The Gillibrand complaints are kind of confusing me.

[Occam Bandage]

I mean, yesterday the principal complaint was that she was a conservative Blue Dog who would side with the Republicans and wouldn't represent the good people of New York. Suggestions that she was generally liberal, and that her conservative votes were sops to her red district, were met with eyerolls. The fear was that she would stick to her guns, ignore the pun, and pull the party to the right.

Today the principal complaints--by the exact same people--are that she's dropping those token conservative positions for political gain. Or, to put it another way, that she was becoming a liberal Democrat who would go up against the Republicans and who would represent the good people of New York. Suggestions that she was generally liberal, and that her conservative votes were sops to her red district, are met with eyerolls. The fear is that she won't stick to her guns, and will let herself be pulled around by the party.

I understand that many people are deeply disappointed in the sudden and still-mysterious implosion of Caroline Kennedy's push to be appointed. I understand that literally any non-Kennedy appointed by Paterson would probably get a similar reaction of outrage by her fans. But is it too much to ask that the complaints be remotely consistent from one day to the next?

[wyldwolf]

1. is it too much to ask that the complaints be remotely consistent from one day to the next?

Have these complainers EVER been consistent?

[SuperTrouper]

2. No, CKS is yesterday's news. Gillibrand disturbs a lot of Democrats that have worked

their asses off to propel the progressive agenda, that is all. Hopefully she works hard and fast to prove us wrong.

[wyldwolf]

5. I'll clue you in on something else

"Progressives" disturb a lot of Democrats who work their asses of to win political races.

[TheWraith]

15. Don'tcha love the suicide dove wing of the party?

I'm way the hell far from moderate, but I'm bamboozled by the people who insist on a purity test so stringent that nobody can pass it. Gillibrand is clearly well to the left of Hillary Clinton, Chuck Schumer, and a lot of others, but people go ape-shit for no better reason than the phrase "Blue Dog," as if that meant anything relative to her obvious voting record.

[Occam Bandage]

7. Shouldn't you take it as a show of your political strength

that, upon elevation to the Senate, she immediately started bowing to your demands and adopting the positions you wanted to see? Isn't that exactly what you want as a politically active citizen--for politicians to attempt to represent the beliefs of their district or state?

[PBS Poll-435]

3. Excellent points.

:thumbsup:

[mvd]

4. I wanted Caroline, but I'm fine with the choice

With all that happened, I'm not so sure Caroline was ready. Plus, aside from a couple issues, Gillibrand seems better than the average Blue Dog.

[Occam Bandage]

14. I was very wary about Gillibrand at first,

but after looking up her VoteSmart and OnTheIssues pages, she seems fine. The more I've heard about her "evolutions" on the issues, the better.

[TheWraith]

16. Name me another Blue Dog who's for gay marriage and universal healthcare. :-)

DUers constantly complain about moderates who run as liberals. Here we've got a liberal who's run as a moderate.

[Bicoastal]

6. Hello, I wish to register a complaint...

[SIMPLYB1980]

8. LoL!

[dsc]

9. she seems to have all the political backbone of a chocolate eclair

Sure it is good news that gays evidently are powerful enough in at least one state to get politicians to bend to their will but why should I believe her now?

[Occam Bandage]

11. That's not a bad thing in a strong blue state.

Sure, it's pretty obvious that she's no progressive crusader. She's the kind of politician who follows her constituents rather than leads them. But given that New York often leads the nation, I think that's not such a bad thing. She's hardly inspirational, but at the same time it looks like she'll be a reliable vote, if only because of the political leanings of the New York Democratic party.

[TheWraith]

18. I don't think it's true that she follows her constituency.

As was pointed out elsewhere, she's actually considerably to the left of her constituents, and has been helpfully leading them in that direction.

[TreasonousBastard]

10. Don't you just hate when that happens?

[CreekDog]

12. Apparently it is too much to ask

But I join you in that request.

The most ridiculous of the complaints:

That she supports equal marriage rights for gays is a flip flop from her previous position.

