NY Sen. - How to Primary Gillibrand and Win
By Al Giordano
Hey, you know something else about Senator Kirsten Gillibrand that screams "hypocrite" regarding her anti-immigrant crusade?
Her husband, Jonathan Gillibrand, is a British national.
You can't make this stuff up.
The Irish and the Mexicans, the Dominicans and South and Central Americans, the Africans and Asians and Eastern European Jews and others need not apply: Unless they've got their papers in order, Gillibrand wants to take away their drivers' licenses, block their path to legal residence in the US, send local cops to arrest them and deport them, and she co-sponsored legislation to make English the "official language." All of that in the state that is home to the Statue of Frickin' Liberty. But, of course, there will always be an exception for the immigrant that married her.
There's just something oh-so-oily about Gillibrand's utter lack of principle as she "tacks left" (embracing, for example, gay marriage after opposing up until a few days ago), and yet even still she maintains an ideological commitment on at least one issue, her crusade against real immigration reform.
Like other Lou Dobbs styled nativists, Gillibrand calls it "amnesty."
Gillibrand told NY1 last Friday:
"I think amnesty is the wrong approach and I'll tell you why. Half this country will never accept amnesty. It will not work for them. They will never vote for it. It will never pass. "
(That alone should be embarrassing and a cause for self-reflection to the "just give her a chance to move left" defenders because Gillibrand made that statement after she supposedly tacked left.)
Gillibrand also demonstrates profound political stupidity in her claim that "it will never pass." In 2007, with only 51 members of the Democratic Senate caucus, Comprehensive Immigration Reform got 46 votes. The new and bigger Democratic majority, and the support of President Obama, makes is much more possible to pass. How sad if Senator Gillibrand ends up being the deciding vote against it (that would be on your hands, too, Governor Paterson).
From Gillibrand's website (I'll preserve it for posterity here because I suspect it will soon be scrubbed):
In Congress, Congresswoman Gillibrand has been a firm opponent of any proposal that would give amnesty to illegal aliens. The federal government must provide the necessary resources to secure our borders, which is critical for America's economic and national security. She strongly supports legislation that would significantly increase the number of border patrol agents and place sophisticated technology along the Southern border to catch human and drug smugglers.
Congresswoman Gillibrand authored and passed an amendment that will prevent employers who have hired illegal aliens from receiving federal contracts.
In addition, Congresswoman Gillibrand believes English should be made the official language of the United States and she opposes providing non-emergency taxpayer benefits to illegal aliens.
That's just one issue among many that fuel Jonathan Tasini's Elect a Progressive New York Senator in 2010 project, which, on Facebook has grown from 71 members to 351 since Thursday's appointment of Gillibrand.
She's likely going to face a primary challenger. The question is whether one or more of those candidates can achieve, in the minds of voters and donors, viability.
Electoral politics, by definition, includes pragmatism. I'm sure there are many, many out there who are waiting to see whether a viable rival surfaces (and if one does, will back it with donations and grassroots muscle). Tasini's project is out there shaking the trees and playing a very important role of causing folks to look closer at the opportunity provided by Governor David Paterson's McCain-like folly.
Here is some helpful data for those out there looking for the right progressive Democrat to beat Gillibrand in the September 2010 closed (registered Democrats only) primary, from the exit polls of the February 5 2008 NY Democratic primary.
The NY Democratic primary electorate is:
58 percent female
30 percent elderly
60 percent go to church "a few times a year" or never
37 percent Catholic
61 percent college graduates
7 percent say they're gay, lesbian or bisexual
African American: 16 percent
Latino: 10 percent
White: 70 percent
Liberal: 57 percent
Gillibrand, as a Catholic woman, has those two demographic advantages (shared by two other figures in this equation: US Rep. Carolyn McCarthy and Caroline Kennedy).
