TV Report: Paterson Will Announce Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand as Senator

Via the LA Times, a New York television station is reporting that New York Governor David Paterson has chosen Rep. Kirsten Gillibrand, a moderate Democrat, to replace Hillary Clinton. WPIX reports:

PIX NEWS is being told that Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand is the reported choice of Governor David Paterson to fill the U.S. Senate seat vacated by Hillary Clinton. Two Congressional sources say members of the New York delegation have been invited to join Governor Paterson for the announcement in Albany at noon tomorrow.

....One of the contenders, longterm Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney canceled a scheduled appearance on "PIX News Closeup" tomorrow because of a "conflict," which she did not disclose. She too will be in Albany. According to the sources, Gillibrand, now in her second congressional term, was favored by Secretary of State Clinton herself. Paterson has been under pressure to select a woman.

She is from upstate New York and viewed as being able to help Paterson in his re-relection bid in 2010.

< The Beltway Establishment Is The Pro-Torture Lobby | Late Night: Guantanamo (To Music) >
  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft

  • Display: Sort:
    Gillibrand (5.00 / 2) (#37)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:55:21 PM EST
    hails from a district redder than Mississippi. She defeated long time lunatic John Sweeney for the House seat, so obviously she had to lean a little rightward  to have a chance. Then she beat "Sandy" Treadwell, and his barrels of money, for re-election. She's not one to be taken lightly. It also doesn't hurt that she's an attractive, family oriented female.

    As to the NRA, the second amendment issue has been adjudicated, and buried. No upstate New Yorker can be against hunting, and NYC has been calling the tune far too long. Gillibrand is more in touch with a majority of Americans than the Manhattan Liberal Cabal is, and that's not such a bad thing. It certainly shouldn't rule her out.

    The NYS Legislature has been dubbed the most dysfunctional in the U.S. and Manhattan's Sheldon Silver, who rules NY as his private fiefdom, and who has probably never ventured outside of Hoity Toity Manhattan, is a true piece of elitist dirt. His being against her is the best reason yet to support her.

    Gillibrand may not be as Liberal as some want, but neither was Hillary Clinton.

    I live very close to her district and I think she'd be a great choice.

    There's a difference between not being (1.00 / 0) (#39)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:08:21 PM EST
    a huge lefty (Clinton) and being a straight up conservative (Gillibrand).

    Also, "Manhattan Liberal Cabal"? Come on.


    And no mention of the fact (none / 0) (#40)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:00:28 AM EST
    that upstate dominated the State Senate until this year by systematically overpopulating downstate districts.

    Huh? (none / 0) (#42)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:34:36 AM EST
    It's true (none / 0) (#45)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:38:20 AM EST
    The New York State Senate is gerrymandered to overrepresent upstate. This has been true for quite some time.

    That's why they're called (none / 0) (#41)
    by NYShooter on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:32:48 AM EST

    I stand by mine.

    "a huge lefty (Clinton)?"....come on
    "straight up conservative (Gillibrand)?"....double come on

    And Manhattan....what's with the "come on" there?


    I didn't say Clinton was a huge lefty. I said (none / 0) (#49)
    by tigercourse on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:06:51 AM EST
    she wasn't. She's a moderate liberal. And yes Gillibrand, compared to almost every other Dem in the NY delegation, is a conservative. As near as I can tell, only 1 other Democrat is more conservative then her.

    The come on in relation to Manhattan is that the island isn't some den of liberal iniquity.


    a little confusing (none / 0) (#61)
    by sj on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:37:36 AM EST
    "not being [...] a huge lefty".

    The separation of the phrase was a little confusing.  I had to read it a couple of times.


    For that matter, Feingold (none / 0) (#43)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:35:19 AM EST
    is a gun guy, too.  Wisconsin (other than Madison) is much like upstate New York -- it's hunting country where they love, as our President said, to cling to their guns and Bibles (and, yes, their brewski:-).

    Not surprising, of course, that there are so many similarities, since upstate NYers migrated en masse to Wisconsin after the opening of the Erie Canal -- and so dominated the state's politics that they simply sent for NY's newly revised state constitution in 1848 and copied it almost verbatim as Wisconsin's constitution.  (Well, except for reforms such as married women's property rights, as the reformers from your "burned-over district" who came here already had tried for that in the first attempt at Wisconsin statehood, but the men of Wisconsin turned it down.  So they were not even as liberal then as the men of New York . . . and many haven't progressed as much since, either.)

    So gun control simply isn't a good predictor for pols who have to get votes in such states.  I gather, though, that she is not a Feingold on other counts?  Of course, who is. . . .


