NY's O'Donnell Challenges US Senate's Heteros-Only Rule

[Smarmie Doofus]

This may not be as far-fetched as it sounds. My recollection is the two have worked well ( both progressive DEMs both Manhattanites, both interested in GLBT issues) over the years in Albany.

Paterson could really make history... if that is his intention.






http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/interviewing-for-the-job-of-us-senator/?hp


Interviewing for the Job of U.S. Senator
By Jeremy W. Peters


Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell (Photo: Mike Groll/Associated Press)


Perhaps not since the last season of Donald J. Trump’s NBC series “The Apprentice” was filmed in Manhattan have New Yorkers seen more competition for a single job.

And all that vying — for the seat that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton is expected to give up if she is confirmed as secretary of state — has made Gov. David A. Paterson’s office a very busy place these days.

Enter the latest contender to sit down face to face with the governor: Assemblyman Daniel J. O’Donnell, a Democrat who represents the Upper West Side. Mr. O’Donnell met with Mr. Paterson for about 45 minutes on Monday afternoon in the governor’s Midtown office for what Mr. O’Donnell said was his formal interview for the Senate seat.

To say Mr. O’Donnell, known for his active support of gay rights issues, including same-sex marriage, was overly optimistic about his chances would be a stretch. He put his odds of getting the seat at about one in 10, or “about the same as the population of gay people in the world.” But Mr. O’Donnell did offer that he believes the governor has yet to settle on a final choice.

“I didn’t get the impression that a decision was coming anytime soon,” Mr. O’Donnell said. “I have the sense that he was really weighing what people were saying. I can tell when people are listening to me and actually listening, and listening to me just because they’re supposed to listen. He seemed to be very intent on focusing on and absorbing what I think my strengths might be.”

more...

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/12/30/interviewi...

[xchrom]

1. not going to happen. -- i wish it would -- but

not going to happen.

[Smarmie Doofus]

2. I'm not so sure. It's an unsettled situation.

Paterson himself is a fluke. He also has a bit of an envelope-pusher in him. And he's been interested in GLBT issues since he was a kid in the 70s.

[GodlessBiker]

3. I think Patterson resents Kennedy being pushed on him. I like Patterson. I'd like him to appoint..

NY Senator Tom Duane, but I think I'd be happy with O'Donnell.

[Smarmie Doofus]

5. I think he does resent the heavy-handed lobbying of the Kennedy-

-Bloomberg apparatchiks and probably thinks ( correctly imo) that he'll look ridiculous if he names Caroline at this point. They've been telling people that it's done deal and they better get on board "before the train pulls out." ( I read that as 'endorse Caroline or else'.)

Re. Duane: good pick also; longer track record that Danny O. and kind of a trailblazer here: first openly gay man to hold elective public office. But , far as I know , he's not interested in the job and might be harder to reelect than O'donnell.

[dsc]

4. I think Christine Quinn would be a more viable choice if he decides on that direction

as President of Council she is currently serving the entire city which is a big advantage.

[Smarmie Doofus]

6. She's all tied up with Bloomberg these days....

... and Bloomberg already has a horse in this race.

Besides, Bloomberg strongly hinted that Christine " had a great future ahead in the private sector" if she continues to cooperate with him in the Council. He will either want to keep her there or put her to work in some other capacity... is my guess.

She does have name recognition, I'll give you that. Her independence is at issue. I'd prefer Duane or O'Donnell.

[GodlessBiker]

7. I agree. Quinn is to Bloomberg as Blair was to Bush. Lapdog.

[TEmperorHasNoClothes]

8. i think we have to be careful about statements like that

The senate doesn't have a hetero only rule. LGBTs have to present a viable candidate who has to be elected by the voters. If we act as though there is discrimination everywhere, it waters down when there really is discrimination, IMHO.