But by continuing to oppose a path to citizenship for immigrants, she's virtually guaranteed that the 10 percent of the primary electorate that is Latino will back almost any pro-immigration reform candidate against her. That 10 percent makes for a larger chunk of the primary electorate than the rural upstate vote that Gillibrand calls her base. Again, according to the same exit poll, here is the regional breakdown of that primary electorate:
New York City: 50 percent
Long Island: 10 percent
Lower Hudson: 13 percent
Urban upstate: 17 percent
Rural upstate: 9 percent
So, Gillibrand could get, say, 75 percent of the rural upstate vote, but would likely lose at least 75 percent of the Latino vote and it would totally erase her one geographic card to play, and more likely put her at a net deficit of votes. Then the fight would be on for the remaining 81 percent of the electorate (31.5 percent of that remaining vote will be from African-Americans; the candidate that catches fire there would win the primary). And all of it will be urban or suburban. (See Nate Silver's January 18 opus, Barack Obama: The First Urban President? and extrapolate that to a Democratic primary electorate in New York, and Gillibrand's vulnerability becomes much clearer.)
You can see that, at least from the perspective of winning a Democratic primary, being from rural upstate is vastly overrated. Also consider that most of the upstate primary vote is urban, too: from the cities of Buffalo, Rochester, Albany-Troy-Schenectady, Syracuse and some others, where voters have more in common demographically and ideologically with the residents of the five boroughs than with the gun-toting, immigrant-bashing crowd that Gillibrand has spent her brief political career championing:
Urban: 63 percent
Suburban" 32 percent
Rural: 4 percent
Among elected officials, US Rep. Carolyn McCarthy is the first out of the gate saying that if nobody else does, she will primary Gillibrand. That said, McCarthy has at least four major obstacles establishing the viability to best the appointee:
1. Gillibrand is a better political fund raiser than McCarthy (and now with the backing of the Schumer-Clinton-Silver-machine, aka Wall Street money, and it's new eunuch David Paterson with the levers of state government at his command, it's going to be extremely difficult for McCarthy to raise the $10 or $15 million minimum that a rival would need to mount a viable primary challenge.)
2. McCarthy is widely branded as a "single issue" candidate (gun control) and although her positions on guns are more in line with that of NY Democratic primary voters, it's going to be tough to make that the defining issue during hard economic times. There are great dangers in becoming defined as a "single issue candidate."
3. Like Gillibrand, McCarthy has not built up a strong record of advocating for issues of concern to Latinos and African-Americans and doesn't have the kinds of strong relationships among those voters and political organizations that could create, for a different candidate, a perfect coalitional storm.
4. McCarthy has so far not demonstrated that intangible Internet and media savvy profile that helps some political candidates raise buckets of money online but leaves others virtually ignored by that small donor constituency. Stylistically, Gillibrand fits that image better, mainly because of her cultivated Yuppie image, even as her policies are horrid.
Still, the jury's not yet in condemning Carolyn McCarthy's possible candidacy. If you'd like to get a look at her, here she is, interviewed in recent days by Andrea Mitchell:
McCarthy spoke for many New Yorkers when she said of Governor Paterson's Bizzaro World handling of the appointment in the final days: "That is not how you treat people who have in my opinion a great deal of respect from the people of New York and also from people throughout the country." And she added, "You have people that can represent this state very well with the right point of views to start with."
Lawrence O'Donnell's Huffington Post Essay, New York's Next Senator Opposed to the Obama Agenda, made me think that Larry, if he chose to run, could himself be a very serious challenger. Here's his HuffPo Bio:
Executive Producer "The West Wing"
Creator & Executive Producer "Mister Sterling"
Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Finance
Former Chief of Staff, U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works
Author "Deadly Force"
Actor "Big Love," "The West Wing," "Monk"
That's quite the resume, and you can add "blogger" to it.
In other words, O'Donnell's got solid Senate experience (he served those posts as the right-hand of the late New York US Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan) and corresponding policy gravitas, he can surely raise the big bucks necessary, he's telegenic, and he's Internet savvy. Does he reside in New York? It doesn't really matter. There's time to establish residency just like Senators Hillary Clinton and Bobby Kennedy did. After all, his new TV program, a cop show titled Staten Island, is going to be filmed in that borough.