    Btw, about being dysfunctional (none / 0) (#44)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:37:42 AM EST
    . . . I think that the Wisconsin legislature may have NY beat on that, too, by the standard measure.  That is, Wisconsin's was the last, and latest by far for this biennium, to do its primary job of passing a @##$! budget.  And it's a disaster.

    Not quite (none / 0) (#54)
    by allimom99 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:17:57 AM EST
    California STILL hasn't got on!

    Looks to me (5.00 / 1) (#46)
    by progressiveinvolvement on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 12:59:49 AM EST
    like Hillary Clinton just did a massive payback to Caroline Kennedy.

    BS (5.00 / 3) (#50)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 02:12:17 AM EST
    And you need to seek treatment for your CDS.  You have a very severe case.

    WTF? Give some proof that Hillary was involved (5.00 / 5) (#52)
    by Angel on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 07:47:54 AM EST
    in ANY way with this.  

    Caroline f'd it up herself by not being forthright about her tax situation, apparently has a nanny problem, she has a lousy voting record, she has no real policy experience, she isn't good in public, and the way she handled her withdrawl is laughable and shows her inexperience.  Her heart wasn't really in it, IMO.  I think she wanted the glory but didn't want to suffer through the publicity and the actual work.  Legacy appointment - may I say it again?  That's what this would have been.  Glad she's gone.    


    She's a Blue Dog (5.00 / 2) (#51)
    by jbindc on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 07:32:19 AM EST
    And that's ok with me. Don't like her guns position, but her work with abused women and their children is admirable.

    From her Congressional website:

    In her first term in office, Congresswoman Gillibrand established herself as an independent leader in Congress. She was the lead sponsor of legislation that would implement the bipartisan 9/11 Commission Recommendations, which will help protect our borders and keep America safe. She has been an advocate for decreased federal spending, and introduced legislation that would require the federal government - just as all New York families do - to balance their budget every year. Finally, she has made tax cuts for Upstate and North Country families, one of her highest priorities. She has authored legislation that would double the tax credit for child care expenses and make up to $10,000 in college tuition tax deductible.

    Congresswoman Gillibrand has taken unprecedented steps to make her office accountable and transparent to her constituents.  She was the first Member of Congress to publish their public schedule online at the end of each day, and as a strong proponent of earmark reform, she voluntarily released every earmark that she requested that would invest in Upstate and North Country priorities.

    Congresswoman Gillibrand serves on the House Armed Services Committee and the Agriculture Committee . On the Armed Services Committee, Representative Gillibrand serves on the Terrorism, Unconventional Threats and Capabilities subcommittee and the Seapower subcommittee. On the Agriculture Committee Representative Gillibrand serves on the Livestock, Dairy and Poultry subcommittee, Conservation Credit Energy and Research subcommittee and the Horticulture and Organic Agriculture subcommittee.
    In addition to her committee assignments, Congresswoman Gillibrand founded the Congressional High Tech Caucus with Representative Michael McCaul (R-TX) with the goal of ensuring that the United States remains at the forefront of emerging technologies and high tech industries.  

    During the administration of President Clinton, Gillibrand served as Special Counsel to the U.S. Secretary of Housing and Urban Development, Andrew Cuomo. At HUD she played a key role in furthering HUD's Labor Initiative and New Markets initiative, working to strengthen enforcement of the Davis-Bacon Act and drafting new markets legislation for public and private investment in building infrastructure to revitalize lower income areas across the nation. Following federal service, Congresswoman Gillibrand entered the private sector, joining one of the Country's premier law firms. As a partner in the firm, she worked on a wide range of legal and policy related issues, requiring the knowledge and ability to negotiate on the highest levels, skills which serve her constituents well as a Member of Congress.

    Kirsten Gillibrand is a firm believer that those in a position to do so have an obligation to "give back" by serving their community. In addition to her responsibilities at the law firm, she maintained an extensive pro-bono practice for clients whose voices are seldom heard and needs seldom addressed. Her service on behalf of abused women and their children, and tenants seeking safe affordable housing without lead paint hazards has been tireless. At the heart of Representative Gillibrand's core values is the inspiration of her grandmother, Dorothea (Polly) Noonan, who was a founder of the area's first Women's Democratic Club and was a pioneer for women's rights in the region.

    Same-sex marriage, etc. (5.00 / 1) (#56)
    by Grey on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:29:04 AM EST
    According to this post, Gillibrand "assured the state's leading gay rights group yesterday that she backs same-sex marriage.""

    I'm growing more familiar with Gillibrand's record, and I'm troubled by her 100% NRA rating, but I'm heartened by her apparent support for same-sex marriage, at least, and I'll reserve judgment on the rest.  For now.

    Just read that too (none / 0) (#58)
    by andgarden on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:34:57 AM EST
    I think that's further than she was willing to go before, so maybe she is going to change to fit her new constituency.

