Kirsten Gillibrand
The news today is that New York Governor David Paterson is set to name Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand to Hillary Clinton's former Senate seat. Caroline Kennedy is out of the running.
So, what's up with Gillibrand? As Dana Goldstein writes,
...if you delve deeper into Gillibrand's record, you'll find there are some red flags in terms of civil rights issues.It is no surprise that Gillibrand identifies as a Blue Dog and voted against the Wall Street bailout; those positions, while hardly courageous, are to be expected from a Democrat who narrowly won a district that voted 54 percent for Bush in 2004. But Gillibrand's careful centrism goes beyond mere signals of economic populism. She opposed former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to offer driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, and supports proposed federal legislation that would require proof of citizenship to obtain a license. On gay rights, Gillibrand scores 80 percent according to the Human Rights Campaign, the lowest score of any New York Democrat.
Also,
According to the Human Rights Campaign, she voted against the repealing of "Don' Ask, Don't Tell" legislation, opposed legislation that would grant equal tax treatment for employer-provided health coverage for domestic partners, opposed legislation to grant same-sex partners of U.S. citizens and permanent residents the same immigration benefits of married couples and opposed legislation to permit state Medicaid programs to cover low-income, HIV-positive Americans before they develop AIDS.
While, on some level, I'm happy that Clinton's seat will go to another woman, I'd much rather have seen this seat awarded to someone who shares Clinton's progressive views rather than just her gender. Overall, I'm pretty disappointed.
Related:
The Caroline Kennedy Question
Caroline Kennedy and "Experience"
Plus, more from Pam Spaulding, Scott Lemieux, Eve Fairbanks, and rikyrah at JJP.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: Hillary Clinton's Senate seat goes to Kirsten Gillibrand.
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11550
Voting against repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell is a complete deal-breaker for me. That bill had 120+ co-sponsors in the House, including numerous Republicans. This is disgusting.
The second I figured out what district she represents I knew this couldn't be good. I'm trying to look up her record on choice, but I'm at work and pretty busy. Anyone have some info or useful links? I'm pretty pissed at Governor Patterson right now (he's taxing my iTunes and booze!). However, I will reserve judgment on this pick until I have thoroughly researched Gillibrand.
From what I have read she is good on choice. No links right now, sorry.
I think we should all start writing to her office letting her know we expect her to uphold many of the ideals that Hillary did, such as gay rights, since we did vote for Hillary, and she now represents the entire state and not just a Republican area of the state.
I'm not from NY, but I'm pretty disappointed as well. From what I've read, she looks nothing like Clinton on policy. It seems that Patterson that was just looking for someone to replace Clinton in terms of gender and wasn't really concerned with what her constiuents actually wanted and needed.
Oh, and I thought Cuomo was going to get this seat for sure. Call me surprised.
I know you said you're not a New Yorker, so maybe it's your unfamiliarity with the state's politics that prompts you to speculate -- with little basis, I think -- that the pick was based solely on gender.
As a New Yorker, I strongly disagree. Certainly Paterson, whose record on civil and reproductive rights is solid, probably had some interest in keeping the seat female -- and with more well-equipped Democratic women than men in New York politics (in my opinion, anyway; we have a lot of great Congresswomen), it certainly wasn't unreasonable or him to lean that way.
However, you're ignoring a major issue: The big divide between the needs of upstate and downstate. Downstate, with the exception of the likes of Westchester County and Long Island, is reliably Democratic. It also has a completely different economy than the various upstate regions, some of which have struggled with the departure of a lot of industry and a lot of young people.
Gillibrand is one of only two upstate Congresswomen. The other is Louise Slaughter, who's been in office a long time and I expect would be reticent to leave behind her nice Rules Committee chair for a very junior Senate job with limited committee options -- if Paterson even wanted her. Gillibrand, on the other hand, has been in Congress only a few years.