It may be that with the various interlocking politics-and-money machines pushing Gillibrand, it will be the intersection of politics and entertainment, rather than the elected official "farm team," that could produce the most viable challenger: Susan Sarandon considered a primary for US Senate in 2000 but in the end decided not to primary Senator Clinton. Her husband, Tim Robbins, is also politically astute. There are many New Yorkers known outside of politics yet with sufficient grasp of policy who could build a surprise here.
Here's another out-of-the-box idea: Arianna Huffington herself could mount a challenge (she'd already get 90 percent of the Latino vote because of her historic advocacy of immigrant rights, for starters, back when so many others avoided the matter). Each of those people could raise the necessary money on the Internet from a national base of supporters.
So, this will be interesting to watch. Gillibrand, simply, is not well known statewide, the geography of a Democratic primary works against her, and there's an opening big enough to drive a Mack Truck through for the progressive of the winning profile.
A little bit of policy heft plus a little bit of name recognition would provide important advantages over the little-known and not-very-accomplished Gillibrand from the get-go. And there are some potential names out there that could clearly out-raise her from small donors, Obama style.
And if you're one of those people reading these words, you may be thinking: If not now, when? If not you, who?
Update: Special thanks to Errol Louis of the NY Daily News for answering my request for the embed code to this video of a panel he was on last weekend at NY1. Along with other NY political reporting bigfeet Wayne Barrett (Village Voice), Maggie Haberman (NY Post), Brian Lehrer (WNYC) and NY1 host Dominic Carter, the five of them spend 20 minutes counting the ways that the Gillibrand appointment is, well, a train wreck in New York:
Watch it for a free lesson in civics. You won't be underwhelmed.
Email this page
A Fantasy
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Fonsia (not verified)Al, it's time I joined your commenting group! We've been echoing each other (well, I've been echoing you) on DKos for some time.
Here's my fantasy: I, and perhaps you, as you hint with your line, "And there are some potential names out there that could clearly out-raise her from small donors, Obama style," think that Caroline may not be done yet.
So, to my fantasy: Caroline sets herself up as an unpaid Lobbyist for the People and helps Uncle Ted get health care reform passed. She'd be out there in the media constantly, show her stuff, and make 'em eat it. She'd then be in a perfect position to grab that seat two years from now. (Although, I will make a huge, heaving effort to be gracious and say that we need to give Gillibrand a chance.)
I do hope she does something like that. With her star power she can still be enormously helpful, even if that power can't, for now, be put to use for the people of New York and for the country in the Senate.
Also, a question: I saw somewhere that the state tax board had NO record of any tax regularities from Kennedy, and no hint of a "nanny problem." Is that true? If so, it would be a nice little tidbit for the progressive community who trashed Caroline to know about.
Thanks for your excellent work, both now and in the primaries!
Wouldn't be the first time
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Al GiordanoFonsia - In 1968 a "McCarthy" ran in the early Democratic primaries for president, showed the machine candidate to be vulnerable, and a "Kennedy" then entered the contest and mopped it up.
I'm not saying I have any info of that being a strategy here. I'm just noting that it wouldn't be the first time.
Not sure if I am on board with this
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by ikl (not verified)Al, normally I love your work, but this is just plain sloppy. Gillibrand might be 100% wrong on immigration, but there is absolutely no hypocracy here unless (a) her husband entered the country illegally or (b) she is opposed to all immigration (no dependents, no green card lottery, etc.).
Secondly, I'm not sure why you assume that Latinos will vote solidly against Gillibrand based on the immigration issue. Puerto Ricans, for example, don't face the messed up immigration rules that non-US citizens do. Other folks have been here a long time and even among recent immigrants, lots will have other voting priorities. Gillibrand might manage to alienate a lot of Latinos, but I expect that she'll drop the anti-immigrant stuff immediately and spend time cultivating all Democratic constituencies in NYC. Given her success as an NYC lawyer in rapidly making friends in rural upstate New York, there is good reason to think that she is up for the task.
Thirdly, I don't really see much reason to prefer McCarthy to Gillibrand. McCarthy was a registered Republican even after being elected as a Democrat, voted for the Iraq war and has a pretty so-so voting record (i.e. not much better than Gillibrand despite having a somewhat more liberal district).