    100% rating from the NRA? (4.00 / 2) (#30)
    by Radiowalla on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:28:12 PM EST
    Oh, gag me!  If Maloney primaries her, I'll jump right in to help.  

    The one thing to hope for, and (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:32:44 PM EST
    this is entirely possible, is that she shifts to better represent her new constituency. The threat of a primary challenge would make that shift likely.

    It certainly is possible that she was voting (none / 0) (#35)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:37:37 PM EST
    more for the district then from her own beliefs. I seem to remember reading somewhere that NY-20 has a Republican advantage of some 15 or 20 points.

    I give the Republicans (none / 0) (#36)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:39:33 PM EST
    a better-than-even chance of picking up her House seat in a special election. So yes, that was possible.

    Terrible, Terrible choice IMO (none / 0) (#1)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:44:48 PM EST
    She is by mot measures the most conservative NY Congressional Democrat.

    I hope someone primaries her if it's true.

    Bad choice. She's just too conservative. (none / 0) (#2)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:47:37 PM EST
    I was at a town hall meeting with Suozzi today and they were joking about him being up for the Seat. I don't love the guy, but he would likely have been better.

    So, what is the upside (none / 0) (#19)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:11:12 PM EST
    for Paterson to appointing Gillibrand? She's a Democrat, and she's a woman, and she is not from NYC/Long Island. Any others?

    I think those are the only pluses. Paterson (none / 0) (#21)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:17:09 PM EST
    said something the other day about women/upstaters/hispanics not being well represented in New York. He's killing two of those birds here.

    She doesn't bring much experience (2 years) or much money (she's from a pretty cash strapped district).  


    Gillibrand (none / 0) (#24)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:20:51 PM EST
    is known as a big-time fundraiser, actually.

    The main benefit here is to Paterson himself.  He wants to get reelected, and giving Upstate a Senator of their own after going so long without one is going to win him a lot of support.


    I agree, he wants upstate goodwill. (none / 0) (#28)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:26:04 PM EST
    (though I think he also really does believe they don't have enough representation).

    I really thought he'd pick someone more liberal.


    Also (none / 0) (#29)
    by NYShooter on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:27:01 PM EST
    Schumer recommended an upstater

    Maloney will primary (none / 0) (#3)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:49:40 PM EST
    The NY Times is reporting that Carolyn Maloney will run against Giilebrand in the 2010 primary if Gillibrand gets the nod from Paterson. The suggested reason for Maloney's opposition to Gillibrand is Gillibrand's support from the NRA. Remember, Maloney first decided to run for Congress after her husband was murdered in a NY subway shooting. She is a fierce proponent of gun control.

    Actually, it's (5.00 / 1) (#4)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:51:48 PM EST
    McCarthy you're thinking of. And I would support that wholeheartedly.

    McCarthy is more conservative then (none / 0) (#6)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:53:54 PM EST
    Gilibrand. She used to be a Republican.

    It's true that she used to be (5.00 / 1) (#7)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:55:16 PM EST
    a Republican. But I think he record suggests that she's more liberal.

    Maloney, of course, I would give money to in such a challenge.


    ProgressivePunch isn't perfect by (none / 0) (#9)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:56:58 PM EST
    and means, but it does list McCarthy as being a good 30 places more conservative then Gillibrand, with only 30 or so Democrats to the right of her.

    GovTrack (none / 0) (#13)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:02:28 PM EST
    calls her a far left Democrat. Of course, it varies by issue.

    She would not be my first choice either.


    I've really got to disagree with the (none / 0) (#18)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:11:04 PM EST
    Govtrack ranking. They say she's to the left of Nydia Velazquez which just ain't true. Progressive Punch puts her a good 120 people to the left. They rank McCarthy to the left of John Hall, who is some 100 reps more liberal.

    Anyway, that doesn't really matter. Gillibrand was a poor choice.


    Agreed (none / 0) (#20)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:12:38 PM EST
    I think Patterson chose her because it was decreed (by someone) that he needed an upstater. Poor decision.

    Paterson (none / 0) (#47)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:58:03 AM EST
    One T.  Not Patterson.

    Reading too fast. (none / 0) (#10)
    by caseyOR on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:57:14 PM EST
    You are right, it is McCarthy. I should have read more carefully.

    I apologize.


    Article (none / 0) (#16)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:05:31 PM EST

    This is a serious ¢l*sterfu¢k, and New York could do much better.


    No Gillibrand (none / 0) (#60)
    by MTSINAIMAMA on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:32:44 AM EST
    This is a terrible choice, I'm with McCarthy. Paterson is the biggest loser in all this mucky muck. Can't stand the guy now.

