the albany project

behind that door are three five men in a room...



About
The Albany Project seeks to return New York State Government to its rightful owners - the people.

Getting Started at the Albany Project

Resources
- Searchable Senate Pork Data (2004-2005) - On-line

- Searchable Senate Pork Data (2004-2005) - Downloadable PDF File

- Searchable Senate Pork Data (2003-2004) - Downloadable PDF File

- Assembly 2002-2006 and Senate 2005-2006 Pork Spreadsheet

-What Is "Spotlight" And How Do I Use It?

New York Blogwire



This belongs to you. Take it back...

NY-Sen: Maloney will challenge Gillibrand

by: devtob

Thu Jun 04, 2009 at 09:20:30 AM EDT


According to two published reports yesterday, Congresswoman Carolyn Maloney (NY-14) has decided to challenge Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand in a primary next year.

CQ Politics reports that Maloney will announce her candidacy today on her website, though Maloney denied that that's true.

And City Hall reports that Maloney has hired experienced fund-raising and PR types in preparation for an announcement "by the end of the month."

Details, and why this is a bad idea, below.  

devtob :: NY-Sen: Maloney will challenge Gillibrand
The CQ Politics story, headlined "New York Throwdown: Maloney to Challenge Gillibrand in Senate Primary," cites several sources, most anonymous, that support the headline.

Here's a taste:

Rep. Carolyn B. Maloney plans to announce a primary challenge to Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand on her Web site Thursday morning, according to two sources including a member of New York's congressional delegation.

Maloney disputed that characterization in a brief hallway interview.

"Where did you get that from?" she asked. "It's not true."

snip

The decision to run sets up what could be an expensive primary.

snip

That is something national Democrats have tried to avoid, with New York's senior senator, Charles E. Schumer, Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee Chairman Robert Menendez and the White House all taking pains to clear Gillibrand's path to the nomination.

The story quotes an anonymous Democratic operative deriding Maloney as posing no "real threat," and Rep. Jerry Nadler, evidently a Maloney supporter, saying, "It's a very real fight. Carolyn's a strong candidate and Kirsten hasn't yet established herself."

Over at Swing State Project, DavidNYC flagged the CQ Politics story, and wrote that it does not reflect well on Maloney:

So CQ has knowledgeable, high-level sources who say that Maloney is preparing a run, but Maloney denies it to their faces? Perhaps she was just disputing CQ's claims about the "timing or venue," as they say, but even so, this is kind of embarrassing.

If you're going to take on someone with as much grit, fundraising prowess, and establishment backing as Kirsten Gillibrand, faltering out the gate like this is seriously small-time. I guess we'll find out the truth tomorrow, but still ... weak.

The City Hall story is very inside baseball, touting Maloney's hiring of Cindy Darrison to raise money and Josh Isay to do communications as a sure sign that Maloney is in.

Darrison is known for being former Gov. Eliot Spitzer's chief fund-raiser and for more recently leaving current Gov. David Paterson to work for his possible primary challenger Attorney General Andrew Cuomo.

Isay worked on Caroline Kennedy's "campaign" for the Senate appointment, Joe LIEberman in 2006, and for Republican billionaire NYC Mayor Mike Bloomberg.

Noting Isay's work on LIEberman's lying ads, Jane Hamsher of Firedoglake called Maloney's new hire "a political fixer whose specialty is deceiving voters" back when CK hired him.

The die is apparently cast, and Maloney will challenge Gillibrand in a primary that will cost $20 million or so.

That's one reason her candidacy is not a good idea -- that's a substantial amount that will not be used to defeat Republicans next year, in New York and across the country.

Another reason is that Maloney, if she finally pulls the trigger, will lose substantial seniority in the House.

Maloney is in her ninth term representing a safe district that is mostly the Upper East Side of Manhattan with a bit of nearby Queens.

She is currently chair of the Joint Economic Committee and of the Financial Institution and Consumer Credit Subcommittee of the House Financial Services Committee.

A third is that Maloney is 61, while Gillibrand is 42, so Gillibrand is in much better position (aside from being in the Senate already) to move into senior Senate leadership positions that will benefit the entire state.

Since the policy differences between the two are negligible, New York would obviously be better served by Maloney staying in the House, and Gillibrand continuing a long march to a Senate committee chair that may take 20 years.

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Gillibrand is doing an excellent job as Senator, (4.00 / 6)
and Maloney is doing likewise in the House.

Hopefully, despite these stories, both will continue to do so in the next Congress.


Get Real Carolyn (4.00 / 2)
She's not going to get the support of the liberal blogosphere against a Senator some criticize as being too conservative.  She's not going to get support upstate.  She's not going to get establishment support. She's never raised money like this.

Who is she going to have support her? This one is a fool's errand for her, and one that should make us all nervous about supporting her in the future for anything.  

Still, time to send Gillibrand some dough, just to help her scare off silly challenges like this one.

 


[ Parent ]
Wow, a lot more comments here (0.00 / 0)
than over at DKos.

That's a first for one of my dual-posted diaries.

Thanks to everyone for contributing.


[ Parent ]
Isn't she worried about her new hire's spectacular failures? (4.00 / 1)
I mean looking at this as an outside observer, this guy was in on the whole Caroline Kennedy debacle, he worked for the national embarassment that was Lieberman 2006, and a bunch of Republicans. This strikes me as being one of those grossly overrated political consultants like Mark Penn who have a tendancy to bring their employer down in flames. And those guys are decidedly not popular within the party base. How much money is she throwing away on this person? For that matter, one of this guy's biggest credits involved losing a Democratic Senate primary.

That said, I personally don't see Maloney being as serious a threat as Steve Israel. She hasn't spent the time and effort reaching out to other parts of the state as much as Israel, or making the kind of bridgebuilding offers he did to work together on other issues including party building. This race can't be won only on the upper east side; If Maloney wants to have a chance, she's going to have to get her hands dirty, and lurking around the Gideon Putnam for the Democratic Rural Conference isn't quite enough. We'll see: if she wants it, and has good advice, the minute that the Senate lets out she'll be road-tripping across upstate trying to horn in on Gillibrand's turf.  


Disappointing (4.00 / 2)
This is so disappointing. Maloney is clearly doing this only to satisfy her own vanity. Women comprise 51% of the population and only have 17% representation in Congress. Maloney touted her book, "Rumors of Our Progress Have Been Greatly Exaggerated," to emphasize the need for more women representatives. Now, when we have a strong, talented, young Senator in a position to be a national leader for the Party what does she do? Undermine her at every turn, and if she runs, it will eliminate one representative out of the paltry 17. How does this benefit NY? Gillibrand has a solid progressive record, and is refining positions to advocate for her new constituency. This is her last shot to be in the "Club" and apparently her ego takes precedence over what's best for NY. She is surrounded by downstate sycophants who are urging her to run. She greatly underestimates Gillibrand. I hope she has a retirement plan.

Talk about "disappointing." (0.00 / 0)
You have no idea why she's doing this and neither do I.  But I'm beginning to think Gillibrand supporters are pretty weaselly.  

[ Parent ]
Call Maloney's campaign? (4.00 / 3)
Maloney's campaign office number is (212) 987-5516.
I called, identified myself, and asked the staffer to PLEASE convey to the Congresswoman that she should continue her excellent work in the House.  
Senator Gillibrand has the potential to achieve the kind of Senate seniority that will serve New Yorkers for decades. It's our future.  We need Kirsten Gillibrand.

The last time I checked, this is still a democracy (4.00 / 1)
I called my rep (Maloney) last week and urged her to run. Not all of us want our next a Senator installed by the powers that be in the Dem Party.  

[ Parent ]
So if Maloney wins... (4.00 / 1)
Who will she be "installed" by?


Support our troops, not the war.

[ Parent ]
Wins against who, Robert? (0.00 / 0)
Schumer is seeing to it that she has no primary challengers. I know for a fact that one pol who was considering a run got a call from high up in the Party and subsequently dropped the idea.  

