Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Congratulations to those Progressives who helped thwart Caroline Kennedy

bringiton's picture

Because having her in the Senate would have been truly awful.

Imagine what would have happened to the country if she had been appointed? With her solid stances supporting a woman’s right to choose, equal rights for all including gay marriage, and familial commitment to economic fairness, plus her connections across the highest levels of government through which she could influence others in the same direction, not to mention the sympathy she would have been able to use to drive programs espoused by her Uncle Ted and Uncle Robert and Uncle Sarge, and worst of all her close personal connection to that nasty, nasty new President who would have bent over backwards to give her whatever she wanted, she would have been nothing but a horror for True Progressives.

Thankfully the ceaseless uproar on the Left undermined her politically, so much so that she no longer appeared helpful to Governor Patterson in his bid for re-election. Instead he turned to someone with Upstate connections, someone who supported the person who lost the Democratic nomination struggle; that should be a big help working with the new administration, the one being run by the person she opposed. Another huge plus for True Progressive interests is that she’s as far Right as it is possible to be and still claim affiliation as a Democrat:

Kirsten is also active in the Blue Dog Coalition, which is focused on finding bipartisan solutions to maintaining a strong national defense and restoring fiscal responsibility to Washington. As a leader in the Coalition, Kirsten introduced a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution in order to ban deficit spending and reduce our national debt.

Perfect for these times. Kirsten Gillibrand is just exactly what True Progressives want in the Senate, someone who can be count on to systematically align herself against initiatives that would reverse the Rich People Rule political trend of the last 30 years. Expanding the BlueDog’s influence and power is certainly a fine achievement for True Progressives.

The key thing, the real litmus test for a True Progressive was, of course, that Gillibrand supported Hillary while that disgusting Kennedy person supported Obama. Nothing else matters, not voting records or the company they keep, and most of all that damn notion of institutional continuity of an Old-Time Progressive presence has been stomped on. “No More Kennedys!” is a rallying cry any True Progressive can get behind no matter what the alternative may be.

And this appointment certainly works to keep me from feeling any excessive exuberance or even a flutter of happiness, which I might have if Caroline had been given the opportunity to continue the path that her old fuddy-duddy uncles had established and maintained; can’t be having any of that. Needing now to live with this fine example of True Progressive political acumen, I am most decidedly not in any danger of being overly enthusiastic.

Well done, all; well played.

Nobel victory.

You must be so proud of yourselves.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

Let her run for it in 2010. I have nothing against CK, I just had someting against her lack of accomplishment, which is the same problem I had with BO. I don't understand why you think that would change.

And aren't you just full of it. Acting as if there weren't any legitimate reasons to oppose Kennedy. Nope, only bitterness, you're right.

And somedays you espouse that Obama has his eye on the bigger prize, now he will punish Gillebrand, for supporting Clinton. Or is it that the Obama who will forgive and forget, doesn't fit into the narrative of scolding us for not falling in line.

And the reports I'm reading about it, say it was more her disastrous performance from upstate that sealed the deal, vs progressive outrage. But sure, blame us, that's easier than facing the fact that Kennedy just wasn't ready for prime time.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I didn't name names, but if you think the shoe fits....

Thanks for the help getting another BlueDog into the Senate. Much appreciated.

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

That's all the names you needed to name. You came here for the express purpose of scolding everyone here who didn't fall in line for Kennedy.

And just who do you think you are scolding people who are ACTUAL New Yorkers, over who they wanted to represent them.

I personally didn't want a Blue Dog in the Senate, but better that than Kennedy, who probably would have faced such a local backlash, the seat could have gone to a Repub. And a fairly progressive Blue Dog at that, your pearl clutching aside.

The only thing I really knew for certain about Kennedy, was that the media wanted, which is the touch of death for anything progressive. Honestly surprised you don't know that by now.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

or Bloomberg, whatever he is. This Gillibrand can't carry the state and you know it. The Dems will fall all over each other in the primary, claw each other to death and lose the general 55-45. Write it down.

Caroline would have won it in a walkaway, and voted straight line Progressive on everything for as long as she was in office. Your BlueDog, the one you earned by campaigning against a Progressive, is gong to cause all kinds of trouble - and then disappear.

Oh and: How dare I? Hey, weigh in on CA politics any time you feel like it; free country...or am I wrong about that too?

Submitted by lambert on

Typically. More time-wasting, gawd knows why.

Look at the knobs go up to 11 on this one:

Caroline would have ... voted straight line Progressive on everything for as long as she was in office

Oh. OK. If you say so.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

Submitted by lambert on

(as asked for. But plenty of other time-wasting material.

Really brings me back to the days pf alt.syntax. tactical. Memories.... And lots to learn here, kidz!

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Who sunk her chances?

And okay, if you know so much about NY politics, name me one Republican who would win. Just one.

Bloomberg's not a Republican anymore, and given that he was one of Caroline's biggest backers (and she refused to say that she'd support a Democratic candidate over him in the next mayor's race, which he will be running in since he went to all that trouble to bust the term limits via fiat), I don't see why you should have a problem with him, BIO.

Of course, CK supported him *before* he left the Republican party, so make of that what you will.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

article posted at The Confluence.

This part, especially:

When Caroline Kennedy first announced her intention to seek the Senate seat, some of her friends were surprised that she would volunteer for such a role, given how shy and reserved she seemed, and how obsessed with maintaining her privacy. (“Jackie and Caroline had similar personalities,” Andy Warhol told C. David Heymann. “They tended to bury their emotions. They were like icebergs. They revealed only a small portion of themselves—everything else was deeply submerged.”) Unlike her brother, who didn’t usually seem to mind when photographers took his picture or reporters approached him, Caroline Kennedy has always appeared to dislike the press. (She declined to be interviewed for this article.) Her friends understand that to speak about her in public would mean banishment. When she announced her bid for the Senate, she gave a few of her friends permission to speak with reporters, but several of those friends, after making the most anodyne or laudatory comments, panicked and withdrew them, or demanded anonymity.

Sorry, BIO and CD, I think you're wrong here.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I'd written here, and in an earlier thread, that Caroline is a very shy person, who very much dislikes confrontation. I also wrote that for her to engage in a public fashion took considerable courage, and that she would need to find her way and require considerable help from others to learn how to deal with the press and the public. None of which IMHO has anything to do with how she would perform as a Senator, nor does it suggest that she would be incapable of learning.

I've re-read CD's comments, and not to speak for her but, I see nothing in your quote to suggest she was wrong either.

Perhaps you'd like to be more specific. Otherwise, I'll just say "No, pie, it is you who are wrong" without giving reason or justification and nothing moves forward.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

got up on the wrong side of the bed this morning.

I didn't realize progressives were responsible for Caroline's nomination withdrawal or Paterson's pick.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and you're welcome for the education.

I've always gotten out of the same side of the bed; on the Left. Just that this morning there was a big stinky turd right where I stood up, and no way was I going to just walk past and not complain about those who helped deliver it.

Pity if that complaining is a discomfort to them.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

The pot you're stirring looks pretty empty to me. Paterson had his own good reasons for choosing her, and progressives had little to do with it.

