Northern border stiffed again at Homeland Security?

President-elect Obama has tapped Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano to head the Department of Homeland Security.

She has a law-enforcement background -- she was Az-land's first female AG and also a US Attorney -- and she knows immigration.

(Anti-immigration forces might suggest that she knows it and loves it.)

But what about the US-Canada border? Study after study shows that significant security threats persist in Canada.

Will the Northern Frontier drop off the radar screen? Will there be a rethink of the "militarization" of the US-Can border?

In the shameless plug division, tune in Monday for the 8 O'clock Hour, when we'll talk with Dr. Christopher Kirkey at SUNY Plattsburgh about the future of US-Canada relations.

Gillibrand on the short list for US Senator?

The Associated Press is describing North Country congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand as among the top-three contenders for Senator Hillary Clinton's spot, should Clinton join the Obama administration.

As expectations continue to rise that Hillary Clinton will leave her Senate seat to become Barack Obama's Secretary of State, a trio of New Yorkers are tight-lipped about their chances to succeed her.

They are representatives Brian Higgins of Buffalo, Kirsten Gillibrand of Hudson, and Nita Lowey of Harrison. If Clinton does leave, Governor Paterson will appoint a successor who will hold herSenate seat until 2010, when a special election would be held.

The New York Times has also joined the speculation. They offered this quote from Rep. Gillibrand:

As Ms. Gillibrand was rushing out of the Capitol, she brushed off a question about whether she would accept the job if offered. “I think that’s highly premature,” she said.

Gillibrand has enjoyed close ties with Clinton. But she lacks the seniority of some of the other picks -- and her district is potentially more vulnerable to a Republican challenge if she were to depart.

Lame ducks in Albany & Washington

In Washington, it's all about kicking the can of the economy down the road. Bailouts for the big automakers seem to be stalled, possibly dead, until the new Congress and the new President take office.

In Albany, the outgoing Senate Republican leadership says No to Governor Paterson's budget cuts, which leaves Paterson in the position of being the biggest budget hawk in New York.

The bottom line? The Democrats will have to sort this out...and the Republicans get to play the role of critic.

The stakes are high. If the Dems come back next year and put the pieces back together, they'll be the grown-ups, the ones who could get things done.

But Obama and Paterson will also be holding the bag (and a very smelly, overstuffed bag it is) if things crater.

Hillary agonistes

Midstream in her second term as a New York Senator, Hillary Rodham Clinton has spent much of the last two years fighting fiercely - if sometimes clumsily - for a shot at the White House.

The question now: What next?

Somewhat shockingly, the Obama administration has floated the idea of Clinton as Secretary of State. According to some press accounts, the former First Lady has been offered the job and may have decided to accept.

Pundits on both sides of the matter are fierce.

Some advance her obvious intelligence and her long service to the Democratic cause; others deride her lack of experience and raise questions about her husband's entanglements.

My reservations are different: I would like to see what Clinton could accomplish as a fully engaged United States Senator.

As Barack Obama showed, it is difficult to be an activist lawmaker while also campaigning for the White House. Clinton's tenure so far has been similarly cautious.

This is her chance to put her stamp on the big issues of the day. What would an ambitious Clinton healthcare bill look like? Or a new proposal on rural revitalization?

How would her proposals on foreign trade differ from those of her husband? Would she "walk back" NAFTA and GATT?

Obviously, as Secretary of State, Clinton would add another impressive line to her already impressive resume. But she would also find herself once again in a supporting role.

Good Secretaries of State are cautious, team players. I, for one, would like to see New York's junior Senator play her own hand and play it daringly.

Agree? Disagree? Post your comment below.

Help! NCPR needs you to design our new blog!

We're ticking down the days to the end of the Ballot Box. (I still wake up in the morning and wonder what the overnight polls look like.)

NCPR's news team wants to maintain some kind of blog here on the home page, but it has to be something the North Country community will find useful, informative and entertaining.

In other words, something web guru Dale Hobson won't consign to the shadowy cupboard of our vast -- nay, Gormenghastian - website.

We're asking, begging for your input. Got an idea for a name? Any fantastic ideas that will trigger more comments, more on-line discussion?

Think of this as a desperate pledge-pitch-type situation...only instead of your dollars we need your clever suggestions, your wisdom, your opinions.