Fourthly, after the recent mess, it seems like Paterson is more deserving of being primaried. Gillibrand should get a chance - I think that she will move sharply to the left. Not likely to be one of my favorate Senators (seems like a careerist), but I seriously doubt that she will be a problem either. She may be a political opportunist, but she seems like a team player and is well aware that she is representing a much more liberal state.
Finally, I would expect that the upstate urban vote at least in the Albany region and most likely everywhere will be at least somewhat sympathic to Gillibrand if she is running against someone from NYC. Don't you remember how folks in Western MA felt about Boston dominated MA politics?
Lawrence O'Donnell? Susan Sarandon? Tim Robbins?
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Josselyn BorowiecHey, how about one for Senate and the other to take out Patterson? A girl can dream. Just picturing Govenor Lawrence O'Donnell putting Arnold Schwarzenegger in his place while Senator Sarandon finally notices the second largest city in the state. mmmmmmmmmmmm.
Crossposted to DKos
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Al GiordanoHere.
Whaddya think of Mr. Masterful now?
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Back2Brooklyn (not verified)Al: Like you, I expected a lot more from David Paterson. Maureen Dowd toasted his marshmallow pretty well today in the NYT.
So why do you think he botched this so badly?
A couple things to note
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Elliot KaufmanFirst of all, the combined African American and Latino vote could be higher if a more competitive primary occurs (like how Hillary Clinton's campaign was able to maximize the latino vote in states like California, Texas, and Nevada through her, admittedly, impressive latino outreach during the campaign). The reason I point this out is because in 2004, during the exit poll of the (uncompetitive) New York primary showed the electorate as:
White (65%)
African-American (20%)
Latino (11%)
Remember that, while Obama was certainly putting resources into New York State (in order to limit Clinton's delegate haul) he still wasn't going all in there simply because it was Clinton's home state, and neither was Clinton. An all-out primary between a candidate with strong ties to the Latino and African American communities (say Caroline Kennedy) and Gillibrand could drive their combined share of the vote to over 30% and maybe even to 35%.
I did want to ask you a couple of things as well, what do you think the odds are of Caroline Kennedy deciding to challenge Gillibrand in the primary? And what do you think the odds are that Andrew Cuomo, after the massive criticisms levied against Paterson because of this, runs for governor against Paterson? And if both things happen, I wonder if you won't see some sort of unspoken alliance form between Kennedy and Cuomo over the whole thing.
"The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie, deliberate, contrived and dishonest, but the myth, persistent, persuasive and unrealistic.” JFK
Memo to a progressive candidate who wants to oppose Gillibrand..
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Anonymous (not verified)Let it be known that you have one well-seasoned Obama campaign volunteer who will gladly volunteer his time to get Ms. Gillibrand out of office. Find me a couch to sleep on and it's a fight I'd happily participate in. (As long as I'm not too busy getting Arlen Specter out of office!)
Good coverage though, Al. I'm glad you stepped up and called out the progressives who shot themselves in the foot on this. We had a chance for a real supporter of Obama's policies to replace Hillary, and as a movement we stumbled coming out of the gate.
interesting suggestions
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by askew (not verified)I wouldn't mind seeing Susan run or her significant other, Tim (note: they are not married).
Are there any profile Latina candidates that could run against Gilibrand?
No celebrities, please
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Jim (not verified)I have nothing against Huffington or O'Donnell, but I think we'd be better off with a totally average, run-of-the-mill, NY progressive from the suburbs. (I personally fit the bill, but my ego is not quite large enough yet. :))
And to counter what is likely to be a large financial disadvantage, I think the ideal candidate would be cut from the Obama mold, i.e., someone who could excite volunteers and take advantage of the internet. I don't even think it's important for the person to have electoral experience, so long as they seem bright and are 100% squarely in the NY progressive tradition.
kos glitch?
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Josselyn Borowiecfyi - anyone else once again seeing formatting issues with the post over at Kos [side bar w/recommend button all the way below the post]?