[ Parent ]
I think what Robert was trying to say (4.00 / 2)
is that the voters are the ultimate "powers that be"

New Yorkers against Harold Ford

[ Parent ]
Maloney wanted to be appointed to the seat (4.00 / 3)
if she had it her way, she would've bypassed the voters too...how is she going to make the case that we should let the voters decide when she, too, wanted to be appointed to the seat.

It's just going to make her look like a sore loser, which I don't think she is.

She starts out with like 30% or so Democrats who are "anyone but Gillibrand," where does she go from here?

What is she going to do when she attacks the appointment process and then gets hit by ads from Gillibrand's side saying "Maloney, too, asked the Governor to appoint her to the seat."

If the anyone but Gillibrand crowd really wants to beat Gillibrand because of the appointment process, they should run someone who never asked to or wanted to be appointed to the seat in the first place.  


[ Parent ]
Funny that no one brought (0.00 / 0)
that inconvenient truth up earlier in this thread.

I'm not gonna rock the boat. Rockin' the boat's a drag. What you do is sink the boat!
- Truth and Soul, Inc.


[ Parent ]
I don't think anyone thought of it (0.00 / 0)
I mean I can understand the desire to primary Gillibrand...but with Maloney? Anyone really grilling for Maloney is either ignorant of politics or just wants to beat Gillibrand, doesn't matter with who, either way, it won't work.

You want to beat Gillibrand on the appointment issue, you run someone like Nydia Velasquez who at least can say she told the Governor she didn't want to be appointed...regardless of why, she can make the excuse (whether it's true or not) that she did not believe appointment was the best way of going about this.

Also, I meant the cats out of the bag already, so why is Maloney telling CQ Politics that it's not true. If you're seriously considering running for Senate, at least tell reporters who ask you; "I'm still considering my options." or "I haven't closed that door yet."

It's not true? That's only going to make Maloney look a little erratic when actually does announce she's running.  


[ Parent ]
Web site announcement (4.00 / 1)
I read the "It's not true" statement as being about the claim that she was announcing her candidacy tomorrow on her website.

[ Parent ]
Not A Fair Argument, I Think (0.00 / 0)
I don't see the conflict. There was an interim appointment to be had. I see no difficulty with seeking and/or accepting the interim appointment and also affirming the right for voters to then choose their candidate in a primary. I don't think Gillibrand wants a primary, but she doesn't refute the right of others to run. I don't see why the same standard doesn't apply to Maloney or anyone else who wanted the appointment but still may seek the seat.

[ Parent ]
But what I'm hearing from supporters here (4.00 / 1)
is that we need a primary because Governors shouldn't be allowed to appoint Senators...we should've had a special election.

Maloney can't make that argument. Is she going to say "If the Governor had appointed me, I would've had no problem with a primary?"

If she ever uttered the phrase "If the Governor had appointed me..." she'll be finished immediately. It would easily be spun as a "sore loser" comment.

She's going to have to make the campaign about issues...and I don't see how she could.  


[ Parent ]
Why Can't She Say That? (0.00 / 0)
Is she going to say "If the Governor had appointed me, I would've had no problem with a primary?"

Sure, why not? Again, I don't see the conflict. We have to have an interim appointment so that we have representation before the special election. In the meantime, any appointee should be open to a primary challenge because that person was not selected by the voters. Where's the contradiction? I don't see any "sore loser" aspect here.

Whether she can make the election about issues--as it should be--is an entirely different matter. I just don't see how it relates to whether someone who sought but did not get the appointment relates to those issues.


[ Parent ]
Why can't she say that? (4.00 / 1)
Are you serious? Who'd believe her?  

[ Parent ]
I'd Believe Her (0.00 / 0)
I really don't see what the problem is with the principle that, win or lose the appointment, a primary challenge is perfectly appropriate. If one can primary someone who won the election in a prior cycle, even if you lost to that person, it's certainly legitimate to challenge someone who was appointed.

Again, where's the disconnect? Why should the fact that someone wasn't picked by the governor have any bearing on whether one should be picked by the voters? Am I missing something?


[ Parent ]
I absolutley wouldn't (4.00 / 1)
sorry, I wouldn't believe anyone who said that. There is no way I'd believe that she would say behind closed door; "If you pick me, it's ok if there's a primary" No way I'd believe that.

And knowing her, there's DEFINITELY no way I'd believe that.

What you're missing is that if Maloney runs on the idea that the appointment process is not legitimate, then why did she wanted to be appointed in the first place? It would look like she's a sore loser. "You didn't appoint me, so it's all a fraud."


[ Parent ]
Who Said She's Running On That? (0.00 / 0)
Who said Maloney is running on the "illegitimacy" of the appointment process? I haven't heard a thing about that.

We've heard people on this site make that argument, but not the candidate. Let's not confuse the two.


[ Parent ]
No incumbent welcomes a primary challenge (0.00 / 0)
Ever.

Gillibrand is no different in that regard.


[ Parent ]
Maloney should run if she wants to (4.00 / 3)
It's not like it will matter much in the end because I just don't see her beating Gillibrand. The only way to beat Kirsten is with a movement candidate, someone who can actually build and ride a progressive swell. Maloney isn't going to do that and I'm not sure any of the rumored candidates we've seen over the last few months were capable of it either.

Maloney could make Gillibrand a better senator though. Primaries have a way of doing just that.

I'm not gonna rock the boat. Rockin' the boat's a drag. What you do is sink the boat!
- Truth and Soul, Inc.


[ Parent ]
Huh? (4.00 / 1)
Maloney running against Gillibrand makes absolutely zero political sense. As has been pointed out already, Gillibrand is also female, is younger, and is voting the right way in the Senate.

The only possible up-side of her campaign would be giving Liz Krueger a shot at the House.


This comments board is really depressing. (2.00 / 2)
So much for those heady reforming Albany days. It looks like  political fixes are all the rage here now at the albany project. Anyway, I'm thrilled Maloney's running, she's my rep and she's been a good one, while Gillibrand looks like she's running to be Schumer's second bananna.  

[ Parent ]
JohnS... (4.00 / 4)
It is unfair for you to criticize TAP for going along with "political fixes." We are very reform-minded here. We always have been.

You support Maloney because you have seen her first-hand. She is your representative and you support her because you have seen her work. Those who don't live in the district can't say that. Devtob lives (if I'm not mistaken) in NY-20, where Gillibrand was a representative since 2007. He has seen Gillibrand's work first-hand and shares the same opinion of Gillibrand that you do of Maloney.

I don't believe in making endorsements, but I have decided to support Gillibrand. I do that because she has, as a representative and aspiring candidate, reached out to those in the rural counties of Western New York. She is at home here. She is comfortable here. And she is more than welcome here.

Maloney would be welcomed too. We are Democrats. We listen to everyone. I can tell you from my county committee meeting last night that not everyone (most, but not everyone) is on board with Gillibrand. That means Maloney still has some wiggle room. But she has to do more than sit in New York City and tell the state that she is running for U.S. Senate. She has to work just as hard as Gillibrand, which is not easy. Gillibrand resembles Schumer in that sense. She is a very hard worker and will only be tough to campaign against in 2010.

Support our troops, not the war.


[ Parent ]
Here, here (4.00 / 1)
The problem with a Maloney candidacy is that there is no good reason for it.  Gillibrand was a great rep who addressed issues of real importance to NY and is a great Senator who is having an impact well beyond what would usually be expected of a Freshwoman.  She's also having a big impact on NY, where she's a tremendous asset to all the Members of Congress upstate with tough districts, and that will spill over into the legislature as well.  She is a team player who is strengthening the party and that is going to help it's whole agenda.  

From what I can see, this is about ambition, and that may be a reason for someone to run, but it's not a reason for anyone who cares about the state and the party and its principals to give up a strong Senator.  


[ Parent ]
Reform-minded? (0.00 / 1)
What kind of reform-minded blog has a problem with having someone like Maloney mount a primary challenge against a candidate appointed to her seat by an unpopular governor. Gee. that really sounds like a recipe for success if the GOP decides to put up a credible candidate.  