Given Gillibrand's popularity in her district, which is mostly rural with a lot of farmland with some historic/tourist areas (Catskills, Adirondacks, Lake George, Saratoga Springs), I imagine Paterson is trying to turn more of upstate -- where Clinton was very popular for her efforts to stimulate its economy -- blue. Plus, regardless of party, two Senators from the city might be awfully alienating to upstaters.
There are another few things: Paterson probably wants somebody with the fundraising prowess to get reelected, and according to the NYT, Gillibrand has it in spades.
Plus, Paterson probably wants to boost his own shot at election in 2010, when Gillibrand too will be on the ballot. If by her performance this year and next Gillibrand draws more moderate upstaters to vote Democratic, perhaps they'll be more willing to vote for the Harlem-raised Paterson.
Anyway. I'm just saying: I doubt this was simply a question of "who's a qualified woman?" on Paterson's part. New York has plenty of qualified women, and Paterson, who has pro-woman policies anyway, hardly needed to pander.
The reason I think Patterson's choice had a lot to do with gender is because those issuing his press releases have been saying so. If that's not the case they should stop saying it was. They haven't said it's the ONLY reason he chose her, but they are saying it was very important to him that the pick be a woman.
Sure it was important that he reflect & represent 50% of NY state's population! But with many qualified women to choose from the question is why THIS woman. And everybodyever's response to this is a good one.
Patterson's hoping that Gillebrand can bring him upstate voters (just as Clinton did) while betting that representing a much wider constituency now she can liberalize her positions.
But they way it was phrased in the articles makes it seem like women voters will be pleased simply because he's picked another female democrat. And I find that thinking offensive. As jnbklyn says below, women aren't a voting block. We don't think with our vaginas.
Keep in mind that Paterson and his administration were being deliberately cagey in their discussions of the appointment process, especially after Caroline Kennedy trumpeted her bid. Saying "a woman might be good" gives no real indication of who Paterson might pick, while it does throw a bone to the press. Also, I wasn't exactly following the governor's press releases, but the scuttlebutt also seemed to be that a minority would be welcomed; I definitely read comments from aides to that effect.
As for your surprise that Cuomo didn't get it:
1) I think part of why Paterson didn't immediately tamp down the public speculation about Kennedy was because he wanted to observe the public reaction to the notion of her as a candidate. And in reaction, the public balked at the notion of scions of political dynasties being elevated to the state's top representative roles. To an extent, both Paterson and Gillibrand fit that bill, of course -- but their forebears' names aren't nearly as recognizable as Kennedy's, or Cuomo's for that matter. Perhaps Paterson recognized that the blowback to Kennedy might be matched by that to Cuomo.
2) Paterson's administration is probably concerned that Cuomo might run against him for governor. I believe Cuomo has said he has no intention of doing so, but if somebody like Giuliani were to run, I would not be surprised if the better-connected, higher-profile Cuomo ran against Paterson in the primary -- the better to beat Giuliani. In light of that possibility, maybe Paterson didn't want to give a leg up to somebody he regards as his eventual adversary.
Actually, it's neither.
Since 2007, we've had a Comptroller, a Governor, and a Senator resign for one reason or another (only one reason being a GOOD ONE, by the way). Appointing Cuomo would mean yet another Statewide office that would have to be an appointee. While a lot of people liked Cuomo and supported him (and are hoping he primaries Paterson in 2010), there were a lot who were concerned about having only one "elected" Statewide official (Paterson was technically elected, after all).
Yes, this. EXACTLY. I used to live in Gillibrand's district.
AbortionAbout.com (linked to for the sake of irony) has a decent listing of Gillibrand's stand on choice.
Prochoiceamerica.com has a positive letter from 2006 about Gillibrand to give some hope.
From Gillibrand herself you can see she doesn't like touting her pro-choice stance. However, that's somewhat, somewhat reasonable given her district.
But, wow, she doesn't even mention women's health in her "Affordable Healthcare" section.
