home

Kirsten Gillibrand Named Senator By NY Gov. Paterson

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:30:59 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

Video of Paterson naming Gillibrand.

While this was pretty much known last night, it seems that the leaking is now of the official variety. The NYTimes:

Gov. David A. Paterson has selected Representative Kirsten Gillibrand, a 42-year-old congresswoman from upstate who is known for bold political moves and centrist policy positions, to fill the United States Senate seat vacated by Hillary Rodham Clinton, according to a person who spoke to the governor early Friday. The governor will announce his selection at noon in Albany. An aide to Ms. Gillibrand confirmed that she had accepted the appointment.

I hope Gillibrand faces primary challengers in 2010. Not because I do not expect Gillibrand to hew a more progressive path as Senator than she did when representing a GOP leaning district (a district Dems will be hard pressed to hold.) I do expect it. I hope she faces a primary challenge because I think every elected official should face a primary challenge. Accountability for all. That is what primaries are for.

Speaking for me only

< Time to Lower the Drinking Age | The 3rd Most Influential "Liberal" In The Media >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Kirsten Gillibrand Named Senator By NY Gov. Paterson | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Terrible pick (5.00 / 1) (#44)
    by eric on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:42:36 AM EST
    Now the the Democrats will likely lose her former district and we have to deal with this "moderate" in Hillary's Senate seat.  Yuck.

    Another Dynastic Pick (5.00 / 0) (#61)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:20:01 AM EST
    Cuomo and Kennedy political lines are famous at the national level but Gillibrand's lineage is impressive (and infamous) locally (Albany).

    That doesn't particularly bother me. I wholeheartedly supported her run for the congressional district that previously elected Congressman Kickass and foe of 'draft dodgers and flag burners' Gerry Solomon

    And while her win in 2006 was impressive given the rightward tilt of the district, I think Eve Fairbanks of the New Republic is correct when she describes Sweeney by then as "a hot mess for an opponent."

    I look forward to a primary challenge for her especially if she doesn't adjust her 'centrist' positions as reflected in her gun, Iraq War and FISA votes for the broader constituency she serves as senator.

    Bad Move, imho (none / 0) (#1)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:35:13 AM EST
    Republican opponent in 2010 is mostly likely to be Giuliani.

    Dems needed to pick someone who down the road could defeat Rudy.  And who needs a centrist?  Gah.

    If you believe Rudy will be the opponent (5.00 / 1) (#6)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:47:07 AM EST
    then Gillibrand is an inspired pick imo.

    I happen to not believe that personally.

    Parent

    It's either Peter King (5.00 / 1) (#8)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:51:04 AM EST
    or a nobody.

    Parent
    It really depends ... (none / 0) (#12)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:54:07 AM EST
    on how things look in '10.  If Obama and the Dem Congress has been a success, you're probably right.

    But if things go South on them, all bets are off.

    Parent

    I should point out (none / 0) (#55)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:03:47 AM EST
    since it's the post title and all, that her name is "Kirsten" not "Kristen."  In the context of New York politics, "Kristen" is not really the name you want to carry around!

    Parent
    Help me out here, what's the problem (none / 0) (#56)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:07:04 AM EST
    with Kristen?

    Parent
    I think he's talking about (none / 0) (#57)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:09:09 AM EST
    this.

    Parent
    Ah. We'd also better stay away from (none / 0) (#62)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:23:49 AM EST
    any candidates named Client 9.

    Parent
    Heh (none / 0) (#64)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:26:09 AM EST
    Good one, Steve.

    Parent
    Why would Rudy not run? Has he lost (none / 0) (#66)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:55:00 PM EST
    his political ambition?  Do you think he'd prefer to run for Governor?  I think the only thing that would prevent him might be reasons of health.

    Plus, this appointment pretty much turns Gillibrand's important upstate seat from blue to back to red.

    Parent

    Because (none / 0) (#70)
    by CST on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:07:03 PM EST
    He would get crushed.  He would probably fare worse in NY right now than he did in the Republican primary.

    Rudy may run, but it would be a complete waste of his time and money, and I get the feeling he knows that, but maybe not.

    Parent

    You forget the other two purposes of (none / 0) (#2)
    by scribe on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:35:20 AM EST
    primaries - also equally important:

    1.  work out all the bugs in the campaign apparatus before the general exposes them when it is too late to correct them;
    2.  get all the negative oppo-research out there and exposed, so there are no surprises in the general when it is too late to correct them or get a different, unhampered candidate.


