Paterson Must Appoint a Woman

During the election of 2000, some political watchers in New York State (and beyond) were treated to a rare, but not unheard of, series of events surrounding the race for the US Senate. A congresswoman named Nita Lowey was viewed by many as the presumptive Democratic nominee, set to replace Daniel Moynihan who was ill and retiring. Lowey had the good opinion of nearly everyone in the Congress, the New York delegation in particular and the state party apparatus. The New York Republicans, in 2000, had Rick Lazio. Then Hillary Clinton moved to New York.

Lowey stepped aside, graciously. Hillary ran and won. And now she will soon be gone and New York's "Celebrity Senate Seat" is in play again. Who would best represent the State of New York in that office? What criteria should be used? What effect does the current Illinois scandal have on this decision?

When Hillary Clinton ran for President, she ran as a woman, in my opinion, and I believe that is why she lost. She invoked her Glass Ceiling Sister Act whenever she found it useful while Obama made far less of his race during the campaign. (I did not say he made nothing of it, only less of it.)

Hillary Clinton might have won, if not for that. It isn't a good idea for anyone seeking a singular office like the Presidency to make that distinction. This country has been run for centuries by men only, and men named Adams and Wilson, Ford and Reagan, Carter and Clinton. To break that mold, you almost had to avoid the subject of breaking any mold whatsoever. (Witness some of Obama's recent appointments.)

But in a state like New York, teeming with talented, ambitious and dedicated women within its political circles, in a state like New York that has already elected a woman to one of its current US Senate terms, in any state wherein the Congressional delegation provides for two US Senators to hold office, Governor David Paterson must appoint a woman to replace Senator Clinton. It is not difficult to imagine that we are at the place in the history of New York politics where this is "the women's seat" of the two from New York.

There are names being tossed around now, but let's spare New Yorker's the Celebrity Senate Seat dynamic, in which Mrs. Clinton's former job is handled like some corporate board seat, traded to everyone's mutual benefit except the voters of New York. Most of the names thrown around now are smart, caring New Yorkers. But only one is both fair and makes real sense for our state. Nita Lowey doesn't want it. Appoint Carolyn Maloney.

Comments

[beaupritchard]

No one argues with ... The Shadow http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t5WXS5KLok8&feature=related but I must ... Caroline Kennedy for senate.

[greginwva]

Caroline may have a shot at breaking that glass ceiling somewhere (she's only 51)down the road if Patterson gives her the nod.Alex may be right.I always find myself on his side(except when he's playing a mad dog killer)but I just love the smart classy Caroline.The fact that JFK has been my hero since I was 6 probably plays a role.

[beaupritchard]

"Reformed mad dog killer" ... (I'm doing the eyes thing can you tell ... and now the laugh ... swirling all around ... fading off into the background)

[rckayla]

I am curious, greginwva, why was JFK your hero??? Is it because you didn't know any better at 6 years old? If so, you must know the TRUTH about John F. Kennedy now -- he was not the greatest President or human being and definitely not a role model for anyone; he was a womanizer, a drug addict (addicted to numerous prescription drugs, smoked marijuana and God knows what else), and let's not forget the Bay of Pigs fiasco! I know I'm going to get grief for saying that about the late John F. Kennedy but I do not care because I speak the TRUTH. So why oh why do so many Americans still romaticize JFK?!? This baffles me. At least his daughter Caroline has done good works for New Yorkers (education, the arts and fundraising), and Caroline leads a clean, sober and honest, decent life. She would make a great Junior Senator for New York because she CARES about New York and its citizens!

[UncommonSenz]

Enough with the identity politics-

Pick someone qualified and dedicated to the job. If it is a woman great. If it is a minority, great. If not- so be it.

Demanding that a woman be placed BECAUSE she is a woman is just plain wrong. I didn't vote for Obama because he is a minority. As glad as I am to see that ceiling shattered, what earned my vote was the thought that he would be best suited to be president.

