THE GILLIBRAND LESSON. I am pleased to see credentialed deep-thinkers like Evan McMorris-Santoro of TPM discovering, as I did months ago, that Kirsten Gillibrand is one of the safer reelection bets among Democratic Senators. But McMorris-Santoro says:

She may have earned herself a second term simply by not being the controversial figure many in the Democratic party thought she would be.

Close, but "many in the Democratic Party" don't know what the fuck they're talking about. What could be controversial about her? She's as managed a candidate as I've ever seen. From the get-go Chuck Schumer and some other smart Dems have been packaging Gillibrand brilliantly:

• Lots of Listening Tours in the hinterlands (whence she came -- it's not just for carpetbaggers like Hillary);
• Unashamedly going "ahem" to the White House any time some rogue Democrat challenged her;
• Association with high-profile clean-water, safe-baby, and anti-gun legislation.

That last bit is the most interesting and, I think, has the widest applicability. I recall when Schumer pulled Gillibrand off the NRA gold-star list and handed her a typical New York liberal gun position -- namely, anti. It was supposed to be too radical for those anti-statists upstate -- and actually a little too anti for me. (Thank God I'm in Texas now, where I can easily get guns and drunk as God intended!)

But it's all in the way you spin it, and along with her other palaver, the gun stuff helps present Gillibrand as a goo-goo, family-friendly type, which position turned out to be formidable enough to scare away Giuliani and several other contenders.

The moral of the story is: When you read how them Tea Parties is sweeping the nation, look at your local theater listings; look at the anodyne, MOR crap that's popular. Look at your grocery aisles, your department store shelves, etc. How much has changed there in a year? It's rare that people stray very far from the models they're accustomed to follow, in politics or in anything else -- especially when the other side isn't making a good argument for change.

Considering the complete and almost unprecedented collapse of the Republican Party from 2006 onwards -- recession, sex scandals, and all -- Obama should have carried fifty states in 2008; as it was, he only got over at all because the GOP got on the wrong side of a real watershed. And a watershed is not the sort of thing you reverse quickly. Hell, the Democrats even got over all right in the 1978 Congressional elections.

This isn't an argument for the moral superiority of Obama or Gillibrand or anyone, but a caution against any lazy assessment of any incumbent as "weak" just because the papers are now full of anti-incumbent talk. Given all the big Democrats like Evan Bayh recently quitting and such like, a lot of people expect big Democratic losses this year. Most of them certainly don't deserve to hold their seats. But as Clint Eastwood once said, deserve's got nothing to do with it.