My favorite part of the Times' article on this:
"Ms. Gillibrand’s selection was a careful political calculation by the governor ... The choice reflects Mr. Paterson’s thinking that his selection should be someone who can help him attract key demographics — in Ms. Gillibrand’s case upstate New Yorkers and women."
Can someone please tell the New York Times that women aren't a voting bloc and that we don't vote for people because they have vaginas, too? Thanks.
Geeeez, I thought we covered this with Clinton/Palin...
Really, you don't think the PUMA phenomenon suggests (as does the 99% of the black vote won by Obama) that at least a sizable percentage of people vote identity?
Identity based politics is the oldest game in democracy...and even before democracies.
Its hardly as if Patterson put all the female candidates in a hat & just pulled a name at random. You can disagree with his choice, but let's not suggest the man is just crass.
From Project Vote Smart:
*2007-2008 Based on a point system, with points assigned for actions in support of or in opposition to National Right to Life Committee's position, Representative Gillibrand received a rating of 0.
*2007 In 2007 NARAL Pro-Choice America gave Representative Gillibrand a grade of 100.
--However, Gillibrand has never responded to the Project's Political Courage Test. This seems to imply that, while Gillibrand does have some progressive/liberal views, she does not like broadcasting them. Maybe she'll be able to let the freak flag fly as a Senator?
This makes me hopeful. Looks like she might be more progressive than her district would allow:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/1/23/94932/7072/497/688006
I'm from NY, and I feel insulted by this. It's like the McCain pick of Palin for VP...the act of picking someone for their gender only, no matter what their record/politics...It sends the message that he is trying to placate women by choosing a women, thinking that we don't care or don't bother to educate ourselves about the issues...assuming we'll all just point and go "look! she haz vagina! yay!". Insulting.
She is pretty good on a lot of issues except gay rights, but if you click the link I provided above, it looks like that might be because of where she was a rep of.
But I still think we should write to her office to make sure it sticks.
This is her current contact info, should be the right one to use until she moves into the Senate and they update the info:http://www.gillibrand.house.gov/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=122&Itemid=29
If you're from NY, then you should know it had nothing to do with gender and everything to do with physical location (upstate/downstate war), as is covered above.
Ummm, no, I disagree completely. It was the expectation all along that a woman was going to be picked to fill Hillary's seat...and it even seems to mimic the Palin fiasco (and I'm not the only one that has brought that up here)...Patterson's seemed to think that "any woman will do" and didn't seem to consider the fact that the country just issued a referendum for change and picking a conservative democrat rather than a more progressive democrat goes against that principle of "change".
Regarding her district, Patterson could have just as easily picked a downstate Senator, her congressional district has little to do with why she was picked, rather it was a combination of her fundraising ability, and her ability to help Patterson with his upcoming re-election bid (again, this has more to do with her connections and fundraising ability than with her district; first of all she only won her election by a slim majority...and secondly, upstate NY doesn't come close to the NYC metropolitan area/long island area population wise, so courting upstate liberal republicans/conservative democrats is not a necessity for Patterson's re-election...last gubernatorial election, only 3 counties went republican, considering the democratic swing/trend, barring some huge disaster, it's highly unlikely NY will see a Republican governor in 2010)
(you can see a voting trend map for the 2008 election here, might take a minute to load: http://www.csc.ncsu.edu/faculty/healey/US_election/figs/pres_diff.png)
Please correct this post. This blog entry from HRC itself confirms that Gillibrand supports full marriage equality and a repeal of DADT:
http://www.hrcbackstory.org/2009/01/kirsten-gillibrand-gov-patersons-pick-to-replace-hillary-clinton-supports-marriage-equality.html
She opposed former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's plan to offer driver's licenses to undocumented immigrants, and supports proposed federal legislation that would require proof of citizenship to obtain a license.
