Kirsten Gillibrand: A Dynamic New Leader in the Senate
At EMILY's List, we greeted the news that New York Governor David Paterson selected Kirsten Gillibrand to replace Hillary Clinton in the U.S. Senate with cheers and celebration. How wonderful it will be to see this impressive young woman and mother add her perspectives and energy to the hallowed halls of the Senate!
Kirsten Gillibrand is a creative leader who is dedicated to public service. EMILY's List endorsed her campaigns for Congress, confident in her 100 percent commitment to reproductive freedom. A champion of progressive values, Kirsten also earned endorsements from the Human Rights Campaign for her commitment to LGBT equality, and the League of Conservation Voters for her commitment to protecting the environment.
Senator-designate Gillibrand represents a new generation of young leaders who understand the way technology has reshaped our world. A cofounder of the Congressional High Tech Caucus, she pioneered openness in Congress by posting her schedule online so her constituents could see exactly whom she meets with and why. She's a model for the kind of transparency and accountability Americans yearn for from their elected officials. Kirsten's also no stranger to old-fashioned grassroots outreach -- since she was elected, she's held regular open "office hours" at local grocery stores throughout her district to stay in touch with the ordinary families whose lives she knows are profoundly affected by her actions in Congress.
Kirsten Gillibrand won a solidly Republican House seat in 2006 by defeating a corrupt, four-term Republican incumbent. Some thought it was a fluke, and Republicans targeted her for defeat early. But in 2008, Gillibrand handily defeated a well-known, well-funded GOP challenger -- a former statewide official and head of the state Republican Party, no less -- winning 62 percent of the vote.
I'm confident that one of Senator-designate Gillibrand's first jobs will be to reach out to leaders across the state for advice about a legislative agenda that will benefit New York. She will build bridges that will help her defend this seat against a Republican challenge in 2010, whether it come from Rudy Giuliani or a member of the GOP congressional delegation. Those who favored other candidates for the seat may grumble, but they'd do well to rally around her re-election in two years. This new senator is a formidable candidate who has proven her toughness by winning two difficult back-to-back campaigns. Coming from the Albany area, she brings upstate appeal to the ticket. She's a fundraising powerhouse, having raised nearly $5 million for her last House campaign. And she has the full support of leaders like Senator Chuck Schumer, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and President Obama, who recognize what a valuable ally she will be in the Senate.
I commend Governor Paterson for understanding the importance of having women serve in the highest echelons of government. In Gillibrand, he has appointed the Senate's youngest member -- and won't it be a welcome sight to see this young mother of two serving alongside her 16 female colleagues amid the remaining 82 male senators, all but one white, most in their 60s or older.
Ellen Malcolm is the president of EMILY's List.
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
FINALLY Ms. Kennedy will be able to prove how serious she is about serving the people of NY!!!
I say: Kennedy for NY State Assembly!!!
She's got my vote!
I hope someone is starting the exploration committee.
Two words--thanks governor.
The country appreciates you picking a knowledgeable professional in these difficult days.
These time require someone other than a swooning socialite.
lets see...the brady campaign fought tooth and nail to keep the heller trial from going forward and they lost....the potus has said he is not coming for our guns....the scotus has said he cannot come for our guns....and you keep electing schumer to the senate...the guy who never met a gun ban he didn't like...and you are trying to push an agenda that lost clinton the congress in '94....she believes in the 2nd amendment....as do 80 million gun owners....you lost the gun control debate...get over it...we won....
really? do you even know what you're talking about? Are you in favor of illegal guns that kill cops? Do you want murderers to have guns?
Those are the guns that bloomberg and the NYPD are trying to go after, and gillinbrand is fighting.
Are you a murderer? If not, nobody's coming for your gun.
Gillibrand's position is that, even if you are a murderer, nobody's coming for your gun.
would you please provide some evidence that this woman has publicly stated that she wants convicted murderers of police officers to be released from prison and given back their guns.....the .30-06 is probably the most popular rifle ever developed...according to the brady campaign it fires those deadly "cop-killer" rounds...but every rifle made will penetrate body armor...so yes they would like to see every rifle banned...maybe you have forgotten that bill clinton lost congress in '94 because he listened to the far left when it came to gun control and passed the assault weapons ban...which did nothing to reduce crime since "assault weapons" like rifles..are used less than 3% of the time to commit crime...what it did do was give the 80 million gun owners...many of whom are democratic...a reason to jump ship....you may not believe in the 2nd....but a lot of people do..including your new senator...and the scotus....and the potus....what did he say...."i am not coming for your guns"...do you take him at his word or do you think he was lying.....