I grew up in WNY, which has gotten the short end of the political stick as far as representation goes, although many I know there were pretty happy with Hillary. At least, Gillibrand isn't a New Yawker. She may understand the rural constituencies much better than Caroline would have. We'll have to see, I guess.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

When the Left turned on Kennedy he saw he couldn't count on any goodwill if he chose her. Cuomo was not an option, and no other Liberal Dem had enough clout to shore up Paterson's many weaknesses. He went with a conservative Dem in hopes he can curry some favor with the Center and make peace with the Left. Good luck with that.

Net, these moves by the New York Left and Paterson may cost the Dems both a Senate seat and the governorship, not to mention crippling any chance for Progresssive Dems to advance our interests Congress through this whole term.

Well played.

caseyOR's picture
Submitted by caseyOR on

I think that Gillibrand will be re-elected to the senate in 2010. If she loses I will, what, what, what? Okay, I will send you a bottle of our very fine Oregon Pinot Noir. And if she wins, how about you send me a gift box from Rancho Gordo beans? How's that sound to you? Is it a bet? (and we'll be supporting local agriculture. It's a win-win.)

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

I live in the heart of the finest wine country in the world. Not to knock your lovely Pinot Noir, but next to what we produce down here, well.... On the other hand, I can see why you'd covet our beans. (Unclear on how interstate shipping is compatable with support of local agriculture, but I am a simple-minded sort.)

I've put my stake in the sand; now you've placed yours. No need to make more of it than honor. If the world is still here in November of 2010 and I am still in it, we can settle up then.

caseyOR's picture
Submitted by caseyOR on

our Pinots really are the best. It's not surprising we disagree on this, too. Oh well, we can take it up again in November 2010, provided, of course, we are both still around.

talesoftwokitties's picture
Submitted by talesoftwokitties on

I grew up in CNY-Syracuse city girl. I'm thinking Paterson understands the political climate of NY better than a bunch of blog posters!

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

We already know that Donna Brazile and the Washington Post are pissed off.

Now, I have absolute affirmation that Paterson did the right thing. Thanks, BIO!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Well done. You must be so proud.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Graveyard Burris and Schlossberg-gate were issues for their respective governors to sort out - not Harry Reid, not Barack Obama, and definitely not Brazile or the Washington Post's.

I don't know what the final straws were in these 2 cases, which made the governors do what they did, but it's just nice to feel checked and balancey in the USA for a change after 8 years of control from the Politburo

Cue another happy dance for me. You're free to sit this one out.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

along with anyone else who isn't part of the True Progressive chorus. We should all be doing the Happy Dance with another BlueDog in the Senate, because process is all that matters and outcome means nothing. Great job you all have done, again.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Great job you all have done, again

(With apologies to Colbert)

People tell me I'm not Governor Paterson and I believe them because I can see them when they talk.

People tell me I'm not Caroline Schlossberg and I believe them because I hardly ever say "you know" in conversation.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

Do you have any actual evidence that Gillibrand is a Blue Dog? Other than that the MSM decided to label her that way due to her stance on one issue, gun control?

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Here is On the Issues; they have her pegged as a 'Populist Leaning Liberal', just to the right of Clinton and Obama, and same as Joe Biden, for what that's worth.

Project VoteSmart has her votes for the last term, if anyone wants to see her ratings and actual votes.

Much of the Blue Dog tag seems to come from her support for gun ownership and her audacity in opposing the bailout, at least what I've seen today. I'm off to dig around.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

However, the word "you" can be used as an indefinite pronoun when it applies to people in general.

Ex. When you want a senate seat, you should do something to gain the people's confidence in your abilities."

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

"you know"?

The specific challenge from TonyRZ was raised to my use of "you" in conjunction with "all", the colloquial phrase "you all" being collective and indefinite. The collective included all Progressives who criticized Kennedy unfairly (IMHO, but I am not the only one who feels this way) and in my opinion (again, not alone) largely out of spite for her support of Obama, but indefinitely, without specific reference to any one individual.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

The collective included all Progressives who criticized Kennedy unfairly

You have yet to show that Paterson was unduly influenced by criticism from Progressives. And even if he were (which I doubt), then as long as they are Progressives from his state, why should he completely ignore them?

The fact is, the new junior Senator from NY is delivering the unity Obama kept claiming only he could. Pro-gun and pro-gay? Now THAT is change I can believe in!

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

You must be so proud.

A long and thoughtful piece in the New Yorker; go and read. Perhaps you'll learn something; perhaps not.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

Laurence O'Donnell? Really?

The man who actually said (practically screeched) on MSNBC (of HRC) "Everybody hates her!" ?

\/\/hat. Ever. You know?

Submitted by hipparchia on

there's a word you don't often see.

Submitted by lambert on

Truthiness rots everything. That article may be OK, and maybe I'll get round to reading it at some point, but I dropped my subscription (a) because, these days, it's a frill, and (b) because I got tired of getting hammered with Obama hagiography in Talk of the Town and the reviews. I used to read the New Yorker for what I couldn't get anywhere else.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Alas, indeed. Headed downhill shortly after it was purchased by who ever the hell purchased it back in the 80s. After Shawn left it was never the same and instead of hiring Tina Idiot Brown they should have just shut it down, would have done less damage.

Still, from time to time they do something at least interesting; this piece is, for the voices quoted and what they have to say, even though I don't actually admire the author or agree with her (IMHO) unfounded conclusions.

TonyRz's picture
Submitted by TonyRz on

and got it wrong.

I momentarily forgot BIO's annoying habits wrt addressing people. And I swear that your moniker ("chezmadame") is one I had never taken notice of when I wrote that.
Literally didn't know it existed.

(And I need glasses, but maybe I'll just start journaling about that in the comments to his next health care blab fest)

Sorry....

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

I was bewildered.
Then I felt insulted.
Then I felt bewildered about feeling insulted.

Then I stuck up for myself and flagged the comment.
After all, you did call me a whorehouse.

But then again, the early Christian writer Tertullian called me (and all women) "a temple built upon a sewer", and I didn't flag him.

No offense meant, none taken. ;)

chezmadame's picture
Submitted by chezmadame on

I thought that the "it" in your subject heading referred to to the "you know" in the last line of the comment, not the "you" in the comment's subject heading.

Yup, pronouns are tricky.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Messy thread, it happens; I truly was puzzled, thanks for clearing it up.

Apparently my habit of stating the name of the person I'm talking to right in the topic line is an awful thing, what a bad boy am I. Hope you weren't offended. :-)

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

This was in the wrong thread, I'm moving it

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Probably the kindest comment I'll get on this thread.

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

Or did you forget that Obama praised Reagan and offered to put everything on the table in the name of post- partisanship?
As for Caroline, she's politically tonedeaf, something we never would have known if Paterson had immediately caves to pressure and appointed her. He took his time and she hung herself, demonstrating for all the country to see how bad she would have been. BTW, her job was to be the best senator for New York, not her uncle Teddy. She needed to show she was capable of winning the election in 2010. Her personality is uniquely unsuited to politics. She would have been a very risky appointment.
As for Gillibrand, go look up her rally videos from 2006. She's very progressive and frequently cites FDR. When she was first elected in 2006, a balanced budget amendment was a good idea because the Bushies were spending money like it was going out if style. And she represented a conservative semi-rural to rural district in upstate NY where hunting is a tradition.
You know, your tirade is inexplicable. NY has a surplus of talented, electable women from which to choose. It really is an embarrassment of riches. And whoever is appointed is going to be there as a member of the legislative branch, not an extension of Obama's buddy system. So, who to you fixate on? Not Carolyn McCarhy, Carolyn Maloney or Louise Slaughter, all of whom are plenty progressive. No, you fall back on the one woman with no talent but plenty of whole foods, elite, snobby American aristocratic pedigree.
Talk about projection.