    That's Carolyn McCarthy, not Maloney. (none / 0) (#5)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:52:17 PM EST
    Long Island Railroad (none / 0) (#48)
    by gyrfalcon on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 01:58:54 AM EST
    not subway

    I wonder (none / 0) (#8)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:55:29 PM EST
    Have you ever seen so many leaks in a 24-hour period as we had over the Caroline Kennedy fiasco last night?  And yet this particular scoop has only been picked up by a single TV station.  I'm really not sure it's true.

    I find it terribly upsetting (none / 0) (#12)
    by Upstart Crow on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:01:12 PM EST
    I wonder if that influenced the New York Times editorial policy?

    I hope it's not, (none / 0) (#14)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:03:01 PM EST
    but the line seems to be pretty unanimous that it is.

    Whose line? (none / 0) (#22)
    by Steve M on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:19:20 PM EST
    Response below (none / 0) (#27)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:23:51 PM EST
    Long term planning (none / 0) (#11)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 09:58:16 PM EST
    Patterson is thinking of keeping the seat Democratic.  Huge swaths of NY are conservative on many issues.  While I know little of her politics, and would've preferred someone more liberal, I understand the choice.

    NY has had no problem electing Clinton (5.00 / 1) (#15)
    by tigercourse on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:03:07 PM EST
    and Schumer, both of whom are fairly liberal. Reed, Whitehouse, Brown, etc. would have no particular problem getting elected here.

    True. However both Clinton and Schumer (none / 0) (#23)
    by vicndabx on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:20:27 PM EST
    were known quantities.  Reading Gillibrand's bio she seems pretty middle of the road, but righty enough on issues such as immigration and gov't spending that the less liberal side of NY tends to worry about.

    lipris (none / 0) (#25)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:23:03 PM EST
    thinks it's a done deal, for example.

    It looks like 70% to me. Not just the Daily News this time.


    Sorry, this was meant as a reply (none / 0) (#26)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:23:31 PM EST
    to Steve M.

    I'm not sure Gillibrand is so conservative (none / 0) (#17)
    by BackFromOhio on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:06:30 PM EST
    see voting record at WaPo:


    No on surge funds, no on 2007 FISA amendments, yes on repeal of tax benefits to oil companies.


    Funny Thing Is (none / 0) (#31)
    by squeaky on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:29:01 PM EST
    That Kennedy looks good in comparison. The way the system works is that if Paterson wants to get elected in 2010, he has to make NYers happy. If he fails he will lose in 2010.

    I hope he picks someone good, because I like him so far.

    bleh (none / 0) (#33)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:32:58 PM EST
    are we going to get our pro-gay marriage Dem, or what?

    NY could and would elect one (none / 0) (#34)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 10:35:36 PM EST
    but that day is apparently not today.

    I was never (5.00 / 1) (#38)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 22, 2009 at 11:04:40 PM EST
    over the moon about Kennedy, but that made me support her.

    Since we're so often asked to support real sh*theads on these issues, it was nice to find out she would pull her weight.

    c'mon now NY...


    Not Happy at All (none / 0) (#53)
    by WS on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:17:35 AM EST
    She is just too conservative.  New York is not Missouri so why did we sacrifice a liberal voting record for a Blue Dog one?  

    She better change her ways or her professed immigration and gun record will hurt her severely among Hispanics and gun control advocates who are plentiful in a Democratic Primary.  

    I'm willing to give her a chance but for all of Caroline's inexperience, she would at least given me peace of mind as opposed to Gillibrand.  

    Not crazy about this choice ... (none / 0) (#55)
    by Robot Porter on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:28:46 AM EST
    but I hear that she's great at constituent services.

    This is a part of a Senator's job that's often neglected on blogs, but is very important.

    And it's important to me as a NYer.

    I'll be watching her with a skeptical eye, but she may not be as bad as some fear.

    Still I would have preferred a true liberal or progressive.

    Issues (none / 0) (#57)
    by mmc9431 on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:29:42 AM EST
    Where she stands on gay rights, stem cell research and FISA and torture? These are the issues that I find the most problematic with my blue dog democrat rep, Lupinski

    RE: Issues (5.00 / 1) (#59)
    by Grey on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 08:40:32 AM EST
    Here is her voting record.  Word this morning is that she backs same-sex marriage (see my post above).

    Senator Giuliani? (none / 0) (#62)
    by No Blood for Hubris on Fri Jan 23, 2009 at 09:42:30 AM EST
    Sure looks that way now.

    If not Kennedy, then Maloney or Cuomo.

    Plus, removing Gillibrand from a solid Republican upstate seat flips it back into Republican hands.

    What was Paterson smoking?