[ Parent ]
What? the primary? (0.00 / 0)
Yeah, I agree...Pataki could easily beat Maloney in a general.  

[ Parent ]
So JohnS... (4.00 / 1)
Is this about Maloney or Paterson? You make the point that Gillibrand was appointed by an unpopular governor. So? I don't think it was the candidate that was scrutinized when Paterson made his choice. It was the process. And that process was symbolic of the time Paterson has spent as governor.

It will be very difficult for anyone, whether it's in a primary or general election, to beat Gillibrand. She wasn't suppose to win in NY-20 either. But she did.

Again, you can go off on a spiel about how we aren't "reform-minded." But there is a difference between a real, viable primary (which I would be in favor of) and a primary just for the sake of having a primary. That's exactly what this would be.

If you want to run against Gillibrand, fine. But if you really are targeting Paterson, then get in Cuomo's corner and push his candidacy.


Support our troops, not the war.


[ Parent ]
You keep wanting this to be about this candidate or that governor or that senator (0.00 / 0)
I am talking about the PROCESS.

The gov did his job. He appointed someone to fill a vacant Senate seat. Fine.

What I object to is that the Dem Party is trying to muscle out any primary challengers as if we are back in the days of political bosses in smoke filled rooms.  


[ Parent ]
The Queen Has No Clothes (4.00 / 2)
Pointing out that the King has no clothes isn't challenging his right to ride down the street at the front of the procession.

Pointing out on a blog that Maloney's run doesn't make sense, that Gillibrand is a good Senator who should be reelected, and that no one has given a good reason for Maloney to run aside from personal ambition isn't foreclosing her right to run in a primary if she so chooses. It's just saying that running is kind of, well, stupid and nonproductive.  Better to run against Bloomberg; she may lose, but she'll help build the party for the next time.  

Now, you seem to want to oppose Gillibrand solely because she was originally appointed, despite her considerable merit.  Sometimes, it's not JUST about process, but about substance, too.



[ Parent ]
Back in the days? (4.00 / 1)
the days of political bosses in smoke filled rooms never ended John. They never will...so you make it work for you, and we did.


[ Parent ]
Scott Murphy was chosen by the political bosses, (4.00 / 2)
and that worked out rather well, both in the quality of the candidate and the ultimate result.

[ Parent ]
Smearing other supporters is foolish and counterproductive. (4.00 / 2)
This is why I hate primaries--it always seems to take about four seconds for people to drag out the long knives and start hacking away at each other.

Look, I've had the chance to meet and listen to Senator Gillibrand firsthand. I've also seen Carolyn Maloney firsthand, and talked to her--more, actually, than I've talked to Gillibrand. I'm certain that Maloney is a great representative to her people and a solid Dem. However, I like Gillibrand for the fact that she understand upstate issues, is solid on support for gay rights, and is still an easy sell in the big uniquely purple area that is upstate New York.

That doesn't mean I'm going to run around ascribing meanspirited motives to people who feel differently, or that I'm going to smear the other candidate. It's no secret that I don't like unnecessary primaries--unnecessary ones being those between two solid Dems. That's the case here.

If we were ousting a DINO, that's a whole different story. But we're talking about burning up time for the activists, tens of millions of dollars, tons of shoeleather, and dividing the base for a net gain of exactly nothing either way. That time and money could be spent solidifying the State Senate, or ousting the last Republican congressmen from the state of New York. Knowing the money that's going to be spent here, think about where else it could go: do you really think that either Chris Lee or Peter King could survive a Democratic challenger with ten million dollars or so to burn? How about dropping a million dollars each on a dozen Republican state senators?

TAP is all about reform--and the cause of reform doesn't benefit at all from infighting.  


[ Parent ]
For Nothing? (0.00 / 0)
But we're talking about burning up time for the activists, tens of millions of dollars, tons of shoeleather, and dividing the base for a net gain of exactly nothing either way.

I wouldn't call the right of party members to pick their candidate "nothing." I'd call it the very heart of the democratic process.

Otherwise, why not let governors and presidents pick all our nominees?

You may like Gillibrand. Heck, I like her too, at least more than some alternatives. I think she's smart, energetic, and capable. But what if other people feel differently? Why shouldn't they have their say, even if we disagree with them? (They might even win, you know.) Isn't that an important part of living in a democracy?


[ Parent ]
From the perspective of reform-minded government, the outcome is what matters most. (0.00 / 0)
When you've got two people who are equally qualified, both have their supporters, and would do as good a job, yes, I consider having them fight to the death to be a waste.

If you could get all the participants to agree to no negative attacks, nobody spends more than $250k in the primary, and everyone endorses the winner the minute it's over, then I'd say everybody knock themselves out.  


[ Parent ]
Reform At The Cost Of Most Basic Principle? (0.00 / 0)
I thought a part of "reform" was making sure power vested ultimately with the people. Process counts for a lot, or at least it should.

Again, if all you're concerned with is outcome, would you approve of a philosopher-king which delivered those results and was in no way accountable to the people?

The democratic process is far from perfect. It is occasionally wasteful. But I'm unwilling to start making exceptions to basic principles for the sake of "outcomes."

Also, how are we to know if your assumptions are correct? You may think the candidates are equally qualified and would do equally good jobs. Perhaps you are right. But perhaps not; how do we know? I think the only fair way to decide that question is by allowing the electorate to make their choice. It shouldn't come down to your evaluation, or mine, or governor Paterson's, or president Obama's.

And by the way, I find it hard to believe that the third condition would not be met: everyone would almost certainly endorse the winner of the primary.


[ Parent ]
Honestly (0.00 / 0)
As Prop 8 taught me, sometimes the power isn't best when vested ultimately with the people.


[ Parent ]
That's A Straw Man (0.00 / 0)
Is comparing voter initiatives to picking one's representative a serious argument? That proves way too much; it implies that we should never pick our candidates. Is that really your position?

There's a big difference between picking your representatives, who at least should be making an effort to make responsible decisions, and the referendum process which allows the public to vote directly and make all sorts of irresponsible decisions.

Prop 8, by the way, is hardly your best example. It's likely to be overturned the next time it comes up. On the other hand, all the taxing and spending restrictions put on California through the initiative process has left it almost impossible to govern.


[ Parent ]
now there's something I can disagree with (0.00 / 0)
If you really care about reforming NYS politics, you've got to give up completely on the idea of achieving specific political outcomes.  

Reform in NYS government is pretty much entirely about giving voters more power to see what's going on and make effective decsions about who they want to represent them.  Voters need to know it's about them, not about particular politicians or even particular outcomes.

I support Gillibrand, but this whole "let's avoid a primary at all costs" nonsense makes me sick, to put it politely.


[ Parent ]
Governors and Presidents (0.00 / 0)
DO pretty much pick our nominees.  

[ Parent ]
I Don't Think So.... (0.00 / 0)
Governors and presidents certainly don't pick nominees for the opposing party, which often wins. And I'm sure there are many examples of people winning nominations where the governor and president stayed pretty much out of the process. Also, note that Israel came close to running despite White House interference, and Maloney may do so regardless. White House intervention seems to me to be the exception rather than the rule.

Now the DSCC and DCCC involvement is another question. I think they have a heavier role in federal candidate recruitment than governors do. But that's pretty much speculation on my part.


[ Parent ]
There are plenty of cases (0.00 / 0)
where the Bush White House tried to protect Republicans from primary challenges (Specter is a good example) and cases where Clinton did the same thing with Democrats at the time.  

This is a race with national implications, and Obama is the leader of the party.  


[ Parent ]
Yes, But That's Not What You Wrote Above (0.00 / 0)
You wrote that presidents and governors "do pretty much pick our nominees." Pointing out instances where that has been the case doesn't show that they do it frequently, or even most of the time. (They can't even do it half the time, since half of the nominees won't be from their party.) Again, it seems to me that White House involvement seems to be more of an exception than the rule, even with nominees from the same party; they don't seem to get involved in picking House nominees very often.

