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.
Loading comments…
Want to reply to a comment? Hint: Click "Reply" at the bottom of the comment; after being approved your comment will appear directly underneath the comment you replied to
Appointing someone to a postion because of their gender is every bit as unacceptable as not appointing them because of it. The same goes for race, religion and so forth, and for voting, hiring, etc.
Actually, Alec, the most important is that the right PERSON is appointed. Allocation of quotas has never been my style either.
A man and a woman apply for the same job and they have the same background, education and experiences, all of that cannot be true as anyone can realise, and the woman gets the job just because she goes to the jane. That cannot be fair to the other person, who happened to be a man.
I say that even though I happen to be a woman myself, not my fault by the way. So, let us hope for a nice person with a lot of know how, common sense and experience. If that happens to be a woman, that is fine with me.
New York, one of the most populous and diverse states in the nation, in essence has less representation in the US Senate than any other statte, because of the so called "celebrity" seat. Hillary Clinton used New Yorkers for her own, failed, ends, and now she on to other things. And seniority for NY second Senate seat is back to zero, in an institution wherer senority is power.
The primary qualification for the person appointed to fill the vacant Senate seat should a willingness FIRST AND FOREMOST to serve the people of New York and the nation as a Senator, not serve there own interests from the outset as a wannabe.
and I suppose you would have said the same thing at the time about Bobby Kennedy when he ran for President while he was a sitting Senator from NY? Ooops, your Hillary bias is showing.
It's ridiculous, isn't it? Like it's some kind of insidious crime to accept a promotion to a higher position after 8 years in your job. Oh, but then again, if your name is Clinton, EVERYTHING you do is considered a crime by some people. It's irrational and absurd.
Did you vote to reelect D'Amato in 1998 so NY wouldn't lose it's seniority status in the senate? Schumer has been there 2 years longer than Clinton. Even so, both Massachusetts senators, for example, have decades more experience than Chuck. Maybe the system is flawed?
I notice that Elizabeth Holzman has put her name in the hat for this appointment.
It was Liz Holtzman who indirectly caused D'Amato to be elected both times. The first time, she beat the incumbent Jacob Javits in the primary but lost to D'Amato by a small margin. The second time, she functioned as a spoiler to Gerry Ferraro -- who had a good chance of beating D'Amato in the election. She siphoned off enough of the women's vote in the tree-way primary, that the weakest candidate , Robert Abrams became the nominee, making it possible for the unpopular D'Amato to win a second term.
Holtzman -- by the way -- is not only a graduate of Harvard, but also of Harvard Law School. Among other things, she has taught at NYU Law School, was elected to the US House of Representatives at the age of 31, served as District Attorney of Kings County (aka Brooklyn) and has most recently been in private practice. She also wrote a book, "Who said it would be easy: one woman's life in the political arena."
So how do you like them apples, Caroline?
I enjoyed this article and you made many good points. Thank you for showing support for women, but I especially appreciate the fact that you dismiss the notion of placing a "star' in the seat. We have been subjected long enough to the movie stars "acting" as politicians. I am equally tired of the predictable appointments of members of our nation's "royal elite" to important positions. We're supposed to be a democracy where people make it to the top through skill and hard work, for crying out loud. These positions are serious. Thank you for acknowledging real female politicians who have character and skill.
Just a quick note: Ok, Hillary made mistakes, but IMO she is still one of the most skilled politicians around. Very talented. And hey, the "woman thing" was an issue, because our society made it so. We have a long way to go with advancing talented women. Other nations have had female presidents, some several...
take care
Very well said!
How come Rep. Nydia Velazquez didn't make it into your analysis? She's latino, and A WOMAN! Here is her congressional website: http://www
Or, you can look here where a journalist names her "the front runner" to take Hillary's seat: http://www
Curious you left out someone so obviously qualified to fill the position. Who told you that Lowery and Maloney were only the women in that state qualified to take the open senate seat?
Alex, i totally agree with your stand on this! I'll always support a woman if there are a man a woman that are equally smart.
I am not familiar with either Ms. Lowey or Ms. Maloney. I would just sincerely hope that the Governor of NY will treat this responsibility with the highest respect and sincerity.
I'm really starting to lose all faith in all governors these days.
Oh, Patterson is good. It's kind of odd that Spitzer chose someone so honest and forthright for his Lieutenant Gov. But seriously, he's practically honest to a fault. Even my conservative parents like him. He wouldn't do anything like Blago.
Fascinating and so very, very paradoxical. On the one hand Mr. Baldwin calls for a woman
to fill the Senate seat, yet also maintains that:
" 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 ...".
As I am not a NY resident, I'll just respond to the latter. I find it extremely trivializing to term Hillary's
campaign a 'glass ceiling sister act' on So many levels. Firstly, to equate it with some kind of burlesque parody of theatre reduces it's historical impact. On a personal level, take a new look at the rallies and town halls, observe the faces of the women there to support platforms And back the first real female contender.
We were not part of an act, Mr. Baldwin. We were not audience members living outside of
ourselves at a show. We were participants, heart and soul, in a continuum that likely affected each
of us in varied ways since women got the vote in this country.
Which, arguably, was not so very long ago that we have the luxury of naming much of anything a 'sisterhood act'.
I'll take it one step further.
Hillary did not make being a woman the central theme of her campaign. She did not "run as a woman." She ran as a competent, experienced centrist.
