Skip to main content

From the article by Brian Keeler:Gillibrand Hit Piece by the Times: A Classic Study -

It's more like a classic example of a hit piece than a classic study of one. I will try to combine the two.

You see, Brian's focus is a bit narrow. He neglects so much in his unbiased review.

First off let's just start with the other three titles of blogs/articles he's written for Huff Po - "I Ran for Office with Kirsten Gillibrand" and "Carolyn Maloney: Progressive?" and Maloney's "Speak-Before-You-Think" Problem?

Interesting.

Brian's skewed view of the NYT Gillibrand article:

As for their motives, one could conjecture that a bad case of sour grapes was the driving force behind it's front page placement. They were, after all, the paper of record for the pro-Caroline Kennedy movement to replace Senator Clinton.

That's one perspective to take. Another is that they're the paper of record for New York. Period. Or another is that they offered Gillibrand( A Senator) an opportunity to contribute to the article and she backed out.  Perhaps, it's because of that little ditty and other parts of the article the authors found so disturbing(that Brian chose not to include in his "study")that the NYT thought it was worth reading.

Like, where it discussed attorney's abusing their attorney-client privilege to allow Philip Morris to get away with murder.

Or the part, where they stated Gillibrand could have refused to work for Philip Morris.

Or that contrary to Kirsten's own words, she was a hell of a lot more than just a junior associate doing deposition summaries or document production for $300 per hour.

Keeler concludes with this -

The short analysis is that Gillibrand has a 100% anti-tobacco voting record in Congress and the Senate,

 That's really short analysis, because if Keeler had looked at the data he used in his article, he'd see that her 100% is based on only two pieces of legislation.

One piece of legislationwas pushed by her former paycheck client Philip Morris so they could bypass state lawsuits and freeze out their competition.(That link's from the NY Times, too, Brian...perhaps they're the ones that are truly anti-Philip Morris)

The second piece she had little choice but to vote for , because it would have meant voting against S-CHIP(health coverage for poor children) if she didn't.

Kirsten was an attorney for 15 years before taking office. ALL 15 years were spent representing Philip Morris or their parent company, Altria. The way in which Philip Morris used their attorneys to cloak their poisonous secrets was called into light by federal judges. Gillibrand and her staff underrepresented her time spent, and depth of working for Philip Morris. These facts raise reasonable questions that Gillibrand backed out of answering.

So Brian, really, come on, pick up some Grey Goose and leave the Grey Lady alone. Just doing their duty.  How would you like it if someone "conjectured" that an article written by a political operative, so biased as you, had an ulterior motive or undisclosed interest?

Ok, I think this my last diary that pertains to Kirsten Gillibrand for sometime. I became recently intrigued by her statements and those of her ardent supporters and potential beneficiaries (Keeler) regarding the subject. I received an incredibly spirited response to my previous diaries and look forward to further dialog. I know this article is not from this news cycle, but once I read it, I couldn't help but be offended by the lack of depth and the strength of vitriol. I also don't believe one should be confined to a news cycle. Brian Keeler certainly wasn't in his most recent article.

What I'd really like with the NY Senate race is to be able to point to a stable and progressive track record of voting and biographical disclosure that makes me embarrassed I ever questioned Gillibrand's credibility. I don't believe that's currently possible. Brian certainly doesn't help her case.

What's quite telling about Brian, is that in his latest Maloney slamfest he cherry picks from the very same New York Times. Twice.  

(and an unqualified cite from the ever credible Washington Times)

UPDATE What's disappointing about Brian, is that as a NY political insider, he should know that it's looking more and more like Maloney will back out. Writing shallow, biased articles like he does about a long-time fighter like Maloney is just poor form and indicative of base motives.

Originally posted to JerichoJ8 on Thu Jul 30, 2009 at 10:28 PM PDT.

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site