Come together at The Confluence

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and I quote:

some of us, after much soul-searching, decided that John McCain was the lesser of two evils

Compared to a BlueDog, that Kennedy would have been truly awful. Sure. And Palin is a feminist icon. And McCain is not a horrible misogynist. And...well, I could go on, but why bother. You'll forgive me if I don't now wade through the analysis portion of your comment; so little time, so many important things to do.

Really pleased for you and the other True Progressives, good to know that you're happy with how it all worked out. Really....

goldberry's picture
Submitted by goldberry on

True progressives were apalled by UnDemocratic tactics that Obama used to "win" the nomination. Those of us who went to Denver and saw it up close and personal could never vote for him. Those of us who voted for John McCain did so out protest.
Oh, and the people who tolerated the trashing of Palin and the cunt T-shirts have no right to call themselves progressive.
Obama is a weak president created from a weak candidate. He was selected, not elected and his actions have ruined the party's primary system and split the base. So now the Donna Braziles are worried about women? They must be looking at real polls that show just how angry we are. But we're onto them now and their love of all things Villager and pseudo-aristocratic.

Come together at The Confluence

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

with the Donna Brazile brush [can I say that?] you have the wrong target. I'm well on record here as no fan of Donna B, and could care less what she has to say about anything.

The Dem primary - in which I strongly supported Hillary after Edwards dropped out - was nothing more than the same old hardball politics it has always been. If this is the first time you noticed how the game is played, well, good that you've finally caught on.

Sudden awareness of political reality is no excuse for backing a Republican. No excuse, at all. I have little respect for Obama, although I do have hope. For anyone who voted Republican, I have no respect at all.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Do you know whether CK voted for Bloomberg in the last election, when he was still a Republican?

Or was that one of the ones she didn't bother to vote in?

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

speaking to pie: actually, progressives did have a lot to do with this process. behind the scenes, but trust me- "we" made a difference.

and to BIO: i agree that CK would've been a fine choice, so far as "fine" can be applied to any american polity right now. in addition to the reasons that he listed, here's what i think (and feel free to flame away)

- she's independently rich. and thus LESS BRIBABLE.
- she's got the sheen of a family/dynasty name, and isn't so worried about making a 'place in history.'
- her record, while not so much about public service, isn't any more objectionable than say, Al Franken's.

the bottom line is that Senators and Congresscritters *don't actually write or analyze the laws upon which they vote* most of the time. everyone remembers Conyer's saying so in F911, right? lobbyists, staffers, insiders, and unseen Villagers do that. Our Leaderz are chosen for their ability to carry water for special interests, look good on teevee, and function in the cocktail party circuit of the Village. i don't like that any more than you do, but it's still true. CK would've been an ideal choice for this world, despite the pasting she took from the likes of NPR and the SCLM. really- is it that hard to come up with a list of republicans and DLC dems who are less pleasing in front of a camera? i don't think so. as faults go, this isn't a worthy one for us to get upset over.

CK wasn't my first choice, but i have noticed that once again, the person who would've perhaps been most open to progressive suggestions drops out, while DLC and Likud-apologists are still in the running. or, rather, they were- KG has been anointed by the DLC with her pro-FISA, anti gay rights, pro-tax cuts bullshit. yeah! she caucuses with the Blue Dogs, and is in favor of entitlement "reform." what a great senator i expect her to make! puke.

say what you want about CK. but at least she *didn't* have a proven voting record, on these issues such as KG does. i concur with BIO- this was a foolish move by people motived by reasons that i doubt they understand, in terms of progressive resistance to CK. plenty of our elected Leadership class come to office with fewer "qualifications" than CK, but with more closed ears. i can't celebrate that CK is out, and a bunch of internal to NY politics types are (somewhat) still in. CK, at least, had the potential to rise above that and serve the interests of the nation of a whole. i say this as a person who HATES dynasties and would never allow them, after I was made Queen of the Universe. seriously, i can't stress enough how unusual it is for me to defend a Kennedy. but here i am doing that. think about why that may be.

gqmartinez's picture
Submitted by gqmartinez on

Or at least not less beholden to "special interests". What's the average income of a US Senator? How many of them are "bribable"? Exactly. The same "wealthy argument" was used to push Scwarzenegger in CA, but he is as beholden to corporate interest and influence as anyone--which is why he's trashing the economic outlook there.

I don't mean to suggest Kennedy would be "bribable", but the "she's wealthy so not" argument is bad. Its not real indicator of being beholden to corporate influence or not.

Only tyrants rig elections.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

(and since I do too), does that mean the end of the world as we know it?

Caroline Kennedy was driven out of this race to make room for another Blue Dog.


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

I didn't realize progressives had that much clout with Paterson.

But, honestly, she was less than impressive and didn't give the impression that she was the best person for the job, despite her family's political history and service. She also wasn't comfortable around the media. No, I'm not at all sure she should have gotten the job at all. If she's really into public service, she can start somewhere a bit lower on the ladder.

Paterson also bypassed Cuomo. I don't hear cries of foul about that.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Nobody could complain, too un-PC to touch.

I want Cuomo right where he is. He has a great platform for great things, if he has the courage to use it; I want to see what he does with the power he has before promoting him to more. If he is smart and brave and bold, he has a reasonable chance to be president after Obama.

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

that Paterson wouldn't get to appoint his replacement (true?) and that Paterson would rather work with Cuomo as AG than take his chances with someone else.

Cuomo's not presently married though, is he? If he wants to run for prez, he'll have to change that.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

Is that really what you meant? Al Franken? The only guy who stood up to the Moral Majority crowd, to Newt Gingrich and the contract for America - when the rest of the media and the Democrats were cowering in fear of a soon to be discovered blue dress? Maybe you didn't live thru that. Al Franken was the liberal who decided all on his own that the left needed a voice of sarcasm to match Rush Limbaugh - and did something about it. I don't think Carolyn has balls like that. Not even remotely. MN should be so lucky as to get him for their senator.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Is that it ignores the fact that there were far *more* progressive options to choose from, such as Carolyn Maloney. So for the thwarting theory to work, you'd have to accept that the progressive contingent merely wanted to sink CK instead of get a progressive, conveniently available and ready to go, into the slot.

As it is, the Gillibrand pick had a lot more to do with Paterson wanting to appeal to upstate than it did with other considerations. In any event, Gillibrand is going to be challenged in the special-election primary in 2010, from the left. So if she wants to hang onto her job she'll have to make sure she represents the interests of the entire state of New York, including the liberal parts, and not just worry about getting re-elected to her red-leaning Congressional district.

Also, BIO, you know jack about New York politics if you think for a minute that Gillibrand isn't pro-choice, or and advocate for women's rights, or whatever else you're claiming she's not. The NY Republican Party is pretty much about economic conservatism.