    I'm relieved that it's not Kennedy (none / 0) (#3)
    by Coral on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:36:02 AM EST
    Despite many good qualities, I'm opposed to an appointment to the Senate of someone who has never held public office.

    It's also nice to have a woman.

    She would not have been my choice (none / 0) (#4)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:38:21 AM EST
    And I think many other serious potential challengers will judge the August primary too late to even try. Carol McCarthy is said to be pissed by this pick, and I don't blame her. So I think she'll be the one. Problem is, that wouldn't be a perfect liberal/conservative matchup.

    I think in all probability Paterson is about to name a Senator for life.

    Or is the NY primary in September? (none / 0) (#5)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:39:04 AM EST
    I honestly don't remember.

    Parent
    NY primaries (none / 0) (#10)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:53:07 AM EST
    are always the 2nd Tuesday in September.  Pretty easy to remember if you recall the cancelled primary on 9/11/01.

    Parent
    Fair enough (none / 0) (#15)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:55:34 AM EST
    I don't vote in NY, so it's not really relevant to me.

    Parent
    McCarthy? Do you mean Maloney? (none / 0) (#9)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:51:11 AM EST
    I read that Maloney would challenge in the primary -- but now McCarthy, too?  As I understand it from afar, their stands (as well as their names:-) are similar, so that could mean a crowded field.  And perhaps the sort of primary that serves the other party, then -- in a seat that Republicans have won.  Ah well, it will shake out in two years, we can hope, for the good of NY and the country.

    Parent
    It was always going to be McCarthy (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:54:41 AM EST
    and over guns.

    Parent
    Naw (none / 0) (#14)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:55:17 AM EST
    Maloney is the staunch progressive from Manhattan.  McCarthy is the staunch gun-control advocate - somewhat less progressive on other issues - from Long Island.  Lots of locals get the names mixed up too, btw.

    I haven't heard anything yet about Maloney getting into that primary, in fact the only news I saw about her was an uncharitable comment she supposedly made about Caroline Kennedy.  She just got appointed to an important position in the House so she might be content to stick around.

    Parent

    Okay; thanks to both of you (none / 0) (#23)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:06:41 AM EST
    for the clarification.  I would bet that the blog I read got the two confused, too. :-)

    (McCarthy has a riveting backstory, of course, but I really wish it were Maloney, whom I have admired from afar for a long time.)

    Parent

    Good Political Pick for Paterson (none / 0) (#7)
    by RustedView on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:48:25 AM EST
    The pick make sense for Paterson to shore up his own re-election bid.  His weakest support will be from upstate, and by picking a new Senator from north of Westchester County, he is showing that he hasn't forgotten the vast swath of the state that votes for its own interest.  I would have preferred Brown, the Buffalo mayor, as an olive branch the part of the state (north of Westchester) that is completely ignored by Albany leadership.

    So he's whoring for himself? (none / 0) (#68)
    by cpa1 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:13:27 PM EST
    What a disgusting pick with all the great talent in NY.  Patterson is the same kind of a__hole that Harold Ford, Jr is.  Remember how Ford said he couldn't wait to join the gang of 14.

    I will be working against Patterson whenever he runs for election.  The seat of Bobby Kennedy and Hillary Clinton goes to a conservative jerk who is against everything that means anything to us and I can't believe someone said, at least she's a woman.  

    Parent

    Huh? (none / 0) (#69)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:20:51 PM EST
    Patterson is the same kind of a__hole that Harold Ford, Jr is.

    Why's that? Because they are both Black?

    Seem to me that it would be prudent to see how Gillibrand performs before pulling out the knives. And, imo, to portray Paterson as whoring is absurd.

    Paterson is obviously going to pick someone that NYers will be happy with, because he wants to be remain Governor. That is the way politics work. Sex work is an entirely different profession.

    Parent

    Black, hell no (none / 0) (#72)
    by cpa1 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:49:28 PM EST
    It's because he's like Lieberman, a white Jew like me.

    You think NYers will be happy with this pick with people like Mario Cuomo, Ira Glasser (is he still around?) and so many others available.  How can he be so shallow or so gratuitous to make this pick and I can't believe everyone isn't jumping all over him for it.  His own re-election is now in great jeopardy.  I don't want NYers to go through what people from Connecticut have to suffer with. They are sick about Lieberman.

