Gillibrand dodges political bullet by voting No on Wall Street bailout

Time will tell whether Democratic congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand’s “No” vote was right or wrong from a policy perspective.

If we’re mired in a Great Depression by Christmas, she might well have cause to regret her decision.

If Congress reaches a better financial rescue package, she’ll win huge points for patience and principle.

In the meantime, what’s certain is that the vote was politically astute.

Once again, Gillibrand has deftly denied Republican challenger Sandy Treadwell a powerful campaign club.

In an interview with NCPR, Gillibrand was careful to say that her decision wasn’t based on politics — though she did note that the bailout measure was wildly unpopular in her district.

But if Gillibrand had voted Yes, you can bet that Treadwell would have been up with a ferocious campaign ad within 24 hours.

It would have also been a rallying cry for Treadwell during the upcoming debates.

This moment symbolizes the challenge that Treadwell has faced all summer: finding high-profile issues where he and the Democrat actually disagree.

Both candidates are pro-choice; both describe themselves as essentially post-partisan and centrist; both opposed the $700 billion bailout.

Treadwell has worked to stake out some distance on tax cuts (he’s signed a pledge to oppose ALL tax increases), the war in Iraq, and ethics (specifically l’affaire Charlie Rangel).

Given the absence of polling, it’s unclear whether he’s gained much traction.

If Gillibrand had voted with her party on the bailout, however, the daylight between their positions would have been much more visible to average voters.

In the end, Treadwell may still craft a compelling argument that will bring home Republican voters in the district.

He needs to rally thousands of men and women who’ve been defecting more often of late to Democratic candidates.

This week’s developments make his job that much harder.