Pick someone on their quals- we can't afford for any other criteria right now.

[rckayla]

UncommonSenz, Caroline Kennedy should be picked by Gov. Paterson because she can always get on-the-job-training and then run for the Senate seat in 2010, that would be her qualifications. We don't necessarily need someone who has qualifications in politics to do the job of Junior Senator of NY proud. The only "quals" Hillary Rodham Clinton had before becoming Jr. Senator of New York was that she was once the First Lady. Yet New Yorkers voted for her twice based on her work in the Senate once she got the on-the-job-training Caroline Kennedy can.

[jackspace]

Alec, I agree this seat is way too important to fall to "the Celebrity Senate Seat dynamic". Thank you for so eloquently calling this for what it is.

I have six NY Senators whom I feel deserve consideration:

NY Senator Shirley L. Huntley
10th District

NY Senator Liz Krueger
Chair, Minority Program Development
26th District

NY Senator Suzi Oppenheimer
Deputy Minority Whip
37th District

NY Senator Diane J. Savino
Assistant Minority Leader for Conference Operations
23rd District

NY Senator Toby Ann Stavisky
Assistant Minority Whip
16th District

NY Senator Andrea Stewart-Cousins
35th District
The first five I named were from VERY safe Democratic districts where their opponents in the previous election were beat by a margin 80% or more. The only person from a 'close' district is the last, Senator Stewart-Cousins.

An idea - You may want to consider these fine people as *potent potentials* who have a proven track record of getting things done on behalf of their represented communities. Short-circuiting to the cult-of-dynasties choice, I think is ill-thought-out and belies a sense of entitlement and inheritance on what should be a position available to only the most qualified and vetted and ELECTED.

There are MANY others who would make fine choices. I chose the above names based on their gender, the NY residency, and their legislative experience.

[MsMeryMac]

ANOTHER senator from the New York/Long Island area? *Sigh* Upstate never gets any love. Or any state spending, for that matter.

[kingmiller]

Sorry Jack Donneghy, and while your Long Island influence shows in your choice, their are many more talented women (and men) to fill this seat. Do some real research into the running of Capitol Hill and you can only come to one conclusion - Caroline Kennedy.

[glorialovelace]

Of all the people whose names are being tossed around as candidates for that seat, Caroline Kennedy is the least qualified and experienced.

[engineer68]

You have that right.

[beaupritchard]

Yes ... perhaps ... but how qualified are you to judge her. Puma is just old cat.

[LaurieR]

Alec, you're missing one vital point... Hillary is the target of so much long-standing and irrational hatred in this country that she never would have won. It wasn't (solely) her gender, but 16 years of undeserved baggage dumped on her by a nonstop smear machine that ensured her defeat. Even as a longtime supporter, I knew she had no real shot at the presidency had she won the nomination.

[jake1az]

Wrong...Polls conducted after the election pointed out that Hillary would have beat McCain by a larger margin than Obama did.

[SethBLiNK]

Hillary Clinton was one of sixteen women in the Senate. That number is certainly an under-representation of women in our society, but they are hardly an endangered species. In a perfect world, given Hillary's gender I would favor a qualified woman over a man for this seat, but I wouldn't make that a deal breaker.

For more of an issue is the fact that by voting in our historic first African-American president, we have depleted the Senate of its one and only African-American member.

The scandal in Illinois may have irreparably damaged Jesse Jackson, Jr.'s chances, and Emil Jones probably fails the test of somebody who would be a strong candidate in 2010 and 2012. Since the Senate therefore will probably be losing its one and only African American member, it takes a lot of nerve to tell Gov. Paterson that he has any sort of obligation to only consider women.

[glorialovelace]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seems to be saying that Women and African Americans are competing minorities. There are many more women in the United States than there are African Americans. In fact, there are quite a few more women in the United States than there are men. So it's ludicrous that they are as under-represented as they seem to be in the US Senate.

