Gillibrand Isn't Going Anywhere

[liberalpragmatist]

That's my prediction.

I could be wrong. Lots can happen in two years.

Still, I would be fairly shocked if she's unseated in the primary in 2010 (although Paterson's a different story). And my own guess is that she'll be effective and relatively popular.

She's extremely tenacious and tough. She has the support of both Clintons as well as Schumer and support from Upstate. She's smart (BA in Asian Studies from Dartmouth, JD from UCLA) and has made a name for herself on agricultural issues (esp. promoting organic farming) and armed services while in the House.

More than one observer has called her constituent services for NY-20 the best they've ever seen. I suspect she'll spend the next two years being reminiscent of Hillary Clinton between '98 and '02.

Look: I'm not saying I wouldn't have preferred a more progressive senator for NY. Carolyn Maloney would have been a good pick, for example, as would Jerry Nadler. But I think it's naive to expect that Gillibrand is dead meat. I suspect she'll move to the left somewhat and have a voting record slightly to the left, overall, of Hillary Clinton's. That may not please a lot of people here, but it should be enough to guarantee her election to the seat.

My point is just that she should not be dismissed. This is not Roland Burris in a pantsuit. I suspect we'll be hearing her name for a long time, for better or for worse.

[Danger Mouse]

1. To lose her seat in 2010, she'd have to be a bad Senator.

I don't think she will be. I could be wrong, but I think she'll do a good job.
Simple as that.

[MADem]

2. I think that she's got a lot going for her, and not the least is her personality.

She comes across VERY WELL. She seems like the sort of person who is at ease with herself, and puts others at ease. It's a particular quality that's hard to describe, but you know it when you see it. It's a characteristic of many successful people in public life.

I applaud Paterson for the pick--it was sheer genius. He chose a quality candidate, and no one can suggest he "sold" the seat in any way.

[Danger Mouse]

3. She's very tough. She defeated two tough opponents in a deep red district.

My district, as a matter of fact. And it is very, very red.

[AtomicKitten]

4. She will be challenged for the seat from the left. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

5. So was Hillary. Hillary won.

[AtomicKitten]

7. Well, she isn't Clinton and a challenge is in the works.

From Blue Dog Democrat named to Clinton seat:
http://www.thenation.com/blogs/state_of_change/401083

No wonder veteran union activist Jonathan Tasini, who has been organizing a push to fill Clinton's seat with a progressive, says, "David Paterson's choice to fill the U.S. Senate in New York is an affront to the people of New York. New Yorkers do not deserve a caretaker Senator who is anti-immigrant, anti-gay rights, and proudly carries the endorsement of the National Rifle Association, an organization that is uniquely responsible for the death and injury by gun violence of hundreds of thousands of Americans."

Why did Paterson pick Gillibrand?

Of course, the governor offered the usual denial that the choice had anything to do with politics. "I believe that I have found the best candidate to become the next U.S. Senator from New York," the governor declared. "This decision was not made based on gender, geographic location, race or sexual orientation, it was based on ."

The reality, however, is that when a governor is preparing for a tough race to hold on to his job, the choice of an appointed senator has everything to do with politics.

After inheriting his job following Spitzer's unceremonial exit from the position, the governor must run for election in 2010. He feels reasonably confident that his own strong ties to the liberal community and his roots in New York City will secure his left flank. But he worries about appealing to upstate voters and centrists and conservatives. He also wants to score points with women who, rightly, suggested that it was important to address the continuing gender imbalance in the Senate by filling a seat being vacated by a woman with a woman.

By most measures, Gillibrand's selection makes sense as a political calculation.

Unfortunately, it does not make a lot of sense to those who would like to see a the senator from New York take a lead in promoting the progressive policies embraces by past Empire state senators such as Robert Wagner, Robert Lehman, Robert Kennedy and Charles Goodell.

Had the Clinton seat been filled in a special election -- as Gillibrand's House seat must be -- it is very likely that a more progressive contender would have taken it.

But, now, Kirsten Gillibrand, a smart, tough political operator, will move quickly to secure her hold on the seat. In that pursuit, she will have the advantage of incumbency -- not an incumbency accorded her by the electorate but by appointment at the whim of one man who happens to be the governor.

The Progressive New York movement, which has been endorsed by Tasini, Barbara Ehrenreich and a number of labor and peace activists from around the state, describes the process as a case of "Democracy Lost" and argues that, "The flurry over the past couple of days has made it clear why so many people find so disturbing the entire process of annointing someone to take a Senate seat, without the consent of the voters."