    Patterson didn't have the brains or the imagination or the integrity to seek out people like Paul Krugman or Tom Friedman (he wouldn't do it) or Nita Lowey, Jerry Nadler, Anthony Weiner, Gary Ackerman.  When John Kerry approached McCain to be his VP, didn't that make you all angry?  This make me angry.

    If Kirsten was a total whore and now that she is not representing a Republican district she becomes a liberal, that gives me a bad taste in my mouth.  It's not just guns, it's Iraq and the economy too.

    Carolyn McCarthy, as per Wikipedia and its true,  "lived with her family in Mineola, a suburban area about twenty miles outside New York City on Long Island. On December 7, 1993, her husband, Dennis, was killed and her son, Kevin, severely injured, on a Long Island Rail Road commuter train at the Merillon Avenue station, when a mass murderer, Colin Ferguson, opened fire on random unarmed passengers. Ferguson killed six and wounded 19 others. McCarthy responded to the crime by launching a campaign for additional gun control measures that eventually propelled her to Congress in 1996 on the Democratic ticket."  Myabe that's why she is so against Patterson's choice.

    What a crowd this is, we, as a whole, would not torture a terrorist who could stop a disaster but we think it is Ok to make someone like Gillibrand a Senator to replace Hillary.


    Parent

    Sounds Like Axe Grinding (none / 0) (#73)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 04:08:18 PM EST
    Patterson is the same kind of a__hole that Harold Ford, Jr is.

    And your racial non sequitur comparing Paterson to Ford, now is about Lieberman and your Jewishness?  

    Wow get a grip.

    Parent

    racial non-sequitor? (none / 0) (#74)
    by cpa1 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 06:16:28 PM EST
    Where was that and what was racial about it?  I don't think a__hole belongs to any race, as we all have them.  When Harold Ford said that he couldn't wait to join the gang of 14, what came to mind was Joe Lieberman, Robert Byrd, Mary Landrieu, Daniel Inouye, Mark Pryor, Ken Salazar and Ben Nelson.  Not a African American among them.  The word I associate with them is traitor, appeaser and moron.

    I don't know where you are coming from here but inciting racial wars is something they do at the DailyKos, not here.  Remember the word traitor instead of the word black.  You could also make the false argument that I am biased against quadriplegics because I thought Max Cleland got what he diserved in Georgia because in his campaign TV ads he praised Bush and what Bush did.


    Parent

    First of All (none / 0) (#71)
    by daring grace on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 03:47:50 PM EST
    It's Paterson (ONE T).

    Secondly, Gillibrand ran and won (twice) in a solidly Republican district and, I suspect, slanted at least some of her voting that way. The NY Times today says she favors gay marriage. That's hardly conservative since our other sitting senator does not.

    I'm opposed to a lot of her votes in the House but I like her transparency and vigorous attention to constituents.

    So I'll wait and see who runs against her (if anyone) in a primary. She's gonna be scary because she is a MONSTER fundraiser.

    Parent

    BTW, she gives all appearances (none / 0) (#11)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:53:47 AM EST
    of being an anti-immigration nut.

    How is she going to walk this back:

    Our immigration system is broken and hard-working Americans often bear the brunt of the federal government's failure to secure our borders and provide adequate protections for the American worker and the shrinking American Middle Class. I believe the first step to fixing our immigration system is to stop the flow of illegal immigration. This can be accomplished by securing the Southern border, enforcing the employment laws on the books and ensuring that our farmers and businesses have the adequate number of legal workers after they have exhausted their search for American workers. I am firmly against providing amnesty to illegal immigrants. In my first year in Congress, I passed legislation on the floor of the House of Representatives that would bar employers, who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, from receiving federal contracts.
    In addition, I am a sponsor of the SAVE Act, which will hire 8,000 new Customs and Border Patrol agents, while utilizing new technology and fencing along the border. I have also sponsored the Legal Employee Verification Act, which would require all employers to verify, through the Social Security Administration, that their employees are legal. In addition,

    I support reforming and streamlining the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) so that the extraordinary casework backlog will be addressed within two years. This is especially important for the thousands of farmers in our district who need legal workers. I am confident that Congress can enact reform without providing amnesty to illegal immigrants. This is a national and economic security issue for our country and I am committed to fighting for the American worker.
    Um, I'm curious as to (5.00 / 0) (#20)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:04:32 AM EST
    your opinion on which part(s) of this qualify as "nutty".  

    Yes, there are politicians out there holding such positions who are doing so out of nefarious motives, but I wouldn't necessarily call any of the positions listed here as inherently nutty.  