While I think that Governor Paterson should choose the most qualified person regardless of gender or race, I think a bit of introspection about how egregiously some groups seem to get bypassed when it comes to choosing leaders.

[SethBLiNK]

That's not what I'm saying, Gloria. In fact the only person I've ever heard put forth that theory is another woman named Gloria.

I said that women are under-represented. I also said that African-Americans are underrepresented. I said that recent developments have taken the total number of women in the Senate from 16 to 15 and African Americans from one till zero. It's difficult to say whether 16% representing 50%+ of the populaton is worse than 1% representing 10%, but once a number gets to zero, I think that represents a whole new level of under-representation.

I heartily support the idea of Gov. Paterson appointing a woman to replace Sen. Clinton and I think it's a worthy objective. However, I think it's wrong to say that he must.

[ESerafina42]

I'm as much of a feminist as anyone, but what he NEEDS to appoint is the best person he can find. The pool of talent from which he chooses from should be as diverse as possible, however. I was, however, a bit bummed when I saw a newspaper cover with photos of "candidates" that ONLY included men.

[glorialovelace]

I suspect it was probably from either the NY Post or the NY Daily News, both of which are run by Brits and/or Ozzies who have little knowledge of New York politics and are only interested in the dumbbell, soap opera aspect of our elections.

Not surprising that those troglodytes could only imagine a man in the job -- unless it's a Kennedy or a Drescher.

The serious candidates -- our excellent men and women serving in Congress -- are nowhere on the radar of those oiks. It's really a shame the extent to which New York news coverage has been outsourced to Fleet Street.

[UnhyphenatedAmerican]

Governor Pateron gave a press conference last week to express outrage that the seven nominees for Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals were all men. Had he read complaints he would have known the one woman underconsideration is not credit worthy. Perhaps Attorney General Cuomo will investigate as requested by Paterson.

I am certain after that outrage he will be very apt to select a woman for Senator. Maloney is no gem.

I for one look forward to Caroline Kennedy. I will vote for her in 2010 in a New York second.

[DS3M]

Creditworthy? We have to have credit checks to get into office?

I mean, we barely do background checks on the people we elect...

[Kieran]

Yes to Carolyn Maloney! Alec, I'm in total agreement that Maloney is more than qualified and deserving and ready to go to work for New Yorkers. And Rep. Maloney will easily win an election in 2010 and beyond.

It's time that one of the long-serving female House members from NY gets promoted to this this Senate seat. Carolyn Maloney has more than earned her ticket. Appoint her now.

[CSE]

Ms. Maloney has demonstrated political skill and garners respect. She appears most qualified and then some when compared to Ms. Kennedy.

Using "most qualified" logic, however, brings into question isolating the seat availability to a female. To eliminate the possibility up front denies any true analysis of "most qualified" and does nothing for the potential power of having gained the seat in an open forum.

That is to say that Ms. Maloney may well be most qualified even when men are considered - and having made such considerations her appointment and eventual re-election would reflect greater achievement and - I believe - more respect among peers.

[ggorilla]

I just hope the best person for the job is appointed. It should not be any kind of affirmative action. To say that one of the 2 seats must be filled by a woman, or a person of color, or of a particular race is outrageous. Let the best person win.

[Paulo1]

Just three little truths please.

One is that the idea that Patterson must appoint a women is incredibly sexist. Patterson must appoint the person he feels is most competent regardless of gender.

Number two is that Hillary Clinton was no Saint. A tough spirited politician true, but she used the Senate seat as a stepping stone and nothing more. I live in upstate New York, am engaged in local party work and teach a bit of political science and I can not name one significant thing she did for either local Democrats, the region or the state. As a state we deserve representation for a while by someone who actually cares about our area.

Number three is that there are plenty of options for picking a Senator beyond choosing another politician. Believe it or not you can find some outstanding academics, businessmen, and just plan well respected citizens. Why exactly do people feel they need to focus on politicians ?