See SaraKay Smullens's Profile
Caroline Kennedy has the makings of a superb senator. Her lack of brashnes, contained personality, grace, and decency would have been a welcomed addition to the Halls of Power. If she did not hold her own, the voters could have taken the office from her. It is ridiculous to say that Ms. Kennedy's experience in her myriad varied and consistent public service roles and her writing have not been "political experience." Or that she is undeserving of the office. Further, there is nothing she could not have learned.
Ms. Kennedy's shyness during public speaking and interviews mirrored her father's early experiences running for office. But look what time and practice did for him --- and for his country. The same was true of Robert Kennedy. I remember hearing him speak at the Young Democrats' Inaugural Ball in 1960. He was so shy and inexperienced that he barely could get his words out; in time his spell binding speeches became the hope of this nation.
Caroline Kennedy has been treated in a vicious and demeaning way. I agree with Nancy Pelosi. The culprit here is not sexism. It is envy, vindictiveness and maliciousness from varied sources that would be impossible for one to battle alone. Regardless of whom they backed for this office, I remain disappointed that the leadership of Emily's List did not speak out against this ugly, vicious behavior.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
From Wall Street to Main Street and everywhere in between, stay up-to-date with the latest news.
Thank you. And, for our accidental Governor - despite furious (expensive) PR SPIN from the Official Press Offices of Clinton, Schumer, Paterson...and various non-New Yorkers posting about what they do not know, I submit the following POLL about how New Yorkers really feel sans the SPIN to the contrary. There will be CONSEQUENCES for both Paterson and Gillebrand.
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01262009/news/regionalnews/cuomo_gains_big_on_gov__poll_152124.htm
For the first time since May, Cuomo has a better favorable rating among voters - 64 percent - than Paterson, who is at 60 percent, according to a new Siena College Research Institute poll of registered voters.
"Whether because of the prolonged senate selection situation or ongoing budget issues, voters are less inclined to support Gov. Paterson for election today than they were a month ago," said Steven Greenberg, a spokesman for the institute.
The botched senate selection process involving Carolyn Kennedy and the state's ongoing budget woes have made a dent in Paterson's poll ratings.
Since you are wrapping yourself in polls as a way to justify your point of view, you will also I'm sure, acknowledge that the NY polls did NOT favor Kennedy's appointment. This squabble amongst the family does nothing to further our president's core message of pushing through the politics of demonization. Time to put away childish things and think about the big picture. Fanning the flames of petty vendettas are beyond absurd at a time when the country is aching for serious focus, commitment to solving the big issues. Stop the boo hoo hooing. Kennedy botched the rollout with a leaden persona and a misdirected sense of entitlement. Women's groups love Gillibrand and she's strong upstate. She has the clout and the fund-raising skills needed to hasng in for the long haul. We've got Schumer for the City, Gilibrand for the rest of us. I for one, think this is an inspired recipe for to keeping the NY Dems' delegation to the Senate in place for the long haul. Obama is desperately sounding the appeal for a new kind of post-partisan politics. Get on board!
She is a star on the rise. Loads of talent, discipline, commitment to her constituents. We Dems are foolish indeed to dent her appeal before she has a chance to show us how capable she really is. Take a breath here. I think we'll be pleasantly satisfied that Patterson made a shrewd pick, Kennedy's apologists notwithstanding.
Some Democrats (Neocons) gave George W. Bush the benefit of the doubt - twice.
the people who like her are republicans.
Since people are citing her record, that's what I'm looking at. She's an NRA apologist. Shame on her, and shame on you. Karl Rove had lots of discipline too. I'm looking for somebody with the right values and positions, thank you very much.
Using your litmus test, so is Howard Dean.
New Yorkers call the fumigator!
January 25, 2009
Categories: Clintons
"The Clintons don't forget"
Did Hillary make Cornyn an offer he couldn't refuse?
