Hmmm? I wonder how that happened?

Hardly a surprise. I am not a New Yorker so I haven't paid all that much attention but intially was favorably disposed, now not.

If I were Paterson, I'd go with Cuomo

FUN FACT: Cuomo is married to RFK's daughter.

Excellent news. Cuomo, like his father, is neither likeable or easy to work with, but also like Mario he has the twin advantages of usually being the smartest person in the room and always being up for a repug beat-down.

Chuck Schumer is shitting his pants right now. Probably Harry Reid, too.

It seems all the negative spin on her worked. She wasn't a good enough politician and didn't have in place a good strategist it seems to quell the frenzy that began once suspicion of her running surfaced.

NY voters barely know Andrew Cuomo (and KY Yellow Dog is exactly right--he's tough to work with, and doesn't compensate for it with brilliance like his dad). And likewise, we barely know Caroline Kennedy. On top of all of this, I just don't think NYers are really that focused on any of this, nor do I think we really even care that much who our Senator is. The last serious Senate race in the state was when D'Amato lost, which was a big deal because so many of us hated him. But ever since Rudy dropped out, and a non-NYer somehow breezed into office as our Senator, it feels like we gave up on caring who really held the seat (so long as it was a 'D').

So anyway, my measly point: I don't think this or the other polls represents much in the way of real, informed opinion. And I don't think the majority of voters are motivated to get a real, informed opinion. And unfortunately, the only thing that would perhaps motivate (at least prime) voters to get one would be a contested primary, which this appointment may perhaps foreclose...

The shift in opinion could have something to do with a NY Times article from a couple weeks ago that was very sympathetic to Cuomo. At the time, I was already irritated with the notion that Kennedy would swoop in and take the seat unearned, and after I read the article, irritation progressed to indignation. Cuomo came out looking like a hard worker who deserved a second look.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/20/nyregion/20cuomo.html?scp=6&sq=cuomo&st=cse

So what?

What's really of interest here? One wealthy, priveleged person benefits at the expense of another in popularity polls that mean nothing.

Big deal.

Paterson could (and should IMHO)put an end to all the pointless and unproductive speculation by simply saying who it is he will pick. That will stop all this idiotic gossip because that is what it is and that is all it is.

If the poll had shown voters favoring Carolyn Maloney or some other hard-working public servant, then maybe it would deserve some attention. But to prefer Andrew Cuomo to *anyone* (street sweepers included!!) shows that it's just a game of name -recognition and gossip columns squared. He got the benefit of the doubt from voters because of his brilliant and deservedly respected father, but his conduct in office has confirmed - or deepened - every bad rumor about unseemly tactics, ethics, etc. there were in his former positions with HUD and in private sector.

He will run over or stab in the back anyone who happens to get in the way of the two most important things in the world: his own perceived importance and his pocket book. I can see feeling that perhaps Caroline Kennedy has to thin a resume, but if you thing A.C. would be better than her, then you don't know how he's been running his office. Unfortunately, I'm not at liberty to provide details about some of his techniques that I've personally witnessed. Someday, however, the "fit will hit the shan" and no one will consider him a hard worker who deserves a second look, no matter what the NYT says.

It seems like Caroline thought that simply "deciding" whether she wanted to do this or not was enough. That all she needed to do was come out of the shadows and the seat would be hers. Without any real preparation on the issues.

She should run in 2010, and spend the next year preparing. She is certainly capable of rising above what has been a PR nightmare for her.

I'd like to see a real contest for this seat. In the mean time, Gillibrand sounds like a compelling choice for the appointment.

Speaking of nepotism, isn't Cuomo also riding on his father's coat tails??

If the point is that public servants should be selected on their merits, rather than their family connections, having Cuomo lead in the polls is isn't much of an improvement. (And yes, I know Cuomo was elected as the state's attorney general, and served as HUD Secretary in Bill Clinton's second term).

How about Jerrold Nadler? Or Carolyn Maloney? I'd mention Nita Lowey also, but she apparently has made it clear she wouldn't want to give up her seniority in the House to move to the Senate.

I have no problem with either Kennedy or Cuomo running for the seat in 2010, and if the voters select them, that's fine. But I don't think either should be appointed - doing so would add an advantage of incumbency to their strong name recognition brands.

I was in Buffalo for the holidays. Talk radio has been very critical of her. She made a bunch of rookie mistakes (driving a Toyoto, her choice of people to meet with...) on her visit to the city. For example, a few are listed here:

http://www.buffalonews.com/cityregion/story/526356.html

Paterson sure is taking his time...

Right now I kind of default to Kennedy -- all of the other suggested names have substantial experience in playing to the myriad micro-constituencies that dominate the New York political infrastructure: feminist groups, labor unions, Hispanics, African Americans, Catholics, upstaters, downstaters, urbanites, suburbanites, among a host of other distinct special interest "constituencies". The alternative to the laundry list of narrowcasting politics as usual in New York– would actually be Kennedy. She is not a slick, canned, career politician. And just after the country elected a president who disavowed compartmentalizing interests and ideologies, a Kennedy appointment would, ironically signal a shift away from crass, purely political expediency which is embedded in New York politics and government. David Paterson succeeded to the governor slot by deign of scandal – and in short order has defied expectations and shown strong leadership in exigent times – leadership that might not have been readily apparent when he served as State Senator. Perhaps Kennedy, -- who at least seems to be a somewhat sober, serious, and learned individual who lacks overt charisma and slickness, is maybe just who we need to represent New York's interests in the US Senate in this time of crisis and challenge. She s certainly wired to Obama -- and that can't hurt New York.