She lost because:
1. She voted for the Iraq War in '02.
2. Her campaign didn't recognize the importance of the caucuses in determining the nominee.
3. She ran against an extremely likable, charismatic candidate.
4. For whatever reason, there are many people who simply don't like her and Bill.
Had she been running with the same qualifications, the same message, the same face--but a different name, say "Nita Lowey"--she would've had a much better chance at the nom. Had she, in addition, been running only against Biden, Kucinich, Vilsack, Dodd, Richardson
All good reasons but you forgot one.
Her sense of entitlement to the office because of who she is, was as blatant as blagowhatever's trying to earn money by selling a Senate seat. Turned off a lot of people me included.
might I add: Her campaign seemed utterly oblivious to the power of the internet. IMO, that was an Epic mistake.
Well said.
Hey Alex, how about choosing the most qualified person regardless of gender? There's a great chance that person will end up being a woman anyway.
I'm replying to this because this person just called you "Alex," which is hilarious and almost creepy. But why not an African-American? There won't be any in the Senate. Is there not an argument to be made that the governor "must" not appoint a black senator? Make it.
On the contrary, I think Hillary lost (aside from the fact the Obama ran an almost flawless campaign) because she tried to run "a man's campaign" instead of being herself. In lieu of events in Chicago, Gov. Patterson is going to have to be very careful in his selection process, especially since it has been reported previously that his potential choice could be instrumental in his own re-election
I haven't read your whole article yet, but when I got to this part:
"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. ..."
No, they never played the race card with Obama, but they play a real sexist stink with Hillary. She called out late in the campaign about sexism.
This is a touchy subeject for me. You may have trouble understanding because you are white male.
But other-wise, I love and respect you.
"they never played the race card with Obama"
Of corse they played the race card with Obama. Time and time again. And no sort of revisionist history will ever change that.
When did BO use the race card? You said time and time again so how about 3 examples please.Hil
Who is "they?" Obama did not initiate sexist attacks against HRC. Those DJs with signs saying "wash my shirt" did, and the commenters who made much of HRC's emotional moment in NH did.
Frankly, I tired of discussion of the glass ceiling. Black men opened the door to equal opportunity and white women walked in.
I agree with you. Obama never initiated attacks against HRC. But Clinton's campaign did level race-based attacks on Obama's character. That was disappointing because I started out with the intention to vote for HRC in the primaries. Having said that, I hope HRC's Senate replacement will be just as smart as she is.
As for your statment that "Black men opened the door to equal opportunity and white women walked in.", I agree with that too. Absolutely! As a white woman myself, I can attest to the fact that affirmative action benefits white women more. Always has. It was a program that mostly African-Americans fought hard for. But when it created, it was implemnted in employment and education sectors that have remained mostly white. Government and private industry studies have consistently proven this. All one needs to do is go to GOOGLE and type in "WHO BENEFITS THE MOST FROM AFFIRMATIVE ACTION" and the studies will pop up.
Hillary lost her race all on her own (with a little help from Bill). She had it in the palm of her hand, and behaved abysmally. Her attitude was a bizarre one of entitlemen
btw... who is Carolyn Maloney?
It would be good to replace a woman with a woman if possible. Lowey is a fine candidate, but I doubt she'll get it. I hope I'm wrong. Kennedy is too diffident,shy,and could never aggressively fight in an election, besides having none of the expierience someone like Nina L. has.
Hillary [my choice] lost because her campaign was flawed and she underestimated Obama, the Internet, and the importance of Caucussing. Penn was living in the past and Hillary was pictured as the "presumptive" frontrunner who would have the nomination by super Tuesday. When she realized these errors and failed strategies she became a remarkable candidate. Her campaign was not modern strategically or as disciplined as Obama's.
Being a woman is still far more difficult than being a man, even an African American man.
Hillary needed and got the support of many woman BECAUSE she understood how important the message of the glass ceiling was. She didn't lose because she stressed sexism.
Obama was and is an eloquent and highly appealing man and he ran a modern 21st Cent. campaign.w
Hillary had no deep organization on the ground which was essential in this election, and lacked the networking superiority of Move On and Obama's Internet Gurus who had disciplined troops who turned out the votes.
"Being a woman is still far more difficult than being a man,
even an African American man."
I don't know how you can say this, unless you have been both.
One of the reasons Obama won was that he was the better choice.
MsLiz: I just have to comment on you saying "I don't know how you can say this, unless you have been both!" Let me explain the facts of this world to you but especially the facts of life in America: The reason it is far more difficult being a woman than being a man, even an African American man, is because it is a "Man's World" where Women are still treated as second-class citizens and African American men are NOT treated the same. Yes I will admit that women have made great strides in American politics and other arenas, but unfortunately we've still got a long ways to go before we are treated as men's equal whether they are African American or Caucasian American.
Though Maloney may be qualified, I don't follow the logic of saying Hillary lost because she tried to make her gender the major aspect of her candidacy, but gender should be the major aspect entitling Maloney to the senate seat.
The Illinois scandal exposes the flaw of conflict of interest in a governor appointing one to a vacant senate seat, which Gail Collins points out in the NY Times, is a flaw that plagues Hillary's seat as well, even if there's no corruption involved. There are better solutions. I prefer the voters deciding, either by an appointed placeholder until the next election cycle (like Governor Minner appointed in Delaware) or else a quick special election as in Massachusetts (and perhaps soon illinois) law. Or perhaps an amendment to allow both with a sub filling the senate seat for a few months until the special election is held, so that there is no interruption of full representation. There is no good reason why a governor with vested self-interest, whether it be Paterson concerned with his own re-election or a criminal like Blagojevic, should have the power to give someone an incumbency advantage.
Because one needs a set of brass ovaries to be a Senator?
alec, excellent points but you buried your lead!
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
