When Governor David Paterson named Kirsten Gillibrand as New York’s junior Senator, I received an email asking what I thought of the selection.  I said, “who?”  I was still pondering Caroline Kennedy’s sudden withdrawal from consideration when this struck.  It’s a big state, and it’s hard to know everyone.  But being tagged as Senator is pretty big, so it seemed that it should be someone with whom there was some general familiarity.

Kirsten Gillibrand, the Democratic congresswoman from the 20th District, was elected in 2006. Gov. David A. Paterson selected her to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Ms. Gillibrand comes from a politically sophisticated family: her father was an attorney and lobbyist with ties to George Pataki; her grandmother was a prominent Democratic activist in Albany who brought Ms. Gillibrand along with her on the campaign trail.

The sprawling 20th Congressional District of New York clamps around the Albany metro area and includes much of the Hudson Valley—the grand river south of Albany and the smaller river, freshly fed by the Adirondacks, to the north.

Aha!  The old sprawling 20th.  What was I thinking?  An interesting district, comprised of 27 farmers, some cows and a goat.  The perfect pool from which to pluck a one-term congresswoman with top-notch NRA credentials.

Caroline Kennedy, lack of experience aside, has long been a respected participant in the affairs of New York.  Experienced in government?  No.  Experienced in dealing with the upper echelons of power?  Quite.  Respected? Very.  And with the high profile that one would come to expect from a Senator of the State of New York.

It’s not that New York is too good, too important, to have an off-brand Senator.  It’s just that they don’t get the job without having to put themselves on the line by running for the post in a general election.  By definition, when one is done with a statewide election for Senator, we know who you are. 

When I first heard the news, visions of Sarah Palin popped into my head. The surprising unknown quantity, sprung on us about 12 second after Caroline ditched.  A quickie choice to replace a last-minute pull out, without time for serious reflection.  Someone without breadth of knowledge about the State (as if Hillary was a dyed-in-the-wool New Yorker). 

I read that she was a conservative Democrat.  Smart, a good campaign money-raiser, a security’s lawyer.  She was pro-gun, but also for restrictions.  She spoke out in favor of gay marriage, alarming to most of the cows in her district.  And she had one term in Congress, meaning she had yet to get the juice to dole out any serious money yet.  Not much to go on, really.

My initial reaction was that Paterson should have appointed someone with a far higher profile, whose name would mean something to New Yorkers, whose background was known, who reflected the level of prominence we hope for in a Senator.  My sense was that Paterson’s running for Governor, and wanted to buy some upstate love.

But on the other hand, New York has had a history of show pony Senators, always available for a press conference or photo op, and particularly adept at quotable statements.  Heck, we elected Hillary, who needed a map to find her way to her Chappaqua home. 

Maybe Kirsten Gillibrand is an excellent choice, and the fact that we don’t have a clue who she is means that we just haven’t come to appreciate her yet.  One of her first adventures was to hold Chuck Schumer’s hand and go to Sylvia’s in Harlem.  Smart move, though she should have eaten there instead of just kissing babies.  But an interesting exchange happened during the visit:

Ms. Gillibrand answered questions from reporters after her speech at Mr. Sharpton’s headquarters, but it was a question from a man in the audience about Sean Bell that provided an awkward moment. The man asked her if she thought the police shooting deaths of Mr. Bell, Amadou Diallo and Oscar Grant III — a young, unarmed black man shot and killed by a transit officer in Oakland, Calif., on New Year’s Day — were murders.

“I think each of the cases were terrible instances of things we need to right in our community, and I think that your concern and your anger and your outrage is valid, important and just,” Ms. Gillibrand replied.

The man pushed further, asking her again if she thought the shooting deaths were crimes and if she had seen the videotape of Mr. Grant’s shooting, which has been shown on Internet and news sites. “Based on the videotape, it looked like a crime to me,” she said.

Only two tries, and she answered the question.  The first response was the politician’s.  The second response was the human’s.  So there is a human being inside there.  That’s important to know.

It may not be a bad thing for New York to have a new Senator without a household name.  Someone who’s position isn’t based on family prominence.  Someone who can respond like a real person with only a minimum of prodding.  Maybe she hasn’t been soiled by life in politics, always concerned about how the public will react to her words rather than what she has to say.  Politics ruins people, and they’ve usually been through a lot of it before they’re allowed inside the Senate Chamber.  Is she our Mr. Smith?

It’s too early to draw any conclusions about Kirsten Gillibrand, although this will be a very telling choice for David Paterson’s political future.  If she turns out to be the Senator New York needs, even though she’s brand-X, then he’s brilliant.  As for me, I would be happy if she turns out to be a real person, with actual beliefs and the willingness to reason.  If she is, we’ll learn her name and she’ll deserve her appointment.