|
|
 Posted January 23rd, 2009 at 1:40PM
So David Paterson announced Hillary’s successor, and it’s my very own congressional representative: Kirsten Gillibrand. Paterson’s choice seems politically expedient. Gillibrand is a solid fundraiser (the 2008 election was the most expensive on record), savvy and ambitious enough to perhaps succeed in the 2010 special election and become a name brand in her own right. If the pick works out, it could also give Paterson a needed upstate boost.
So far the main complaints have been that she’s perhaps too conservative and whether there were other senior, more appropriate options. Certainly Gillibrand isn’t a household name outside of the area. But I’ve supported her as my representative in Congress and she’s arguably as good a replacement as any for the senate seat.
Gillibrand beat John Sweeney in 2006 (that alone makes her OK in my book). Sweeney was a four term Republican congressman who voted along the lines of the Christian Coalition 69% of the time and whose positions included escalating the “war” on drugs, a ban on gay marriage, and social security privatization. Sweeney was named one of the “20 Most Corrupt Members of Congress” in a 2006 report by the Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington. He was instrumental in the 2000 Florida recount fiasco, cementing Dubya’s misbegotten presidency (R.I.P.). And in January 2001, Sweeney crashed his Jeep into a utility pole coming from a bar, resulting in a power outage in my very own neighborhood. The state trooper on the scene did not administer a sobriety test or even allow the fire department to be called to direct traffic. Sweeney stayed in office till 2007. Sheesh.
Gillibrand runs with the Blue Dog Coalition, but bear with me. It’s not a deal-breaker. She’s got a certain left-of-center flair, for our district, anyway – favoring stem cell research and gay marriage, tax cuts for middle income families and state healthcare programs for children. Her position on gun control proves to be a non-issue for me. Gillibrand was raised in the Capital Region, and most of the 20th district is classic, gun loving rural country. She attempted to make a loopy “Hunting and Fishing Holiday” to commemorate responsible gun use, but otherwise believes in enforcing current laws on the books (she also supported 2007′s National Instant Criminal Background Check System (NICS) Improvement Act). She espouses fiscal “responsibility” which, frankly, sounds pretty neat in an age of trillion dollar a year deficits. She very naturally supports investment in local infrastructure and agriculture (not to mention high tech) and that should translate well to the upstate as a whole.
Gillibrand campaigns hard, has two children (one of which born last year, while she held office), and is plugged into the state political machine (the nightly news might underestimate this). She’s a bona fide Democratic example of a woman successfully juggling both personal life and political career. She does put the junior back into “junior New York Senator” after heavyweight Hillary, but give it a moment and see what happens.
All indications are that Paterson wanted to fill Hillary’s seat with a woman. Understandable. After Caroline Kennedy’s crude campaign and unimpressive performance in the spotlight, Gillibrand seems a logical, dare I say qualified, choice. Here’s hoping.
Two quotes from a rush piece on TIME.com:
“As a child she was loud and talked constantly. She talked so loud we had her hearing tested, but it turned out her hearing was fine and that she just wanted to get her point across.”
— Polly Rutnik, Gillibrand’s mother. Albany Times-Union, May 13, 2007.
“I think politically [the pick] will help the governor, it will help the team. She will do some things for them upstate … Conservative democrats are winning so politically it might be a plus. It gives balance.”
— Rev. Al Sharpton, on the benefits of Gillibrand’s selection. FOX News, Jan. 22, 2009
Posted August 26th, 2008 at 1:19PM
Yet Hillary delegate Nancy Saboori of Newton sat weeping, literally, over breakfast yesterday morning. “I’m so upset I can’t even talk,†said Saboori, 59. “I know the fix is in (for Obama). She won Ohio. They told her to drop out. She won Pennsylvania. They told her to drop out.â€
Count Saboori among that 30 percent of Clinton backers who, in a new poll, still won’t vote for Obama. She’s what some Obama people call “bitter enders†or, as Politico put it, “like Japanese soldiers in the South Pacific still fighting after the war is over.â€
…
OK, forgive me too, Ms. Saboori. You’re clearly distressed. But it’s time to move on. It’s over. I’m sympathetic. I get it. But enough already. This reminds me of first-graders who take their ball home when they lose.
Here’s my heroine today: Ex-State Rep. Carol Donovan of Woburn. She’s been so upset about media attacks on Hillary, “I find myself, a liberal, watching Fox news, the only ones nice to her.â€
What’s the deal with the Clintons and their supporters? Nonstop media coverage is whipping up this supposed division, but 30% of former Hillary supporters is still significant. Do these people look at issues and political platforms, or is it all about platitudes like “experience” and “having a vagina”? Where’s McCain’s vagina? I can’t stop Hillary’s white, middle-aged suburbanite women supporters from voting for McCain, but are they doing it because they support his neoconservative agenda or simply because they feel slighted that the rest of us didn’t vote for their heir apparent?
I have the sneaking suspicion that Obama is being labeled “the one” only because Hillary was presumed to be the Dem nominee years ago, and the talking points were already written, I’s dotted and T’s crossed.
Is two nights of the Clintons at the convention really necessary?
Posted January 30th, 2008 at 1:37PM
Came online to make this post, noticed that Edwards finally dropped out. Along with Kucinich about a week ago, the field is only getting narrower. New York has closed primaries, and since I’m registered Green, I can’t vote this primary season. But I feel like it’s important to take a stake in the campaign, and at this point I’d much rather see Obama win the nomination than Clinton.