[ Parent ]
there aren't many competitive races (0.00 / 0)
and where they are, the White House is very involved.

Do you want a list, I can give you a list.  You'll find that almost every competitive Senate race in 2002 and 2004 had strong White Houst involvement. Same with Clinton in 1996 and 1998 and even in 2000.


[ Parent ]
Involved In Picking The Candidates? (0.00 / 0)
Sure, the White House campaigns for candidates. But do they pick them? Until recently, the DSCC (which I think plays a far larger role) stayed out of primaries. Also, the Senate is higher stakes; care to list House races too? The DCCC almost always stays out of primary fights. I don't think the White House noses in where those committees keep their hands off.

And again, the White House can't pick the nominees of the opposing party. So it's involvement must be less than 50%.


[ Parent ]
You're thinking of open seats and challengers (0.00 / 0)
I'm talking about incumbents. They always step in for incumbents. I have never seen a situation where the White House stays out of a primary when an incumbent is involved.  

[ Parent ]
Again, That's Not What You Wrote Above (0.00 / 0)
The issue is your claim that governors and presidents "do pretty much pick our nominees." Now you're saying that it's only when there is a primary challenge to an incumbent. That's a different claim, and that situation is rare. The number of primary challenges against an incumbent is far outnumbered by open seats alone, not to mention challengers for seats the party doesn't hold, not to mention all the candidates from a different party than the president and the governor.

[ Parent ]
to the extent they do (0.00 / 0)
they shouldn't.

[ Parent ]
but they do (4.00 / 1)
and they will even if Maloney is elected since she's just as much part of the establishment, even more so, than Gillibrand.

Honestly, for the establishment to be supporting someone like Gillibrand instead of like Cuomo or some other long-serving NYC political hack is a lot of progress.

I don't care to ruin that.  


[ Parent ]
Maloney Primary Challenge (4.00 / 3)
This is such a bad idea on so many counts, it's hard to know where to begin.  The exceedingly short period between the primary and the general gives the nominee little time to raise the money and repair the damage done during a bruising primary campaign.  It truly puts this seat at risk for a Republican takeover.  People forget that we had two Republicans who dominated in the US Senate and NY politics for decades:  Jacob Javits and Al D'Amato.  New York voters seem to like the idea of "splitting" the two seats between the political parties.

But there's another factor that troubles me deeply:  New York women have not had great success in politics.  With the exception of Hillary Clinton, no woman has ever won a state-wide race in her own right. (Lt. Governors run tethered to the Governor candidate.)  A long, expensive, bitter primary contest has the potential to sharply divide New York women voters and activists, and the damage could remain for a very long time.  We've made some meager strides in recent years.  It would be sad to see them lost.  Maloney is a first-rate US Representative with impressive seniority and heavy responsibility as Chair of the Joint Economic Committee.  She should stay where she can do NY the most good, and she should support Senator Gillibrand.


Another alternative (4.00 / 3)
Why not run for Mayor if she wants a bigger job?

[ Parent ]
Are you clueless? (0.00 / 0)
First of all, Weiner just dropped out of the race because he can't afford to run against a guy with all the money in the world to spend on getting re-elected. Thank god Thompson is still in it.

Secondly, why assume she is in this just becasue she wants a "bigger job." You Gillibrand people seem pretty quick to ascribe creepy motives to anyone who dares challenge your candidate.

And for the record, I would have been happy to see ANYONE challenge Gillibrand, not just Maloney, because this is no way for Democrats to go about business.


[ Parent ]
You can win an election (0.00 / 0)
on "But she was appointed!"


[ Parent ]
You seem ready to ascribe creepy motives to anyone who likes Gillibrand. (4.00 / 2)
Anyway, you win against big money the same way you win any uphill race. By making the better case to more voters. If money alone won elections, schoolkids would be learning about President Steve Forbes.  

[ Parent ]
What is this, the land of ought-to-be? (0.00 / 0)
Weiner spelled it out on NPR: he dropped out specifically because he said couldn't mount a campaign against a candidate with an unlimited war chest.  

[ Parent ]
Weiner is a wuss (4.00 / 2)
he's my Congressman and he wussed out. Yeah maybe he would've lost against Bloomberg, but Bloomberg isn't winning because of his money...I've only seen like one commercial from him...he's winning because he's still unbelievably popular...why? I can't say.

Money doesn't always decide elections...Democrats overwhelmingly won a NH State House seat this week despite being outspent 5-1. You need a good case to the voters. Weiner had the case, but decided he didn't want to risk losing.

Personally, it wouldn't shock me if he decided to run for Governor instead.


[ Parent ]
Every time I turn on the TV, (4.00 / 1)
there's MB in an ad. Every time I open the mailbox, there's a stack of 4 color MB flyers. We've even had kids come to our door on his behalf.  

[ Parent ]
Quite honestly (4.00 / 1)
if people are so easily persuaded based the number of TV ads and the numbers of flyers in their mailboxes, then we're not much of a functioning democracy anyway and I'd rather let people like Schumer decided who runs and wins.

There are plenty of examples of candidates defeated other candidates despite being outraised and outspent. Weiner didn't want to take that chance...if we're so damn intimidated by money, then why bother having elections?

He could've made it a race...there was a winning message there...he didn't want to do it.  


[ Parent ]
This would be a good time (4.00 / 1)
for someone to challenge her from the right. I would be entertaining to see a pro-life Democrat challenge her.  

[ Parent ]
Organize! (4.00 / 2)
I am SO tired of all the defeatism on the part of NYC people about challenging and beating Bloomberg.  It is always the same song: "he has so much money it is just impossible."

You are upset that Paterson followed our laws and appointed an excellent Senator, and that a lot of the party supports her, but it doesn't bother you that your city's administration is for sale to the highest bidder?  That's just something anybody who is not "clueless" knows?  For crissakes, organize and take back your right to local governance from the power-mongers!


[ Parent ]
I could hug you right now. (4.00 / 1)
Thank the gods for people with perspective.  

[ Parent ]
With the establishment comfotably behind Gillibrand (4.00 / 1)
Maloney is not going to have the ability to run a terribly bruising campaign.

I doubt we're going to see Maloney appear north of West Point at all during the campaign. Gillibrand's already got the support of Democratic groups in my community. She's lining up minority and Jewish votes. Maloney is going to try to win this race in the city...it's not going to work because a good portion of the city is already behind Gillibrand.


[ Parent ]
wrong. Anybody over 30 year old has the right to run (0.00 / 0)
More choices are better for democracy not less, and who says that Gillibrand is running, Has she announced?
I encourage all NYers to run.
I thought KG was a good choice to fill the vacant seat, but NY needs choices. I am pro choices.


[ Parent ]
Depressing (0.00 / 0)
I don't comment on this site very often anymore, and this entire comments thread is a good example of why.  The hostility towards democracy is depressing.  Anyone of caliber who wishes to run for office should be allowed to do it.  As a voter, I appreciate having a choice.  

While I understand there are times we must make concessions for strategic reasons, I find it striking and disconcerting that people are designating this situation as one of those.  Gillibrand has never been elected into her office.  She has never had to stand up to the voters of the entire state before.  Why should she be handed the Democratic nomination?  We are in a heavily Democratic state with a dearth of viable state-wide Republican candidates.

I know these arguments have been made here before, and I'm not going to convince anyone here.  I still wish to voice my opposition.


As a voter... (4.00 / 1)
So what's Maloney's case for running?  Why should someone vote for her against Gillibrand?  

Supporting Gillibrand isn't a "concession" for many of us.


[ Parent ]
The way it's normally done, Hyde (0.00 / 0)
is voters find out DURING the primary why they should vote for a particular candidate, not BEFORE.  

[ Parent ]
Any particular issues that she's better on? (4.00 / 2)
I know nothing about Maloney, but I find it hard to believe she's better than Gillibrand.