Foreign Policy's really, really fun new Madame Secretary blog is reporting that one of its moles overheard the incoming SoS getting a little Lucca Brazzi with the Texan in the Rotunda last Tuesday.
Megan Carpentier:
Well, one of our eagle-eyed sources... was able to get within earshot just in time to hear Clinton warn Cornyn, "The Clintons don't forget." One day later, Cornyn's objections to Clinton's confirmation magically disappeared and the man who had set the roll call vote in motion voted in favor of confirming Clinton. Now let's see how she handles Hamid Karzai.
Just what we need, more "Clinton Drama".
And, it appears that the same authors of the "Dream Ticket 2008" Cuomo/Schumer/Clinton are at it again!
Appointees are running New York, and Schumer and Clinton (who still is acting more like CEO of Clinton Inc. w/Bill Clinton than Secretary of State of the US - w/two wars on deck) -- and making decisions (vote for Iraq War against the security interests of NYS, which also affects YOUR pocketbook) New Yorkers did not vote for and making selections for our representation we would not have chosen.
New York is not a Conservative State - and if we wanted Al D'Amato back in the saddle and all he represents from Albany, we would have voted for him. Kirsten Gillebrand is worse than Joe Lieberman.
No more lobbyist cartels and spheres of influence/former Presidents leveraging New Yorkers as currency in their trading. We voted for CHANGE and got Tammany Hall/Harlem Clubhouse (or Arkansas under Bill and Hillary Clinton) instead.
We ain't Arkansas...circa 1990.
Enough.
New Yorkers need representation. Emily's List feminist agenda is not our priority. Supporting a woman because she is one is more of the same. Hillary Clinton should leave The Waldorf Astoria - and New York City, since she is no longer CEO of Clinton Inc. of the money juggernaut for Bill -- otherwise known as the Junior Senator.
Kirsten Gillebrand is a former tobacco and Wall Street lobbyist from a cartel/family of multigenerational lobbyists. Don't let the balanced budge hokus pokus IDEOLOGY fool you.
Perhaps some of us knew Caroline Kennedy would at least DO NO HARM...and has a solid track record of SERVING NYC and the new President of the United States.
Al D'Amato and Joe (under indictment and in her photo op upstate) are dancing in the streets in that cesspool upstate.
A State that gets $1 trillion of YOUR tax dollars, without any strings to dole out bonuses and do M&A deals - thanks to Chuck Schumer's scheming - is worthy of national attention.
Recruiting a former Wall Street lobbyist from a cartel/family of lobbyist, by an appointed Governor from the same -- might be worthy of national concern.
two excellent comments. I agree re: Kennedy - she'd've DONE NO HARM.
And she's not beholden to anyone. (Al D'Amato, for instance)
And the President calls her a good friend and feels beholden to her. Gee, that wouldn't have helped NY, would it?
Kirsten Gillibrand was not a tobacco lobbyist. She was a Wall St. lawyer who was assigned to defend tobacco companies.
I hope you're not saying that the tobacco companies don't have the right to be defended, or that lawyers should be penalized for taking their cases.
It is true that Senator Gillibrand was not a tobacco lobbyist - although her father has a long (as well as quite recent) history of being one. But to dismiss her long-time role defending the world's largest cigarette company as generic "legal representation" is extraordinariloy naive. To understand why, see the illuminating new blog post appearing at http://awearnessblog.com/2009/02/senator-gillibrands-big-tobacc.php#more. In fact, Kirsten Gillibrand was deeply in the trenches for Philip Morris, traveling to the company's top-secret laboratories in Germany multiple times over several years, writing hundreds of internal memos and analyses in which she sought to develop ways in which Philip Morris could avoid liability in courts of law -- she failed miserably, fortunately -- and making a great deal of money in the process. There was nothing remoteoly "progressive" or enlightened about this work, which dominated her professional life for a number of years. On the contrary, she consciously, willingly and voluntarily carried out such work on behalf of the company which leads the industry that is responsible for the addiction of children and several million premature deaths each year. Again, I commend your attention to the link referenced above.