She definitely wasn't my first choice, but I understand why Paterson picked her. She brought something to the table that Caroline Kennedy proved she couldn't, which is upstate appeal. Really, before you conclude that it was downstate progressives who derailed Kennedy, take a look around for the video of her running away from the upstate press.

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

again. I would have preferred Maloney, but, like zuzu said, Paterson was looking for someone with upstate appeal as well. As a Senator you represent the WHOLE state.

I especially like that somehow the fact that Gillibrand supported Hillary is a horrible reason for the choice. Um, being that it's NY, almost everyone in politics (and everyone on the list except CK) supported Hillary. So Paterson should have chosen CK because she was the only one who supported Obama?

No one, and I mean NO ONE in NY would be chosen for Senator if they did not have a firm pro-woman stance or a few other things you're saying. It's not South Dakota.

“I do not think that word means what you think it means"

My etsy shop

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and respond to that, instead of guessing what maybe I might have meant. It could help make your rebuttals more, ah, accurate.

What I said, in summary, is that Gillibrand is a BlueDog, which in fact she is, and on balance a Centrist Conservative - which is why she was able to win in a solidly Conservative district. Hillary is also popular upstate because she too is, on balance, a Centrist Conservative - just like Bill.

Certainly there are solidly Progressive New Yorkers Paterson could have selected; like Maloney, someone I much admire. He didn't. Why? Not because Caroline was in the picture. Go ahead, you're the NYers - why didn't Paterson pick Maloney?

For the record, and to be perfectly clear, I certainly do assert that the Progressive contingent as you call them did indeed want to sink Caroline. They did so out of spite, over her backing of Obama, and didn't bother to think through the consequence of their intemperate behavior.

And no argument from me that the upstate press - the press in general - went after Caroline like sharks with blood in the water. Congratulations, an alliance with the MSM and the right-wing upstate press; what a perfectly respectable Progressive stance.

The net outcome is transfer of a BlueDog from the House, where she was relatively harmless, to the Senate where she may well be the seed crystal of socioeconomic disaster. So much better than placing a solid Progressive in the Senate. Well done.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

I certainly do assert that the Progressive contingent as you call them did indeed want to sink Caroline. They did so out of spite, over her backing of Obama, and didn't bother to think through the consequence of their intemperate behavior.

Who are these people who are so spiteful? Who campaigned against her just to derail her for her support of Obama?

Just one name, BIO. That's all. One name of anyone with any influence at all over the governor.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Paterson played The Village and won; that's a positive, or should be, to "true progressives" (whatever that means these days). He gave CK enough rope to hang herself, and she did. It's not really on him that Caroline had nothing more than her name, her name's attraction to big dollar donors, and the support of Versailles going for her.

She could have come busting out of the gates, taken her case to, you know, the people of New York state, and made at least one statement as to her opinion on a few important political issues. She had access to some of the best political handlers in the world, and yet came across as disinterested, afraid of her potential constituents, and generally uncommitted. She couldn't come up with a reason to give her the seat, or even memorize a statement someone wrote for her. She even bungled her withdrawal.

Paterson took a calculated risk by not announcing his pick right away; after all, Caroline might have been able to leverage the over-the-top endorsements of The Village into a more general popularity which would give him no choice but to name her. But she blew it.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

Not just downstate?

Also, now that Gillibrand supports same sex marriage she's taken a stance left of Obama. How is that not progressive to you?

Yes-it was completely out of spite. It's not like Paterson didn't give Obama his full support after Hillary withdrew or anything. (And whether you like it or not it was his and only his decision. And he got input from Schumer, btw.)

Edited for a brain misfire.

“I do not think that word means what you think it means"

My etsy shop

Submitted by lambert on

I'd be the first to admit that Al Franken does not have a lot of policy experience.

However, Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot was published in 1996, and Lies and the Lying Liars who Tell Them in 2003, when -- assuming I haven't foreshortened the early Bush years -- there weren't a whole lot of mainstream voices besides Krugman calling bullshit. That altered the media landscape, at least somewhat, and that's a big deal. Nothing like that from CK at all.

Noblesse oblige, sure -- which is what that "familial" stuff from bringiton boils down to -- but that's pretty weak tea, and a rather odd peg for a true progressive to hang their hat on, no? To me, it's just as likely that she'd turn out to talk a good game and sell us out to Obama only at the critical moments (and in the midst of a press frenzy, too). YMMV. The whole thing seems like meh, to me.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The political balance in the Senate, as I read it, was teetering and Gillibrand pushes it towards the Republican-Conservative Dem alliance just enough to make any real Progressive advancement impossible.

It was slim pickings before, but on some issues if properly played we might have moved some things of substance along. Now I doubt it, all because of this one appointment, and that's why I took the trouble to write this post. If I thought it was meh, I'd have chosen another fight. Not like there's a shortage.

It isn't that Caroline would have followed Obama's lead; it is that Obama will tend to adapt to what ever the Congress allows and he won't push a confrontation unless he's truly cornered - which he may be by year three, but by then it could be too late. My worry isn't Obama leading the Congress astray; it is Congress - the Senate, specifically - pulling Obama farther Right than he already is. Gillibrand makes that concern far more likely to become a reality.

All IMHO, of course. Oh and, re: Gillibrand - FISA FISA FISA, lest we forget. Can't hang that one on Caroline Kennedy.

And, just thought I'd look, the freepers are pretty happy [yes, that freeper site] with her plus they expect to get the 20th District back in the R column. Lovely all around.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

You clearly haven't read the numerous comments stating that Gillibrand, while not by any stretch the ideal candidate, will be representing ALL of New York State in the Senate, not just her Republican-leaning district. She's already pro-choice, she changed her mind right quick on SSM, she voted the right way on TARP, and the reality of NY Dem politics will mean that if she wants any hope of getting re-elected (not to mention getting the support of the big-money Dems in the City), she will have to move to the left.

Oh and, re: Gillibrand - FISA FISA FISA, lest we forget. Can't hang that one on Caroline Kennedy.

Except to the extent that she strongly supports Obama, who has a little issue with FISA FISA FISA himself. But, you know, it's pretty obnoxious that you're pulling the same trick that a lot of Obots pulled with AUMF, in that they thought he was grand because he didn't vote for it, even though he wasn't in the Senate at the time. Would CK have voted against retroactive immunity? One hopes, but it's all speculation at this point.

And now, back to the question of names: Name one of these progressives who derailed Kennedy's candidacy (and specify the actions which so influenced the governor) and name on Republican who poses a serious threat to Gillibrand (or the winner of a primary) if she doesn't fuck up horribly -- and who won't already be challenging Paterson.

It's not like the GOP has a terribly deep bench here. You should be able to come up with one viable name, in order to substantiate your fear that the seat will be lost, lost forever!

caseyOR's picture
Submitted by caseyOR on

Although, coming from you, not surprising. CK was not defeated by the left and the progressive blogospere. She lost this one all on her own. And are you seriously claiming that Kos and Jane Hamsher, both very vocal opponents of Caroline and major Obama cheerleaders, were upset because CK supported Barack over Hillary? Really? That's your claim?

Gillibrand supports same-sex marriage, women's reproductive rights (including abortion), voted against TARP. Wow! is Gillibrand ever a threat to progressive policies. There is that unfortunate FISA vote, but heck, she was right in line with our president on that one.