New Yorkers against Harold Ford

[ Parent ]
Guns...maybe that's it (4.00 / 3)
I can't think of what else...but I'm willing to bet we wouldn't even be having the discussion of a primary if someone from NYC was appointed to the seat.


[ Parent ]
The problem would be the (0.00 / 1)
same if Maloney had been appointed and Schumer decided there would be no primary challengers. Let me try putting it this way: I am opposed to ANY process that protects ANY candidate  who gets appointed to a Senate seat from getting primaried by candidates b, c, or d.

There's  a distinctly unpleasant whiff of some upstate resentment here. You Gillibrand people should just STFU now because you're not doing your candidate any favors with this kinda stuff.  



[ Parent ]
and neither are you, john. (4.00 / 6)
there's a line between stating your case and being an asshole yelling STFU at people. you just crossed it, mate.

TODAY is day one. It always is.

[ Parent ]
Agreed. (4.00 / 4)
And as for "upstate resentment," what do you call it when a qualified upstater gets appointed and suddenly three or four people from downstate are promising to launch a primary, if not resentment that it didn't go downstate?

I won't deny it--having an upstate Democrat as a Senator is incredibly beneficial to party building up here. Upstate remains the biggest opportunity for expansion that the state Democrats have got, and the more that it penetrates into people's heads that it's not "upstate Republicans, downstate Democrats" the way they've been sold, the easier a time we're going to have expanding our State Senate majority.  


[ Parent ]
I live in Queens (4.00 / 2)
and I'm heavily involved in Democratic clubs here. The problem with Gillibrand IS that she's from Upstate. That's it. I have heard no other argument against her except that.

She also already has the support of many of our Democratic clubs here, despite the minority of people who think upstates should STFU and deal with it too.  


[ Parent ]
Nor are you helping your candidate (4.00 / 2)
quite the opposite frankly.

Peace,

Andrew


[ Parent ]
Again. (4.00 / 1)
I DO NOT have a candidate. I am happy that someone decided to buck Schumer. I would have been just as happy to have someone from upstate do it.



[ Parent ]
Why would we want to buck Schumer? (0.00 / 0)


[ Parent ]
I don't know, maybe (0.00 / 0)
because it's 2009 and we don't like guys like him decide who does or doesn't run in NY Democratic primaries anymore?

[ Parent ]
cause he wouldn't anyway? (4.00 / 1)
Look, I worked for the machine, live with the machine...hell, I may actually be part of the machine.

In Queens right now we have a Republican representing us on the city council who won a race because one Democrat got the frontrunning Democrat knocked off the ballot in a special election.

The Republican is doing ANYTHING for us district...ANYTHING.

The party establishment cleared the field for the Democratic Party so the frontrunner who got knocked off the ballot on a stupid technicality, can focus on the issue of the district and beat the Republican instead of trying to fight off other Democrats.

Anyone else is welcome to run, but the party establishment has made their decision...and 99.9% of the time, that means they win.

You don't think Schumer and the establishment make this decision all the time. You don't think they've already decided who the next Governor is? You don't think they would still be weeding out who should run and who shouldn't even in an open seat race? State law requires the parties to choose their candidates for special House elections...we won't get a primary in NY-23 either.

So far, I haven't had a problem with who they've decided on.  


[ Parent ]
Ok then it's just yourself (0.00 / 0)
that you are making look bad.

You stated earlier you were a constituent of Maloney's so it seemed as if you were slamming everyone else with a broad (mixed metaphor) brush on her behalf.

But I guess it's just you then.

Peace,

Andrew


[ Parent ]
"You Gillibrand people" (4.00 / 1)
John, if you would have asked me a few months ago if I was in favor of Gillibrand, I would have told you no. In fact, I was hoping to see Steve Israel run. But some time ago, even when Israel's name was still being mentioned as a possible candidate, I became a Gillibrand supporter.

And as I told Hudson, you can oppose Gillibrand and support whomever you want. That is a right I respect, as will the others here. But you haven't made any sort of case in favor of Maloney. All I have heard is that she is your representative. That's great, but even devtob knew enough to list why he supports Gillibrand even though she was his representative.


Support our troops, not the war.


[ Parent ]
Ok let's pretend Gillibrand doesn't already hold the seat (4.00 / 4)
and is running against Maloney for the Democratic nomination..

I've met them both

I'd still vote for Gillibrand.  


[ Parent ]
That's not much of a case you're making! (4.00 / 1)
I suspect Maloney will actually want to answer the question of why she is running at the point she declares.  If she can't answer it then, she'll really seem afield.

And I think she likely will have a reason for running, but, for her supporters here, what is it?  Why do you favor her?  Someone below suggests guns is the only issue - is that really it?

Please, can someone make a case on the issues or candidates, something beyond the idea that primaries are fun?


[ Parent ]
I would have been just as happy (0.00 / 0)
to see an upstater decide to run against Gillibrand. You people are just not getting it: Democratic voters should decide who gets to run in the general, not Chuck Schumer and his buddies.  

[ Parent ]
But give us all a reason... (4.00 / 1)
I'm still looking for a reason.

I happen to agree with Gillibrand on a lot of things, to find her a very effective and sincere advocate, and to think she does a ton (make that several tons) for the party and for other candidates.  Winning upstate is a big part of the reason Dems have won control of the House and its where the battle over Albany is going to be won, and she's been a bigger contributor to that than any other single individual I can think of.

See, I've got good reasons for liking her.  

I don't know Maloney particularly well.  Is there a reason someone can articulate to support her against someone as good as Gillibrand?


[ Parent ]
Even if there was an open seat (4.00 / 1)
and no incumbent, you think Chuck Schumer and his buddies still wouldn't have picked the candidate anyway?

Do you know nothing about how New York politics work?  


[ Parent ]
I know exactly how NY politics works. (0.00 / 0)
I'm just surprised that most of you seem OK with it.

[ Parent ]
I should have added (0.00 / 0)
that we now have a situation where we actually have a pretty decent person willing to buck Schumer and the establishment, I'd have expected that this might have been greeted as something good. Instead it looks more like it's being treated like a downstater is trying to take the upstater's candidate away.

[ Parent ]
If this is about not liking Schumer... (4.00 / 1)
Why not run against him?

Gillibrand is indeed her own woman.  Maybe you should spend some time chatting with her on Kos.  


[ Parent ]
It's not about liking or not liking Schumer. (0.00 / 0)
It's about not letting the head of the Dem party, or the president, or whoever decide who gets to run in our primaries. Whatever happened to "This belongs to you. Take it back..." That's the motto of the albany blog, remember?

[ Parent ]
Taking it back (4.00 / 4)
Having a Senator who answers your questions on Kos, shows up all over the state to talk directly to people, and works the phones and events to get other Democrats elected is taking it back.  

Spinning wheels and spending money on a costly race without giving anyone a good policy reason for running is not taking it back.  

Come on, someone, put out a reason to actually advocate Maloney.  I don't know her much, but am thinking less of her as this goes on without someone saying, "she did a really great job at X, which Gillibrand opposed".


[ Parent ]
I'm ok it gave us Gillibrand (4.00 / 2)
we could've done a whole lot worse and we have before. I, for one, consider this a victory for New Yorkers. I'm not interested in fighting a machine just cause.


[ Parent ]
Like I said (0.00 / 0)
Whatever happened to "This belongs to you. Take it back..."???

[ Parent ]
We took it back (4.00 / 3)
that's how we got Gillibrand. She was one of our candidates for the House seat and the Governor decided to appoint her, over some longtime political hack, to the Senate.

I'd consider that a victory.  


[ Parent ]
By the way, how much thinner will this get? (4.00 / 2)
At least we're pushing at the margins of political discourse.

[ Parent ]
I've seen thinner (4.00 / 1)
some of the primary fights at MyDD and DailyKos got to the point where my computer was flipping out trying to show the threads.  