See Michele Swenson's Profile
Gillibrand should not embrace the most extreme arguments of the NRA. She repeats the NRA line in defense of "hunting rifles," which have never been targeted. The NRA uses "bait and switch" tactics, invoking defense of hunting rifles as a diversion from the fact that they are promoting unlimited access to sniper rifles and other high power weapons, e.g., annual "Fun Shoots" with 50 caliber sniper guns, machne guns, etc. that have nothing to do with the sport of hunting.
See: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/michele-swenson/a-vote-for-guns-is-a-vote_b_132482.html
the .30-06 is probably the most popular rifle ever developed...according to the brady campaign it fires those deadly "cop-killer" rounds...but every rifle made will penetrate body armor...so yes they would like to see every rifle banned...maybe you have forgotten that bill clinton lost congress in '94 because he listened to the far left when it came to gun control and passed the assault weapons ban...which did nothing to reduce crime since "assault weapons" like rifles..are used less than 3% of the time to commit crime...what it did do was give the 80 million gun owners...many of whom are democratic...a reason to jump ship....you may not believe in the 2nd....but a lot of people do..including your new senator...and the scotus....and the potus....what did he say...."i am not coming for your guns"...do you take him at his word or do you think he was lying.....
I agree with you, Michele. Just a couple of months ago, we had an incident here in NY state where the bullet from a hunter's high-powered rifle pierced the wall of a dwelling and killed a toddler. Are the parents supposed to say, "Oh, well, accidents happen," and write it off as just an irresponsible hunter? In the area where I live, we see people drinking alcohol while walking around "hunting," and one of our neighbors, who has a felony conviction on his record for selling drugs, hunts along with the rest of them, his license pinned to the back of his jacket. We need stricter gun laws, more strictly enforced . . . and we don't need Kirsten Gillibrand.
exactly. Well put. if yu're against all gun control, yu're not protecting hunters, who aren't targerted in any gun control law -you're just pushing the NRA agenda.
She comes from a more conservative, rural district where they hunt deer and have different lifestyles from someone in Manhattan or Queens or any of the boroughs. I was just up in Columbia County this past weekend.
She had to serve her constituency and district. Anyone with a brain should realize that. I wish all these ultra liberals would stop screaming and give this hard-working woman a chance.
This "hard-working woman" was pushed and touted by Senator Chuck Schumer, who also pushed and touted Bush's Mukasey appointment . . . and we all know how well that worked out. As far as I'm concerned, I will vote against Paterson, Gillibrand and Schumer in any primary that is held.
me too!! they all seem to think that we're not paying attention. Or they didn't get the memo that times have changed.
Absolutely. Schumer and Clinton also pushed - against the wishes of New Yorkers - along with Lieberman, for the Iraq War.
NYC security has paid a dear price for this debacle - and, the entire Nation has paid for our remaining more insecure due to this debacle.
we're all hard-working, and I don't care if she's a woman. And yes, I have a brain. (not sure about you)
She opposed Bloomberg's proposals to keep guns away from murderers. the NYPD tracks who sold the guns that killed every cop killed in the line of duty, and tried to shut down gun dealers who didn't follow the rules. Gillibrand opposed letting the HYPD track those records.
Nobody wants to take guns from hunters. Gillibrand's policies protect cop-killers, child-murderers, etc.
"she had to serve her constituents" ??? So they weren't really her beliefs? She has no ethical core? She just changes her positions depending on who she's around.?
despicable
and if being against cop-killers makes me a "screaming ultra liberal' (your nwords) well, i guess most are the cops in the country are too.
Well said cgk ! This Gillibrand is a cardboard cut out poster child for who NOT to elect. Puppet of the NRA is not the future. It's the past and it's ugly.
Gillibrand is the wrong choice.
Just what we need a "say anything to get elected" politician! This woman is no Democrat.
According to Vote Smart, she has a rating of 100 from the National Organization of Women, The Children's Health Fund, The Children's Defense Fund, The American Civil Liberties Union, The National Farmers' Union, The United Auto Workers, The League of Women Voters, and The National Social Workers. She has A's from The Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, AFL-CIO, Defenders of Wildlife Action Fund, League of Conservation Voters, and The National Education Association. How many Republicans do you know with these ratings?
She's not a downstate Democrat, but she's definitely a Democrat. I hope you don't think that YOU get to decide who's a Democrat and who isn't.