Um, folks, if gay marriage is going to happen in this country, lots of people are going to need to "flip-flop" on this issue, including lots of Democrats in elected office.

PS-that's one less vote you need to change. that is, compare Hillary's position with Gillibrand's. +1

[theboss]

13. Caroline's involvement turned this into some sort of weird psychodrama

I have tremendous respect for Caroline, but anytime a Kennedy gets involved into an in-house Democratic squabble, we lose our ability to be rational. It would be like if Sean Lennon was running for governor.

[TheWraith]

19. Hey, don't blame Kennedy supporters.

I liked her for the seat too, but I'm thrilled with Gillibrand--not least because she gave us one of the things Kennedy would have, a senator who's in favor of gay marriage.

[ClarkUSA]

17. It's the same reason why the Republican base never liked or trusted Mitt Romney.

Basically, Gillibrand is proving to be Mitt Romney in a bleached blonde bob. WTH would trust a person who is nakedly
politically expedient? Later on, if times/circumstances change, guess which way she'll move? I like someone who
sticks to their principles. She obviously has none.

[Occam Bandage]

20. Which is a pity. He was their best candidate,

and certainly the only one who could have had any degree of credibility talking about the financial crisis. Mr. Turnaround would have been a strong choice, either as President or as VP. Fortunately for us, the Republicans ended up punishing him for temporarily compromising on some social issues (which allowed him to be a generally conservative governor while reporting to liberal constituents). Really, those "base" members didn't offer their full support until they got the pretty and ideologically conformist but inarticulate, inexperienced, underinformed, and non-vetted woman they demanded.

It's good to know most Dems are smart enough not to act so stupid.

[ClarkUSA]

21. You're the only one who thinks so. He had the worst chances of winning, according to polling.

And that's saying alot. Good thing Democrats weren't that stupid and went with a winner.

[Occam Bandage]

23. And according to polling, it was going to be Hillary versus Giuliani,

and according to polling, Edwards was the best VP choice for Obama, and according to polling, Hillary was a stronger candidate than Obama and Edwards was stronger still, and according to polling, Hillary was going to blow Obama out of the water in every state past NH, and according to polling Obama was going to lose VA, NC, and IN badly, etc., etc. Polling is useful for very limited purposes. Replacing a campaign is not one of them.

[ClarkUSA]

24. Apples and oranges. Mitt bombed with the Republican base for the reasons I mentioned.

And the polling I'm referring to was taken just before he dropped out. They highlighted Americans' distrust of Romney's
Mormonism as well as the fact that his approval numbers were lower net positive than Huckabee or McCain. He would
have gone down in flames against Obama, especially with evangelical Christians opting out from voting for him as they
firmly believe Mormonism is a godless cult. Presumably, Obama would have gotten an even larger share of the popular
vote than 53% and could have even possibly picked off some of the closer state losses to McCain.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. My only beef with Gillibrand...

I listened to her press appearance in the next room and she sounds just like Katherine Harris!

Bad flashbacks...

[SuperTrouper]

26. MSNBC reporting: Gillibrand is close to Schumer and Hillary, NOT Paterson!!

LOL!! Throwing Paterson under the bus already.

[Every Man A King]

25. Its 2 people posting over and over. n/t

[SidneyCarton]

27. I mentioned this in another post, but it bears repeating.

There are a precious, albeit vocal few who demand that our leaders all be some bizarre amalgam of FDR, JFK, Dennis Kucinich, Salvadore Allende, Gandhi, Mother Teresa, with a fair smattering of Jesus, Buddha and John Lennon. All of these figures have laudable, excellent and marvelous qualities, and any elected official who has these in any amount may be considered to be an excellent leader. That said, for these vocal few, our elected officials must have all of the qualities of these figures, or they are weighed and found wanting, and must be mocked, mercilessly critiqued and treated as the enemy. Somehow, the Republicans manage to accept their people warts and all...

I'm not saying that we emulate the Repukes in their slavish emulation, but we would do well if we stopped eating our own.