[ Parent ]
It used to not get thinner (4.00 / 1)
If you had to many indents it would wig out and send text flying across the screen so you had to slowly scroll way over to the right, sometimes 5-6 screens worth.

[ Parent ]
I agree Kluggy. It's been awhile (0.00 / 0)
since I stopped by this site and the emphasis appears to have changed from its original intent of championing the opening up of the political process in NY. Now it appears more like the new crowd is happy with things just like they are as long as they approve of the candidate.  

[ Parent ]
Stay put Rep Maloney (4.00 / 1)

(212) 987-5516.
Please call Rep Maloney and urge her to stay in the House where she has achieved seniority and major responsibilities.  

If Rep Maloney is truly interested in doing the best for New Yorkers, she will not throw all that away for the ambition of highly paid consultants and a few others who are urging her to run by minimizing the excellent job Kirsten Gillibrand is doing and her deep support from Hillary women and progressive groups.

We need to keep the Senate seat in Democratic hands with a person who is an effective advocate for all New Yorkers and who can do so for many years.  That person is Kirsten Gillibrand.


Primaries, Principles, and Preferences (4.00 / 2)
I'm fine with a primary. I think it's terrible that one person--the governor--is able to appoint an unelected person to serve as an incumbent for a year and a half without the voters having their say. And I don't think it's a good principle for the White House to intervene and say that voters shouldn't have their say. I understand some people don't want resources expended in an intraparty battle, but some sacrifices have to be made if we're going to live up to the most basic principles of democracy: that voters should have a say in choosing their candidates.

And I don't think that a primary puts the NY seat in much danger. Despite the relatively short time between the primary and the general, whoever comes out of the Democratic primary would be a strong candidate, especially given the sketchy nature of potential Republican opponents.
We also have to keep in mind that people reading and posting on this site are political wonks; most voters won't be paying attention until September or October. Indeed, a primary may raise the recognition of whoever the candidate is, since I doubt that even Gillibrand is that well known by many New Yorkers even though she presently occupies the seat. (Some people have brought up the specters of Javitz and D'Amato, but New York seems to be significantly bluer than when those Republicans were elected.)

Having said that, I'm a bit befuddled by Maloney's apparent choice to run. I think she and Gillibrand both work extremely hard but Gillibrand simply brings more to the table. I think Israel would have brought a more of a challenge, but of course that's not going to happen.

Senate seats do not open up very often, and I appreciate the lure of jumping at what may be the best chance one is going to get. But giving up one's House seat is a substantial sacrifice (assuming one wants to stay in the legislature) for an iffy chance of success. It was hard enough for Israel to stay out, and the intervention of the White House would have made campaigning difficult; I don't see why Maloney would have a better shot.

But my preference for Gillibrand over Maloney is mine alone, and I can't justify letting my preference deny the rights of others to express theirs through a primary process.

If we had had a real "special" election after the Clinton appointment, we might have avoided this looming mess; voters would have been given a choice, and good candidates wouldn't have had to risk their House seats to run. It could have been accomplished in a relatively brief time frame. Now we may have to deal with the consequences.


"Special" elections for Senate wouldn't happen very fast (0.00 / 0)
Massachusetts has them and it takes six months to fill a Senate seat there.

If we followed a similar law, we would've been without second Senate representation since January...an election probably wouldn't have been held until next month or so.

I don't like it for Minnesota and I don't like for New York.


[ Parent ]
We Have Interim Appointments, And Specials Could Be Done Faster (0.00 / 0)
First, one could have a temporary appointment to fill the seat so that it doesn't go empty before the special election. That's in fact what we have now, except the "special" election coincides with the next general election. My complaint is that having such a long lag essentially turns the interim appointment into a de facto incumbent which was never approved by the voters.

Second, I don't see why one couldn't have a primary within three months of the appointment and the general within six weeks after that. I don't think that's an unreasonable proposition for upholding the basic democratic principle that voters should choose their candidates.


[ Parent ]
The 20th is an example (4.00 / 1)
Look, there was a very fast and effective special election in the 20th.  

It is true that quick specials will favor those from THE big media market, so I wouldn't look to put too short a time period on a special.  Better to wait a couple more months and have a real campaign.

But I'm not myself a fan of filling elected offices with appointments.  Even if Patterson did a great job with this one.


[ Parent ]
The lag would be long anyway (4.00 / 1)
even if it took six months, the incumbent would still have an advantage. Look how fast the rest of the state's establishment came out in favor of Gillibrand. They only would've come out faster.  

[ Parent ]
We'd Have Gotten This Out Of The Way Far Earlier (0.00 / 0)
First, the lag could easily be less than six months.

Second, the "establishment" wouldn't have as much control over the process because the incumbent would not have been in office as long, and things would be happening faster. Also, House members would not have to risk losing their seats in order to compete, increasing the likelihood of real competition.

Third, even if the result would be the same, we'd at least have gotten this over with. A compressed time schedule means less time to raise funds and likely lower expenditures. Having the election promptly instead of waiting for November means the national party wouldn't be so concerned about diverting resources for the general election.

So aside from the cost of having a true special election (which I think we should bear in order to uphold fundamental democratic principles), I don't see any real downside.


[ Parent ]
The establishment would still have control over the process (0.00 / 0)
they have a lot of control over the special elections. I saw that here in NYC during the city council specials and during Assembly and Senate specials.


[ Parent ]
again, to the extent that they have control (0.00 / 0)
they shouldn't.

We need to make this very very painfully clear to our establishment.  Regular primaries are a key way of breaking that up.


[ Parent ]
You're never going to take control from them (0.00 / 0)
you just won't, so running a primary challenge for the mere reason to try to break the control of the establishment is ridiculous.

Especially when the person running is also part of the establishment.

Maloney has been part of the machine since Gillibrand has been in high school.  


[ Parent ]
breaking the ice a necessary start (0.00 / 0)
New York needs a lot more primaries.  I don't think it'd abolish all semblance of an establishment, but it'd certainly require folks who want to be that to be a lot more attentive and a lot more nimble than they've been so far.

Setting candidates who've been part of the establishment against each other does seem like a good way to get things started.

And you really shouldn't say "you're never going to" - it gives people all these crazy ideas about reasons to do it anyway...


[ Parent ]
No one could be more attentive and more nimble (4.00 / 5)
then Senator Gillibrand.

This, to me, is a really wacky primary. It's an establishment politician running against a non-establishment politician who is backed by the establishment.

We finally get the machine to support someone who isn't a political hack and we want to primary her...with a political hack?


[ Parent ]
the part that kills me (0.00 / 0)
is everyone, including the president, jumping up and down to stop a primary, any primary, all primary candidates for this race.

Even though I support Gillibrand, and except I'd vote for her in a primary, it's an awful precedent, period.


[ Parent ]
it's already precedent (4.00 / 1)
this isn't new, this happens all the time and has happened for decades and will happen. This is why I hate partisan politics and partisanship. It's ridiculous that we need to have primaries at all...only a small percentge of people even show up at the polls on primary day...at the end of the day, you have like 10% of the state's population, the uber partisans, deciding who our candidates should be. What's really the difference if we leave the decision to the party bosses or not, it's not like all of New Yorker's voters can vote in the primary anyway. If I had my way, there wouldn't be parties at all.

The decision in the primary isn't given to "the people." It's given to the state's Democrats. If you're not a registered Democrat, you don't have any say anyway.  


[ Parent ]
the way it is (0.00 / 0)
You're welcome to your opinions, but arguing that things should stay the way they are because that's the way things are is rarely convincing.

And yes, the primary decision goes to the state's Democrats.  I don't have any problem at all with that - so long as we actually recognize that having registered Democrats vote on candidates is a slightly more inclusive (and less predictable) process than letting the top 100 folks in the party committees decide.

Saying "what's the difference" to that really makes me wonder. Or maybe you're just hoping to maximize the internal contradictions of the party system and parties will vanish, as you hope?