That is, indeed, the case. But it is not a unique problem to New York state. Whenever senators are appointed by governors -- rather than elected by voters -- the process is defined by private political calculations and unfair advantages that are by their nature at odds with democracy and the progressive ideals that underpin it.

[Danger Mouse]

10. That's well and good but any challenger from the left needs to sell themself statewide.

Not just in NYC.

[AtomicKitten]

11. And not just upstate. Your admonition is generic for all contenders. n/t

[Danger Mouse]

14. Are you from New York?

[AtomicKitten]

15. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize that was the admission price to this discussion.

:eyes:

[Danger Mouse]

16. I was just curious. You act as if you know our politics so well.

[AtomicKitten]

17. This is a political discussion board, but your effort to marginalize that which you disagree with

is duly noted. :eyes:

[PBS Poll-435]

25. It certainly helps

nt

[KittyWampus]

6. she's already pretty far to the Left. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

9. Gillibrand is a pro-gun Blue Dog Democrat.

You've ignored this before but, hey, I'll post it again for you.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=8140772&mesg_id=8140981

[DaveinMD]

21. she won't be

as a Senator. She was a blue dog because of her upstate district. She'll be a progressive Senator. Just watch. It will happen.

[KittyWampus]

24. You apparently ignore reality. Cherrypicking a few bits and pieces YOU think make her

whatever asinine label you throw out doesn't mean much.

Her positions on a host of vital issues puts her on a more liberal footing than Hillary was.

I'd post the links to all the info on her record and her rating with liberal groups... but you seem intent on only finding the small bits that fit your agenda.

[PBS Poll-435]

26. (This kind of talk is ALWAYS agenda-driven)

Never based in reality.

If it were, then Senator Gillibrand's record would speak for itself.

[AtomicKitten]

27. She's rabidly anti-gun control, the NRA's poster girl.

The fact that you choose to ignore that is your problem and doesn't make it any less true. I expect all Democrats to be pro-choice, and so a high-five from women's groups on that basis should be a no-brainer and certainly does not mitigate her radical PRO-gun agenda and 100% NRA rating nor does it mitigate her Lou Dobbs-esque views on immigration. Maybe in your white-washed view, not in mine.

Politically, Gillibrand, who is 41, is a conservative Democrat and a member of the Blue Dog caucus, which might make her more palatable to some of the more right-leaning areas outside the city. You might call her a bizarro version of Sarah Palin: she proudly touts her 100 percent rating from the National Rifle Association.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2008-11-26/the-woman-who-might-take-hillarys-senate-seat/1/

[MADem]

12. And someone too far to the left will be crucified in the red areas of the state.

If you want to win in NY, it would seem you have to straddle the fence on a number of issues. Way left or way right doesn't play in that state. An "intelligent mix" seems to be the way to win there, if recent successful candidates are any indicator.

[AtomicKitten]

13. And a Blue Dog will be crucified in the blue areas. n/t

[MADem]

18. Maybe not. Al Sharpton seemed very receptive. She made a good impression

in Harlem and Queens, despite obvious differences, at first outing.

I say, like most of the people interviewed about this appointment, give her a chance. She looks good to me so far. Like Schumer says, she'll get the spirit when she is representing a larger swathe, and she'll likely modulate her stances on particular issues. The fact that Paterson nominated her has to count for something.

And I must say, I find the Speaker of the House of Representative's effort to try to dissuade Paterson from selecting her to be a bit...well, outrageous. Pelosi was outta line. It's not her call.

Video here: http://www.truveo.com/Gillibrand-Meets-With-Rev-Sharpton-In-Harlem/id/527135593

At the end of the day, time will tell. I think NY could have done much worse.

[AtomicKitten]

19. Your theory will be tested in 2010. Til then she's the junior senator from NY. n/t

[MADem]

20. Sure--and a lot can happen between now and then, certainly.

I wish her well, though. She seems grounded, and we do need more women (like, maybe thirty five or so) in the Senate. Along with more blacks, Asians, Hispanics, and something other than fat old white guys. The Senate is a long way from looking like America...

[mtnsnake]

8. What you said.

K&R

[PBS Poll-435]

22. You have it right

K & R!

[xchrom]

23. hey -- we'll all find out -- won't we --

in the mean time -- my money will go to anti gillibrand candidates as long as they aren't repuke.
they can be anythingelse -- just not conservative.