    Parent

    I agree (5.00 / 2) (#35)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:24:23 AM EST
    What's wrong with

    • Stopping the flow of illegal immigration.
    • Securing the Southern border
    • Enforcing the employment laws on the books
    • Ensuring that our farmers and businesses have the adequate number of legal workers after they have exhausted their search for American workers. - Barring employers, who knowingly hire illegal immigrants, from receiving federal contracts.
    • Hiring 8,000 new Customs and Border Patrol agents
    • Requiring all employers to verify, through the Social Security Administration, that their employees are legal.
    • Reforming and streamlining the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) so that the extraordinary casework backlog will be addressed within two years?

    I mean, I don't agree with EVERYTHING she says about this, but I think it's much more of a black and white issue than just "let everyone in" or "kick everyone out".

    These ideas all seem reasonable to me - I mean, most of these points are in agreement with Obama's.  They differ on some, of course, but they are pretty close.

    Parent

    The difference is (5.00 / 0) (#43)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:35:29 AM EST
    you can be for tough enforcement combined with a path to citizenship, which is the mainstream Democratic position, or you can just be for tough enforcement and nothing else, which is a demagogic position that doesn't really come to grips with reality.

    I mean, no matter what you do, right now there are more than 12 million of these illegal, undocumented, whatever you want to call them people.  You can either waste your time fantasizing about deporting them all, or you can confront the issue and try to come up with a practical solution.

    Parent

    True, but (none / 0) (#48)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:45:59 AM EST
    Aren't we discussing two different things here?  There's the question of 1) what do we do to stop (or lessen) the problem so future illegal immigrants don't come, and 2) what do we do about the 12 million that are here now?  Her plans seem to be focused on what we need to do in the future (meaning 5 minutes from now).  I agree that her plans don't seem to address point #2.

    Parent
    Yes and no (none / 0) (#52)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:49:59 AM EST
    The entire premise of comprehensive immigration reform, i.e. the mainstream Dem position, is that you have to deal with both issues at the same time.  It's like a grand bargain.

    Parent
    Well, the fourth (none / 0) (#49)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:47:20 AM EST
    bullet point above seems to leave some wiggle room for that concern.  She seems to recognize that some employers may run out of employees and that something needs to be done about it.  

    Parent
    Really?? (none / 0) (#28)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:14:57 AM EST
    Please.

    Parent
    What's to walk back? (none / 0) (#18)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:00:32 AM EST
    She will probably oppose the Democratic stance on comprehensive immigration reform, oh well.  I don't think the Dems plan to bring that up until they can get bipartisan support anyway.  Maybe they can win her support by putting some extra barbed wire in the bill or something.

    Being anti-immigration will certainly hurt her with NYC voters, but the question remains if the GOP can nominate someone who will put that issue in play.  They may well come up with a candidate who is even more punitive.

    Parent

    What's to walk back? (none / 0) (#19)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:03:58 AM EST
    How about sputtering on about "amnesty" like Mitt Romney at the hight of the Republican primary?

    There are dog whistles here.

    Parent

    Of course (5.00 / 2) (#22)
    by Steve M on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:05:50 AM EST
    but it's a big tent!  Do you think she's going to be the only anti-immigration Democrat in the Senate?  It's like you're asking when Bob Casey Jr. is going to walk back his abortion stance.

    Parent
    I think that New York does not need (5.00 / 1) (#24)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:07:22 AM EST
    an anti-immigration Democrat. The big tent is fine, where necessary.

    Parent
    I really don't mean to be snarky, (5.00 / 2) (#32)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:19:53 AM EST
    but I still don't understand why being anti-amnesty is exactly equated to being anti-immigrant. (Though, of course I do understand that some rely on it as a dogwhistle).  It just seems like an oversimplification, in my opinion.  

    If there is more proof out there that she is some kind of closet racist who delights in separating U.S. citizen children from their undocumented parents, etc., then that would be helpful to see.  But calling her a nut because of the snipped you posted just doesn't add up to me.  For one example, she seems to want to put a focus on holding employers accountable in their hiring practices.  I, for one, think that's a good thing, as it puts the onus on employers hoping to exploit undocumented workers to save money.  I would imagine a lot of republicans (and, perhaps Tim Geithner) don't want to hold business to such standards.

    Parent

    I make no bones (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:22:03 AM EST
    about being an immigration liberal. I'm for open borders, etc.

    I concede that there are positions to the right of me that are not anti-immigrant, but no people who hold such positions throw around dog whistles like "amnesty."

