NYT: As New Lawyer, Senator Gillibrand Defended Big Tobacco

In the mid-1990s, Kirsten Gillibrand played a major role in battling government attempts to prove wrongdoing by cigarette makers. And it seems that she was much more immersed in this drama than I had reported before on this blog and on The Albany Project. I'm told by my detractors that we've got to become more acquainted with Gillibrand better before we start asking her the tough questions, so I encourage everyone to read this piece.

This is the most important point made in the article (for those of you that don't want to click the link):

Of course, many lawyers, including some who now serve in the Senate, have defended unpopular clients. Still, in an approach that was not uncommon at law firms that represented tobacco companies, lawyers at Davis Polk were permitted to decline work on the tobacco cases if they had a moral or ethical objection to the work, Mr. Chang said.

So my question is why would she not have an objection to working for such a client at the time? It certainly does not jibe with her new squeaky-clean anti-tobacco image.

There is a real worry here: Does Sen. Gillibrand employ situational ethics and does she have a strong moral grounding on the issues.

I've had it with opportunistic politicians on both sides of the aisle who will say anything to get elected and really have no strongly held beliefs-and I'm not convinced Gillibrand is not one more of them. I think twice about voting for someone that shows obvious signs of being a weak and flexible politician and I think exploring Gillibrand's background is just the type of due diligence we need to do as voters. I want the politicians that represent me to have backbones and unwavering dedication to their beliefs.

Read the article in the Times