Bloombergs money is more than she could resist. Disguesting isn't it?

thoughtful progressive, I'd agree with you and move on. The decision by Mr. Bloomberg to hire her is either intended to signal a big shift by him or is the signal you suggest, Rosalie, of a personal tragedy for her. I cannot tell at this point.

NYC Mayors have in the past, run against their own record successfully. Perhaps that's what's planned here. People as old as I am may recall how Robert Wagner was shocked, shocked, to discover that during all the previous eight years of his tenure, Democratic Party political were calling the shots. He ran against his own record as Carmine DeSapio's stenographer and won, as I recall (as through a glass darkly).

So, is Mr. Bloomberg, by this hire, meaning to change? Time will shortly tell I guess. If this hire is just a public relations ploy, it's a good tactical move by hired-gun Howard Wolfson but it will pit and corrode a heretofore unblemished reputation of one of our best and brightest.

New York City is a Democratic town and Bloomberg knows it. Bloomberg is hiring Democrats because they're the ones winning elections. Look, Bloomberg isn't going to get a pass to run on either the Democratic or Republican lines (although I think he stands more of a chance getting the Republican line even though I've heard the some Republicans want Marty Golden to take him on) so by hiring Dems he gives himself some creedance of acceptance. He's also not going to get all those glowing endorsements from either side this time either. Even Marty Markowitz hedged when asked why he hasn't endorsed Bloomberg as yet.

I respect Andrea Batista Schlesinger and the work she's done with DMI and also hope this doesn't turn into a personal tragedy for her but Bloomberg isn't changing his spots. In reality he knows that his decision to end term limits has more people on both sides of the aisle against him so by hiring the best from the Dems he's hoping to get over that hurdle. As an example Howard Wolfson hated, HATED Bloomberg and how he's on his re-dictatorship committee. As the saying goes, Money talks, b.s. walks.

does it count as one or two words?

Bloomberg has been an enemy of working and middle class renters in this city and as the director of DMI she knows it. There's just no rationale outside of money and hypocrisy for this "career" move.

It's just mind-boggling.

as campaign managers and consultants have, from time-to-time, taken clients with whom they personally disagreed. "I can't be in this business," they'd explain over and over "if I'm going to turn away clients." Mr. Wolfson, as an example, is a hired gun and no one complains he's a sell-out (I vote one-word) because no one expects him to do anything but sell out (here two words) -- that's an essential element of his business plan.

Why is Ms. Schlesinger different (and I think she is)? Because, in my view, she feels more like one of us, more like family, more mishpacha. As a result my perceived loss is greater.

As to why she accepted the new gig? I still don't know but I'll keep asking her.

But they're both sell-outs. My standards mean more to me than a couple of dollars in my wallet and I know I could never do what either of them (and all Dems who Bloomberg is buying)did for any amount of money. My principles/standards mean more to me than money.

our Billionaire Mayor. I saw her this evening and heard her speak. Nothing she said indicated to me she was turning right. She didn't tell anything about her choice which shed light for me, but we only spoke for a couple of minutes. No one I spoke to among the others present knew about her new gig however and she said nothing about it in public -- so far as I heard. I guess I'm obsessing about all this. On to the more substantive travisties

A. B-S is a passionate and thoughtful advocate for working families, and she has demonstrated her commitment. I think progressives need to embrace the fact that one of US (Andrea B-S) is on the inside and has tremendous power and influence in this situation. Do we want to be on the outside FIGHTING, complaining, etc-- or on the inside making very smart policy.

Errol Lewis is a small pathetic man. How easy it is from his little perch to challenge someone's motivations. I suppose all of the religious leaders from around the city that support Bloomberg are only doing it for the money. I suppose all of the labor unions that work day in and day out for working class people have sold out their members by supporting Bloomberg. Or what about the organizations that advocate on behalf of homeless people. They really seem to like Bloomberg. Again, must be because they're all angling for a jobs.

Lots of good progressives have gone to work for Bloomberg not for money, but because they think there is an opportunity to do good from the inside. That's all this is about.

nor pathetic, J Barkin. I've seem him up close and he's large. Also he's pretty smart. I've disagreed with him often but would never get into a sneering contest about him.

Labor union leaders I've heard talking about Mr. Bloomberg in this election cycle have not sounded as though they were happy with him. People often suspect they need to be on the winning side. People bargaining with Mr. Bloomberg often hope to get (and I suspect do get) concessions for their members. The one union that backed Mr. Bloomberg early last go-round and actually got bupkas (literally beans, figuratively nothing) was DC 37. (Their big win -ha- was relief from the residency requirement for NYC workers -- and of course the Mayor has no power to grant that relief)

The question as to whether someone like Andrea Batista Schlesinger is better on the inside or the outside goes to the heart of the issue, Anna Bannana. Is the war that Mr. Bloomberg has waged against low and moderate income New Yorkers one which he started because he lacks progressive advice? Cheaper he could subscribe to The Nation or click on the DMI blog. To the degree that whispering in the king's ear is crucial, being close to the king to whisper is important. To the degree that the true task of progressive is to build a movement, working for Mr. Bloomberg may not be useful.