First of all, many people opposed that plan of Spitzer's right off the bat -- not necessarily because they didn't like the idea but often because he issued it as an executive order rather than putting it up for a vote. (Or maybe just because they all detested Spitzer.)
Furthermore, Gillibrand was hardly alone in opposing the measure, even once it got put to the Legislature. The very liberal Chris Dodd opposed it, and Hillary Clinton vacillated on it. In its first incarnation, after all, Spitzer's plan didn't provide for apparent differences between the non-citizen licenses. I hardly think that Gillibrand's opposition to the measure is some kind of politically calculated "careful centrism"; the plan was immediately and hugely unpopular throughout New York.
(Of course, in my opinion, the solution here is not to hand out driving licenses to anybody who wants them but instead to grant citizenship or permanent residency status more liberally so it isn't an issue.)
Thank you. I was going to say, over 70 percent of NYers were against that measure for exactly the reasons you stated (yes, all of them!). The thing is, it actually wasn't a HORRIBLE idea, but the presentation was maddening. He'd already established himself as a "steamroller," and the backlash was more of an "F- You, Spitzer!" than it was an anti-immigration stance.
And, being a freshman senator in a generally red district? Yeah, she had to go with her constituents on that one.
SHE IS AWESOME!!! and will do a fantastic job in the senate.
first and formost she is an Emily's list candidate, and secondly the "red flags" mentioned were rejected by many democrats and she does a good job at representing her district, that is pretty conservative, i think its fair that she reflect some of that in her politics since she is the people's representative.
I just got an email from Reina Shiffrin, the president of my branch of Planned Parenthood, and it says some encouraging things:
"Planned Parenthood Hudson Peconic applauds Governor Paterson on his appointment of Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand to the United States Senate. As New York’s new pro-choice Senator, Kirsten Gillibrand will serve as a tireless advocate for women and families.
Ms. Gillibrand truly understands the health care crisis, how hard it is to get and keep adequate insurance coverage, and how important health care is to families and businesses. She will be an effective and determined voice for access to preventative health care, and health care education.
Gillibrand’s support of reproductive health care policy earned her the endorsement of Planned Parenthood Advocates of New York State, the non-partisan advocacy and political arm of the Planned Parenthoods of New York State, during her 2006 and 2008 congressional campaigns.
Hillary Rodham Clinton was a true champion for reproductive health and choice, and in Kirsten Gillibrand, New York has another outstanding advocate who will ensure women and families have access to affordable, comprehensive reproductive health care and information.
PPHP congratulates Senator Gillibrand and looks forward to working with her to promote and protect reproductive health care policy for all New Yorkers."
I don't know what to think!
I lived in New York (upstate) for 4 years, and was there when Gillibrand was elected. I thought except for the LGBTQ politics, she looked pretty good on a lot of issues, and upstaters generally liked her. I think the drivers license thing, as others have said, was more because everyone hated Spitzer. :-P
But today I got a similar message from Family Planning Advocates of NY today:
"Congresswoman Gillibrand truly understands the health care crisis—how hard it is to get and keep adequate insurance coverage and how important it is to families and businesses...
Throughout her tenure representing New York's 20th Congressional District, Gillibrand has worked for greater affordability and access to health care for people of all ages; middle-class tax cuts; economic stimulus to the state's economy and greater benefits for our war veterans. Clearly, Congresswoman Gillibrand knows that keeping the nation's citizens healthy and financially stable is the way to make our state and nation healthy and economically sound."
She'll be fine, but I would have preferred Carolyn Maloney, the Manhattan Democratic congresswoman with some of the best feminist credentials in the state.
A note from Empire State Pride Agenda:
"During her acceptance speech following Paterson’s announcement, Gillibrand stated, “I will advocate for marriage equality.” Gillibrand now joins Governor Paterson, Attorney General Andrew Cuomo, Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, Assembly Speaker Sheldon Silver, Senate Majority Leader Malcolm Smith and numerous other elected officials in the New York State Legislature and across the state who support the freedom to marry for same-sex couples.