    Parent

    Well, I don't think (none / 0) (#36)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:25:15 AM EST
    you necessarily have to be for open borders to be an immigration liberal.

    Parent
    I think that's what I just said (none / 0) (#39)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:26:51 AM EST
    But sputtering about "amnesty" certainly precludes you from being one.

    Parent
    Well, you said that you (none / 0) (#41)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:31:11 AM EST
    are immigration liberal, and then as example you said you were for open borders.  To me, that reads that being an immigration liberal means that one is for open borders.

    How about this:  other than the amnesty part of her statement, what other part(s) of the statement do you find "nutty?"  

    Parent

    Two points (none / 0) (#42)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:34:20 AM EST
    1. To me, that reads that being an immigration liberal means that one is for open borders.
      Wrong.

    2. other than the amnesty part of her statement, what other part(s) of the statement do you find "nutty?"  
      Using the word "amnesty" in the context of an immigration discussion is sufficient to connote nuttiness.


    Parent
    Um, it's wrong that anyone (none / 0) (#46)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:43:44 AM EST
    could have read your comment that way?  Okaaaaayyy...

    I guess I just thought that if you put up a statement that was as long and detailed as you did, with a number of very specific legislative proposals, and called the entire statement "nutty," then you had meant that at least some of the proposals themselves were nutty.  Rather, I now take your argument that anyone who uses the word amnesty is a nut, no matter what their specific positions on specific legislation happens to be.  I guess, then, I wonder why you bothered cutting and pasting the whole thing.  You could just have cut and pasted the word amnesty and the word nut.

    Parent

    Have you (none / 0) (#50)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:47:59 AM EST
    read or heard anything about immigration in the last 5 years?

    The only way you could possibly misunderstand my point is to not recognize the incendiary value of using the word "amnesty."

    Parent

    Seriously, you don't have (none / 0) (#53)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:57:59 AM EST
    to insult my intelligence to make a point.

    I get that there are mean, awful racist politicans who bring up the "amnesty" meme as dogwhistles.  And perhaps you have more links to show that she is one of those people.  But what you posted was a laundry list of actual legislative proposals, none of which seem thoroughly nutty to me and, as someone pointed out above, are pretty much in line with the proposals of the incoming administration.  I just thought if you wanted to portray people as nuts you might, you know, what to provide an actual argument.


    Parent

    Ridiculous (none / 0) (#54)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:01:57 AM EST
    Apparently what you don't get is that the ONLY people who use "amnesty" in a serious manner use it as a dogwhistle.

    Parent
    Well, in my opinion (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by dk on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:18:36 AM EST
    that's an unhelpful oversimplification, but you're certainly entitled to your opinion too.

    Parent
    I think she'll ... (none / 0) (#26)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:13:40 AM EST
    just play the "pretend it didn't happen" card.

    Parent
    That would be better (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:14:36 AM EST
    than sticking to her guns, no pun intended.

    Parent
    I am really hoping (none / 0) (#29)
    by WS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:16:30 AM EST
    that she can be convinced to go along with Obama's comprehensive immigration proposal.  Also, earned citizenship is not amnesty because undocumented immigrants will have to pay fines, learn English, pay back taxes, go to the back of the line, etc just like many other transgressions that require community service, a fine, etc.

    Someone can support an earned path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants and also oppose amnesty.  They are two different things.  

    Sen. Gillibrand should know there is no danger in moving leftward on guns and immigration in a state like New York.  

    Parent

    When you're using the word "amnesty" (2.00 / 0) (#30)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:18:11 AM EST
    in an immigration discussion, you're not looking to be nuanced. I take it you've never had to listen to the hardliners describe any reform as "amnesty?"

    Parent
    Would Gillibrand (none / 0) (#37)
    by WS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:26:10 AM EST
    listen to those people now that she's Senator from New York and not just her district?  We really need to solve the broken immigration system and those reactionary people are not helping.      

    Parent
    Would Gillibrand (none / 0) (#38)
    by WS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:26:19 AM EST
    listen to those people now that she's Senator from New York and not just her district?  We really need to solve the broken immigration system and those reactionary people are not helping.      

    Parent
    I would very much hope so (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:27:23 AM EST


    Parent
    No Problem (none / 0) (#65)
    by squeaky on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:16:28 PM EST
    For one, she is a Pol and change her mind based on the direction of the wind. Her right wing immigration stance must have represented her constituents upstate. Now she must shift to the left in order to represent the majority of NYers.

    It does not seem like a problem to me.