Think of the news blog sort of like Tinkerbell. If we can get enough people to believe in it, it will survive. Otherwise, not so much.

So hit the comment below and wax on.

Election Post-Op, Part Two: America's new status quo?

We've been reporting for a long time on America's remarkably divided political landscape. People debate whether the U.S. is center-left or center-right and the answer, obviously, is Yes.

In much of rural America, the values remain complexly but staunchly conservative. Last week, the Wall Street Journal reported from Ochiltree County, Texas -- a place I've visited.

Some people here still can't quite believe that President-elect Barack Obama won the White House; they consider him inexperienced and too liberal. "I had one fellow ask me, 'Has the whole country gone slap dab crazy?," says Jim Hudson, publisher of the Perryton Herald.

But in many urban and suburban communities -- where 80% of Americans live -- the zeitgeist is remarkably progressive. Here's the take from conservative writer Tod Lindberg, writing for the Washington Post.

Nowadays, it's a fair bet that most of those calling themselves "liberal" support gay marriage. In 1980, those same liberals were, no doubt, cutting-edge supporters of gay rights, but the notion of same-sex marriage would have occurred only to the most avant-garde.

In 1980, having a teenage daughter who was pregnant out of wedlock would have ruled you out for the No. 2 spot on the Democratic ticket. This year, it turned out to be a humanizing addition to the conservative vice presidential nominee's résumé.

Normally, this sort of polarization would suggest changeability and the swinging of political pendulums. Not this time.

There's a sense in political circles that a new electoral map is hardening, with Democrats staking out a clear and perhaps durable advantage.

The trouble for Republicans is that they have effectively maximized their constituency.
Using aggressive redistricting and new marketing strategies, the GOP seized as many congressional districts (and Electoral College votes) as possible during the 1980s and 1990s.

They also spent a quarter-century gleefully converting Boll Weevil Democrats in the South into die-hard Republicans. But now those "easy" pick-ups have all been pocketed.

Democrats, too, have largely staked out their natural territory -- but at the end of the day the Dems enjoy a thirty-seat advantage in the House and at least a seven-vote margin in the US Senate.

They control far more state houses and governorships than the Republicans. And they appear to have captured the imagination of the next generation of voters.

"Here's the stark reality," writes Lindberg. "It is now harder for the Republican presidential candidate to get to 50.1 percent than for the Democrat."

What this means is that Republicans can no longer hope to activate an eager, silent majority out there. They can't "govern from their base."

Instead, they'll have to find ideas and arguments that speak compellingly to voters in center-center districts, places like upstate New York.

They'll have to reshape the rural-white "Joe the Plumber" stuff in a form that crosses ethnic, gender and geographic boundaries.

Otherwise, the new status quo could be, well, static for a long time to come.

Some pundits paint rural America with broad brush

NCPR's Jonathan Brown writes:

In post-election analysis of voting trends, a lot of pundits are taking a second look at rural America. And the results aren’t always pretty. In the Sunday New York Times, columnist Frank Rich wrote:

Those occasional counties that tilted more Republican tended to be not only the least diverse, but also the most rural, least educated and slowest-growing in population.

If Rich’s tone sounds superior, that’s because it is. He’s using the term "rural" as a broad brush to paint regions like the North Country (and the Appalachians, the South and large swaths of Middle America and the Rocky mountain West as a monolithic voting bloc).

The thrust of Rich's column is neatly summed up by the pull quote in the Times print edition: "America's all-white party is still in denial."

(Here’s the link to his column. Even a cursory look at returns in the North Country shows the region doesn’t fit the picture he paints.

Here’s a (very) cursory look at a few counties (percentages of votes for Obama and mcCain only):
St Lawrence: Obama, 56%; mcCain, 41%
Jefferson: O, 46%; m, 53%
Clinton: O, 61%, m, 38%
Essex: O, 56%, m, 42%
Franklin: O, 60%, m, 39%

Still, Frank Rich’s column raises a question worth asking here: Did race affect North Country voters? How? Let us know what you think (click the “Comment” link at the lower right of this posting) and listen this week as Brian mann talks with J.W. Wiley, an African-American scholar and consultant who lives in the North Country and focuses on racial issues.

The interview is part of our on-going Fresh Start series, a look at big ideas and big challenges facing President-elect Obama.