Running against Gillibrand
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Allie Mann (not verified)Re: Arianna Huffington... she ran for governor against Schwarzenegger during the recall election and was an awful candidate. During their debate, she was abrasive & graceless and managed to make Scwarzenegger seem sympathetic by comparison. Off camera, she's warm & open. On camera, she's the opposite and doesn't wear well. Plus, she lives in L.A. and has a strong power base here.
Re: Sarandon & Robbins... they backed Nader in 2000 for President and are part of the impractical left, even by Hollywood standards. They've also each been arrested more than Martin Sheen. Deep in their souls, their original artists, not politicians.
Re: Lawrence O'Donnell... he currently lives in L.A. He's smart, tough and has plenty of inside experience on economic matters. He'd be an excellent candidate if running for office is in his blood.
Al: What's happening in Bolivia?
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Jordan Lang (not verified)Can you give us some inside depth on yesterday's vote?
Thinking out of the box
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by CarolDuhart (not verified)Howard Dean? Howard has roots in NYC, but through Vermont has the rural experience needed to relate to upstate rural New Yorkers. While his wife might be reluctant to move, Vermont is closer than DC, and he could easily commute from there to DC and spend some days in NY state. He has a successful political career-a proven one.
He has the NRA recommendation that upstaters like, but is sympathetic to local concerns regarding guns.
Would he be open to such a move? Howard will have to wait a long time before either Leahy or Sanders vacates their seats. Being Governor again seems like a step backwards into purely parochial interests which wouldn't interest him after being DNC Chair and Presidential candidate.
Howard is an experienced campaigner, can certainly raise millions both on and offline, and has the political savvy to get things done in DC if elected.
Bolivia
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Al GiordanoJordan - There are four front page stories on Narco News, by Erin Rosa reporting from Bolivia. Today's includes the results of the referendum. Next will come some analysis of what it means.
@CarolDuhart
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Karen DesmondCool idea - Howard Dean would indeed be able to mount an Obama style campaign.
I also like Eliot's idea of an alliance forming between Cuomo and Kennedy if Cuomo was to challenge for governor.
KD
Couple other possibilities
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by mak (not verified)As long as we're just thinking out loud here, why not Alec Baldwin as the celebrity candidate? Where do Affleck or Damon reside? Or perhaps Bloomberg himself will take on either Paterson or, more likely, Gilly in 2010.
Anybody got any ideas for New York-based
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Mary S (not verified)Dem alternatives to Gillibrand? I know this Senate seat has been held by out-of-staters in the past but it has to be a big name to parachute in from out-of-state (like Kennedy or Clinton!!). And shouldn't we exclude the media/entertainment personalities who live in Calif (Huffington, etc.) (at least until we get desperate)?
Is Suozzi out of the question?? (Too conservative to be a vialble alternative to Gillibrand??) What about the NY House delegation?? Are there no plausible candidates there? (None of the names jumped out at me but then again I don't know them that well). I was disappointed to read that Maurice Hinchey had nice things to say about Gillibrand today. What about NYC politicians?? Is the NYS Dem farm team as weak as it seems to be??
I love Howard Dean but it might go against the grain for a former DNC head to relocate to NYS to challenge a sitting Dem senator . .
Tina Fey for Senate
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Allie Mann (not verified)Think of the possibilities if Tina Fey ran for the Senate. If she won, she would serve with her old bud Al Franken and funnyman Harry Reid... Then, she could run for President in 2016 against Sarah Palin.
Pataki is rumored to be contemplating a run
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Mary S (not verified)against Gillibrand in 2010. Wouldn't that blow away any advantages Gillibrand may have with upstate or with conservative voters? Also King is equivocating (perhaps because of the Pataki possibility but he is trying to make it seem as though Caroline Kennedy would have been a weaker candidate than Gillibrand). Finally, some troubling consultation between McCarthy and King. Go here for the details:
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/nation/ny...
Kennedy and NY
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Kat (not verified)Mary S,
Caroline Kennedy is not an out of stater, she has lived in New York for years and years. I hope she does run in 2010. I'd love to see what she does unfettered by trying to win an appointment.