    Parent

    Paterson will get some flak (none / 0) (#16)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:56:54 AM EST
    from the black press there and elsewhere, which was promoting the possibility of two AA Senators and had quite a list (with some Reps I really like).

    But he probably can count on fairly solid AA support so must be moving, as others note, for upstate and women's support.  Seems savvy of him -- but the black press is powerful, especially in NYC (although, obviously, not as powerful as the black press in Chicago -- and the Defender is the most powerful nationally, of course, and also was pressing for Paterson to appoint an AA).  It could bring complexity to the 2010 campaign worth watching in such specialized media, so often under the radar of the msm.

    I wouldn't mind seeing (none / 0) (#17)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:00:02 AM EST
    McCarthy challenge her in the primaries, but hopefully the threat of such a contest will serve to encourage Gillibrand to moderate her nutty entirely pro-NRA stance against gun control.

    If she can take a step or two back from the extreme on guns, as she's apparently moderated recently on gay marriage, and generally vote as a center-left senator from a center-left state, she'd probably face only token opposition in the primary, and also would avoid a vote-diluting 3d party threat from the left in the general.

    NY does have a history in the recent past of the left being divided in the general along ideological/ethnic lines between two senate candidates.  That's how hardline Repubs like Buckley and Duh'Mato got elected in 1970 and 1980.

    That (none / 0) (#63)
    by Wile ECoyote on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:25:18 AM EST
    second amendment, quite a mistake.  Common good and all.

    Parent
    Well, Caroline could always run! (none / 0) (#21)
    by Angel on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:05:29 AM EST


    Given the sloppy roll-out ... (5.00 / 2) (#45)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:43:37 AM EST
    and bizarre withdrawal, I'd give her a lot of credit if she had the chutzpah to run.

    It would be an uphill battle, but it might demonstrate that she has the mettle to be a real politician.

    Parent

    I backed her strongly (none / 0) (#25)
    by brodie on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:12:01 AM EST
    early in the process, but her political début was a disaster (though I tried to gamely support her in some of these blogs) and my enthusiasm was greatly diminished in recent weeks.  In the end, as a true Dem, I want someone competent who can defend confidently and successfully in 2010.  

    Not that I didn't take notice of the curiously cruel and mostly unfair snark directed at her by some prominent bloggers elsewhere.  

    Parent

    I feel somewhat better about this then (none / 0) (#31)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:18:17 AM EST
    I did last night. Her pre congress career is fairly impressive and I just get the feeling that she was voting her district. Her coming out in support of gay marriage isn't just a shift left from the 20th, but from the entire state. What are there, like 5 Senators who say they support equal marriage?

    I agree that there is some evidence (none / 0) (#33)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:19:56 AM EST
    that she is changing to suit her new constituency. That is hopeful news.

    Parent
    do you NY'ers think she will vote with Schumer? (none / 0) (#47)
    by ruffian on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:44:13 AM EST
    That's pretty much the crux of it right now for this non-New Yorker.

    Other than that, yes, by all means I hope there is a primary challenger, especially important since she was not elected to this position.  I contribute to politicians in non-FL state races when they are attempting to oust someone I have strong feelings against. I'll stay out of this one unless she turns out to be not 'with the program'.

    she's my cong'woman (none / 0) (#67)
    by sarany on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:13:12 PM EST
    or was :-)  I like her and I hope she keeps schumer on his toes in a big way

    Parent
    We shouldn't have to settle and hope (none / 0) (#51)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 10:48:55 AM EST
    We could of had and should of had a much more concise liberal in the Senate. There shouldn't be questions of her moderating her stance now that she represents the entire state. That's how we've ending up with so many loser Democrat's in Congress.

    BTD - can you please correct Gillibrand's (none / 0) (#58)
    by Anne on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:10:48 AM EST
    name in your post title?

    It is KIRSTEN, not Kristen.

    Thanks.

    Thanks (none / 0) (#59)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 11:12:10 AM EST


    Parent
    the new Sarah Palin (none / 0) (#75)
    by diogenes on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 07:31:03 PM EST
    A second term congressperson?  She was picked because she was a young woman.  
    The NY senate seat is democratic anyway.  Millions spent in a primary are millions not spent in congressional races or senate races elsewhere.
    Boy, what a sense of entitlement.  "Progressives" do not form a majority of NY state voters, so why should Paterson appoint one to be senator.

    Kirsten Gillibrand Named Senator By NY Gov. Paterson | 75 comments (75 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment