Since I posted about the possibility of Congressman Vito Lopez a few hours ago, I have gotten bombarded with interesting emails from people with various opinions on the subject (most of whom apparently prefer to comment off the record for fear of retribution).

The most interesting tip I've received concerns a move Vito appears to be orchestrating behind the scenes to clear his path to Nydia Velazquez's Congressional seat. The Optimist's source, who claims to have inside knowledge of the dealings, says that State Senator Carl Kruger of Brooklyn, one of the three remaining members of the now infamous Gang of Three, has abandoned his push for State Senator-elect Pedro Espada Jr. of The Bronx to become Senate Majority Leader and now favors Senator Martin Malavé Dilan of Brooklyn for the job.

While no one seriously thinks right now that Marty Dilan could bypass Minority Leader Malcolm Smith and get elected to the State Senate's top post, the fact that these moves are even being made casts a fascinating light upon Vito's skillful maneuverings. If Dilan became Minority Leader, Vito would be rid of his chief potential rival for Velazquez's seat.

All this talk about Hillary becoming Secretary of State has my head spinning.

If Hillary does take the job, she could single-handedly start a chain reaction that could change a good portion of the political landscape of Brooklyn overnight.

It all starts with the open U.S. Senate seat. As Liz Benjamin reported last week in The Daily News, Governor Paterson would likely appoint Brooklyn/Manhattan Congresswoman Nydia Velazquez to replace Clinton. The rationale behind the move makes sense. Paterson is under fire by a duo of rogue Democratic State Senators from the Bronx for the dearth of Latinos in leadership positions - a sharp thorn in Paterson's side given that the two State Senators are threatening to keep the State Senate in Republican hands if the Democrats don't make concessions. Elevating Velazquez to the Senate seat could go a long way to diffusing this criticism, while at the same time scoring points for Paterson with women voters.

Here's where things get crazy. If New York suddenly has Senator Velazquez, who is most likely to run for her Congressional seat?

(drum roll)

Vito Lopez!

As I made my way with Mrs. Optimist and our soon-to-be-born baby in tow to the polling place on Monitor and Driggs, I readied myself to pull the lever of history. After two years of waiting, hoping, praying, and screaming for change, the time had come at last.

The line at 7 a.m. this morning in Greenpoint was shorter than we had anticipated, but still sizable enough to augur the massive turnout that is certain to sweep the country today. On line before me stood 30 of my fellow Brooklynites, and by the time we reach the booth another 50 or so huddled behind us anxious to vote.

It took all the self-control I could muster not to cry out "OBAMA!" and give everyone on line a big hug.

I beamed.

And then I wilted.

Just for a second, of course. Nothing can deprive me of the great hope and excitement and pride I feel today to be an American - save for a staggering surprise this evening (knock on every piece of wood in existence). But, I was denied a tiny bit of the catharsis that has been two years in the making.

Not that public statements mean anything any more (like Mayor Bloomberg calling the extension of term limits a "disgrace"), but if Betsy Gotbaum holds true to her word that she won't seek reelection as Public Advocate in 2009, it's good news for New Yorkers.

It means we might finally get a Public Advocate, who, well, advocates for the public. The Public Advocate position, created originally to give Mark Green something to do, theoretically is supposed to be a check to the Mayor's power. The Advocate is the City's watchdog, the person who makes a ruckus for the people when they are being railroaded by their elected officials.

Where was Betsy last week when our City's government was stolen away from the people? Sitting docilely in the presiding officer's chair of Council chambers, urging our Council Members to be polite as they subverted the system.

To say that I am appalled at yesterday's Council vote is to grossly understate my reaction. Last night, I was indignant. This morning, I woke up quivering with rage.

After sitting through the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee meeting last month, I felt certain that farce would be the most ridiculous political theater of the year. But, leave it to the New York City Council to come storming back a mere month later with a production so well-orchestrated and rehearsed that it deserved Broadway's most ostentatious marquee.

At least, the Brooklyn Democratic County Committee meeting had no pretension. All of our electeds, except Charles Barron, dutifully read through the script in a homogenous monotone that laid plain the emptiness of our faux democracy. To his credit, the evening's chair Marty Connor practically admitted that our attendance was all just for show.

In the end, it was all just a bunch of sound and fury signifying nothing.

As I began to approach my third hour sitting in the audience of yesterday's public hearing at City Hall on the extension of term limits, I decided to give up and go home. I had signed up to testify around 5 p.m. and realized that it would be hours more until I would get my chance to do so, once the committee chair Simcha Felder announced at 8:15 that the slate of speakers called to the microphone had submitted their names just a little past 1.

So, it's four o'clock and I'm off to testify at City Hall. I hope I get a chance to speak. But, either way, here is the testimony I intend to present this evening. I'm anxious to see how Simcha Felder will react.

Ladies and gentlemen:

My name is Morgan Pehme and I am a proud resident of Greenpoint, Brooklyn. As I am sure that many of my fellow New Yorkers will eloquently express my rationale for opposing this Council’s move to extend term limits for its own benefit, I won’t waste our time in redundancy. If you care to read my reasons, you may do so on my blog: www.brooklynoptimist.com.

What I have come today to say is this: Shame on you, Council Members!

Less than two years ago, this body voted itself a $22,000 pay raise. I want to know if you intend to roll back this raise when you vote yourselves four more years in office? Or, perhaps, you think you should be rewarded for your outrageous and ongoing slush fund scandal?

By Morgan Pehme (a.k.a. The Brooklyn Optimist)

Before I lay out exactly why you should be against the City Council's move to extend term limits without your say, let me start by putting two common misconceptions to rest.

The movement against extending term limits is not about whether Mayor Bloomberg has done a good job in office. For the record, I think that he has. And if the City Council puts extending term limits on the ballot, as I believe they must, then you will have still have the opportunity to re-elect our Mayor if the measure passes.

So many New Yorkers are confused that this is an anti-Bloomberg initiative because that is how the Mayor has shrewdly framed the issue. Since the majority of New Yorkers feel pretty positively about him, miscasting the debate as “Bloomberg vs. No Bloomberg” twists the odds in favor of his agenda.

Second, this is not a debate about whether term limits are good. Personally, in an ideal world, I would be opposed to term limits, because the people should have the right to vote for whomever they want, for as long as they want. Unfortunately, this is not an ideal world. But I’ll get to that in a moment.