Prior to the announcement today, Kirsten Gillibrand contacted Pride Agenda Executive Director Alan Van Capelle to talk about a range of LGBT issues, and affirmed her strong support for marriage equality, the full repeal of the federal DOMA (Defense of Marriage Act) law, repeal of Don’t Ask Don’t Tell (DADT) and passage of legislation outlawing discrimination against transgender people. We look forward to working with her on the issues that the LGBT community cares so much about."
That being noted, as well as PP's endorsement, does anyone know what the gun-control community is thinking? I am also troubled by her "fiscal conservatism".
She supports hunting rifles. She also currently represents a district that encompasses the Adirondacks where, appropriately, there is a lot of (legal and safe) hunting.
As for the bailout (I know you didn't mention it, but others did), everyone seems to forget that Pelosi didn't vote for it, either, and made a pretty public spectacle over it. However, plain and simple, Gillibrand didn't support it because overwhelmingly her constituents didn't support it, and it was an election year.
Please allow somewhat of a tangent here, but the outrage over Caroline Kennedy as a potential candidate continues to baffle me, even now as she's withdrawn her name. The arguments are about her lack of experience and the fact that she's never been elected by the people (she would be appointed).
But yesterday Michael Bennet was appointed senator of Colorado and there has not been one word about his experience or the fact that he's never been elected by the people.
Help me understand this, please.
Caroline Kennedy is one of billionaire mayor Mike Bloomberg's rich Upper East Side friends (she literally lives down the block from him).
She felt that she deserved the seat as of right, just because of her last name and who her dad and uncles were.
But, Princess Caroline missed 10 out of the last 20 elections - including important ones like 1989 and 1994, has never held public office -not even community school board and at age 51 has never had a real job in her entire life.
Now, before you go using the homemaker defense here - Caroline Kennedy, a woman who is worth in excess of $ 100 million dollars, has had servants here entire life.
She doesn't take care of her children - her off the books undocumented immigrant nannies do! Nor does she keep house - she has low paid off the books immigrants to do that too!
New Yorkers are sick and tired of having rich dilettantes coming in and buying their way into office!
Caroline Kennedy was only the most egregious case, because of how grossly unqualified she is!
Gillibrand appears to have become a much more vigorous LGBT ally. And has even come out for full marriage equality and the repeal of DADT. You can read more at PHB, http://www.pamshouseblend.com/showDiary.do;jsessionid=818DE6074246B04CD35FB9DD8C55498B?diaryId=9174
Well, I'm glad that Princess Caroline won't get to inherit the Senate seat - instead, an actual politician will!
making fun of someone's wealth is classism. it doesn't matter what end of the spectrum you attack. what's worse is you use a loaded label like Princess to further this attack.
there are plenty of wealthy people who do a tremendous amount of good in the world and quite a few who engage politically.
it is perfectly acceptable to argue against her political views and lack of experience in a way that furthers discussion and disseminates knowledge; but the second you incorporate sensational name-calling into your argument, you will always lose me.
She's from my district and given the voting trends there, I think she's always been a great alternative to the conservatives who have run against her. I agree with everybodyever that this post should be updated to include her recent full support for marriage equality. That's a lot a better promise on gay rights than Hillary ever made.
I'm also from her district and have personally lobbied her on environmental issues, on which she couldn't get much better, from purposing coal-limiting bills to putting caps on the use of biofuels and supporting a reduction in CO2 emissions by 80% by 2050. On the environment, she's left. Very left. Yay!
She played it more centrist for many social issues in her first election to the house because it was ESSENTIAL to get Sweeney out of office, but became more pro-choice and pro-gay rights since entering office and still won a 60+ % majority for re-election. I'm pleased with the choice of her for Senate.
Unfortunately, I don't know if another democrat will be able to hold this district, and so we might have to cede the seat to the republicans. We'll see.
Don't mess w/my girl Gillibrand.