Caroline's blood connection to Jack, Bobby, Teddy and Sarge guaranteed exactly nothing about either her political philosophy or her political talent. Maria Shriver has the same lineage, and she married Arnold. And campaigned for him.

Caroline's few public performances were disasters. She appears not to consider voting all that important. And her connection to the NY Democratic Party is non-existent.

Oh, and I believe she took herself out of the running.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

with stupid arguments. Thought that was already established, but good of you to reinforce. Brilliant approach to debate.

If I can parse New York politics all the way from CA, casey, you can learn to do it from OR. It was the True Progressive contingent that undermined Kennedy, the same bunch who shoot themselves and the rest of us in the foot again and again, who did it this time rather than let someone jump the queue who hasn't kissed the proper ass and never would have. Caroline couldn't be "controlled" thus she would be dangerous to entrenched interests who fancy themselves Liberal and Progressive but are actually Centrist Conservatives - like Bill and Hillary and Gillibrand.

Caroline is a good person, a decent person, and a class act. When she learned it wouldn't be her, she withdrew for the usual "personal reasons" to clear the field for Paterson to make his pick. She didn't want any more residual animosity than neccessary.

It isn't about blood, for hells sake. She's been solid on Progressive causes her whole life, and while she is a shy person who clearly wasn't comfortable with confrontation that would not actually have been a problem once in office. The Club would have taken care of her, looked out for her, nurtured her and, when she did speak out, deferred to her. Gillibrand will just be another newbie, and another vote to obstruct real Progressive economic change. Wonderful; we didn't have enough of those already.

Caroline would have been a fine Senator, for the country and for New York. A damn sight better than another BlueDog, which is what we got.

Well done, all.

caseyOR's picture
Submitted by caseyOR on

You have no idea what kind of senator CK would have been. She has no record. She has a name, and that is all. I really do think people, including you, BIO, are basing a lot on her last name. Caroline was absent from politics until Obama's campaign. Her voting record as a private citizen is almost non-existent. Nowhere in her history has she taken up the gauntlet for any progressive issue or politician. And it is not a given that support for Obama equals progressive politics. Afterall, those centrist conservatives you cite, Bill and Hillary Clinton, campaigned for Obama. Who knows if she would have "kissed ass?" You don't, and neither do I.

The push for Caroline was hype and hope. And where did you get this idea that the senate would have looked out for her and nurtured her? The Club is filled with major egos who do not take kindly to new "celebrity" senators. The advice both Barack and Hillary got--- "Keep your head down and your mouth shut."

I don't doubt that Caroline is a good and decent person. That does not mean she would have been a good senator.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

If I can parse New York politics all the way from CA, casey, you can learn to do it from OR.

... you're not doing much of a job of parsing NY politics. Or even troubling to find out what Gillibrand's positions are, which are all the exact opposite of what you're claiming (as in, she's pro-choice, pro-SSM, and voted against TARP). The more troubling parts of her record have a lot to do with appealing to the voters in her district, where she squeaked out a win over an incumbent mostly because he was revealed to be a wife-beating pervert who'd run afoul of the law. You also don't seem to understand that upstate politics are different from downstate politics, and Paterson will be up for election in 2010 and needs to appeal to the upstaters. And he couldn't do that if he picked Kennedy, because she so thoroughly botched her upstate tour.

And who are these "True Progressives" who are so powerful? Names, man, we need names!

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

while she is a shy person who clearly wasn't comfortable with confrontation that would not actually have been a problem once in office. The Club would have taken care of her, looked out for her, nurtured her and, when she did speak out, deferred to her.

Have you been to DC?

“I do not think that word means what you think it means"

My etsy shop

Submitted by lambert on

Well done, lostclown!

Ya know, maybe Obama could have made CK his emissary on I/P. Then we could happily combine our worst threads into one...

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Yes I have been to DC. Many times, for many reasons, and surprisingly to me with some success. Have you?

The Kennedy name is still golden, especially Caroline. Outside of the South, Dems would have been falling all over themselves to get her to campaign with them. No need for her to take questions or debate, or do anything more than smile big, say a few words, shake some hands and have dinner with the high rollers. One hand washes the other in DC; she'd have been very popular, and well taken care of.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

No need for her to take questions or debate, or do anything more than smile big, say a few words, shake some hands and have dinner with the high rollers.

She tried to just smile and say a few vague words about why she was running, and the voters in Syracuse, Rochester, Binghamton and Buffalo saw right through her. She ran away -- literally ran away -- from the upstate press when they tried to ask her a few questions.

These would be her voters, and her constituents. She fucked up with them her own self. She made herself into a liability by treating them with disdain.

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

I know! Although maybe a little bit of this too?

How do these fair in New York's climate?

But honestly, I troll (hey, at least I admit it), since I really don't give a shit about this topic either way, not seeing much more than a thin smear of spit difference between the two choices when weighed in balance (although I actually prefer someone with an imperfect record over a cipher with a confused and ambiguous one).

But the quote you pulled out also jumped at me as both unintentionally condescending and brain-numbing in its being put out as a "positive" for Kennedy. Seriously, do we need more pampered princesses in politics?

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

Sarah's picture
Submitted by Sarah on

required comment field filler


We can admit that we’re killers … but we’re not going to kill today. That’s all it takes! ~ Captain James T. Kirk, Stardate 3193.0

1 John 4:18

chicago dyke's picture
Submitted by chicago dyke on

KG is going to disappoint you all, and she's going to be replaced in congress by a rethug, most likely. CK was an unknown, and yes, i will defend my position: rich, dynastic, and thus more likely to listen to progressive voices than someone who wants to become rich and dynastic. there's a difference b/w new money and old, yo. in this country, CK constitutes "old." anyway, i gotta get off this machine. later, peeps. have fun.

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on

Bio, do you have any proof of this? From what I saw, CK was an absolute disaster in front of both reporters and the hoi polloi. How on earth did progressives drive her out? Further, how did they convince the governor to pick Gillibrand when he could've picked anyone?

PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

Rejecting Caroline is entirely separate from Gillibrand getting the appointment.

Progressives (whichever ones you're referring to) didn't beg Paterson to appoint a Blue Dog; they just begged him to not appoint another inexperienced political black hole.

And double false-dichotomy by setting up Carolyn, of whom there is no proof (speculations about the relative greediness of the super-rich old money vs new aside) one way or another, to be the most perfectest bestest champion of progresssive policies evah! against the evil Gillibrand.

You may not have actually checked out her voting records. NARAL gives her a 100% rating, which, I heard endlessly in support of Obama, means she's super-feminist!

Weren't you, BIO, the one who was castigating us/progressives the other day for actually expecting anything from Obama in the way of progressivism, and abdicating our duties as good liberals to do all the work of making Obama be a good liberal ourselves? But I guess only the President gets a pass on acting like a human being; Senators (who displace Kennedys) need not apply.

Gillibrand is going from representing a fairly conservative upstate district to serving the whole state. If she wants to win in 2010 (and by all signs she plans to try) she'll have to move left to get NYC voters on board. That is, if pb1.0 'progressives' (most of whom seem to have thought CK was just nifty) don't roll over and wait until the election's past to demand real representation.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

people than Kirsten Gillibrand.

As I said up there, she's not a New Yorker and understands, far more than Caroline Kennedy would, a more rural constituency.

What's the point of all this anyway? It's over and done with.

