I’m sorry for yet another Gillibrand diary, but the search for the Hillary seat and Gillibrand selection have greatly interested me in recent weeks and I’ve been following them closely.
Like a lot of people, I’m still not sure what to make of her exactly. At first I was optimistic. She was, by all accounts, a smart, likable, effective and honest representative. Her record was never liberal, but she had a few fairly progressive stances mixed with some very conservative stances, making her hard to pin down. But like many, I’d written her centrist/moderate outlook and Blue Dog membership as justified pragmatism; the only way she could take and hold a fairly Republican district, thereby allowing her to support Democrats on issues where she did adhere to the party line. Further, the switch on gay rights seemed to represent the beginning of her predicted shift to left, adjusting to her new statewide constituency, hopefully culminating in a broadly liberal, Hillary Clinton-style outlook on the issues. She’ll never be a firebrand, but there’s only ever a handful of those on either side of the aisle, so I don’t automatically expect that of her. If this all happens, and it still could, her star can continue to rise and I will like her.
I’m still keeping an open mind and hoping for all that. If that all materializes, a primary challenge in 2010 will be averted, which will be a better outcome; a primary would split Democrats in New York, piss of upstaters (and possibly therefore help Republicans in the state) and would result in either Gillibrand winning, while badly weakened, or a perhaps less electable Democratic nominee emerging, either way possibly allowing the GOP to take the seat if they can find a strong candidate. But on one of Gillibrand’s worst positions, immigration, she is as-yet refusing to budge, and she taking well-deserved flack for it, and the selection is now beginning to concern me.
If on immigration, taxes, perhaps on guns (although that is, or at least should be, a much lower priority issue, even in NY) and any other non-starter conservative position, she refuses to adjust, a primary may become the only recourse.
But that opens up the original and current question about this seat; who are the alternatives? During the selection process, I remember that someone wrote an article where they blasted all the vehement critics of Caroline Kennedy by highlighting the fact that when it came to talking about their actual preferred candidate, the anti-Kennedy group would always end up arguing "why have Caroline when Governor Patterson could select...um...." I think much the same problem now exists any anti-Gillibrand challenge in 2010; it will be defined by opposition and have no real standard-bearer.
I initially supported Kennedy, since she was young, progressive and seemed to have good background experience in politics, even though that didn’t include elected or statewide office. The dynasty concern didn’t factor in for me, I’d have liked another Kennedy in the senate, and I did agree that Hillary Clinton needed to be replaced by another woman. But as her limelight and campaigning issues became clearer, I began to have my doubts. But that said, like seemingly almost everyone else, Andrew Cuomo didn’t excite me. In my case, it’s part dynasty bias, Kennedy beats Cuomo, but mostly it goes back to my belief that Hillary’s successor needed to be female. He’s experienced in both state and federal government, the son of a popular liberal potential president and elected statewide. And yet, I can’t remember many "go Cuomo" diaries on here, for all the Kennedy bashing.
However, this leads me to another thing that concerns me now. Sarah Palin was chosen by McCain by process of elimination; he needed to choose a woman to make a splash, but all of the other prominent Republican women in the US were non-starters for various reasons (most of them would have pissed off the conservative base, some were too old or corrupted or running for reelection etc). I can’t help but wonder if at least part of calculus was the same here (though I wouldn’t extend the Gillibrand-Palin comparison beyond that). Patterson needed an upstater, he also needed a woman; Gillibrand fit the mould, most others didn’t. I know that she was Clinton’s and Schumer’s preference, perhaps the dominant reason she was chosen, but this "requirements" equation fits into it as well. Louise Slaughter was 80, so she was out. Brian Higgins is a man, as are several other upstate Democrats. Byron Brown was a possibility, being an upstater and given that it would put an African-American in the senate, but he had some personal scandals that perhaps ruled him out.