My first question is: Why is this posted in the LIVING section. It's not about life coaching, losing weight or astrology. It seems to me it's about politics.
Does it have anything to do with the fact that it all about the ladies? That's not good.
OK...on to substance.
The fact is, a lot of liberal members of congress have been VERY disappointing over the past eight years. Two words: Diane Feinstein.
And one of the most important voices we had in Congress during BushCo's reign was blue dog John Murtha, who comes Western PA which is not unlike Gillabrand's district. So even though I don't agree with all her ideas (nor Murtha's either), I want to see how she PERFORMS.
I don't agree with the blogger that she deserves New Yorkers' unconditional support. NO ONE deserves that. If (for example) LI congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy, a strong anti-gun advocate who ran for Congress after her husband was gunned down by a crazed gunman on the LIRR commute home, wants to run, she absolutely should. Good primaries create stronger candidates, as we have just seen from our national election.
Many women think Gillibrand is a good choice. It would be nice to see her become more moderate on guns, now that she represents a state and not a district. She is too pro-gun, she needs to balance civil liberties with public safety. From a populist stance, it is nice to see a woman who has worked hard, campaigned, and moved herself upward in politics get the seat. Most progressives and populists were disappointed about Caroline Kennedy, she is from a political dynasty and has a strong sense of entitlement. Kennedy is smart and has some fine accomplishments, but she did not have strong opinions and she did not seem to think for herself. Kennedy was asked by the press what she stood for, and she was vague and dismissive. A party loyalist, not a politician with convictions. She seemed to be waiting for a list to be handed to her by the Dems, telling her what her stance would be. Yes, we want people who will work with the president and cooperate, but picking someone with few convictions who is from United States royalty? This is seen by some as a setback for progressives who are looking for politicians that have lived lives at least somewhat similar to the common folk.
Caroline Kennedy does NOT have a strong sende of entitlement. She was intereted in the position, met with people, discussed the issues, did her best to conform to Gov Patterson's ridiculous "rules" on campaigning (See the New York mag article) Just because she expressed an interest in it means she thinks she's entitled to it? Nonsense.
"most progressives and populists" think what you do? I don't think so. Most of us don't want a Senator with a 100% approval from the NRA. I'm pretty darn sure the Caroline Kennedy favors some restrictions on who can pruchase a gun, which for most of us in NYC is pretty important.
You want a Senator who's glib and pushy. I don't . I want someone thoughful.
Re: prior elections. Hillary Clinton had never run for office before running for Senator. Bill Bradley hadn't. Al franken hadn't. Not an important issue.
You claim to be against "royalty" and then refer to "common folk" My my, that's condescending.
you don't speak for "progressives". Speak for yourself. I, and most people I know, want a Senator who will push issues that matter to me. If that Senator has the misfortune of being from a family that has a history of serving the country, well I guess I could live with that.
you sound like that dreadful Lynn Forrester complaining about Obama being "elitist" .
If Gillibrand has made her own way in the world, why is Al D'Amato standing next to her like her political godfather?
I stand strongly behind every word I said.
I stand behind the expression common folk--a group I include myself in.
It is curious that to build your case, you suggest that I sound like someone who criticized Obama. Not once have I criticized him here. My posts throughout HuffPo show I strongly support him. This tactic you are engaging in is one in which the speaker (yourself) attempts to build favor for his/her argument by trying to find a roundabout way to make it look like the other person in the debate is against someone or something not even being discussed, a stategy aimed at discrediting the "other" completely. In other words, when you cannot find something substantial and concrete to point out about the other person's argument, attempt to discredit them by making them appear to be aligned with someone who is considered "bad" by the overall group you are trying to appeal to. In this case, you try to form a loose association between myself and a critic of Obama.
I strongly encourage everyone reading this to go and look at the progressive and populist websites and look at the postings, etc. Hopefully, the Democratic party is more in touch with its progressives than this poster is. Progressives are strongly opposed to the dynastic quality of our political system. The majority were disappointed by CK--this is not change we can believe in. CK has an enormous sense of entitlement and while liberal elitists like her, the rest of the base was disappointed. CK is a smart woman and hs done positive things, she has contributed to our culture and I hope she continues to work with the Democrats. I also hope she remembers to vote. Perhaps she does not need to worry about who the pols are because she has security in life, but the majority of the people have concern over who the pols are, because they do not have that security.