I’ve come to this conclusion after contrasting both his words and actions to Hillary’s. Although I’ve complained before about both of them lacking authenticity, I think Obama’s facade is more a result of running for president than an artificial, lifelong political persona. Hillary Clinton has always come across as triangulating and self-serving, from her run for the Senate in NY and every move since.
Authenticity or charisma aside, Clinton is also just as hawkish as many of the neo-cons currently in the White House. Her cheerleading for the invasion of Iraq cannot be understated, especially in the face of Obama’s early opposition. Despite political snipes charging otherwise, Obama did indeed oppose the Iraq War early on and for all the right reasons. Being anti-war has never been politically expedient for a politician here. Many have ridden the tired “this war was done wrong,” but few say that it was wrong, and fewer still correctly explain why it was wrong. We invaded and subsequently occupied a nation, killing hundreds of thousands. Clinton only beats around the bush about misinformation, refusing to acknowledge this mistake. And lest we forget, it was during her husband’s tenure that more than one million Iraqis died as a direct result of the sanctions against that country.
Obama has since said dumb things about Iraq, Iran, and various other topics. He’s said what has been politically expedient, and he’s a frontrunner in the 2008 presidential race for it. Pandering to voters is hardly a huge crime, especially when differences actually do exist between the panderers. This is the lesson of 2000, where we had Gore and Bush who, on the face of it, looked to be two sides of the same coin. We now know otherwise.
It’s not all about foreign policy. Obama’s healthcare plan is probably as close as we will get to nationalized healthcare. In the press releases, it even sounds good. Time will tell whether or not he’s able to push it through, and whether or not such a half-hearted attempt at insuring everyone succeeds.
His economic policy is the traditional “closing loopholes” and “repealing tax breaks for the richest.” He says nothing revolutionary here, it’s the same conservatism we’ve seen from Democrats for decades. But in the face of schemes like Huckabee’s Fair Tax, it’s a welcomed relief. Obama’s conservation policies echo many others: reducing foreign oil consumption, investments in renewable energy, and a cap and trade system for dealing with carbon emissions. All sound plans, if any can be accomplished.
At the end of the day, Hillary Clinton might sound similar on any number of issues. But Clinton comes across as more of a faceless, political automaton than Obama. She’s polarizing and just as triangulating as Bill. Looking at prospective cabinet appointments, Obama’s team makes a better case for a progressive, brighter future in America.
We already had a Clinton in the White House. It was OK. I’m hoping for better this time around. A few shed tears can’t save her now.
Barack Obama for President, ’08.
As a sign of the times, Wikipedia becomes the best place to learn about candidates.
Political positions of Barack Obama entry
Barack Obama entry
Posted December 25th, 2007 at 2:13AM
In 2004, along with a whole host of other Democratic contenders for the White House, Dennis Kucinich ran on a very levelheaded progressive platform. He’s running again for the Democratic nomination in 2008. He’s received very little attention (then and now) with the exception of being the butt of late-night comedy. (And, actually, with the writer’s strike forcing re-runs, even this attention has dried up.)
Why does Kucinich or any “fringe candidate” run? Mostly, to broaden the scope of debate and to get the main candidates to touch upon issues they’d disregard otherwise.
Unlike 3rd party candidates, however, Kucinich believes the best way to do this is to work within the framework we currently have. And that framework is of a dysfunctional democracy that essentially limits our decision to two parties. Politics is a linear, bipolar scale in America. Third party candidates hope to change this; fringe candidates of the two main parties realize the complete impotence of alternative parties – at least for the time being.
The interesting thing this presidential election cycle is that there aren’t clear frontrunners. Pundits will keeping hyping one candidate after another in succession, but it’s still up in the air as to who’ll win the nomination of either party. The beauty of this is that the aspirations of 3rd party and fringe candidates are being realized. Barack Obama’s race is being discussed; likewise with Mitt Romney’s religion. The large field of candidates has provoked discussion far greater than any Tim Russert-mediated debate.
Of course there are problems. Obama’s “race” falls prey to the usual pitfalls: whether he’s black enough, if black is electable, if his blackness ought to be played up (or down). All of this framed to suggest “race” as static classification, similar to the dewey decimal system.
“Black” – defined as having any ancestor, no matter how distantly related, being from Africa, unless: the individual in question is educated and articulate, in which case they’re “acting white,” and therefor Uncle Toms.
Hillary Clinton’s sex is less murky territory (sex is rather black and white… pardon the pun), but still improperly framed in the popular media. One would hope that Clinton’s strong campaign be indicative of the success of the women’s movement and feminism in general. Instead, we’re bombarded with the apparent paradox that Oprah and black women find themselves in. (OK, the black men vote for Obama, white women for Clinton, but black women are in such a bind determining who to vote for based on simplistic “who looks more like me” terms?)
Combine this with the fact that Hillary is still married to “our first black president,” and we find race and sex (hurhur, do we call Bill the “first lady”?) being discussed for all the wrong reasons. Ditto with religion and that Mormon (pedophiliac polygamists, right?) from Massachusetts.
And don’t even bring up the fact that I’m writing this post on Christmas of 2007, nearly a year before the general election. The earlier primaries means an earlier start to campaigning and a longer general campaign between the two eventual nominees. This means extra media coverage of largely unsatisfying politicians, more dirty politics, and increased campaign contributions to cover it all – leading to an increasingly fractured democratic process and further disenfranchisement.
So yes, Sarah, the word of the day is paradoxical.
|
Tags: 