Then, it just comes down mostly to the long list of Democratic representatives from the NYC area. Nydia Velazquez I like; experienced, chair of the Small Business Committee and certainly liberal, but she might be a risk statewide. Same goes for Yvette Clark, Jose Serrano and basically most of the CBC/CHC members hailing from the city, and Rangel’s out for obvious reasons. Anthony Weiner, Jerrold Nadler and several others were good, but being neither upstaters or women would appear to just be a second Chuck Schumer. Though they would at least be more liberal, and if Schumer can get elected, they probably could have too. But now, a challenge by any of them would pit downstate against upstate and man against woman in the 2010 primary; it would be messy. Steve Israel is a Blue Dog, though perhaps of the more liberal ones, while Eliot Engel is a non-starter. Engel supports John Hagee, has been bad on Iraq and has faced primary challenges, but he never shared Gillibrand’s valid "but my district is Republican" defense. Nassau Executive Tom Suozzi is reportedly good on the environment, but is described (according to Wikipedia, my knowledge of him is limited) as a moderate and Republicans reportedly tried to recruit him in 2006. He rebuffed them, but it still concerns me that Republicans even saw that as a viable option.
Of the liberal white women in the city, there is of course the one self-professed potential challenger to Gillibrand, Carolyn McCarthy, but she has 23 years on Gillibrand and used to be a Republican (not giving her the best leg to stand in when questioning Gillibrand’s party loyalty, perhaps). And above all, she will be seen as the anti-gun candidate, which despite apparently being the focal point of the controversy over Gillibrand’s record, really shouldn’t be (as I previously stated). There’s 200 million+ guns in circulation, that can’t be all taken back, especially given the volume of opposition Democrats face in this endeavour. It’s just best that Democrats not keep annihilating themselves and sacrificing the whole agenda for one unwinnable issue. The senate won’t vote on guns very often anyway, and there’s two wars and an economy in crisis; it’s not a good basis to oppose Gillibrand, even in NY. Gillibrand supports strong background checks and if she budges on AWB, the only anti-gun legislation Obama and modern Democrats even bother pushing, then she should be fine. She’ll still be more pro-gun than most Democrats, but will seem like a genuine pragmatist and won’t have to do the blatantly see-through "I’m not against gun rights; hunters & sportsmen, hunters & sportsmen!" dance that Democratic candidates have taken to doing since 2000.
Carolyn Maloney is a better option, without the single-issue baggage. Plus while a reliable vote and better than Gillibrand, isn’t quite as out there and as some of the other NYC reps are, making her a better option statewide. On the downside, she still represents an overwhelmingly Democratic Manhattan district, she’s got 18 years on Gillibrand and there’s a distinct possibility that large numbers of voters will get her mixed up with Carolyn McCarthy. No one has yet convinced me that Mark Warner’s freakishly large non-incumbent leads over Gilmore last year weren’t partially due to VA voters getting Mark mixed up with John and thinking they were just re-electing a popular incumbent. And Nita Lowey, while speculated in 2000 as the frontrunner if Hillary didn’t run, was seen as a weak candidate against Giuliani then and is now 71 anyway.
Point is that Patterson’s bind, and a 2010 anti-Gillibrand campaign’s bind now, is that despite an incredibly thick Democratic bench in New York, no one was perfect. He probably wanted a young, liberal, upstate woman, but couldn’t find that, so he settled for a candidate without the "liberal" part and hoped she would evolve enough to correct that flaw. Now that Gillibrand is in place, and if she doesn’t evolve substantially, progressives need to find a viable challenger against her; one who can raise enough money to beat Gillibrand’s own fundraising prowess and institutional support, one who isn’t so liberal that Gillibrand or a Republican nominee can outclass them even in NY, one who is liberal enough to make a primary challenge meaningful, one who’s an upstater so that Democrats can avoid the appearance of a snub and one who’s female so that Democrats won’t appear to be taking a backwards step.
Who is that? I hope Gillibrand turns out well, so that people won’t need to find the answer.