Today is tax day. While many people across the country are feeling the pain, the collective moan bellowing out of New York State is deafening. And President Obama is making it worse.

On the campaign trail, we heard then-Sen. Barack Obama declare he'd cut taxes on 95% of Americans, refusing to raise them on the middle class. We also heard him rattle off a laundry list of promises from sweeping nationalized health care to job creation, all while he assured us he'd balance the budget. Though the math never made sense, the tax tabs of New Yorkers are adding up now as the reality is becoming clear: Obama's agenda is killing us softly.

Read more here

After weeks of ups and downs and unknowns in the special election for the 23rd congressional district of New York with conservative candidate Doug Hoffman losing to Democrat Bill Owens (one that which played out much like a political telanovela) analysts can agree on one truth: we love drama.

This race was reality television at its best with all the necessary ingredients: an underdog (Hoffman), a train wreck (Scozzafava), celebrity influence (Palin) and an attentive national media. And like many reality shows, after you've watched it you feel like you learned almost nothing.

So what did we learn about NY 23 besides its dizzying storyline?

1. We learned that the Republican Party establishment in Washington is not losing its influence; it simply backed a bad candidate in Scozzafava -- someone it never initially selected, nominated or wholeheartedly endorsed. Sometimes, candidates are just plain weak (see the Democrats in New Jersey and Virginia governor's races) and in places like New York where third party candidates are common, a door is opened for someone outside the norm.

2. We learned that Sarah Palin doesn't just "go rogue" herself; she helps others do the same. Palin's an earned media machine. She was able to help bring the battle to the national stage (Heck, the woman could get the national press corps to focus on a potato sack race competition). Even those who think the former Alaska governor is political poison, at the very least, have to admit her endorsement didn't hurt Hoffman and didn't help Scozzafava. The real question: is this a trend...for her? If Sarah Palin has any hopes of winning a national office she can't run around endorsing unwinnable candidates. She'll lose her political mojo and be labeled a spoiler.

3. From the NY 23 race we also learned that this is not the "beginning" of a GOP civil war. For decades moderates and conservatives have faced each other in primaries, but when faux Republicans like Scozzafava who espouse liberal beliefs run for higher office they run the risk of getting challenged, clipped or even defeated by someone from the right, or often helping the guy on the left.

4. We learned that despite all the craziness, the voters -- not the pundits, polls or the politicians -- make the final call. But in the case of NY 23, maybe the most telling takeaway is the only absolute: we love a good story.

First off, it is highly unlikely that after all the doubt, drama and delay -- and now conflicting reports that Kennedy doesn't want the slot -- that she would actually get it. Politics is full of surprises. But when this kind of thing spills into primetime cable TV, it's usually true. (That's besides the fact that she has created a drastic, democratic divide over her candidacy. For someone whose only qualification is being born, her Big Apple roll out was quite rotted, and did nothing to silence her critics).

Why not current NY Attorney General Andrew Cuomo? Besides being far too obvious, selecting Cuomo over Kennedy would be more than an affront to Camelot. It would invoke a gesture that reveals only one choice finger to a prominent, political dynasty.

Politically, Kennedy never made any sense for the current Governor, who some hypothesize would have stuck a deal with Kennedy to garner her family's heft when he runs in 2010. But that type of quid pro quo would likely be less than fruitful for Patterson. Just ask Andrew Cuomo who ran for New York governor in 2002 when he was married to a Kennedy. The "power" was with him. But sadly, the votes were not. Not only did Cuomo not win the Republican line on the ballot, he only garnered roughly 15,000 votes on the liberal line. So much for Kennedy clout.

Gillibrand makes total sense. Why? She's a solid, blue dog. A conservative Democrat from an expansive, rural county in Upstate New York who boasts far-reaching money ties into downstate, money rich New York City. Geographically, she's ideal. She represents Delaware County, the stomping ground of Clinton predecessor Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan. Though Moynihan's wife endorsed Kennedy, naming a local democratic daughter would be a hat tip to the leftist legend. Patterson could also appease liberal, pro-women groups who demand that Clinton's successor wear high heels (many have endorsed Upper East Side Rep. Carolyn Maloney) by electing a female -- and not just any female -- a young, energetic, mom who was reared in political roots.

Gillibrand would be a savvy, logical move for Patterson, if it's true. For now it's just a hunch, but a darn good one.

What has she done in her career? Does she have the experience to govern? Isn’t she just a name and a pretty face in expensive clothes? All questions asked by Democrats (I’m being nice) regarding Sarah Palin as McCain’s pick for Vice President.

Republican vice presidential candidate Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin (AP) But Caroline Kennedy –similarly an intriguing, attractive outsider decked in designer duds and a thin resume — isn’t put under the same kind of scrutiny.

The left is just plain giddy with excitement over a return to Camelot and the New York press corps, the most selectively tough in the business, is following suit. One this is certain: if Kennedy’s last name were Palin she wouldn’t be anointed.

Hillary has been telling her supporters to stop trashing Kennedy, but not because she wants to do Caroline any favors. Caroline and her Uncle Judas Iscariot Kennedy turned on the former first lady in her hour of need, arguably a turning point in the Democratic primary. The last thing Hillary wants is a discussion and comparison to her lack of experience when she ran for the Senate in the Empire State almost a decade ago.

I’m curious if she’ll sit down with some prominent Big Apple media fixtures like Charlie Gibson and Katie Couric and subject herself to their murder boards.

Obama is certainly pushing for his ally, no doubt. It could only benefit him to have a high-profile advocate on the Hill and Kennedy will certainly be more malleable than Clinton.

And what about this concept of change? The Kennedy family is an institution. They’ve been around for decades and have been consistently plagued by scandal and drama. Hardly what I’d call a new viewpoint.

As Kennedy travels around the state of New York, not saying much and refusing to answer questions about her lack of experience, I’m curious if she’ll sit down with some prominent Big Apple media fixtures like ABC’s Charlie Gibson and CBS’s Katie Couric and subject herself to their murder boards. As a resident New Yorker I would like to hear Couric ask Kennedy about her feelings on the Peace Bridge in Western New York or Indian gaming in the Catskills. I suspect there would be some stuttering and stammering in her responses but she’d hardly be called a fool as Palin was.

We always knew the Democrats had a double standard. They nominated the most inexperienced candidate in nearly a century to run for president, while they sought to destroy the Republican nominee for vice president because she wasn’t elitist or experienced enough. What they need to learn is that stature is not a substitute for substance, even in New York. But apparently, qualifications don’t matter to the left as long as you don’t hunt moose.