Pressure on her? She's already given kudos to her predecessor. She's got big shoes to fill, but it sounds like she knows what she has to do.

She wanted the job and as already been through and won an election in a very republican district. If she can gently make people there more amenable to dem policies (such as they are), that's a good thing.

Small steps.

lizpolaris's picture
Submitted by lizpolaris on

It's really too bad that you object so strenuously to having a qualified person in the Senate, as opposed to one who just feels she has the right opinions.

Sorry, having the right opinions on issues doesn't qualify you for the select club of 100 Senators of these United States of America. Does wanting a qualified person make me a Blue Dog or some other loathsome stereotype? I actually want to hire qualified people. Oh, sorry, that's too much inline with my actual job. I'll go quietly now...

Carry on with the partisan BS.

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on

Here's an excerpt:

Jan. 23, 2009 | Whether New York's rank-and-file Democrats are pleased, puzzled or apoplectic about the appointment of Kirsten Gillibrand to succeed Hillary Rodham Clinton, they cannot fault their new United States senator for being who she is -- an ordinary upstate politician, largely defined by poll-driven issues that fit the right-wing rural district she represented in Congress. The sole responsibility for choosing an avowed conservative Democrat belongs to Gov. David Paterson, who seems to have relied heavily upon the advice of Charles Schumer, the state's senior senator.

So if liberal Democrats are looking for somebody to blame for Gillibrand, they should look no further than Paterson, whose haphazard process for selecting a successor to Clinton seems to have been guided not by any progressive outlook he espoused in his earlier career, but instead by his own prospects for reelection next year.

At first, the governor seemed to have reached an understanding with New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg to appoint Caroline Kennedy, the mayor's preferred candidate, until she suddenly and somewhat mysteriously opted out of the process. A political cipher whose curious candidacy was based on name recognition, Kennedy was only entertained by Paterson because of the expectation that she could raise tens of millions of dollars to support the Democratic ticket in 2010 -- and perhaps because she might help him win a prized Bloomberg endorsement.

And the linky.

PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!

Stephanie's picture
Submitted by Stephanie on

"Kennedy was only entertained by Paterson because of the expectation that she could raise tens of millions of dollars to support the Democratic ticket in 2010 -- and perhaps because she might help him win a prized Bloomberg endorsement"

I remember reading that speculation earlier in the news.

But, isn't that (partially) what got Blago in trouble -- looking for someone who could raise/contribute money?

Of course there are no tapes of Paterson.

Submitted by lambert on

TARP, no.

But HR 676, no.

FWIW, I'm betting Patterson's choice had everything to do with the arcana of getting re-elected in NY State; picking Gillibrand would be the equivalent of, say, Obama's choice for DNC chair, Tim Kaine, and nothing to do with whatever straw man bringiton's flogging today.

There's simply no way to choose between a celebrity candidate and policy cipher beloved of the Village because they picture Camelot-themed fundraisers, and a Blue Dog. They're orthogonal; neither can be considered progressive, whatever that might mean these days, in any meaningful sense.

If anything, I slightly prefer Gillibrand, because I can imagine the coverage whenever Kennedy's vote was key to anything. Ick. Plus, actually facing the voters ought to count for something.

NOTE Jeebus, "Familial commitment to economic fairness"? Noblesse oblige, much? 1968 was a long, long time ago, and the idea that Kennedy would have leveraged all that is woulda, coulda, shoulda, at best. IIRC, the actual work she's done has been pretty thin. Of course, if Teddy had re-defined the "politically feasible" by coming out in favor of single payer, I might feel differently. But, of course, Teddy thought Obama was the second coming of JFK, or something, passed the torch, blah blah blah, which just goes to show how vacuous these pictures in the air of "familial commitment" really are...

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Of course Paterson's decision was driven by his calculations around his re-election. I haven't said otherwise, and who would be fool enough to think he considered anything else? The only reason he dragged out the decision was because he couldn't figure out how to tally it all up. Not, I fear, the brightest bulb on the tree.

You watch. Come 2010, the NY Dems are going to shit all over themselves.

Good to see you're OK with the BlueDogs, though. Why, keep it up and you'll be giving that Obama fellah a run for his nonpartisan money.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Hillary was still in her seat, and had no guarantee that some dipshit like Vitter or Cornyn wouldn't successfully block her nomination. And he should be naming someone immediately why? I mean, Blago didn't name anyone right after Obama left his seat, even though he could have.

The whole thing only appeared to be a problem because the press (and you, apparently) were soiling themselves with glee over the whole Caroline Kennedy late entry. Even though she pissed off a lot of actual New Yorkers and even though she couldn't, or wouldn't, articulate a reason why she should be the nominee.

And you still haven't explained exactly which of the members of the terrifying GOP machine are going to steamroll the Dems in 2010.

One name, BIO. Just one for an expert on NY politics such as yourself should be easy.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Your demands are very important to me. I will respond to your imperative just as soon as time allows.

Unfortunately, I must inform you that you are Demandant #2,786,391 and as I am currently working on a response to #376,184 you may experience some delay before I get back to you. Please be patient, while I put you on hold.

_ _ _ _ _

Ah, then; still holding? How very kind of you. By my projections, I will be able to provide you with your requirements on or about the end of November 2010. Of course, by then any current opinion of mine will be moot, as will be as well I'm sorry to say your own.

In addition, since I am by popular expression here considered utterly worthless at projecting the future, it is with some bewilderment that I wonder why you would value my opinion at all. Never mind; we shall see what we shall see. Meanwhile, savor please the wonderous benefits to flow from your new Blue Dog Senator. Congratulations on the fruit of your efforts in this matter. Truly impressive.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

you got nothin'. Not a single name of a single person who derailed Kennedy merely out of spite, and not a single name of a single person the clownshow known as the NY GOP could produce to challenge any Democrat who holds the seat.

And you haven't articulated a single reason she will be bad for the state of New York. Not one.

So this whole little screed was an impotent little wank.

Submitted by lambert on

Actually -- not to let this thread suck up more valuable time than it already had -- I compared this candidate (CK) with this Blue Dog, and didn't see much difference between them. See? Not all Blue Dogs. In any case, Obama's OK with Blue Dogs, so why do you hate Obama?

Years from now, I expect to hear "If only the Progressives/Left/Whoever/WhatEVHA hadn't nobbled CK, we'd have [fill in straw man of the day here]." Something to look forward too.

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Your time is at your discretion; isn't as though there's some stampede to agree with me that you need to step in and head off. As always, though, I am interested in your thinking however distorted.

That you could not see the difference between Caroline Kennedy and a BlueDog is, to be clear, your limitation; no reason why it would bind me.

As you will no doubt recall, I have often stated my concerns about both Obama and Hillary being far to cozy with the Right. They are both Centrist Conservatives, so it is not inconsistent behavior on their part and certainly not worth working up hatred over - not worth it to me, anyway.

Your new comfort level with a Blue Dog is interesting, but with the Pro/Con Hillary question apparently the only thing that matters it is not surprising. Depending exclusively on litmus tests inevitably leads to distortions.