Kat - I know Caroline Kennedy
Submitted on January 26th, 2009 by Mary S (not verified)is a long-time NY resident. I was talking about the long-shot possibilities that have been mentioned. I would love it if she ran against Gillibrand in 2010 but she probably has not decided yet on her future plan of action.
“What you have is the
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by Jim (not verified)“What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor."
Lawrence O’Donnell 1/25/09
Right. Lets support someone who thinks the main prerequisite for elective office is, who is the candidate's father. Gee, lets nominate George Bush, his father was the president.
Want to see Caroline
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by Elie (not verified)---hitch up her pants so to speak and get after it a bit... Politics is about influence and wanting/knowing how to wield power. She has the intelligence. Does she really want to influence and wield power to effect decisions? This is not something anyone else can do or decide for her...its just about Caroline's core. I think about her Dad. I think about her Uncle (Bobbie) and finally about her brother. They must speak to her every day in ways we can only imagine. What is she hearing them say to her? What is her Mom telling her? What is she telling herself, most importantly... Caroline has a lot in her heart, head and spirit to resolve. I hope that she finds a way to really want this -- and she will have to want it bad to do it justice. She is not stupid or unaware, she knows this... Maybe like other potential leaders, she is taking a walkabout, a period to decide and prepare herself for the struggle and challenges ahead. We will see. I know this though --- many that serve us well and with great distinction, do not initially "want the job" and more than one have wanted the cup "to be passed from my lips"...
Xenophobia is an unattractive trait
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by Alexa (not verified)Xenophobia, I predict, is going to fall out of favor as the annual tax and social security value of 12 million undocumented workers is computed. English as the official language was just shot down in Tennessee, of all places. Obama made his first official interview as Prez today for on an Arabian TV network in Dubai that reaches 130 million viewers. Sweden cancelled an eight-year $3.5 billion French contract, the largest in Europe, because the French co. was doing business in a country (Israel) that it said "violates international humanitarian laws."
Xenophobia is an unattractive trait in a country as young as ours that produced none of the great advances other cultures did long before we showed up: China; Egypt; the cities of the Saracenic world Baghdad, Cairo, Cordova, and Toledo; Persia; Spain; the South American Indian empires, etcetera. What China invented before 200 A.D. is truly staggering, including the lowly elevator.
With our ultra-brightest kids graduating now as only the 52nd smartest in the world, and little countries like Norway leaving us in the lurch (their kids must read, speak, and write four languages to graduate high school), we should be welcoming knowledge of other cultures without having to travel there to learn about them. The economy is going to drive that home as their parents haul themselves back to school to find an occupation that will allow them to work until they are 75. Education will become a necessity, not a luxury.
Xenophoboa is the hallmark of a small mind. Even Japan has had to admit that...because their citizens beat them to it. What we have done in this country to 'illegal aliens' in the last two years borders on obscene cruelty. The xenophobia against Mexican Americans and Latinos is even worse (but of course, what can you expect from poorly educated white Americans; I mean, look what the smartest of the bunch did to Wall Street). Want to know what the Latino market in the US is annually? $700 billion in 2008, the size of the bailout. In 2010, it will be $1 trillion.
Lets see politicians try to pooh-pooh that.
=========================
Other topic:
What if Obama offered Caroline an ambassadorship, say her grandfather's old gig in Britain?
Howard Dean For Senate
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by CarolDuhart (not verified)Think Bobby Kennedy for this seat, and you may have the right formula for a challenger. Howard Dean was born in New York, lived there until his residency in Vermont.His mother lives there still and has business interests. From the little I remember of his 2004 Campaign, he had long been active in Interstate interests (Interstate Compact) between New York and Vermont, Michigan, et al as far as water rights and other common interests.
Dean has the experience, campaigning ability, fundraising ability and sheer national stature that just about no one else whose hat is still possibly in the ring has. He's already vetted, so no surprises that could jettison a race.
Carolyn McCarthy is too guns-obsessed for a race that will need to be won on a wide range of issues. Howard Dean has experience dealing with recession, rural issues (for upstate), and all the rest.
