Ha, so much for voting for what you believe in.

This is why I couldn't be in politics, I couldn't take a position I didn't believe in just because it was a better fit for my constituency, or because taking a different position was more politically expedient.

Good for her. If being moved up to the Senate is what it took for her to get rid of a bit of prejudice (for political reasons or whatever) then good for her. That means there will be one less neanderthal voting in the Senate. (now if only Inhofe and McConnell would resign....)

I'm really not going to complain here. The more support in the Senate for gay marriage, the better.

Being from Western New York I don't know much about Ms. Gillibrand however, if she plans to keep the seat beyond 2010 I think we'll see her move further left...and that's not a bad thing.

She has the support of Clinton and Schumer and that too will help her going forward and I've also read that she was recruited by Rahm Emanuel.

All in all a solid choice it looks like.

Hey, does this mean we're all spared the Full Metal Aravosis Freakout? I'm glad to have back that week of huffy outrage and foot-stomping I would have lost.

Swiveling positions are no better than wrong ones. This is a bad selection. Probably losing a HR seat, certainly drawing a major primary fight, and likely weakening Paterson's election chances.

Don't need those upstate yocals anymore?

Wow what great news! I give conservative district Democrats a lot of room to wiggle to hold those districts and keep the Democrats in power in DC. If you do not understand how to compromise to reach a larger goal you are eliminated from power and nothing gets done. I actually assume Clinton and Obama really have nothing against Gay Marriage either but do not want to loose an election over it. As we noticed in California, this issue is moving our way but one step at a time. I am actually thrilled that the new Senator from New York is willing to get ahead of the curve on this. Perhaps New York is going to be the next state to legalize Gay Marriage. Good!

Hey as long as she's still for armor piercing ammo and cop killer bullets. Those are necessary for pest control out here in the rural counties.

I mean, the NPR blogger picked Gillibrand way back in early December.

I wonder how capricious this stance is. I would bet that increasing local political activism of the numerous upscale gays in and around Dutchess and Columbia Counties has helped get her elected in the first place (she was one of the 3 NY Dem candidates elected as the result of the 2006 "Take back the House" campaign); also bear in mind that such folks (even the many weekenders) have deep pockets for Dem candidates.

Let's not self-destruct here and start thinking of 3rd party candidates. Any Dem active in upstate NY politics knows how fine a line we have had to tread to bring local moderates on board in pursuit of our larger goals. Since the GOP carved out and gerrymandered all the liberal academic hotspots upstate into one skinny crooked snake of a district (represented by Maurice Hinchey) Dems have been painstakingly eroding GOP power even where it seems unlikely. It's not pretty or easy but it's happening.

Blue Dogs never vote for what they believe in. They vote for what they believe is "in".

Interesting. I've always wondered what the balance should be between leadership, representation of your constituency, and pure political survival.

So, while some are bashing her for changing positions, a valid argument is that her constituency changed, and she needs to represent the majority of her constituents on each issue.

On the other hand, there is the moral obligation to do what is right... whatever that may mean to her.

And then again, there is the need to stay alive politically in order to do anything at all.

This is the facinating tension of a politician's life. We all know deep inside that they just want to lead. Like everyone else in the world, they think they're right, and they want to be in charge, and run the show, and make things happen the way it 'should' be. But, then there's the problem of representative government, and being tossed out of office if you stray too far from the public's will. So, they compromise, and equivocate, triangulate and muddy the water with mixed messages and doublespeak. They flip-flop on issues when it becomes convenient. They become the opposite of leaders, trading risk and leadership for security and a stage to perform on. (And those are just the benign politicians. I'm not talking about the Rovian types who manipulte, lie and cheat.)

And, on our end, we want both leadership and representation. But, we only want leaders if they lead on our terms. Again, representation wins out over leadership. And, stepping back, this is probably a good thing, and one of the aims of a democratic system.

So, while we may laugh a little at the politician who changes their position so easily, I don't understand the anger. This is exactly the way the system is designed. We shouldn't be surprised; this shift is entirely predictable and commonplace in politics. As long as she's not employing Rovian tactics, I'm not concerned.