Toyota 4Runner parked in front of the union’s doors, and traveled to the Crowne Plaza Hotel, which played host to the black and Latino convention over the weekend, and which was ground zero for the people who have a problem with her.

Ms. Gillibrand’s tactic seemed to be twofold. Appeal by listening, nodding and projecting accessibility. Demonstrate power by recruiting, talking about big money and reminding people that you are the senator from New York.   

As soon as she arrived at the hotel, she took a brief private meeting in a booth of the lobby restaurant with a veteran operative she was interviewing for a potential staff position. Then, followed by four female staffers, two of them toting notepads, Ms. Gillibrand walked to the elevator bank, where Charlie King, the executive director of Al Sharpton’s national Action Network, asked her how her day was going.

“It’s been O.K.,” she said, adding, with a punch in the air, “I got to endorse somebody.”

In the cramped elevator, Gloria Davis, a former assemblywoman who resigned after pleading guilty to bribery in 2003, turned to Ms. Gillibrand and said, “I knew your grandmother. I don’t know you at all.” 

“Where are you from,” Ms. Gillibrand responded cheerily, apparently not recognizing Ms. Davis.

“The Bronx,” said the woman.

“I’m headed to the Bronx this weekend!” Ms. Gillibrand said.
Ms. Davis looked unimpressed.

“So do you have any good stories about my grandmother?” said Ms. Gillibrand as the elevator doors slid open. “I love to hear all the dirt.”

“No,” Ms. Davis responded.

Ms. Gillibrand, ever merry, persisted. With her assistant, Tippins Stone, in tow, she asked Ms. Davis for her name, which she did not recognize, and her number. Ms. Davis coldly asked for Ms. Gillibrand’s card instead.

“Tippins,” Ms. Gillibrand said, grabbing her assistant’s green notepad and scribbling down a phone number and email address.

“Don’t give this information to anybody,” she told Ms. Davis. “It’s my private information.”

Outside a reception for New York’s State Senate majority leader, Malcolm Smith, Mr. King, who was acting as the senator’s unofficial liaison, brought forth Inez Dickens, who represents Harlem in the City Council.

Ms. Gillibrand kissed her on the cheek. Ms. Dickens, wearing a waist-length black fur coat, lectured the senator on how she needed to broaden her mindset.

“When you represent one area, you represent it to the best of your ability, I understand that,” said Ms. Dickens. “But when you represent the whole state, you have got to be willing to change your views, especially on guns.”

“It’s my honor to work with the communities,” responded Ms. Gillibrand.

When she finally walked into Mr. Smith’s reception, where many guests swarmed a buffet in the center of the carpeted ballroom, she had a hard time getting much attention. Mr. Smith introduced her to lukewarm applause.

“This is the leader’s reception, and I got the senator who’s going to get us high-speed rail. You’ve got to do better than that,” he said.

Ms. Gillibrand stepped out from behind the podium, and said, “I just want to introduce myself.” She then discussed specific energy and tax proposals before concluding, “I just want to thank you for letting me introduce myself.”

As she slowly made her way out of the room, tearing off scraps of paper with her email to more people, Mr. Smith told The Observer that he was confident that people around the state would soon understand that Ms. Gillibrand wouldn’t face a primary challenge. 

“I don’t believe she gets primaried,” said Mr. Smith. “I’m going to help them realize that.”

At a Bronx Democratic Party reception down the hall, teenagers wore “Bronx Youth Empowerment Program” sweatshirts and sat around the small stage as Ms. Gillibrand said, “I’m going to be the U.S. senator from the Bronx.” She talked about money for food stamps and education in the stimulus bill, emphasized the change in her immigration position after meeting with some Bronx legislators (“end these raids until we have a comprehensive immigration reform”) and tried to connect with the “moms” in the room. She talked about the rights of veterans and relayed the appreciation a Vietnam vet expressed to her after she helped him get disability money. (“Kirsten, every morning when I strap on my leg, I strap on my patriotism.”)

The crowd needed to be hushed from speaking over her a half-dozen times.

Ms. Gillibrand’s last reception of the day was held by 1199 SEIU in another ballroom decorated with a banner on the wall that read “Health Care Cuts By Caucus Member District.”

