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.
- bringiton's blog
- Login or register to post comments
Front page
Comments
If she truly wants it
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
Blaming you?
I didn't name names, but if you think the shoe fits....
Thanks for the help getting another BlueDog into the Senate. Much appreciated.
That name at the top of the page
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
You're gonna get a Republican
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?
The gap between assertion and evidence continues to widen
Typically. More time-wasting, gawd knows why.
Look at the knobs go up to 11 on this one:
Oh. OK. If you say so.
"First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, then you win." -- Mahatma Gandhi
Just like how Obama's anti-war
Except when it comes to bombing Pakistan.
- “I do not think that word means what you think it means"
Le Bloc ou le mort!
Still a hilarious lack of evidence
(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
Considering she rarely voted in public elections
the knob is stuck at 11.
What a silly post.
Who, again?
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.
I was trying to come up with a name
of a Republican who'd win. I can't think of one.
- “I do not think that word means what you think it means"
Le Bloc ou le mort!
MCM is bringing up Giuliani, the zombie pol
Could he come back to win a statewide election? yikes!
HAHAHAHAHA!
n/t
- “I do not think that word means what you think it means"
Le Bloc ou le mort!
Better read the New Yorker
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.
wrong about what?
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.
Looks like someone
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.
now you know
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.
Hmmm.
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.
Paterson did the math
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.
Let's place a friendly wager, BIO
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.)
coals to Newcastle
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.
Yeah, you've got some nice wines, but
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.
Me too Pie
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!
And Baby makes three.
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!
As I wrote
Well done. You must be so proud.
When a gov loves a Senator....
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.
Got it. I'll just STFU now
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.
What's with this "you" business?
(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.
It is a convention of the English language
called an Indefinite Pronoun.
A rich and lovely language, English; you (definite pronoun) should study it some time.
Just curious
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?
Blue Dog, shmoo dog
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.
You don’t know me, son. So let me explain this to you once: If I ever kill you, you’ll be awake, you’ll be facing me, and you’ll be armed.
-Malcolm Reynolds, “Serenity”
liz, I do try to be factual about facts
I say she's a BlueDog because she says she's a member of the Blue Dog Coalition, and not just a regular old member but - in her own words - a leader!
"You know" is not an indefinite pronoun
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."
chezmadame; where did I write
"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.
"chezmadame" is the whorehouse. HTH
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!
Hurrah for BlueDogs!
You must be so proud.
A long and thoughtful piece in the New Yorker; go and read. Perhaps you'll learn something; perhaps not.
Listen: You lost. GET OVER IT.
Laurence O'Donnell? Really?
The man who actually said (practically screeched) on MSNBC (of HRC) "Everybody hates her!" ?
\/\/hat. Ever. You know?
Apparently the correct option was
"Perhaps not"
redound
there's a word you don't often see.
The New Yorker, alas, is not what it once was
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
Agreed on the New Yorker
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.
Can you please tell me
what your subject line means?
It means I thought he was trying to write "Dear Madam" in French
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....
Cher M. TonyRz
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. ;)
Sorry
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.
Hey, chez, no problem
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. :-)
Oops
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
No worries Aeryl
Probably the kindest comment I'll get on this thread.
hel-LO! Obama is Mr. Bipartisan
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
Ah, commentary from the Progressives for McCain/Palin contingent
and I quote:
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....
T
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