I note your comment on the NRA. You write that most progressives do not want a pol that has a 100% approval from the NRA. Read my post again, more carefully. I state in my post that I do not like her 100% approval from the NRA. What concerns me is that you did not appear to read my post, it is as if you are not concerned with the opinions of people on the left who are concerned about elitism. Instead of caring about where we are coming from, you automatically start to formulate an argument in your head to come back with, never taking the time to absorb what it is that is being stated to you. When people don't read, think, or take the time to thoughtfully reflect on opinions that differ from their own, they show themselves to be loyalists. Loyalists don't think, they have knee-jerk reactions designed to keep them--and their established politicians with the established party line--in place.
one more comment for ya--
It is time for the liberal elitists to understand that not all liberals go to cocktail parties in Beverly Hills. There is a strong center-left and left movement opposed to illegal immigration and if the Democratic party wants to keep their votes, they need to hear them. There are many working- and middle-class people in the Northeast who are progressives, and they oppose illegal immigration. If the liberal elites keep people like Gillibrand out of the party, and continue to ignore their concerns, they will lose their votes and support. Want to keep PA and Ohio blue? Want to keep large portions of NY blue?Acknowledge their concerns.
My guess is Gillebrand's firm - Bois Schiller - represented/represents the NRA as their lobbyist. She was also a big tobacco and Wall Street lobbyist as well.
Too bad we don't have a working investigative PRESS in the media capital of the world. Instead we have high priced PR hacks spinning what we call the PRESS.
But isn't she as right wing as Democratic politicians come?
She is liberal on many issues but conservative on others. Personally, I would like to see her cooperate with the president on fiscal matters. I am biased, I believe we need to put our hand into the market in order to achieve a certain outcome that is beneficial to all. Then again, I hope both parties will be more progressive on all matters related to the economy. Perhaps if she is representing a whole state as opposed to a district, she will change certain stances in order to be more democratic and inclusive of all her constituents. I think it is possible to have convictions and still find common ground on positions, after all if she believes in democracy she "has" to represent the people and respond to their wants/needs.
yes
would you rather have a republican serving in congress from a conservative district or
would you rather have a conservative democrat
Exactly. If we want to ignore the constituents of certain districts we can, but in the end we will lose the seats to Republicans. Then, we will lose the progress we could have made on the issues that the Democrats of these areas agreed with us on. We will not go forward at all, we will go backward because we demanded a constituency conform to our beliefs in all matters. They won't.
I'm glad Patterson appointed a woman, although her Blue Dog affiliation has me concerned. We'll see if she was a good pick later.
Emily's List does not have the power it once had. I really do not give a damn what you think.
During this last election all of my friends took their names off your list and will not contribute to you any more. If you had the power you think you have we would have sworn in President Clinton last .
Tuesday.
I am a woman, a Democrat, and a New Yorker and I a very unhappy with this pick. We are already organizing to unseat this person you think is so wonderful just because she has female parts. Woman are smarter than that. Don''t insult us by hyping a Blue Dog when we want a true progressive. Since when has Emily's List become an offshoot of theNRA?
As a woman and New Yorker and liberal, Democrat, I applaud this choice. So do all of my New York City friends and -of course- those who live in upstate New York.
Gillibrand - a formidable campaigner and powerhouse fundraiser- will knock all primary challengers out (if there is one - very doubtful.) She will go on to win election.
ACLU rating for Gillibrand: 100 %
Votes with Dems 93. 3 %. Better average than Dennis Kucinich.
And may I remind many of you here that no less than Howard Dean had a 100 % rating - for 8 years.
Go, Gillibrand !
I agree!
right on! Who should we run against her?
Excellent and contrary to the propaganda, the sentiments of Democratic women I know who LIVE and vote in Manhattan.
This lady will do nothing for NY! She divisive, and stands against what Obama stands for. There were GOOD upstanding , intelligent, Brilliant people out there, and he choose her!
I think that the descriptors you use -- GOOD upstanding , intelligent, Brilliant -- fit Gillibrand perfectly.
You must be logged in to comment. Log in or connect with
