| Jon is a friendly fellow who comes across as bright, interested, willing to listen and debate. He has piercing blue eyes and when he looks at you, you are left with a sense that he is talking straight from the heart.
What he says is that he has little or no objections with Senator Gillibrand's current stands on positions. But he leaves the next comment to the observer.
Who, in my case, agreed that the real concern with Gillibrand is that her embrace of progressive positions has come only since her appointment to the Senate.
How heart felt are those positions? Or, in other words, which set of positions are her true preferences: the ones she held in the House or the ones she holds in the Senate? And, if the winds change in a way that make it look politically expedient to switch back, will she continue with her current positions?
If she is elected next year, then she'll face the voters again in two years but in a climate (having been recently elected) where a primary will be very difficult.
I liked Cooper but I'm not ready to sign on and support him yet. I don't see that he has much chance to beat Gillibrand in a primary, given her support from the Party, other elected officials, and large donors and the power of incumbency.
For him to take her on, he needs a Big Issue that resonates deeply with voters in which he disagrees strongly with Senator Gillibrand.
But I don't know how he can find that issue-- given her shift to relatively progressive positions. I also don't know how he can keep that issue with her willingness to change her positions at the call of expediency.
He needs to catch fire, he needs to build a following, and he needs to have a strong reason for New York Democrats to switch away from a sitting Senator.
I'd like to think it is possible to get all three, but the power of incumbency makes belief in that difficult.
That certainly says more about us, and the "system", than it does about Jon Cooper. |