[Stephanie71]

I agree with you Paulo. Being a resident of Oswego County myself, I would love nothing more than to see Upstate NY represented in the Senate.

I'm fairly sure there have been more sightings of Alec in the Central NY area in the past year than there have been of Hillary or Schumer. :) It would be nice for our senators to pay some attention to us more than once every six years.

[engineer68]

I live in Monroe County, and we see Sen. Schumer often. I am grateful to have him, as I remember Sen. Moynihan who never stepped foot here. Oh, he did stop at the Airport for photos and to pick up checks once.

[hippynanainblingland]

All too often, the phrase "let the best person win" means "let the best MAN win," because quite frankly, all things considered, when there's a choice of a man and a woman who are equally qualified, the choice goes, quite a lot more often than not, to the man.

Those who rail against affirmative action willfuly fail to consider that (a) men, even unqualified and morally questionable men, have held the reins of power for well, forever, and (b) a really serious search for brilliance and character yields a SLEW of qualified women to choose from.

The good ol' boys have to understand that until women have achieved parity with men in the halls of power, men are going to have to continue taking the fall for the dysfunctions currently evident in our systems, because even when women are present in their circles, mostly as tokens, men's opinions and decisions are the ones that prevail, hands down. Hard to tilt at windmills when your team is only a duo, and your opponents' team consists of ten!

When we have achieved parity, or something close enough to it, men will find, to their surprise, that many of us gals are just as capable of f**king up as they are, and we the people will realize that "Hey, we need to vet these people more thoroughly, both women and men,"

Then, and only then, we'll be able to fairly say, "let the best person win."

[Paulo1]

hippynanainblingland,

so until gender parity is a provable fact we are to engage in quota politics? I have and will continue to advocate for equality for women. I will even go so far as to insist that the candidate pool be broadened to include every minority group including gays, blacks, latino's women and anyone else I may have missed. We do best when we look at all qualified candidates.

But there is an old schoolyard truth. Two wrongs do not make a right. Pick a woman just so you can have a woman is no way to stand on the moral premise of equality. It is sexism. Just feminist sexism in stead of chauvanist sexism. It is no better or worse and arguably hurts the cause for equality more. After all, by your criteria they only have the job because they are women, not because they are the MOST qualified. It is the argument those opposing womens rights will make whether true or not.

Ditch the post 60's radical feminist critique and step into the 2000's where women are whole, creative and empowered and where they can get the job based on their talents. There is no reason for women to settle for less.

[JuneJ]

I totally agree. I am also from upstate and it would be great for someone not from the NYC area to be given serious consideration. I love NYC, but upstate and western ny have many qualified people who would make%

[hippynanainblingland]

Paolo: Hidden in the "there's more comments on this thread" below there's an answer to your reply to my comment in reply to the comment above in which I think I mispoke. You state that my comment seems to imply that the job should go to a woman just because she's a woman, and that you disagree with that position, and I answered that I didn't actually say that...

After having posted my reply, I realized that yes, indeed, I was saying just that, and I stand by it, though I wanted to explain why I don't think my position is reverse sexism, and I think I made a clear case as to why the "two wrongs do not a right make" does not apply here.

Please check it out and engage me in discussion, if you want to. Your opinion seems reasoned, intelligent and compassionate to me, and whether or not you care to continue this discussion, I want to thank you for caring enough to want to fine-tune my assertion.

Peace, Hippy Nana

[Helzapoppin]

Just say no to gender tokenism.

[tre]

I agree. Why does he have to appoint a woman? Why not, instead, appoint the most competent person, regardless of sex, race, etc?

[SEQUOIABISON]

New York needs a soft spoken intellectual humanitarian to fill the seat of Hillary, NY and the country need someone who is imminently qualified for the senate, a Lawyer, a Mother, an Author, Caroline Kennedy, a woman who had the courage to go against a popular NY female running for president and instead supported a male, someone she felt was right for the job, Barack Obama, that kind of courageousness should be rewarded, Obama will need her help in Congress.