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

[glorialovelace]

Carolyn Maloney would be an excellent choice -- and, as you say -- there are others who are also very good who are known locally, but not necessarily known to people who don't live in New York.

I found it appalling when at least one of the women's groups that had endorsed Maloney said they were going to revisit that decision now that Caroline Kennedy has laid claim to the seat.

I think you made a very important point when you wrote , "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."

[cjgnew]

I am an ex-New Yorker who currently lives in St. Louis. I don't know much about Ms. Maloney, because I left the city more than ten years ago. What I don't understand is why didn't the author focus on introducing Ms. Maloney, her character, her credentials, and her accomplishments? These are the things that Governor Paterson should know about Ms. Maloney in order to make a wise decision. What does that have to do with HRC and why she lost the election is beyond me.

[glorialovelace]

You can be sure that Governor Paterson already knows Carolyn Maloney's qualifications. He doesn't need to read about them on HuffPo.

For readers from out of state who are interested, detailed biographies of Carolyn Maloney, Nita Lowey, Nydia Velazquez, Louise Slaughter and Kirsten Gillibrand can all be found on Wikipedia.

[Mildmannered]

"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."

Sounds terribly sexist and discriminatory to me.

[oafishcad]

Of course it is.

[ignoranceequalsfear]

There is a 50/50% slipt of men and women in the world, actually an tiniest majority of women. Since there are two Senate seats for each state, that would be fair and, dare I might suggest, more resembling of a representative democracy to mandate one must be a woman. Why are people so affraid of "quota's"? People who are crying that this would be sexist or discriminatory act like it would be hard to find a multitude, let alone one immanently qualified woman in NY or any state for that matter!

I'd be in support of having laws that say we must relect all racial/gender/ethnic demographics in elected officials. Would it be so scary to not have a country run by aging wealthy white men that is light years from representing the true diversity of Americans??? You bet your sweet fanny that "business as usual" would change in Washington real fast!

The negative responses to Mr Baldwin's opinion belie so much of the same fear that the spirit of Huff Po seeks to expose and overcome.

[oafishcad]

My state has 2 women Senators. Should one of them give up their seat to a man?