Ms. Gillibrand and her aides, now nearing the end of that day’s marathon get-to-know-me tour, made her way to the vegetables in the corner of the room. 

“What are the big issues for 1199?” she asked Henry Singleton, a union member and organizer of home-care workers, as she ate a small plate of marinated artichoke hearts with her fingers.

She listened to him talk about hospitals and the necessity of the brutal ad campaign the union had just waged against Governor David Paterson’s budget cuts, one of which included a blind person asking Mr. Paterson, “Why are you doing this to me?”

“Your advocacy is right on,” she said, placing the remaining oily ribbons of artichoke on a cracker. “I’ve seen your commercials. You bring it down to the people. Your commercials are great.”

“I like you already,” said Mr. Singleton.

The idea that her public performance has damaged her chances, maybe seriously, seems to have become the consensus take.

But Charlie King, at least, has a more charitable view.

“You have to give somebody context,” said King, who ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 with Andrew Cuomo and became executive director of Al Sharpton's National Action Network. (He says he’s still particularly close to Cuomo, as well as to Jerry Nadler and Randi Weingarten, whose names are also in the mix of hypothetical Senate appointees.)

“It takes a certain amount of time to get the rhythm of politics, regardless of how accomplished you are in any other place," he said. "And you can look at Bloomberg or you can look at anybody. It doesn’t mean they’re not qualified but it does mean she that she’s not going to be this polished politician. Or Obama for that matter. It doesn’t mean they’re going to be this polished politician right out of the box. If people are looking for Caroline during these interviews to basically talk sound and espouse her positions on her issues coming into this the way Hillary Clinton would sound like going out, I think that’s an unfair and unrealistic assessment.”

King also said that the circumstances of her rollout, created by a genuinely extraordinary demand in the media for stories about her, was less than ideal.

King said that even for an accomplished attorney and author “who sits down for back-to-back-to-back-to-back interviews with all of the press in the state, what would be your expectation of that presentation?”

And he said that Kennedy, unlike the other candidates, is in the awkward position of having to introduce herself and make her case, publicly, without appearing to campaign for the seat, since the vacancy will be filled by an appointment, not election.

“In Caroline’s defense,” said King, “everyone is pestering her because she’s an unconventional candidate and they want to know about her, but she can’t put on a full-force campaign because then she’ll be criticized for campaigning for a position that nobody else is campaigning for.”

]]> The reaction to Caroline Kennedy’s recent rollout, at least among unaffiliated political observers I've spoken to, has not been so positive.

The idea that her public performance has damaged her chances, maybe seriously, seems to have become the consensus take.

But Charlie King, at least, has a more charitable view.

“You have to give somebody context,” said King, who ran for lieutenant governor in 2002 with Andrew Cuomo and became executive director of Al Sharpton's National Action Network. (He says he’s still particularly close to Cuomo, as well as to Jerry Nadler and Randi Weingarten, whose names are also in the mix of hypothetical Senate appointees.)

“It takes a certain amount of time to get the rhythm of politics, regardless of how accomplished you are in any other place," he said. "And you can look at Bloomberg or you can look at anybody. It doesn’t mean they’re not qualified but it does mean she that she’s not going to be this polished politician. Or Obama for that matter. It doesn’t mean they’re going to be this polished politician right out of the box. If people are looking for Caroline during these interviews to basically talk sound and espouse her positions on her issues coming into this the way Hillary Clinton would sound like going out, I think that’s an unfair and unrealistic assessment.”

King also said that the circumstances of her rollout, created by a genuinely extraordinary demand in the media for stories about her, was less than ideal.

King said that even for an accomplished attorney and author “who sits down for back-to-back-to-back-to-back interviews with all of the press in the state, what would be your expectation of that presentation?”

And he said that Kennedy, unlike the other candidates, is in the awkward position of having to introduce herself and make her case, publicly, without appearing to campaign for the seat, since the vacancy will be filled by an appointment, not election.

“In Caroline’s defense,” said King, “everyone is pestering her because she’s an unconventional candidate and they want to know about her, but she can’t put on a full-force campaign because then she’ll be criticized for campaigning for a position that nobody else is campaigning for.”

]]> http://observer.com/2008/12/charlie-king-on-what-kennedy-is-going-through/feed/ 0 jhanasobserver