Big Mistake on Gov. Part
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by Rhoda (not verified)Gov. Patterson has not only guranteed himself a primary, his economic choices of late have been less than inspired. There's a column in the NYPost today calling him out as a liar. In one month Cuomo's numbers have skyrockected so much so that I'd expect him to definitly lay the groundwork to make a run in 2010. And a win there would set him up for a shot at the 2016 wide-open Presidential primary.
Meanwhile: I think if Kennedy wants to come back from this she needs to take these two years and set up a Pac and make herself a political player. Regulatory reform is the next big saga; she should set up a watch group pushing progressive policies to remake the financial sector. In addition; she will be making news on the topic one of the day. Economy.
Gili and Patterson have a rough slog: but two years is a long time. We'll see if they learn anything from the outcry and anger this week and change their policies and their politics.
Records Show Mcarthy Contributed to Gillibrand Races
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by Alison (not verified)From Newsday: Rep. Carolyn McCarthy contributed to not one but two Gillibrand Races:
http://www.newsday.com/services/newspaper/printedition/tuesday/nation/ny...
Being a Senator , Not a Rep.
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by C.B. TODD (not verified)Alison- I see not contradiction in McCarthy supporting a Blue Dog Dem to take a Republican seat in a very conservative disrtict and not supporting that very same person being a Senator from a very liberal state.
To me. it just shows that McCarthy is more than a mere ideologue - she actually supported someone who doesn't agree with her on everything to be a member of congress - however, that doesn't mean she should then want that person to be her Senator as well.
Finding the alternative is the key
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by Tara Van NimanIt reminds me of part of Ken Follett's World Without End that I just finished (excellent novel). When the name for bishop put forward by the king was undesirable to a group of people, they didn't fight against the nominee...they went out to find an alternative and then perusade the king. That's where the anti-Kennedy group did the most damage. Not only did they kill a progressive choice, they didn't put forth a progressive alternative. Of course, that's where Al starts...
Maloney?
Submitted on January 27th, 2009 by Nellcote (not verified)Curious what y'all think of Rep. Carolyn Maloney. Don't know much about her other than what I've seen at various hearings where she asks the good questions.
McCarthy said she didn't KNOW about Gilliibrand's stance on guns
Submitted on January 28th, 2009 by Alison (not verified)If you read the Newsday story, McCarthy said she had no idea what Gillibrand's stance on guns was before she contributed to Gillibrand. Sorry, she should have done her homework on this issue - and especially because she immediately jumped to criticize her.
She doesn't have a chance in hell of raising money for a primary.
primarying Gillibrand
Submitted on January 28th, 2009 by davefromqueens (not verified)The first thing to watch is how Senator Gillibrand votes. Don't be surprised if she lurches leftward real quick. The mere fact that she isn't 100% pure on guns is not going to prevent her from being our nominee nor should it. If she votes with Obama 95% of the time she probably will be fine.
If she is to be primaried I believe the best candidate is Carolyn McCarthy. None of the NYC congressional delegates would be able to cut into the upstate vote. You will need 30% of it. Carolyn's base is Long Island and she could crush Gillibrand here. Next is to bring along the NYC base where people are most angry at how Caroline Kennedy was mistreated. (It's not that she turned out to be a bad candidate, it was the unfair attacks on her) Marginalize Schumer and that's how McCarthy wins. Don't underestimate her.
Disclaimer: I volunteered for Carolyn McCarthy when she first ran for office and was considered the underdog but not since once I felt she was safe. I may consider doing so again if she primaries Gillibrand.
McCarthy not knowing
Submitted on January 29th, 2009 by Martha Smith - Sterling Jewelry (not verified)McCarthy not knowing Gillibrand's stance on guns? Now that's some serious lapses on her part. Anyway, I'm slamming a big NO to both of them. There's no more room for self-righteousness these days. The government is already fully-booked by now so they better find a new hotel to spend their lifetime.
Here is some free advice to
Submitted on January 31st, 2009 by Anonymous (not verified)Here is some free advice to people who hate freedom and rights - stop refering to people who defend their rights as "gun toters and toting guns"