[ Parent ]
I do have a problem with it (4.00 / 1)
We arguing we want to take the decision out of the hands of the party bosses...but it's still in the hands of the party bosses because they're the ones who turn out voters in the primaries.


[ Parent ]
so your answer is to cheer on shutting down a primary altogether? (0.00 / 0)
I give up.  

You might be a Democrat, but to the extent so you support democracy it's more like democratic centralism.  I guess I have to fall back on the "contradictions in the system" plan to make any sense out of your combination of hopelessness and opposing any challenges to the incumbent.

If you want change, you know, work for it.  Do something.  Complaining about party bosses while cheering them on isn't likely to get you (or us) very far.


[ Parent ]
I'm not complaining about party bosses (0.00 / 0)
I'm happy with them, they endorsed the change I worked for. I just don't understand why anyone would think a primary would do any good when it's only going to cost tens of millions of dollars to end up with the status quo anyway because the party bosses are still going to decide this.  

[ Parent ]
An important point (4.00 / 2)
This is a very important point.

Gillibrand got where she is by working very hard in the trenches in both NY and DC and by winning a surprising election as an underdog without a lot of institutional support.  After winning that election, she kept working and solidifying her position and that of others upstate.  That got her the kind of attention that led to her being chosen over Maloney and over candidates like Kennedy. Machine? Is that the thriving machine in Greater Hudson?  The machine that's won every Kinderhook election since Martin van Buren?  

Yes, she got appointed - because she was a good choice, showed herself saavy and hardworking, and won surprising and unexpected results.  This isn't Chuck Schumer's idiot second cousin getting a job at the post office.  And if you're looking for "machine" politics, well, I'd spend a lot more time looking at folks from the city who have held office for my entire adult life than at some upstart who is now the youngest person in the US Senate.


[ Parent ]
Seriously (0.00 / 0)
why don't we try, you know, getting a new Speaker of the Assembly.


[ Parent ]
I really don't see what her endgame is (4.00 / 1)
Is she going to run a campaign on "elect me, I wasn't appointed to the job" when it's clear she actually wanted to be appointed to the job? It'll make her look like a hypocrite or a sore loser.

Guns aren't a big issue, she's never taken a stand on way or the other on immigration and she voted for the Iraq War. While I would put myself in Maloney's camp politically, I don't see how she positions herself to the left of Gillibrand. This campaign could easy turn into "sore losers from the city wanting to defeat the Upstater and control everything."

No way Maloney can win that kind of race.

Also, Maloney hired Josh Isay to run her communications team? Isay? I dealt with him during the Caroline Kennedy fiasco...is Maloney serious?  


OK This isn't helping (0.00 / 0)
I feel comfortable telling Biden to STFU:

Biden urges Maloney not to take on Gillibrand

Vice President Biden this week sat down with Rep. Carolyn Maloney (D-N.Y.) to urge her not to run for Senate.

Maloney has been making moves toward challenging Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.) in the 2010 Democratic primary, hiring public relations strategists and fundraisers in both Washington and New York.

It would be a primary that national Democrats had hoped to avoid. Earlier this week, Vice President Biden sat down with Maloney in New York City and urged her not to run, according to a senior White House official.

"We've made it clear we're behind Sen. Gillibrand," the official said.

Biden visited the Big Apple on Monday and Tuesday, hosting a fundraiser for the Democratic National Committee on Monday night and events on the economic recovery package Tuesday. Later Tuesday, Biden attended New Jersey Gov. Jon Corzine's (D) campaign kickoff.

But even a sit-down with the vice president may not be enough to sway Maloney; she is among the several members of New York City's congressional delegation who were upset that Gillibrand won the appointment to fill Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton's Senate seat, particularly given Gillibrand's more centrist leanings on issues like immigration and gun rights.

Butt out Joe.

As I said upthread, Maloney should run if she wants to. I don't see where Joe Biden should have any say at all.


I'm not gonna rock the boat. Rockin' the boat's a drag. What you do is sink the boat!
- Truth and Soul, Inc.


Some other races (4.00 / 1)
I think Joe's hoping there will be more money to spend on a Senate race in Delaware...

And, to be fair, in about a half dozen other states.  In terms of resource allocation nationally, if a quarter of the money spent in a NY primary could go to back Dems in targetted general elections elsewhere, it could easily swing a couple of races for Governor or Senator.


[ Parent ]
Or closer to home, bumping off our remaining Republican congressmen. (4.00 / 1)
And picking up a few more State Senate seats. Sometimes having the outside money can make all the difference. In my district last year Dale Volker outspent his opposition by 29 to 1--no, that's not a typo--and it was still an 11 point race in the general. More money would have flipped this district.

[ Parent ]
I'm going to disagree with my friend devtob here (4.00 / 4)
I think primaries are good things. I think shutting down primaries in which an incumbent is an appointee is a very bad thing. I disagree strongly with Obama, Biden, and Schumer in their efforts to "clear the field."

While I understand completely that from a top-down institutional point of view it is the wise thing to do, I also believe that is a short sighted view that does not pay proper respect to the principles of democracy and the rights of the people to express their will in open elections.

While devtob is correct that a Senate primary for New York would be an incredibly expensive thing and that money is best spent elsewhere... that is not an argument for shutting down primaries but rather a VERY STRONG argument for serious campaign finance reform.

In general, I think that primaries against sitting democrats should be rare, well targeted, and well thought out. They should be saved for the Joe Lieberman's, Al Wynn's, and Jerry Jennings of the world. There should be a specific reason and goal in mind. A message to Congress and the nation as a whole.

However, while I think Carolyn Maloney is a very good Congresswoman I support Senator Kirsten Gillibrand, have supported Congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, and will continue to support Senator Kirsten Gillibrand because I think she is a top flight Democratic politician. I don't see that Congresswoman Maloney brings anything to the table that we don't already have in Kirsten Gillibrand. I completely support her right to engage in a primary as I did with Steve Israel but I don't see any reason to support either of them or to oppose Kirsten Gillibrand.

In fact, I think Kirsten Gillibrand brings a lot more energy, openness, transparency, enthusiasm and ability to the job then I have ever seen out of Carolyn Maloney, though admittedly I am not as familiar with Maloney as she is not my Congresswoman. I do pay attention to the entire state delegation however and think Maloney is just fine... just not as good as Gillibrand.

I support Kirsten Gillibrand for United States Senator from the great state of New York completely on her own merits.

Peace,

Andrew


There would be a lot more support for primaries if they weren't so damn late. (4.00 / 3)
If New York held it's primaries in, say, April instead of September, you would see a lot less reluctance to let it play out. As it is, the system is begging for division and strife, as well as wasting the valuable summer time of the activists.  

[ Parent ]
It's not so much the timing... (4.00 / 1)
It's the necessity. People worry that a primary might become too damaging, as we saw in NY-26. That was a wasted primary. It should also give supporters of Maloney and other candidates a reminder that the party-backed candidate doesn't always win.


Support our troops, not the war.

[ Parent ]
I think it's all of the above, as well as the cost in money. (4.00 / 1)
But I also think just moving the time frame back, and making it possible to have a primary without it basically eating up the whole of the election season, would at least make it less damaging and costly. I for one still wouldn't like the idea, but I'd be a lot less turned off than if I knew that it was going to suck all the oxygen out of the room, and have everybody operating at cross purposes the rest of the year.

Primaries in New York combine all the worst possible factors. We've got a profusion of Democrats looking to move up, an expensive state in which to campaign, an absurdly late primary date, and a limited donor pool that mostly goes into statewide races.  


[ Parent ]
1992 is the reason I fear primaries (4.00 / 1)
That was an unnecessary ugly primary and there was no reason D'Amato should have won that year.


[ Parent ]
Maloney v Gillibrand (4.00 / 2)
I love Democracy. I love it when 2 different candidates with 2 different views run against each other and let the voters choose whose views they like more.

I HATE it when 2 identical candidates run against each other. It's a waste of tens of millions of both Democratic donor dollars and taxpayer dollars.

I would normally support Maloney, but unless she tells us an actual reason that she's running, no way.