As for "I told you so" posts, probably not; I will instead depend on your character and integrity to fess up when the inevitable destruction makes itself clear.

tnjen's picture
Submitted by tnjen on

She now supports full MARRIAGE!!! :)

The Empire State Pride Agenda released a statement this morning saying it has received assurances from the junior-senator-in-waiting, Kirsten Gillibrand, that she supports gay marriage - an issue that could prove troublesome when she has to defend her new seat against a potential challenge from the left in 2010.

link.

I think this is a very good sign. And it puts her to the left of President Obama.

PB 2.0 - Supplement the wonk!

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

Shit-stirring for its own sake? Who'd have ever guessed? And, what is it that we call this in the internet world, again?

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

“I do not think that word means what you think it means"

My etsy shop

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

?

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

Aeryl's picture
Submitted by Aeryl on

xkcd.

I guess she expected you to laugh. I did.

He who will not reason is a bigot; he who cannot is a fool; and he who dares not is a slave.
- Sir William Drummond

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

It was supposed to make you laugh.

“I do not think that word means what you think it means"

My etsy shop

Damon's picture
Submitted by Damon on

I was confused, though, as it looked as if it was directed at me, and if so, then I really didn't get it, actually.

But, we've always been at war with Eastasia...

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

Nah, your comment just made me think of that comic.

OH NOES! THERE IS TROUBLE ON THE INTERNET!

“I do not think that word means what you think it means"

My etsy shop

herb the verb's picture
Submitted by herb the verb on

If he hadn't appointed Clinton as SOS none of this would have happened.

I'm kidding! Har!

Since this is one of the bestest, most ridiculous popcorn eating threads in some time here, I just thought I would throw the obligatory "Freebird!"esque "It's all Obama's fault"-isms in there, just for the grins and to see if certain veins pop.

It's Obama's fault.

Ho ho! I did it again! I just can't help it! I are a "True Progressive", look at me! Ha, ha, ha!!!!

-----------------------------

I'm not such a bad guy once you get to know me.

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

but I find this whole rant funny. The crux of the issue with people like you I think is that the appointment is a slap in the face of Obama since he apparently wanted Kennedy. Patterson refused to obey "the one" and it seems to get in the craw of people like you.

Anyway, if people like you were so darn concerned about "progressive issues" then why did you get behind a "post partisan" candidate who wants to continually hold hands with the GOP? Who's already caving to the demands of the GOP on a stimulus package?

Look, there are plenty of qualififed women to the left of Gillibrand but you failed to support them and put your hopes on a candidate who shot herself in the foot. Please don't blame anyone else but your lack of a poor decision making process. The thought that Caroline Kennedy was even considered for the job at all made for lots of laughter in many quarters. If she was so interested in being in the senate, then she needs to get off her duff and run and not expect to be handed a senate seat.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

The crux of the issue for me (Are there other people like me? If so, they can speak for themselves.) was simply stated, and I have no hidden agenda.

Caroline Kennedy would have been a reliable Progressive voice and vote in a Senate that is the sole remaining choke point for Progressive legislation. Instead, thanks in large measure to the unrelenting outrage expressed by True Progressives, a Blue Dog (and proud of it) has been installed instead, tipping the chamber Rightward.

Further erroneous mindreading: I was not an Obama supporter in the primaries. As stated above (try reading instead of guessing) I supported first Edwards, then Hillary - right through the last primary and up to the day she suspended. After that, I felt there was no choice but to support Obama against McCain, because I just can't vote for a Republican. Call me funny for that, if you please.

There certainly are many people women in NY who are Progressive and qualified to be Senator. Most of them never will be, probably including anyone on your list. That one of them didn't get the appointment was, in my view, a foregone conclusion. Absent someone charismatic on the Left who could help him big time with connections and money, and Caroline was the only person woman who fit that description, Paterson went upstate and to the Right hoping to curry favor with what he sees as his major vulnerablility.

I say he's made a mistake, in multiple ways, and that the rest of us will have to pay for it - in multiple ways.

You, of course, may disagree; no problem with that. I would appreciate it, however, if you would in future refrain from making up fantasies about what I think and how I feel. Thanks in advance.

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

my point: Where's the evidence that she would have been a realiably progressive voice. I see no such indication other than her last name. If she can't handle the press then I don't think she'd be able to stand up for issues.

I remember you claiming all this before but for some reason you continue to make excuses for Obama which I fail to understand.

All in all don't you think it would be insulting to the voters of NY to have Caroline Kennedy as their senator? I mean, what if we had a vacancy here in Ga and Perdue decided to nominate his son or someone who was well know but had NEVER served the people of Ga. I would be hopping mad that I had someone who had never faced the voters forced down my throat.

Sorry, but you're the one indulging in fantasies. The posters above have asked you time and again for proof to back up what you are saying and you have provided none.

Do I think Patterson was making a move to help himself? I sure do but the thing is Caroline would've probably lost in 2010 if she was appointed. She's just not got what it takes to serve in office.

Card-carrying_Buddhist's picture
Submitted by Card-carrying_B... on

She is known to New Yorkers as an intelligent, socially-aware person who has managed to have a life despite her fame, and to work hard for causes she believes in. Kept her nose clean, kept a low-profile. Radcliffe grad, Columbia Law grad. Raised $65 million dollars for the New York City public schools. (Wow that really sucks).

That she was savaged by the press and some pundits and faux-gressives is pretty odd. Eee-ew, we don't want someone with a last name like that! Eee-eew, she's comes from the wrong side of town, the tiara side! We don't want someone like that! Eeee-ew, she hasn't sucked up to political establishment for the last twenty years! Yuck! She's just like a NY Patty Murray! Oh wait. Thats not so bad. Nevermind.

Gillibrand is a very poor choice. First, it will return to Republican hands a hard-won upstate seat -- which is itself is a disaster, given the nature of NY State politics Second, the Dems will lose an opportunity to have a strong Dem candidate in the next Senatorial election, assuming that Giuliani has not dropped his political ambitions. (Not to mention Paterson, who is himself a very weak candidate for re-election.)

ps. sorry if this comes out in bold. I have tried to fix it, to no avail.

Reporter to Mahatma Gandhi: What do you think of Western Civilization?
Gandhi to reporter: I think it would be a good idea.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Bold would have been fine with me.

Bold would also have been good to see with Paterson, and with New York's True Progressives, but instead it was calculation and triangulation and a classic study in how to screw up a simple political decision to everyone's detriment except the Right.

Brilliant.

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

mistake was even considering her for a senate seat. She should've never even been considered. It was insulting to lots of voters on so many levels and smacked of cronyism of the highest order.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Please. The only reason she was even able to run, much less win that House seat was through cronyism and more cronyism won her the Senate seat.

The difference with Caroline is that Mrs. BlueDog has her influential family heritage on the Right. So much better than a clean and decent heritage on the Left, wouldn't want that, insulting in so many ways, while cronyism on the Right is hardly worth a mention no matter how high the stink of corruption might be.

Lovely choice. Well done, all.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

And that was David Paterson.

If you're alleging that anyone here had any influence with him, please do stop playing coy and just name these True Progressives instead of just waving around your dossier, Senator McCarthy.

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

article is pretty weak. It makes some pretty lame assertions that aren't backed up. So someone who has a "pure" pedigree but can't be bothered to talk to the voters and runs from the press is better than someone who's actually been elected by the voters. That's pretty much what you are saying. Let Caroline run for the seat if that's what she wants to do. I don't think it' what she wants thought. She wanted to be appointed but not have to acutally run.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

No need to guess what "I seem" to be saying; I've been perfectly clear.