By the way, did you see what Mr. Bloomberg pays his campaigners in cash and perks Wow!

Daniel,

As a friend of Andrea's and someone who has worked on projects with her, I would like to respectfully add some insight into Andrea and her motivations. You note that DMI has been an active and productive center of progressive thought. I agree, and point you to one of DMI (and Andrea's) central strengths -- challenging the orthodoxies of the right AND the left. This has served DMI, and progressives, very well over the past eight years.

DMI and Andrea are progressives in a practical, pragmatic sense. That is, they elevate policies that actually help people live better lives, regardless of ideology. Take an issue like improving the nation's ports. Not exactly a sexy issue; certainly not on the radar screen of ideologues from the right or the left. But Andrea picked up on LA's Clean Ports initiative as a smart, effective way to improve air quality and safety in urban areas. When DMI produced a forum about it in New York, Jerry Nadler learned about the issue, got excited about it, and now wants to bring the concept to NY and NJ ports. That's not a traditional "progressive" issue; but it is a progressive approach.

In other words, Andrea's only ideology is that government can be a force of good in people's lives. That in itself is one of the best ways to describe a progressive. On many issues, Bloomberg shows the same instinct (public health, congestion pricing, education reform come quickly to mind).

I agree with you that Bloomberg has a long way to go to truly govern as a progressive. Getting him closer is Andrea's challenge. I'm optimistic that she's up for the challenge. And at the very least, I'm 110% confident that her motivations are about advancing a progressive agenda. They have nothing to do with Errol Lewis's base suggestions of personal greed, or worse, Liza Sabater's accusation of hypocrisy.

Thanks, Daniel, for giving her the benefit of the doubt. I think you'll look back in a year and be pleased with her performance.

So, you would prefer her to work for a losing candidate? Ms. Batista-Schlesinger has proven that she is more than just savvy and smart—she wants change and she is great at figuring out the best avenues to accomplish that change. She knows what she is doing...she has been one of the young powerhouses of the progressive movement over the past decade-—and she has had a history of making change from the inside. Why don't we wait and see instead of dismissing her at the gate? Even better, why don't we try and learn from this choice? Bloomberg is going to win and I want more smart progressives influencing his next term. I have watched the work of DMI over the last few years and it has been nothing if not smart, cutting edge, and honest. Why would you expect anything different now? She has joined this team for a reason, and I, for one, can’t wait to see what she does in it.

dead end.

When I read about the fab pay and perks of the Bloomberg campaigners I was green with envy. Wouldn't we all like the limos, the sushi and the corporate jet trips? Freezing while riding my bike yesterday to the Demos meeting at which Ms Schlesinger spoke, I imagined being whisked away to a tropical setting for brain-storming sessions.

None of us want to think that we're corrupt sell-outs. Although many of us, we lawyers especially, argue for clients who pay us.

Beth, so far as I understand it, being on the winning side is useful only if the winning side is the good side. Here, so far, Mr. Bloomberg has instituted policies which harm most New Yorkers. I am against those policies. If, while talking to Ms Schlesinger, he becomes Mesmerized, becomes the Manchurian Mayor if you will, becomes an actual progressive political figure -- that's good. Has that ever happened before?

Mr. Bloomberg -- a supporter of George W. Bush and the Iraq war last I checked -- has been an advocate for the housing bubble, the financial services industry, millions for the Yankees, Ratnerville and the rich. Ms. Schlesinger, it is rumored, sees an opportunity to turn this around. Is there such an opportunity? We don't know for certain.

I'm told Ms. S starts with Mr. B in Mid-Feb. Let's revisit the issue in Mid-March and Mid-April. If no change is visible, perhaps it will be time to write poems like Browning wrote about Wordsworth:

"Just for a handful of silver he left us
Just for a ribband to wear on his coat "

Harriet, I agree with your assessment that Ms S. will likely have to sell taxing the poor, special policing for people of color and larger classes. But I hope if that happens, she wakes up and jumps ship, unlike a number of other Bloomerg hires lost to us.

Andrea Batista Schlesinger has no credibility. Sell out. How can she side with Bloomberg when Human Rights groups are after Bloomberg?

opinion, at least. Were she just a hired gun like Howard Wolfson, her decision to work for Mr. Bloomberg's re-election would be of no interest. It's because of her credibility in my opinion that Schlesinger has so much at stake, so much to sell and so much to lose.