Just because Gillibrand's from all of like fifteen feet away from NYC isn't a good enough reason. If in your neighborhood, "coffee, regular" isn't the opposite of "Coffee, decaf", you're NYC to me.


Maloney will challenge Gillibrand (4.00 / 1)
I agree with Nrafter530 and AmherstGuy:  When the primary candidates are identical on issues, it creates an enormous need to differentiate on other matters and that, as in '92, can lead to nothing but trouble.
So why do Democrats keep forming that firing squad circle.

Purity (4.00 / 2)
honestly, Democrats aren't doing it, the blogsphere is doing it...and even then, only part of them.

I don't see how Maloney wins or even comes close to winning. Hell, even Tasini got like 15% of the vote in 2006...maybe Maloney will get 35% because she's better known.



[ Parent ]
Only a very small part of the blogosphere (4.00 / 1)
opposes Gillibrand.

Here and at DKos, no more than a dozen commenters, and fewer diarists.

Just as a very small part of the primary electorate will oppose Gillibrand in September 2010.  


[ Parent ]
Maybe It's Not Just About Issues (0.00 / 0)
First, maybe they're not "identical on issues."

Second, two people can be identical on the issues, and one can be a more effective legislator than the other.

Third, who is to say what differences may be important and which are not? I may think they're close enough to not matter, but I may be in the minority on that. I don't think the way to settle that question is by not having a primary.

I may think Gillibrand will be a more effective Senator than anyone else. But my personal opinion is not sufficient for denying others who may feel differently from having their say. That's why we have elections.


[ Parent ]
As I've said in threads previous (4.00 / 1)
My problem is not inherently with a primary.

Its with the disadvantage the primary puts the Democrat at.

If there is a) a primary in June instead of September or b) no serious Republican candidate, than I'm all for a primary.


[ Parent ]
Why the circular firing squad? We're Democrats! (0.00 / 0)
Infighting, contrariness, and disorganization is a party tradition going back to the time when they still called us "Jeffersonians."  

[ Parent ]
Longest Thread ever! (4.00 / 2)
This is easily the longest thread in TAP history...um...Congratulations!

Actually, I am proud that the longest thread ever is about something that matters instead of someone getting a blowjob or some of the stupid stuff we fight about here.


The record thread bit is cool, (4.00 / 2)
but even better is the generally excellent quality of the comments, on both sides of this issue.

Hopefully that will continue.


[ Parent ]
The Albany Project

Please take my Blog Reader Project survey.

Menu

Make a New Account

Username:

Password:



Forget your username or password?


Search




Advanced Search


NY blogs

Politics

10,000 Things
Adirondack Almanack
Buffalo Geek
Buffalo Pundit
Buffalo Stuff
Capitol Confidential
Daily Gotham
Daily Politics
Danger Democrat
Democracy in Albany
DMI Blog
DragonFlyEye
Empire Page
Empire Zone
Gothamist
Gotham Gazette
Gowanus Lounge
Group News Blog
Herkimer County Progressive
Intrepid Liberal Journal
Jason Gooljar
Joshing Politics
Left of the Hudson
Living In Dryden
Lost In The Ozone
McHugh Watch
Nassau GOP Watch
Nasty Letters
New York NewsLadder
NY-13
NYCO's Blog
onNYTurf
Peter King Watch
Planet Albany
Politicker NY
Politics on the Hudson
Reform NY
Rochester Turning
Room 8
Simply Left Behind
Skelos Watch
Soundpolitic
The Community Alliance
The Fighting 29th
The Robach Files
The Rural Patriot
Tom Reynolds Watch
Troy Polloi
Upstate 2050
Upstate Blog
Upstate Blue
Walsh Watch
WFP Blog

Think Tanks

Brennan Center for Justice Citizens Budget Commission
Citizens Union
Drum Major Institute
Fiscal Policy Institute
New Democracy Project
Progressive States
Taub Urban Research Center

Organizations

Citizen Action
Citizens for Better Government in New York
Common Cause
New York Citizens for Clean Elections
Progressive States Network

>
National Blogs

Politics

AmericaBlog
Billmon
Crooks and Liars
DailyKos
Digby
Eschaton
Firedoglake
MyDD
Open Left
Political Cortex
Senate Guru
Skippy
Swing State Project
Talk Left
Talking Points Memo
The Right's Field

LBAN Network

Agonist
All Spin Zone
AlterNet
AMERICAblog
American Street
ArchPundit
BAGNewsnotes
BartCop
Big Head DC
Blogging of the Pres
BlogACTIVE
Bluegrass Report
Bluegrass Roots
Blue Indiana
BlueJersey
Blue Mass. Group
BlueOregon
BlueNC
Bob Geiger
Booman
BRAD Blog
Brendan Calling
Buckeye State Blog
Burnt Orange Report
Calitics
Capitol Annex
Carpetbagger Report
Chris Floyd
Clay Cane
Cliff Schecter
Comments from Left Field
Confined Space
Corrente
Cotton Mouth
Crooks and Liars
culture kitchen
Cursor
Daily Gotham
Daily Kos
David Corn
Democrats.com
Dem Bloggers
Deride and Conquer
Democratic Underground
Digby
DovBear
Drudge Retort
Ed Cone
ePluribus Media
Eschaton
Ezra Klein
Feministe
Feministing
Firedoglake
Fired Up
First Draft
Frameshop
Greatscat!
Green Mountain Daily
Greg Palast
Hoffmania
Horse's Ass
Hughes for America
In Search of Utopia
Is That Legal?
Jesus' General
Jon Swift
Juan Cole
Keystone Politics
Kick!
KnoxViews
Las Vegas Gleaner
Latino Pundit
Lawyers, Guns and Money
Left Coaster
Left in the West
Liberal Avenger
Liberal Oasis
Loaded Orygun
Mahablog
Majikthise
Make Them Accountable
Matthew Yglesias
MaxSpeak
Media Girl
Michigan Liberal
Minnesota Campaign Report
Minnesota Monitor
MyDD
My Left Nutmeg
My Left Wing
My Two Sense
Nathan Newman
Needlenose
Nevada Today
News Corpse
News Dissector
Newshoggers
News Hounds
Nitpicker
Oliver Willis
onegoodmove
OpenLeft
PageOneQ
Pam's House Blend
Pandagon
People's Rep. of Seabrook
PinkDome
Politics1
Political Animal
Political Wire
Poor Man Institute
Prairie State Blue
Progressive Historians
Raising Kaine
Raw Story
Reno Discontent
Republic of T
Rhode Island's Future
Rochester Turning
Rocky Mountain Report
Rod 2.0
Rox Populi
Rude Pundit
Sadly, No!
Satirical Political Report
Seeing The Forest
Shakesville
SirotaBlog
SistersTalk
Skippy the Bush Kangaroo
Slacktivist
Smirking Chimp
SquareState
Suburban Guerrilla
Swing State Project
Talking Points Memo
Talk Left
Tapped
Taylor Marsh
Tattered Coat
Texas Kaos
The Albany Project
The Blue State
The Democratic Daily
The Hollywood Liberal
The Reaction
The Talent Show
This Modern World
Town Called Dobson
Turn Maine Blue
Uppity Wisconsin
Wampum
War and Piece
WashBlog
Watching the Watchers
West Virginia Blue
Young Philly Politics
Young Turks

A Responsible Plan to End the War in Iraq - Click here to add your support

Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless

blog radio

Subscribe in NewsGator Online

Subscribe in Rojo

Add the albany project RSS Feed to Newsburst from CNET News.com

Add to Google

Add to My AOL

Subscribe in FeedLounge

Add to netvibes

Subscribe in Bloglines

Add to Bitty Browser

Subscribe in NewsAlloy

Subscribe in podnova

Add to Pageflakes

Get the albany project in your inbox! Just enter your email address

Delivered by FeedBurner

____________________


Active Users
Currently 5 user(s) logged on.

Powered by: SoapBlox