What I'm saying, and please don't make me repeat it again, is that a solid Progressive Senator with mega-star power and close connections to the President would have been better for New York - and the nation - than a BlueDog. That is, I admit, a rather long sentence, but perhaps it will become clear if you read it aloud...several times.

The articles establish Gillibrand's links through her well-connected lobbyist father to the New York Republican machine, such as it is these days, along with an interesting connection between her father and some people who, as we say, know people - if you know what I mean. AG Cuomo will have a field day with this.

And perhaps you didn't notice, in the frenzy of Caroline-bashing, but everyone wanting this Senate seat wanted it in part because it would come by appointment and not by election. That's because it is an appointment, not an election. There is no election now - for anyone getting the appointment. Got that?

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

There *is* an election, in 2010. This is a temporary appointment until the 2010 special election, which is to fill the remainder of Clinton's term (Clinton was re-elected in 2006, meaning her next election would be in 2012). 2010 also happens to be when Chuck Schumer is up for re-election.

And then there's another election in 2012.

And you keep acting as if the choice was only between Kennedy and the Blue Dog you've constructed in your mind, who bears little resemblance to the actual Gillibrand (who you've placed in opposition to Kennedy thusly: Imagine what would have happened to the country if she had been appointed? With her solid stances supporting a woman’s right to choose, equal rights for all including gay marriage, and familial commitment to economic fairness. As has been repeatedly explained to you, Gillibrand herself supports a woman's right to choose, equal rights for all including gay marriage (a late convert, but a complete convert nonetheless, which places her to the left of Obama (and Clinton, and Schumer) on this issue) and as for economic fairness, she opposes privatizing Social Security, voted for SCHIP and the Ledbetter Fair Pay Act. What does this "familial commitment" even mean, if you can't point to anything Kennedy herself has done?

BTW, as much as you were frothing over FISA FISA FISA, I see you didn't trouble yourself to find out how Gillibrand actually voted.

Kennedy wasn't even the most progressive in the field, and she wasn't the only woman (nor the most progressive woman).

Anyone going into this knew that there would be two elections in rapid succession. And anyone in the running other than Kennedy had already stood for election, so they already knew what that was about (even Randi Weingarten, who didn't just get appointed to head her union). Kennedy might have raised a lot of money, but her attempts at reaching out to the voters were a disaster.

Get over it. She sunk herself.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

Easy to see how someone might get confused about who stands where on what issues; I'll just let Gillibrand speak for herself on her vote FOR the new FISA.

Also easy to be confused on appointment now versus election later; that is a difficult distinction to make out, can't blame you two for having a struggle.

I'd be amused with the argument that I can't foresee how Caroline Kennedy would behave as a Senator but you can foresee the outcome of elections two and four years from now; some sort of self-validation process, perhaps, maybe too much time talking to the mirror, but it is for me actually becoming boring now, repetition upon repetition.

The deal is done; I say it will be a disaster. We'll just have to wait to see what develops, and then you can apologize.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

Fair enough.

However, please do tell me how you reconcile your support for Obama with HIS vote on the FISA issue (which was exactly the same as that of Gillibrand) with your predictions of doom for the entire country because Gillibrand did the same thing as Obama.

And please do tell me how you square CK's strong support for FISAFISAFISA Obama with the doom, doom that will befall the nation because one Congresswoman voted the same way Dear Leader did. I mean, if this were such a disqualifying vote, as you argue here, then surely Caroline Kennedy's continued strong support for Obama after his disqualifying vote means that she would have voted the same way herself. Surely a principled progressive who is the very best choice for New York and the nation would have drop-kicked his ass after that vote.

I'd be amused with the argument that I can't foresee how Caroline Kennedy would behave as a Senator but you can foresee the outcome of elections two and four years from now; some sort of self-validation process, perhaps, maybe too much time talking to the mirror, but it is for me actually becoming boring now, repetition upon repetition.

Hey, all I've asked you for is just one name, one name of one NY Republican currently in politics or in the pipeline who could unseat Gillibrand if she should survive a primary challenge. That's all. Just one. Surely you can come up with one name? You don't even have to predict the future, just look at who's a strong candidate now.

But you can't do that; instead, you attack me for daring to ask for proof for your lunatic assertions.

Ga6th's picture
Submitted by Ga6th on

where is your evidence that she's a "solid progressive". I would think that someone who cared so much about issues would have at least bothered to vote in the majority of primaries.

Those links are nothing more than saying her father had "some association". Whatever.

Again, you're ignoring the fact that Caroline has chosen to never run for office. Gillibrand has run and won. That fact alone makes her way more qualified for the Senate seat than Caroline.

zuzu's picture
Submitted by zuzu on

It's really cute the way you bust out the false equivalencies when you're asked for proof of the progressive bona fides of the candidate you're pushing as the strongest progressive in the whole of New York State.

Darling, really. So adorable!

pie's picture
Submitted by pie on

Ye gods! Make it stop!

How 'bout we talk about the possibility of Bush's secret pardons. Much more interesting than crystal ball reading about Caroline Kennedy.

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

In the New Yorker, h/t to pie.

Well worth a read. I don’t agree with the author’s flip headline, or facile conclusion. Much more to the point, much more accurate, is Larry O’Donnell’s observation:

Paterson has no comprehension of upstate New York, absolutely none, and has chosen someone better at representing cows than people. What you have is the daughter of a lobbyist, instead of the daughter of a former President or the son of a former governor.

This is the hack world producing the hack result that the hacks are happy with.

An extraordinary opportunity for Progressive causes, squandered.

Valhalla's picture
Submitted by Valhalla on

O'Donnell is an out and out hack for CK, having the double honor of being described as "a friend of" CK's and "a political analyst[sic] for MSNBC" so his observations (as the one below) are rather suspect:

Because there are really only three people in the Democratic Party who you can say is coming to your fund-raiser and sell tickets from that, and they are Barack and Michelle Obama and Caroline Kennedy.

The article is interesting, yes, but really only reinforces (somewhat unintentionally) the image of Caroline as one whose main recommendation for Senator is her gold-plated membership in The Village, and her ability to draw money from big dollar donors by merely existing. A Senate seat is not a prereq for fundraising; she can (if she actually has any commitment to progressive issues) haul in the big bucks for the Democrats just the same.

Because the problem is not that we have too little condescension from our tribe. -- okanogen

Submitted by lambert on

First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win. -- Mahatma Gandhi

bringiton's picture
Submitted by bringiton on

and still, regards Schumer, spot on. Chuck can be the big dog now in a two-person delegation; congrats, hope he's happy.

I'll see your MoDo and raise with all the uncritical mentions Politico gets around here. Some sources suck because of their unbounded suckitude; they are of no use, in any direction, for any purpose.

Anybody remember that Washington Whispers supposed insider list of Obama appointees and all the flutter that went on around it? Take a lookback; IIRC, Holder was the only accurate name. That's another source not worth reading.

Reading MoDo? To borrow a term - Jeebus.

LostClown's picture
Submitted by LostClown on

Ever since I started reading her column I've been in no danger of my blood pressure falling too low (runs in the family).

“I do not think that word means what you think it means"

My etsy shop